Ban lines - a proposal

[Persephone Emerald]

7 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Not really on topic, but related. Can a vehicle enter a property that is full or almost full? I mean not enough Land Impact available for the weight of the vehicle. If yes, does that mean that in addition to not having ban lines or zero eject security orbs, do land owners need to leave enough LI free (maybe 50 prims) to allow vehicles to pass through their land?

I had roadside ad parcels that supported 5 LI, and my signs were 5 LI, object entry was allowed, and the signs were phantom, but wouldn't anyone still get hung up if they tried to enter the parcel?

How much accommodation must be made for the people that can't keep their vehicles on the public roadways and waterways?

This needs to be posted as a separate thread if this is a serious questions and not just an attempt at further derailment of this thread.

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

"People problems" are the only problems worth solving—and solving social problems is the entire point of technology. 

Are you saying that those "people" are wrong to have a "problem" with ban lines? All these discussions that have "occurred very frequently over the past 20 years" "over and over again" are just persistent mass hysteria? So their "problem" doesn't count?

47 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Technology can't solve people problems. Only people can solve them.

Of course technology can be used as a tool to solve people problems. What do you think traffic lights do in RL? or locks? or phone lines? or personal computers? or inoculations for a multitude of viruses? 

Second Life is a digital platform literally created by people using technology. The ground and sky in SL is created by technology. Our avatars are created by technology. The only thing natural in SL is human nature, which we can't change, but which we can moderate with technology. If we don't want an avatar to occupy the virual space that we lease from Linden Lab, we can exclude it with technology. We don't actually own this virtual space, however. Linden Lab owns it, and as such has every right to control how it is used. 

In order to moderate human nature in this virtual world, LL creates rules that are often enforced through technology - computer programs - rather than requiring every complaint to be handled manually by one of their employees. Clearly stated and visible rules help keep people from becoming angry and resentful toward other users and toward LL, but no rule will ever make everyone happy because rules are always about limiting one person's freedom in order to protect another person's freedom. 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

22 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

This needs to be posted as a separate thread if this is a serious questions and not just an attempt at further derailment of this thread.

Did you miss a recent post by @animats in which he commented on a corner in a road on the Robin Loop, where the very short length of LLDWP owned road doesn't have enough spare Prim Allowance to allow the entry of modern road vehicles?

 

Back when that stuff was built, all vehicles were made of prims, and prim vehicles were limited to LESS than 32 links in the linkset, including the driver-prim and passenger-prims (as seated avatars are treated as linked prims on vehicles). So as long as vehicles were under 32 prims, they could pass.

 

Today, mesh vehicles can still have less than 32 links, but can have Land Impact scores of several hundred LI, and that corner piece of road simply doesn't have the spare prim allowance to allow them to enter.

 

YES it's a serious question, and since the MAIN way of keeping some 250 LI car off your land that doesn't have 250 spare prims is BANLINES, any discussion of BANLINESS and their removal, does include the possible effects of intruding overentitled nomad owned prim-waste.

If somebody demands the removal of your banlines and allowing the crashing of a 250 prim car into your house, I'm DAMNED sure you'd want to know if 2/3rds of your home and garden are going to end up in your Lost & Found folder.

[Silent Mistwalker]

11 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Of course technology can be used as a tool to solve people problems. What do you think traffic lights do in RL? or locks? or phone lines? or personal computers? or inoculations for a multitude of viruses? 

Tools used by people. Tools made by people. Tools design by people for people use.  

Tech made by people. Tech wouldn't happen if people hadn't invented it. People solve problems using tech yes, but the tech didn't create itself. 

Tech are tools made by people for the use of people.

Without people there is no need for tech.

People solve problems regardless of the tools they use to help solve those problems.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Of course technology can be used as a tool to solve people problems. What do you think traffic lights do in RL? or locks? or phone lines? or personal computers? or inoculations for a multitude of viruses? 

And THERE is the problem.

Qie's argument about how all those #banthebanlines ranters can't possibly be wrong iss basically the same as saying:

 

"Surveys show that 99/100 habitual repeat offending house breakers object strongly to the problem of homeowners being allowed to have locks on their doors, as it denies them their RIGHT to trespass and steal!  We must outlaw door locks and intruder alarms NOW for FREEDUMB!"

 

And then you get some oaf replying:

"anyone who can't afford a private island outside the Nation's Territorial Waters, protected by a contingent of ex-special forces covert black ops wet work specialist mercenaries with state of the art military spec tactical gear and weaponry, simply doesn't DESERVE to be safe from habitual repeat offending house breakers, we must ban all door locks and intruder alarm for plebs NOW!"

