mainland Free: Graven Hearts Mainland AutoBan System - Hopefully stepping back from the nuclear option

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I kind of hate to agree with you, Zali, because you seem so negative.

But I'm meeting more and more of these people who act like they own the world with their planes, cars, boats, and avatars in flight who are determined to blast through every single home & landscape within SL. WTH?

Whether it is an eye for an eye or karma, one gets back what they put out. It's like a universal law or something.

That's a very complicated subject indeed -- karma. I'm currently examining that a lot.

Another point...when you come on in an especially strong manner  (whether for something one could deem 'good' or 'bad'), this will bring out those in opposition.  The high, intense energy can seem like an invitation to fight, for some.

Edited January 22 by Luna Bliss

[Clem Marques]

On 1/21/2024 at 6:14 PM, Clem Marques said:

I got a copy of it on the MP and rezzed it one of my Mainland parcels, then used the HUD that comes with the orb to enable it. I put up ban lines by turning off the "anyone can visit" land setting (not sure if it's necessary or not, but I did it just in case.) Then I watched as all other people who were in the region popped up in the "Always banned" list, and were removed from it as soon as they left the region. So it seems to work. Interesting.

[...]

I will leave this new security orb set up here temporarily for those who want to test it/see how it works. Feel free to visit (and hopefully get banned lol )

Location: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Clement/144/196/56

An update on the test parcel.

I was contacted by a neighbor today who kindly let me know that the security orb in my parcel was messaging people in the region with the following text:

[13:12] Second Life: You have been banned indefinitely

He asked me if I could "reduce the distance" of my orb, which was very reasonable. These people were not trying to enter my parcel, simply using their own land. Yet they had to deal with that message each time they entered the Clement region. I can see how that could be a nuisance to some of the neighbors.

I have never gotten any complaints about my regular 5 second security orb, since the only people who even know it exists were trespassing. However, this one might bug people who are not even close to your parcel with the ban notification. I understand that this happens on some viewers due to SL's system when it comes to the use of ban lines, and it is not the fault of the security orb. And some people did not get any messages from it at all, like me and some others in this thread have reported. But it's something to consider as the user if your relationship with your neighbors matters to you.

I have removed the orb from that parcel for now. However, I do think it's good/works well, and I am thankful for its existence, giving people a new, free option when it comes to land privacy.

Edited January 22 by Clem Marques

[Gabriele Graves]

38 minutes ago, Clem Marques said:

An update on the test parcel.

I was contacted by a neighbor today who kindly let me know that the security orb in my parcel was messaging people in the region with the following text:

[13:12] Second Life: You have been banned indefinitely

This message is part of the LL ban system but can be turned off in their viewer which could be a suggestion for any future requests.  I have never seen the point of that message.  They are either on the parcel and will know they have been banned or they don't really need to care.  It has no use beyond this.

Edited January 22 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

2 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I was a little worried by some earlier comments about neighbours and whitelists that the script might call llResetLandPassList() so I just tested and it doesn't. It's not necessary to add guests to groups or anything, just make sure they're on the parcel whitelist. (It's also unnecessary for the device itself to have a whitelist. I suppose it could offer an interface to the parcel whitelist, but that's a nice-to-have at most, that function being pretty straightforward in the viewer.)

Yeah, I know enough to know that you don't clear people's ban lists unless it's a) unavoidable and b) you document it will do this and c) ask them anyway.

[diamond Marchant]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:10 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

achieve their mainland privacy

 

On 1/20/2024 at 10:10 PM, Gabriele Graves said:

One sentiment often expressed by travelers is that they would prefer banlines because those are at least viewable and potentially avoidable

First, kudos for a very clever solution to the privacy issue. If you can prevent randos from entering your parcel at any altitude, then they cannot see you (assuming you have unchecked "Avatars on other parcels can see and chat with avatars on this parcel").

However, I hope people rarely use it... for two reasons.

1) An avatar on protected or abandonned land or a parcel they own should NEVER get any type message by default. Prior posts indicate that this is possible.

2) If you hit a banline when in a vehicle, you may get unseated and the vehicle may get returned. With your scheme, the banline is at all altitudes, precluding any possibility of a benign flyover.

