Ban lines - a proposal

[Gabriele Graves]

22 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

Would be fun if you could choose your banline style, though. Have it pop a big gif up when you get too close to someone's property.

I believe that you can as they are just a texture somewhere in the viewer installation folder.  It only affects your view of them though.  I don't have details because I've never wanted to change it.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Gabriele Graves

[Ayashe Ninetails]

9 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   I kneeew that, silly. I was just feeling unusually philanthropic and figured I'd drop the map there for those who don't.

*gigglesnorts*

 

9 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   I'm the other way around though, the only times I go to private regions is when there's a store on it (or, very rarely, clubs or photo regions), but 98% of the time I spend in SL is living on and exploring the grid. 

That's a good point, actually. Private islands are horrible for exploration unlike Mainland, but they're so scenic! Sometimes, I like tping around to check out available plots even though I'm not in the market, just to see what kind of views are out there.

Ban lines ruin it, though, as do entire plots full of breedables. Bleghghghghghghgh.

 

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I believe that you can as they are just a texture somewhere in the viewer installation folder.  It only affects your view of them though.  I don't have details because I've never wanted to change it.

Oooo, don't tell me that. I'd be so tempted to replace those ugly lines with something entirely ridiculous. 😂

[Paul Hexem]

All ban lines should be visible- both to those they affect and the land owner- at full view distance range. Period.

If the owner has no objects at ground level, they should be disabled and unable to be activated.

All security orbs on any Linden owned regions should have to follow the same rules universally.

LL always talks about viewers needing to respect the "shared experience", it should apply to ban lines and orbs as well.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Paul Hexem

[diamond Marchant]

When flying or sailing, my preference would be to have a viewer option that turned parcels with banlines (general and specific to me) into  GIANT PINK GUMMY WALLS visible from at least 128m away so what I can navigate AROUND the banned parcels.

On orbs, I would revise llEjectFromLand (and any other LSL function with similar functionality) to delay 15 seconds before doing it.

Edited August 10, 2023 by diamond Marchant

[Love Zhaoying]

So far, as I understand it:

- Ban Lines are ugly

- Ban Lines should be banned, except when they shouldn't be, for reasons.

[Casidy Silvercloud]

I've traveled around the mainland a lot. Honestly, I'd rather see a big wall and KNOW for certain it's there, it would make things easier. Most of the security systems I run into give ample warning 20-60 seconds now it seems, which is nice. I still run into some zero second ones, but they're a bit less common than I remember them being in the past.  

I'd still rather have orbs that give me enough time to get out of wherever it is I'm not supposed to be. But if banlines are used, I really wish they were even more visible so I could avoid coming even close to them. I don't want them invisible, because there is no rhyme or reason to how things will behave if you hit them. It's frustrating to get un-sat, lose attachments, get sent home, have your item  returned to you (or not in some cases), crash hard, have to relog or any other number of things that happen when you hit them. I don't care if they're giant neon bars covered in penii, the visual clue that "hey something is here, you probably can't come in" doesn't bother me one bit. I know some people think they're ugly. I don't personally care about how they look, just that I can  see them. 

[Luna Bliss]

22 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

LL always talks about viewers needing to respect the "shared experience", it should apply to ban lines and orbs as well.

Your idea of shared experience is only taking into account the individual though, when 'shared experience' also needs to take into account the needs of the community. In other words, my belief is that home ownership has many rights, yes, but they should not supersede all rights in a shared space (an expanse of land where visual appeal for all members needs to be considered).

[Gabriele Graves]

16 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

If the owner has no objects at ground level, they should be disabled and unable to be activated.

All people would do is leave a single tiny or invisible object at ground level.  Doing this would serve no purpose.

16 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

All security orbs on any Linden owned land should have to follow the same rules universally.

I'm not aware of any orbs on Linden owned land.  Unless you mean where they own the estate?  Why should private estates be exempt?  I mean when you think about it the Lindens own all the land everywhere.

I don't see why one set of rules should apply everywhere, a rule that is appropriate in one place isn't always appropriate in all places.

[Gabriele Graves]

25 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

On orbs, I would revise llEjectFromLand (and any other LSL function with similar functionality) to delay 15 seconds before doing it.

It would certainly make the scripting a bit easier but I'm not sure this would be popular with LL because it would break scripts in existing products and they tend to avoid doing that where possible.  If they introduced a new function, then people would just use the old one.

[Persephone Emerald]

14 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

All ban lines should be visible- both to those they affect and the land owner- at full view distance range. Period.