 

And then people like you tut-tut dismissively when the plebs with locked doors complain that this is blatantly unfair to them, and deliberate persecution by habitual criminals and rich snobs who own shares in companies selling crowbars, ski masks and sacks with the word "swag" printed on them.

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

First of all to be "Mass Hysteria" they would have to be a majority, and there is no evidence that they are. "Minority Hysteria" doesn't sound a good though when trying to claim right you don't have, I guess.

I couldn't find a definition for "Mass Hysteria" that requires it to be displayed by a majority of the population in question. Perhaps you can point me to one that does.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_psychogenic_illness

What I did see in a quick overview of a few webpages on it that I thought was interesting is that it often happens when a population is experiencing high levels of stress.

This is also a factor in what I think is a related phenomena of so-called "witch hunts", in which scapegoats are singled out to carry the blame for social or environmental problems that are creating stress in the population. Creating and punishing these scapegoats helps people relieve their feelings of anxiety temporarily, but it doesn't actually solve the problems creating the stress. Thus new scapegoats continue to be created over and over again.

Among animals, a similar dynamic happens with omega wolves in a pack. When the pack is stressed, they beat up on the omega wolf to essentially "blow off steam". 

[Qie Niangao]

58 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Technology can't solve people problems. Only people can solve them.

Please stop twisting my words to mean things they don't.

Key word there being "Almost", meaning not all.

If you had actually understood what I was saying you wouldn't have chosen to go off on a tangent that doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

Again, please stop accusing me of things I haven't said or done.

After this post it's true: I have no idea what you meant was the "people problem" about ban lines, the same problem you said didn't exist. Is it that people think they're ugly? In the first page of the thread we got past that, to disabling them in the viewer, and finding other ways to display them in the viewer, and observing that the viewer can't display information it doesn't get from the server, so I was trying to explain why it may be a technical problem to make more of that (group-dependent) information available sooner, thereby reducing the friction ban lines cause, however they're presented.

But the "almost" challenge is interesting. Nearly every parcel I see with ban lines have them set solely to restrict access to a group. In my experience, only a tiny percentage are restricted solely to a whitelist of individuals, not granting group access. But if group-based ban lines were not needed and instead only a static list of individuals were permitted access, that would make it tractable to share those simplified, non-volatile restrictions among adjacent regions, giving folks who need it the warning they want. I doubt there'd be a lot of support, though, for disabling group-only access. And as long as it exists, the hurdles I mentioned still exist, too.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I couldn't find a definition for "Mass Hysteria" that requires it to be displayed by a majority of the population in question. Perhaps you can point me to one that does.

The clue is in the name.

ONE person being hysterical, isn't "Mass Hysteria", you need to have lots and lots of people sharing a hysteria for it to be "Mass".

[Qie Niangao]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

ONE person being hysterical, isn't "Mass Hysteria", you need to have lots and lots of people sharing a hysteria for it to be "Mass".

So much fuss about the term "mass". Chill. We see threads like this often—often enough to mean "mass" to me. You don't have to agree with that usage. It's difficult to express how little I care, one way or another.

12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Qie's argument about how all those #banthebanlines ranters can't possibly be wrong iss basically the same as saying:

I'm way beyond "right" or "wrong" here. I'm asserting that there's a problem because "all those… ranters" (but apparently not a "mass" of them) keep bringing it up, so if something could make it less of a problem it would be worth exploring. But it's technically difficult for reasons I tried to detail. That doesn't make it less of a problem.

Also, the tangent of when Land Impact accrues to the parcel an occupied vehicle is passing over is another quagmire of detail. Ordinarily, the land impact of a sat-upon vehicle is not attributed to the parcel, but rather to the region as a whole, regardless of ownership. The problem is that region crossings can go awry and the vehicle momentarily become "unoccupied" as the avatar(s) catch up with the handoff process. That's when the vehicle can sometimes end up back in the owner's Lost&Found due to exceeding parcel LI capacity. Lots of other stuff can go wrong at that point, too; for example, No Object Entry can kick in which should never apply to an occupied vehicle.

[Silent Mistwalker]

3 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

After this post it's true: I have no idea what you meant was the "people problem" about ban lines, the same problem you said didn't exist. Is it that people think they're ugly? In the first page of the thread we got past that, to disabling them in the viewer, and finding other ways to display them in the viewer, and observing that the viewer can't display information it doesn't get from the server, so I was trying to explain why it may be a technical problem to make more of that (group-dependent) information available sooner, thereby reducing the friction ban lines cause, however they're presented.