Additionally, because a vehicle driver typically cannot see the banline until it is too late to avoid it, the visibility feature of banlines has little value and actually becomes a visual annoyance (in my opinion, banlines are unattractive).

I actually prefer well designed orbs (of any delay setting)  because they can be tailored to specific altitudes.

Hopefully, parcel owners will employ this solution only for the duration of doing whatever it is that they don't want others to see.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

49 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

With your scheme, the banline is at all altitudes, precluding any possibility of a benign flyover.

Yes. "Working As Intended"  is the expression, it's the whole point of the thing.

 

51 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

Hopefully, parcel owners will employ this solution only for the duration of doing whatever it is that they don't want others to see.

How many threads does this BS need to be countered, it's not "I don't want them seeing what I'm doing", it's "I don't want them on my property AT ALL, EVER".

 

So, it seems we need to come up with some further refinement to present over-entitled privacy-hating invaders with a 5km high wall of "sod off elsewhere".

 

Maybe an orb that only scans the region within a certain specified distance of your parcel, you set the corner coordinates in the orb description, say, and it scans for enemy avatars upto X m outside your defined borders and pre-emptively bans then, so people only get the "you are banned" system spam if they get too close to the line, not just on entering the far distant corner of the region.

 

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

However, I hope people rarely use it... for two reasons.

 

1) An avatar on protected or abandonned land or a parcel they own should NEVER get any type message by default. Prior posts indicate that this is possible.

2) If you hit a banline when in a vehicle, you may get unseated and the vehicle may get returned. With your scheme, the banline is at all altitudes, precluding any possibility of a benign flyover.

Additionally, because a vehicle driver typically cannot see the banline until it is too late to avoid it, the visibility feature of banlines has little value and actually becomes a visual annoyance (in my opinion, banlines are unattractive).

I actually prefer well designed orbs (of any delay setting)  because they can be tailored to specific altitudes.

Hopefully, parcel owners will employ this solution only for the duration of doing whatever it is that they don't want others to see.

Nothing is perfect.  The solution to suppressing the message is within each user's control and is available on every viewer as far as I can tell.  This is unlike many other inconveniences which often don't leave the affected user with any recourse.  There is nobody that has to suffer these messages unnecessarily.

Remember this is meant to be an alternative to zero-second orbs that teleport home and stop all stranger access:

1. These orbs are always invisible and they are not just hard to detect, it is not possible to detect them.
2. There is no flyover with these orbs either.
3. Banlines visibility can be turned off too but you still get the advantage of just being stopped at the parcel boundary, still no teleport home unlike the other invisible orbs.

I would have though that any issues with banlines are much less of an issue than a teleport home.

So on all fronts in contrast the way this system works is an improvement to that.

I cannot stress this enough but this really isn't a solution for people who want to give strangers access to their land in any way.  It is a solution to convince people with a nuclear option zero-second orb that keeps all strangers off their land to choose something more benign.

Comparisons with orbs that are designed for allowing stranger access are like comparing apples and oranges, the only thing they have in common is that they are fruit or in this case, security devices.

I do have a way more comprehensive security solution that I use on my own parcels using this banline concept which is designed for random stranger access and only operates a blacklist.  It even allows privacy zones with temporary adding of banlines when a zone is breached.  It has all the bells and whistles, so comprehensive security can be achieved using just banlines.  However it is a lot of work making this into something that the average user can use easily.  This is not something I am interested in giving away/selling to others.  I am not interested in entering the security orb business.  I would prefer to leave that to others.

Again, this is just to try to convince people with the most hated kind of security orbs to step back a notch and give them a better option.

Edited January 22 by Gabriele Graves
Converging on eventual correctness

[Gabriele Graves]

I've added this to my marketplace store:

Quote

*** THIS SYSTEM IS NOT SUITABLE FOR USE IF YOU INTEND TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON YOUR MAINLAND ***

 

[diamond Marchant]

16 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

How many threads does this BS need to be countered, it's not "I don't want them seeing what I'm doing", it's "I don't want them on my property AT ALL, EVER".