If the owner has no objects at ground level, they should be disabled and unable to be activated.

All security orbs on any Linden owned land should have to follow the same rules universally.

LL always talks about viewers needing to respect the "shared experience", it should apply to ban lines and orbs as well.

I'm assuming your suggestion that ban lines should be visible to their owners is hyperbole. 😆 

I partially agree with your view on security orbs. I think they should follow the same rules as Bellisseria on mainland, Eject, don't Send Home, but maybe a 10 second warning instead of 15 seconds.

On private estates it makes sense to have immediate Eject and Send Home, but when people are driving, flying or sailing over Linden Land - roads, water, and abandoned land - it doesn't makes sense that just bumping into someone's parcel should send one home.

Enforcing a new rule would be a nightmare for Governance, however, unless they could do it by changing how the scripts work. If they did do that, they'd then have a whole bunch of unhappy mainland owners complaining and moving to private estates. So no matter if they change the rules for mainland or do nothing, Linden Lab can't win this conflict.

[Gabriele Graves]

10 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I partially agree with your view on security orbs. I think they should follow the same rules as Bellisseria on mainland, Eject, don't Send Home, but maybe a 10 second warning instead of 15 seconds.

On private estates it makes sense to have immediate Eject and Send Home, but when people are driving, flying or sailing over Linden Land - roads, water, and abandoned land - it doesn't makes sense that just bumping into someone's parcel should send one home.

I disagree with these statements but I liked the rest of your post.

[Rolig Loon]

As far as I am concerned, the concept of ban lines is wrong-headed. It is based on the assumption that anyone who enters the parcel must be there to cause trouble. I don't think that's the case. There are real griefers and people do have evil exes, but I think most of the people who enter your parcel unannounced are just passing through.  They don't want to spy on your bedroom activity or swim in your backyard pool. Putting up ban lines is like putting coils of razor wire around your house in RL. It's overkill. 

[Rowan Amore]

46 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

LL always talks about viewers needing to respect the "shared experience", it should apply to ban lines and orbs as well.

No no no no no.  Then we'd lose the option to turn off attached lights (1000 watt facelights).  If we had to have 'shared experience' in everything, that would also render any EEP settings you have applied to self, invalid as everyone would be forced to use the region EEP which is often just default and that's just horrid.

[Gabriele Graves]

And so another topic that started out about only the visual aspects of ban lines turns very quickly into another pointless discussion of banline merits.

What a surprise!

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

No no no no no.  Then we'd lose the option to turn off attached lights (1000 watt facelights). 

lolol there was this woman in a group the other day, shining so bright, I thought at first an angel was descending from on high..

[Orwar]

13 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

No no no no no.  Then we'd lose the option to turn off attached lights (1000 watt facelights).  If we had to have 'shared experience' in everything, that would also render any EEP settings you have applied to self, invalid as everyone would be forced to use the region EEP which is often just default and that's just horrid.

   Noooo .. Then all those lacquer-dipped folks might get ALM turned on and see how absofrigginglutely ridiculous their avatars look and fix it!

   There's one regular patron of my sister's club who've had her ears fullbright for ages. If her profile didn't make her seem so totally unapproachable I might have told her, but instead I get to watch her dancing in the dark of the club looking like a lighthouse and snicker at her misfortune. 

[Paul Hexem]

39 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Your idea of shared experience 

Shared experience is LL's idea, not mine. It's not my fault they're inconsistent.

38 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I'm not aware of any orbs on Linden owned land.  Unless you mean where they own the estate?  Why should private estates be exempt?

Because private estates are generally not connected to anything else. Linden estates are.

31 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I'm assuming your suggestion that ban lines should be visible to their owners is hyperbole. 😆 

Only a little.

14 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

No no no no no.  Then we'd lose the option to turn off attached lights (1000 watt facelights).  If we had to have 'shared experience' in everything, that would also render any EEP settings you have applied to self, invalid as everyone would be forced to use the region EEP which is often just default and that's just horrid.

Right now, "shared experience" means "anything TPV devs do that highlights our incompetence". Why shouldn't it actually mean "shared experience" if we have to have it, I say. 

[Gabriele Graves]

Just now, Paul Hexem said:

Because private estates are generally not connected to anything else. Linden estates are.

Some are.

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

48 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Your idea of shared experience 

Shared experience is LL's idea, not mine. It's not my fault they're inconsistent.

Shared experience requires compromise.  Reality is never black & white.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Some time ago I made a suggestion for replacing the yellow ban lines with something more appropriate (different types of fencing), but I can't find the post now. 