But the "almost" challenge is interesting. Nearly every parcel I see with ban lines have them set solely to restrict access to a group. In my experience, only a tiny percentage are restricted solely to a whitelist of individuals, not granting group access. But if group-based ban lines were not needed and instead only a static list of individuals were permitted access, that would make it tractable to share those simplified, non-volatile restrictions among adjacent regions, giving folks who need it the warning they want. I doubt there'd be a lot of support, though, for disabling group-only access. And as long as it exists, the hurdles I mentioned still exist, too.

I didn't ask for an explanation that didn't have anything to do with what I said. What you are discussing is a conversation you were having with someone else, not me. I intentionally didn't address any of that because it had nothing to do with what I said.

I'm one of the "tiny percentage". I don't deed my parcel to a group, not even my own group. It's completely unnecessary for me. That is not to say it isn't needed for other people. 

The whole thing boils down to people wanting access to private parcels just so they won't lose their vehicle/plane/boat when they should be able to rez a new copy and just go on their way. It's like watching 5-year-olds throw temper tantrums because they aren't allowed a snack right before dinner.

[Qie Niangao]

Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

The whole thing boils down to people wanting access to private parcels just so they won't lose their vehicle/plane/boat when they should be able to rez a new copy and just go on their way.

You must be joking.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

This needs to be posted as a separate thread if this is a serious questions and not just an attempt at further derailment of this thread.

its already been answered, and yes it was a serious question

[Zalificent Corvinus]

8 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

No Object Entry can kick in which should never apply to an occupied vehicle.

That's another piece of overentitled vehicle nomad nonsense disagree with. I don't give a damn if your vehicle shaped prim waste is occupied or not, I don't want it in my home, "No Object Entry" for non land group members should mean EXACTLY that.

Abusing that exploit is a common griefer trick, you can't rez your griefer crap on their land, so you rez it elsewhere, sit on it, and edit it over the border, then unsit and leave it there.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

People are allowed to have ban lines: complain.

People are given Belliseria, and not allowed to have ban lines: still complain.

People are gonna complain no matter what you do, so why do anything at all?

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 minute ago, Qie Niangao said:

You must be joking.

Not at all. I have my own planes, boats and vehicles. I know how frustrating it can be. Doesn't change the fact that I can pick myself up, dust myself off, rez a new one and go on my merry way without chewing out a land/parcel owner for having ban lines up. That is what most people do.

[Persephone Emerald]

8 hours ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

When sitting in a vehicle, the land impact of that vehicle is taken from the region total, not the parcel total.  This means that vehicles can travel through full parcels without issue.  This is most easily demonstrated in Bellisseria where most residents living there use up almost all their prim allowance.  It's fairly common to have parcels with only 20 LI free, yet a 100 LI plane will still fly over quite happily.

However, this all changes if the pilot becomes unseated as they cross into a new parcel. If that parcel has rezzing restricted to a certain group (which is usually the case), then the moment the pilot becomes unseated in that parcel, their vehicle will instantly be returned to them because they are no longer sitting on it and their prims (the plane) isn't allowed on the parcel.  This happens more frequently when the parcel border is also the region border.  Vehicle users unfortunately often mistake this as the parcel owner employing some nasty security orb etc, which isn't the case.

I know I've been able to careen over other people's parcels in Belli while barely being able to control my car. It's not that high in Land Impact, but I don't think sat upon vehicles affect Land Impact parcel limits.  Worn items certainly don't keep people out of parcels, or else shops wouldn't be able to have more than a couple customers at a time.

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Did you miss a recent post by @animats in which he commented on a corner in a road on the Robin Loop, where the very short length of LLDWP owned road doesn't have enough spare Prim Allowance to allow the entry of modern road vehicles?

Back when that stuff was built, all vehicles were made of prims, and prim vehicles were limited to LESS than 32 links in the linkset, including the driver-prim and passenger-prims (as seated avatars are treated as linked prims on vehicles). So as long as vehicles were under 32 prims, they could pass.

Today, mesh vehicles can still have less than 32 links, but can have Land Impact scores of several hundred LI, and that corner piece of road simply doesn't have the spare prim allowance to allow them to enter.

That's very interesting and does I warrent some attention by the LDPW, but it doesn't have anything to do with banlines.

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

YES it's a serious question, and since the MAIN way of keeping some 250 LI car off your land that doesn't have 250 spare prims is BANLINES, any discussion of BANLINESS and their removal, does include the possible effects of intruding overentitled nomad owned prim-waste.

If somebody demands the removal of your banlines and allowing the crashing of a 250 prim car into your house, I'm DAMNED sure you'd want to know if 2/3rds of your home and garden are going to end up in your Lost & Found folder.