I mentioned "I don't want them seeing what I'm doing" because the OP mentioned privacy as an objective. I am among the subset of vehicle fanatics that has no desire to enter any parcel that the owner wishes to remain secure, at any altitude. When I say "benign flyover", I mean an unintentional entry into a parcel because the vehicle operator is unaware that parcel is deemed off limits by the owner.

Ideally, banlines would be implemented similar to end-of-world on region edges, that is, you just bounce off (am not holding my breath for that improvement).

Also, defaults do matter when they are set in a way that increases confusion among residents and need for tech support.

[Abnor Mole]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:10 AM, Gabriele Graves said:

Hi All,

There has been much talk about security systems and their associated problems, either real or perceived.

One thing that comes up often is that many people find it really difficult to move around mainland with fear of being suddenly sent home by a zero-second orb if they may accidentally stray onto someone else's land.  One sentiment often expressed by travelers is that they would prefer banlines because those are at least viewable and potentially avoidable.  Land owners might also prefer to use banlines if it weren't for the fact that putting up banlines for everyone only affects people up to 50m above the terrain.

So I decided to do something about it instead of just participating ad-nauseam in the arguments for and against the way people achieve their mainland privacy.

The result is a freely available, simple to use security system just for mainland that addresses these issues.  Technically an orb but it only uses banlines to implement it's security and the banlines go up all the way for everyone.  It does not do teleport home.  It does not send messages to anyone including any to inform the system owner of who it raised the banlines for.  It will always be free, I will never attempt to monetize it in anyway.  It is copy/mod/transfer except for the scripts which are copy/transfer only.  This is really only to stop people claiming this as their own work.  People are free to pass this along to anyone who wants a copy.

This system only works on mainland, not private regions, not Bellisseria.

How does it work?

Firstly, it's simple.

Once an avatar enters the region where your land is, they are automatically added to the land banline list.  When they leave the region, they are removed from the land Banline list so that the system can cope with unlimited avatars.  There only needs to be as many available places on the land banlist as the land can concurrently host avatars for it to ban everyone that comes by and the list currently supports 300 places.  So no worries on that score as all mainland regions are a long way below that number for how many avatars they can hold.

Due to the fact that unwanted guests have been added by name to the land banlist the banlines go will all the way up just as they are supposed to.

What happens if they teleport directly to your land?  The system will eject them as part of the ban that happens immediately.  This is the only circumstance where they will be able to get on your land for a tiny amount of time.  If you block teleport routing on your land options, even this will never happen.

So the rest is up to us, all of us mainlanders to spread the word and the system to as many people as possible who are currently using the nuclear option of zero-second orbs that teleport people home which are not detectable and hope they will see the benefit of changing over.

This is not a solution for those who want to keep their land open to other people in anyway.  It's never going to be.  It's an attempt to give an alternative to the nuclear option for those who just don't want any uninvited guests at all.

This system is available, for free, on my marketplace store here: Graven Hearts Mainland AutoBan System on Marketplace

I hope it makes a small step towards stepping away from the nuclear option.

I will support the system with assistance and bug fixes as necessary so feel free to send me an IM or notecard inworld, which ever you prefer.  My messages don't get capped and do go to email.

To the moderators:  I hope this is a good place to put this but feel free to move it to a better section if you feel it needs it.  This is the only area that seemed to fit.  It's not a commercial product and I will never charge anyone a bean for this.  I just like to make things as nice as I can.

I think the problem lies in a misunderstanding of the main complaint, that bans lines would be preferable because that makes them visible and avoidable. Ban lines are very often not avoidable even when they are visible, especially where region crossings are concerned. Ban lines can be just as undetectable across region borders, so immediately adding people to the parcel ban list so the ban lines go all the way to maximum height will only exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

I think what most travelers would prefer is simply a security system with a grace period long enough to allow them to pass through at distance from the landowner's actual home without being ejected, blocked, or sent home (and preferably without being subjected to a cacophony of 'get off my lawn' messages). The biggest hurdles in this are two fold:

1. The pervasive belief that anyone and everyone who enters your parcel has evil intensions and therefore must always and with extreme prejudice be blocked or removed.
2. Protecting yourself from people "trying to break into your home" must by necessity encompass the entire parcel at all levels.