 I found it:

 

[AmeliaJ08]

Topic people! I know the use of ban lines is controversial to some in general but I was here to see what people thought of addressing the visual problem they cause.

There's definitely more merits to visible ban lines than I thought, I still lean towards the idea of them maybe being possibly invisible on private estates though. That said maybe the impact of security orbs isn't significant enough in those places for there to be any need.

I think people in SL should be entitled to some degree of parcel control and privacy if they so wish.

 

 

[Casidy Silvercloud]

36 minutes ago, AmeliaJ08 said:

the visual problem they cause

Aside from people just thinking they're ugly (I understand, but I don't agree), the only real visual problem they cause is that we can't see them as well as we should be able to. They don't show up from far enough distance, which makes them invisible until it's nearly too late, and in some cases until after it is. Being able to see them isn't a problem, regardless of their design, not being able to see them presents way more problems than their ugliness. Although the lab could make them look prettier if they wanted, globally speaking, I'm sure.

Being invisible doesn't make them function any better, they're still rife with issues regardless. They would be even if the lab chose a design that more people thought pleasing. I think that's actually why some estates don't want people using them, not because they're ugly (even if they say that's why), but because they can cause too many issues.

Their function and behavior is what the lab really needs to work on, if they can, but that's really a different topic. 

[diamond Marchant]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

It would certainly make the scripting a bit easier but I'm not sure this would be popular with LL because it would break scripts in existing products and they tend to avoid doing that where possible.  If they introduced a new function, then people would just use the old one.

Yes, there is a transition issue. There is precedent for "non compatible" policy changes, for example, when residents with adult businesses were compelled to relocate to the newly created Zindra.

In this case, something like this might occur...

- deprecate llEjectFromLand and change the runtime code to install a 15 second delay prior to ejection, with one exception. The runtime should be able to determine that it is being called from a Linden Home security device and NOT impose the delay. This way, the script in the device would continue to work without update and according to covenant.

- create a  new llEjectFromLandWithDelay which would eject with a 15 second minimum and optionally, wait even longer.

Security device creators would, over time, update their product to use the new function. Legacy security devices would continue to operate but their UI for specifying the delay would be off by 15 seconds.

Mischief Managed!

 

[animats]

3 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Vehicles do not just "bounce off" banlines. Undoubtably some might, but certainly many do not, so I wouldn't be making such a broad sweeping statement.

"Bounce" is not the default for vehicles. It can be done by scripting in vehicles, but it's not common. My motorcycles do it. I have a cheap full perm "Beach Ball Ban Line Tester" on Marketplace, if you want to know how to script this. Throw it at a ban line and it will bounce off.

It's hard to do this perfectly for a vehicle with avatars on board. If the avatar root hits the ban line before the vehicle root does, or object entry is allowed but avatar entry is not, the avatar gets ejected. This is a problem if you sideswipe a ban line. In the narrow waterways from in north central Sansara, where jaggy ban lines extend into what looks like a public waterway, it's easy to lose a boat against a ban line.

"Bounce" ought to be the default. There's an accepted JIRA to improve vehicle vs ban line behavior, but LL has not acted on it. Then people would not have to understand the previous paragraph.

[AmeliaJ08]

54 minutes ago, Casidy Silvercloud said:

Aside from people just thinking they're ugly (I understand, but I don't agree), the only real visual problem they cause is that we can't see them as well as we should be able to. They don't show up from far enough distance, which makes them invisible until it's nearly too late, and in some cases until after it is. Being able to see them isn't a problem, regardless of their design, not being able to see them presents way more problems than their ugliness. Although the lab could make them look prettier if they wanted, globally speaking, I'm sure.

Being invisible doesn't make them function any better, they're still rife with issues regardless. They would be even if the lab chose a design that more people thought pleasing. I think that's actually why some estates don't want people using them, not because they're ugly (even if they say that's why), but because they can cause too many issues.

Their function and behavior is what the lab really needs to work on, if they can, but that's really a different topic. 

Just curious what issues they cause on the average estate? Are people driving vehicles around those? If not I can't really think of what they might cause, maybe that's something people do in fancier places though.

They do ruin the looks though, especially when an estate is parceled as efficiently as possible. The place I'm living right now restricts tree/fence heights and stuff, presumably because you are right up next to each other with no terrain features or anything, they just don't seem to want big ugly stripy yellow lines ruining people's view even more.

Edited August 10, 2023 by AmeliaJ08