Nope. You can keep other people's objects off your parcel by disallowing them to build or move objects into your parcel. Banlines are the visual sign of a parcel that has disallowed avatar entry. Disallowing individual avatars or avatars that are not in one's land group is one issue. How this limit is represented visually is another issue, and specifically the one the OP started this thread to discuss.

Also, your personal or group owned prims would not be returned when someone else's prims cause your parcel to exceed its Land Impact limit. Their object would be returned to their Lost and Found folder.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Persephone Emerald

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Nope. You can keep other people's objects off your parcel by disallowing them to build or move objects into your parcel.

Sorry but NO.

Disallowing "Object Entry" does NOT work on vehicles with drivers/passengers sat on them. The BANLINES have to stop the crew, THEN the un-occupied vehicle becomes subject to the "No Object Entry" setting, and disabling "Build" only prevents them REZZING stuff on your land, it will NOT prevent them riding their crap over the line.

Banlines still needed to stop unwelcome occupied vehicles, or zero second warning "Destroy all enemies" security orbs.

Which would you rather face, a banline or the "Destroy All Enemies" orb?

[diamond Marchant]

^^^ What she said.

Sitting on a vehicle lets you enter any parcel that does not have banlines (an orb may subsequently eject you). Assuming no banlines, you will be denied entrance only if the REGION has no free LI.

In a related issue, once you gain entrance to a parcel while sitting on a vehicle, your SCRIPTs continue to execute even if the parcel has scripts disabled for you. This allows you to control your vehicle (and exit the parcel). Clever Lindens.

Edited August 13, 2023 by diamond Marchant

[Arielle Popstar]

32 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

That's another piece of overentitled vehicle nomad nonsense disagree with. I don't give a damn if your vehicle shaped prim waste is occupied or not, I don't want it in my home, "No Object Entry" for non land group members should mean EXACTLY that.

So how often has this really happened to you? You make it sound like it is all the time but unless you have a sign on your skybox  stating Helipad! I would suspect it has only happened once, if ever.

[Persephone Emerald]

57 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The clue is in the name.

ONE person being hysterical, isn't "Mass Hysteria", you need to have lots and lots of people sharing a hysteria for it to be "Mass".

"Lots and lots" is not the same as a majority.  A majority is more than 50%. The girls who initially accused people of being witches in Salem were only 3 people and I believe they were the only ones who displayed physical symptoms of being "possessed". Did more than 50% of the whole population accuse other people of being witches? I don't think so. It was many people, but it didn't have to be a majority for this to be a situation of Mass Hysteria. 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

So how often has this really happened to you? You make it sound like it is all the time but unless you have a sign on your skybox  stating Helipad! I would suspect it has only happened once, if ever.

The number of people on the parcel ban list shows it's about 1 event every 3 to 4 weeks, for over two years, until they and their friends learned that they were not welcome. I did tell you this in reply to your previous post.

But you don't bother reading replies do you?

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

^^^ What she said.

Sitting on a vehicle lets you enter any parcel that does not have banlines (an orb may subsequently eject you). Assuming no banlines, you will be denied entrance only if the REGION has no free LI.

In a related issue, once you gain entrance to a parcel while sitting on a vehicle, your SCRIPTs continue to execute even if the parcel has scripts disabled for you. This allows you to control your vehicle (and exit the parcel). Clever Lindens.

Which is, of course why NPV's, "non physical vehicles", have been a standard part of a griefer arsenal, since way before I came to SL.

Totally defeats "No Build" and "No Object entry" and "No Scripts", allowing for easier griefing.

[Arielle Popstar]

5 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The number of people on the parcel ban list shows it's about 1 event every 3 to 4 weeks, for over two years, until they and their friends learned that they were not welcome. I did tell you this in reply to your previous post.

But you don't bother reading replies do you?

It does get a little tiring after 12 pages of over entitled renters going on about their right to boot, kick AR anyone overstepping their boundaries.

More to the point is why the Lab knowingly has different policies for different areas.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Arielle Popstar

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It does get a little tiring after 12 pages of over entitled renters going on about their right to boot, kick AR anyone overstepping their boundaries. be habitual repeat offenders engaged in deliberate criminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment of residential tier paying private property owners.

Fixed that for you.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Fixed that for you.

It does get a little tiring after 12 pages of over entitled renters going on about their right to boot, kick AR anyone overstepping their boundaries. be habitual repeat offenders engaged in deliberate criminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment of residential tier paying private property owners.

So if they are habitual repeat offenders, wouldn't it be better resolved through an AR filing against the specific residents?