Whether the system bans them from the parcel, ejects them or sends them home is largely irrelevant if  you can reasonably discern between persons with ill intent (home invaders) and those without (travelers). The main difference is behavioral.  Invaders will want to enter the actual home and stay. Travelers do not. Simply limiting the protection rage to the home itself and/or giving them a reasonable span of time to leave is all that is really necessary.

But that isn't what most security systems (especially ones marketed as simple to set up and operate) are set up by default to do. They are marketed to people who believe wholly and completely in the two assumptions above. And because most security systems do it that way it perpetuates the belief that those assumptions must be true. 

I think that raising ban lines to the upper limit doesn't solve the problem more than it creates a new one just as aggravating and  doesn't address the real underlying issue.

[elleevelyn]

3 hours ago, Clem Marques said:

[13:12] Second Life: You have been banned indefinitely

I wasn''t seeing this, so write a test script

with Linden Viewer we only get this message when the agent is added to the parcel ban list using llAddToLandBanList

the message is not received when we add the agent manually using the About Land \ Access dialog

is a bit of a problem as the message doesn't say what parcel the agent has been banned from, When the neighbours keep getting this message every time they go home then some of them are going to file Support tickets, asking why every time they go home they are getting spammed by Second Life with a message telling them they have been banned indefinitely - banned from what ?

Edited January 22 by elleevelyn
typs

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Abnor Mole said:

I think the problem lies in a misunderstanding of the main complaint, that bans lines would be preferable because that makes them visible and avoidable. Ban lines are very often not avoidable even when they are visible, especially where region crossings are concerned. Ban lines can be just as undetectable across region borders, so immediately adding people to the parcel ban list so the ban lines go all the way to maximum height will only exacerbate the problem rather than alleviate it.

I think what most travelers would prefer is simply a security system with a grace period long enough to allow them to pass through at distance from the landowner's actual home without being ejected, blocked, or sent home (and preferably without being subjected to a cacophony of 'get off my lawn' messages). The biggest hurdles in this are two fold:

1. The pervasive belief that anyone and everyone who enters your parcel has evil intensions and therefore must always and with extreme prejudice be blocked or removed.
2. Protecting yourself from people "trying to break into your home" must by necessity encompass the entire parcel at all levels.

Whether the system bans them from the parcel, ejects them or sends them home is largely irrelevant if  you can reasonably discern between persons with ill intent (home invaders) and those without (travelers). The main difference is behavioral.  Invaders will want to enter the actual home and stay. Travelers do not. Simply limiting the protection rage to the home itself and/or giving them a reasonable span of time to leave is all that is really necessary.

But that isn't what most security systems (especially ones marketed as simple to set up and operate) are set up by default to do. They are marketed to people who believe wholly and completely in the two assumptions above. And because most security systems do it that way it perpetuates the belief that those assumptions must be true. 

I think that raising ban lines to the upper limit doesn't solve the problem more than it creates a new one just as aggravating and  doesn't address the real underlying issue.

Thank you!!

[Gabriele Graves]

@Abnor Mole You are never going to convince anyone on mainland with a zero-second orb and no public access to allow people over their land unless you change policy *and* force them to do so.  This system is only aimed at those people.  If we would prefer those people stay with those orbs, then so be it.

With all due respect, this doesn't make anything worse in any way with respect to this goal.

Nobody argues that travelers would generally prefer access over the land of others but that is not the point here as they don't have it today and they will not have it tomorrow either for people who use zero-second orbs to disallow all public access.

[Gabriele Graves]

9 minutes ago, elleevelyn said:

I wasn''t seeing this, so write a test script

with Linden Viewer (e only get this message when the agent is added to the parcel ban list using llAddToLandBanList

the message is not received when we add the agent manually using the About Land \ Access dialog

is a bit of a problem as the message doesn't say what parcel the agent has been banned from, When the neighbours keep getting this message every time they go home then some of them are going to file Support tickets, asking why every time they go home they are getting spammed by Second Life with a message telling them they have been banned indefinitely - banned from what ?

I think it's LL's responsibility to fix this inconsistency, preferably by removing the notification from scripting.  There really isn't any need for it.  If a person is on the land when banned they get the ejected message anyway.  Really the only notification that makes sense are when you were on the parcel when banned and not when you aren't.

[elleevelyn]

6 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

(It's also unnecessary for the device itself to have a whitelist. I suppose it could offer an interface to the parcel whitelist, but that's a nice-to-have at most, that function being pretty straightforward in the viewer.)

yes is only necessary for the device to have an internal white list if there was an automated option to add the neighbours to our parcel whitelist. There is no LSL function to identify whether a agent is on the parcel white list or ban list

automated option meaning a periodic scan of the neighbour parcels updating the internal whitelist as the neigbours change - adding/removing from the parcel whitelist appropriately. Then again tho if we do have to maintain an internal whitlelist then is no need to add them to the parcel whitelist. The script would just skip over them when doing  the ban scan

[elleevelyn]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I think it's LL's responsibility to fix this inconsistency, preferably by removing the notification from scripting.  There really isn't any need for it.  If a person is on the land when banned they get the ejected message anyway.  Really the only notification that makes sense are when you were on the parcel when banned and not when you aren't.

i think it was a design choice when llAddToLandBanList and llAddToLandPassList were developed, probably from the thought that they are in some ways a complementary pairing

llAddToLandPassList also give a notification message "You have been granted access to this land"

granting access is done when the agent is not on the parcel. And it makes sense for the agent to get this message

i think also if a JIRA was made requesting changes to llAddToLandBanList, Linden might consider nerfing the function's currently ability to add agents not on the parcel. Might not either tho, but I am pretty sure it would be come up in the discussion

[add] Altho having said this it would be remiss of Linden to also not consider what the outcome of nerfing llAddToLandBanList in this way would be. The outcome would be the cementing in of instaboot scripted devices

Edited January 23 by elleevelyn

[Gabriele Graves]

I think that like a lot of things in SL, there are layers of history, kludges and other things that really obscure the original intentions anyway.  Just the example of "You have been granted access to this land"  If you are not on the parcel where you were added, what land is that?  It's always been possible to add someone not on the parcel to either list.  So one way or another, a mistake was made.

In my opinion, consistency isn't something that's notable enough about SL to talk about "intent" in a lot of cases.

Edited January 23 by Gabriele Graves

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

I think what most travelers would prefer is simply a security system with a grace period long enough to allow them to pass through

I notice that nowhere do you mention what the parcel owners might want. Just the "travellers".

 

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

if  you can reasonably discern between persons with ill intent (home invaders) and those without (travelers).

And you can't tell until AFTER the crime is committed, that's why traditionally, SL or RL, "security systems" are designed to keep out ALL un-authorised persons, people don't install locks with a "push to unlock if you are an HONEST person" button on them, or put up signs reading "if you are a criminal, please PRETEND there is a 12 ft electric fence here".

 

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

The main difference is behavioral.  Invaders will want to enter the actual home and stay. Travelers do not.

I've had people who claimed to be "bona fide travellers" who stayed, stopping in my parcel as soon as they noticed my green dot on their mini map to IM me and subject me to personal abuse, and that was BEFORE I installed an orb and part of WHY I installed one.

In the SEVEN days after you and your co-workers installed the first Belli-Satori sea-channel, I had FIVE "travellers" cruise through my parcel while I was there, THREE of them stopped IN my parcel to subject me to IM spam filled with hate.

2 screamed abuse at me for having ban-lines 2500m below them, and one screamed abuse at me for having the ban-lines, AND for having a skybox, AND for my ground build making my parcel "useless for off road motorsports".

 

I had another "bona fide" traveller, after the orb went in, who made a point of telling me how rich she was, then demanding that I unban her, guest list her on my orb, and invite her to my land group so she could have full rezzing rights with MY spare LI allowance, presumably because she thought my place would make a useful airfield half way between her two luxury parcels.

Another, spewed bile at me, called me a "f**king noob", demanded I remove my orb, take down my ban lines, then tried to bully me into paying her money as "compensation" for the lost "fares" from the passengers she never had (she was the only one the orb banned, nobody else aboard), and threatened to get all the members of her griefers club ( the SLCG) to file fraudulent abuse reports against me, subject me to ToS violating harassment, and funniest of all, ban me from all the ports and airfields I never ever use..

I'm not seeing much difference between the home invading anti-privacy griefers and the bona fide traveller anti-privacy griefers, frankly.

 

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

doesn't address the real underlying issue.

"What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too, my right to trespass because I call my self a traveller/explorer."

THAT's the issue. People who DON'T pay for my parcel, telling me I MUST give them more rights to it than I am allowed to keep for myself.

 

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

giving them a reasonable span of time

In a 35 page plus anti-privacy rant thread, one of these so-called "travellers & explorers" stated that any parcel not made for public use, should be erased, and it's owner segregated in some instanced off-the-main-grid ghetto, for which they should have to pay extra, so LL could afford to keep the now abandoned land where they USED to live empty for "travellers & explorers", because HIS $99 a year entitled him to go where ever he liked.

He kept referring to this proposal as a "fair and reasonable compromise".

Here's MY take on that.

Amount of time THEY spend considering NOT trespassing on my property, ZERO seconds.

Amount of time my orb spends considering NOT punt kicking and banning them from my property, ZERO seconds.

A "fair and reasonable compromise".

Makes a nice change from all the proposed "reasonable" solutions where THEY get everything they want, and the parcel owners get NOTHING.

 

[Abnor Mole]

Ah, okay. I was under the impression this was being offered as an option for people who are looking for an easy security system and plop one down without really having to think about the settings, then wonder why they get nastygrams in their IM boxes because it default sets to zero seconds and covers the whole parcel. A system that can give normally reasonable people a sense of security and deal with the "bad actors" without instigating heated arguments with other normally reasonable people over "rights".

You're right, you'll never convince everyone, but I think over these last few years I have noticed a reduction in the number of such places on mainland as a result of having such a policy in Bellisseria. I believe this marks a shift in public perception as more people are discovering that you actually can make your home secure without putting your entire land into an aggressive lock down state. 

But I still don't believe people switching from using zero warning to using parcel ban lists will have the same effect. I suspect it will just add more fuel to the arguments if the people who use it can say "I was told this is what you wanted so f-off. You people will never be happy" when it really isn't what they wanted at all, which is just to be able to pass through briefly as long as they aren't bothering anyone.

[Gabriele Graves]

34 minutes ago, Abnor Mole said:

But I still don't believe people switching from using zero warning to using parcel ban lists will have the same effect. I suspect it will just add more fuel to the arguments if the people who use it can say "I was told this is what you wanted so f-off. You people will never be happy" when it really isn't what they wanted at all, which is just to be able to pass through briefly as long as they aren't bothering anyone.

We will have to disagree on this.  So far nobody else is doing anything to try to shift the needle one way or the other, not LL, not other orb makers, nobody.  All we have are orb wars, in the forums and inworld, again and again.

So I stepped up and gave of myself to try to help.  That's it, my only motive.

It's more likely that the impact will be minimal.  I should be so lucky to convince enough zero-orb users to change.  It would be a nice problem to have.  Perhaps change comes by degrees?

Someone adopting this is already stepping back from a very hated edge and gaining something in the process.  If that's as far as they will go, then I'm good with that.  The alternative is that they stick to their orbs until the end of SL or until some one takes them away.

I know which alternative I would rather have.

Edited January 23 by Gabriele Graves

[Qie Niangao]

10 hours ago, elleevelyn said:

14 hours ago, Clem Marques said:

[13:12] Second Life: You have been banned indefinitely

I wasn''t seeing this, so write a test script

with Linden Viewer we only get this message when the agent is added to the parcel ban list using llAddToLandBanList

the message is not received when we add the agent manually using the About Land \ Access dialog

is a bit of a problem as the message doesn't say what parcel the agent has been banned from, When the neighbours keep getting this message every time they go home then some of them are going to file Support tickets, asking why every time they go home they are getting spammed by Second Life with a message telling them they have been banned indefinitely - banned from what ?

This was the first thing I tried to test after @Eowyn Southmoor reported the problem right away, and simply could not find a way to generate it, so after this post I figured I must have disabled it in Preferences/Notifications but can't find it there. I'm not sure it's important but it's driving me crazy: What am I doing to never see this message despite llAddToLandBanList attempts with multiple accounts in multiple viewers?

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

5 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

You're right, you'll never convince everyone, but I think over these last few years I have noticed a reduction in the number of such places on mainland as a result of having such a policy in Bellisseria.

See, this is where we differ again.

These last few years I have noticed an increase in over-entitled anti-privacy griefers who scream that "ban lines are illegal, zero second orbs are illegal, any security in the official free fly zone 400-2000 is illegal", because they ACTUALLY think that Belli Rules (tm) are universal, and that they actually have some LEGAL right to trespass, because that's what they have been TRAINED to think, by YOUR experiment in "being friendlier".

 

It's worth noting that in Belli, the free fly zone ENDS at 2000m, and 90% of the Belli sourced trespassers I get come in at... 2500m. They DELIBERATELY fly in 500 m AABOVE the end of the free fly zone because they are DELIIBERATELY looking for skyboxes and orbs to make whining complaints about, and threaten with fraudulent AR's for "breaking Belli Rules"

 

Belli is a hotbed of Neighbourhood Snitches, the goose-stepping self appointed Kommisars who pester their neighbours. I particularly enjoyed the threads about fake HOA delegates ordering a belli resident to change their living room wall colour, because it's "not allowed", and threatening "mass AR's" from all the HOAA delegates if the homeowner did not comply, and the threads about houseboat owners NOT being allowed a flag for the boating club they belong to on the deck of the house boat.

 

5 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

But I still don't believe people switching from using zero warning to using parcel ban lists will have the same effect. I suspect it will just add more fuel to the arguments

I stated in my reply back on Page 1, that this won't stop the "constant whining", and that the constant whiners would just whine constantly about something else.

 

And the first whining complaints were "but it bans the neighbours" and "but it bans the people who haven't trespassed YET" and "but this will create vast tracts of ban-lines".

This is the part many of the "reasonable people" in the middle of this war never seem to get.

5 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

when it really isn't what they wanted at all

What they really want is control, power, the right to tell EVERYONE else on the Grid how to live their SecondLives. Have you not noticed the number of threads, usually started by the same handful of people that basically read :

"I'm a Bellicosian, I wouldn't DREAM of living on the Mainland my self, but I think that they should be FORCED to live under Belli-Rules".

If we give them "what they want" and allow their non-right to trespass, the next stage is complaining about how we live, what colour we paint our walls, what furniture we have, if we have a flag for a boating club we belong to, do we have a skybox.

 

There is no "giving them what they really want" because what they really want is EVERYTHING.

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

52 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

What am I doing to never see this message despite llAddToLandBanList attempts with multiple accounts in multiple viewers?

Ask her what viewer she's using that does show these messages?

 

[Gabriele Graves]

After some further testing, I believe I know what is going on with the with the "You have been banned indefinitely" messages for my testing account on Firestorm.

I was sure that it must have been an alert and that I must have disabled the message in the Notifications sections of Preferences but like @Qie Niangao I couldn't find it when I went back.

They are actually system toasts.  On Firestorm, there is an option to show them above other windows and I have this turned off.  The toast is appearing underneath another dialog and I didn't notice.  I also didn't notice that it output the same message to the chat window because I don't have that displayed that all the time.

The debug option for this is FSShowToastsInFront which suggests that this is a Firestorm only option.

At this point I have no idea if the same thing exists on the official viewer or where it would be as it's been so many years since I've used it for any length of time.  Not sure what viewer @Qie Niangao is using but maybe a related reason?

Edited January 23 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

I've also found out that toasts can be disabled completely on FS by setting their "life" to zero.  Obviously this affects all toasts of each type but may be solution when traveling:

As you can see there are three different types of toast with three different lifetimes.

Edited January 23 by Gabriele Graves