Qie Niangao Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Aethelwine said: I agree with all that what I would add though is that the best tip for anyone vehicle travelling, or indeed walking is to use the mini-map and turn the view of property lines on. Without it, it isn't possible to navigate rivers safely and it makes finding rezz zones much easier.. The Linden Viewer didn't use to have that function, why I haven't used it in years. (I don't know if it does or doesn't now.) The Linden viewer can show parcel boundaries now—it has for long enough I'm not remembering when it didn't—but I'm not sure if other viewers can highlight protected land or rez zones, which would be useful. The Linden viewer does not highlight banned parcels that I know other viewer(s) do. Coincidentally, speaking of highlighting parcels, in the Simulator User Group yesterday there was a suggestion to mark parcels where the simulator has detected suprathreshold use of LSL access management functions (Eject, TeleportHome, scripted banlist additions). That's one potential automated way to help avoid unwelcome encounters. (There have been private reporting databases like this for aviation, sorta like Waze, but this would be fully automated.) A TPV developer at the user group repeated his suggestion that viewers be able to "request all banned parcels in a given sim (agent or neighbour sims), so that we could have that info (for mini-map + ban walls) *before* bumping into walls". That would be another way to reduce friction, but only for banlines that exist before the agent enters the region, not afterwards as in the system discussed in this thread. I can't guess how likely that is to be implemented, but it does introduce some awkwardness here. It's particularly sticky because that's getting at the one place where intrusion is otherwise practically impossible to avoid: region crossings. It can be difficuilt to even read minimap parcel lines across region borders, and loss of control is a very real problem (at least for now), so it's really not going to be well received to have banlines pop up in response to crossing region borders, especially if viewers start showing pre-banlined parcels in neighboring regions. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 That is untrue. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwine Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 hours ago, Qie Niangao said: I can't guess how likely that is to be implemented, but it does introduce some awkwardness here. It's particularly sticky because that's getting at the one place where intrusion is otherwise practically impossible to avoid: region crossings. It can be difficuilt to even read minimap parcel lines across region borders, and loss of control is a very real problem (at least for now), so it's really not going to be well received to have banlines pop up in response to crossing region borders, especially if viewers start showing pre-banlined parcels in neighboring regions. I am not understanding the awkwardness. I can only see benefits to knowing where the banlines are before you enter the region so you can take steps to avoid them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Aethelwine said: I am not understanding the awkwardness. I can only see benefits to knowing where the banlines are before you enter the region so you can take steps to avoid them. Yes, sorry I wasn't more clear. The "awkwardness" is for a system such as discussed here that only applies the banlines after the region crossing, when other banlines are revealed in advance of entering, as you say, "so you can take steps to avoid them." Just to add yet another twist: This won't matter so much if the other proposal is implemented at the same time, to automatically highlight any parcels that use the scripted access functions. Presumably any parcel using the system in this thread would be highlighted by that logic, independent of actual bans being in place when approaching from adjacent regions. Edited January 24 by Qie Niangao (which system is "this system") 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) Theresa Tennyson muses, "Maybe someday someone will make an orb that will keep people from living rent-free in our heads." Edited January 24 by Theresa Tennyson Typo; forgot reading glasses and am using magnifying glass like giant monocle. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: Theresa Tennyson muses, "Maybe someday somoeone will make an orb that will keep people from living rent-free in our heads." An orb-shaped tinfoil hat should do the trick. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 51 minutes ago, Aethelwine said: That is untrue. How lucky that the thread was 9 hours ago, Aethelwine said: one that was deleted because it turned into the usual over-entitled privacy hater train-wreck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 The whole issue seems to stem from the fact that unchecking 'Anyone can visit' only sets banlines up to 50 meters, but mainlanders also want to keep people out of their skyboxes. What if that setting also made banlines above idk 2,000 meters, so that mainlanders can have privacy in their skybox without needing to add everyone to their banlist that entered the region. Seems like it would be a win for both mainland residents and explorers alike. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I decided to go ahead and make a feature request to that effect:- https://feedback.secondlife.com/feature-requests/p/skybox-banline-option-for-mainland-2000m Feel free to vote on it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said: The whole issue seems to stem from the fact that unchecking 'Anyone can visit' only sets banlines up to 50 meters, but mainlanders also want to keep people out of their skyboxes. What if that setting also made banlines above idk 2,000 meters, so that mainlanders can have privacy in their skybox without needing to add everyone to their banlist that entered the region. Seems like it would be a win for both mainland residents and explorers alike. No experience with Orbs as I have never used one but can they not be set to secure a height range of say 2000-2200? Seems to me such would be ideal for those wishing to block people flying into their skybox without hindering through access at other heights. Added-Ok see that was what Extrude is proposing. Would either setting be viable whether scripted or land setting? Edited January 24 by Arielle Popstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said: The whole issue seems to stem from the fact that unchecking 'Anyone can visit' only sets banlines up to 50 meters, but mainlanders also want to keep people out of their skyboxes. What if that setting also made banlines above idk 2,000 meters, so that mainlanders can have privacy in their skybox without needing to add everyone to their banlist that entered the region. Seems like it would be a win for both mainland residents and explorers alike. But that won't defend people's Precious Air... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moles Abnor Mole Posted January 24 Moles Share Posted January 24 11 hours ago, Aethelwine said: I agree with all that what I would add though is that the best tip for anyone vehicle travelling, or indeed walking is to use the mini-map and turn the view of property lines on. Without it, it isn't possible to navigate rivers safely and it makes finding rezz zones much easier.. The Linden Viewer didn't use to have that function, why I haven't used it in years. (I don't know if it does or doesn't now.) Yes. It does. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 55 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: No experience with Orbs as I have never used one but can they not be set to secure a height range of say 2000-2200? Seems to me such would be ideal for those wishing to block people flying into their skybox without hindering through access at other heights. So now you are claiming your anti-privacy griefer's NON-right to tell parcel owners that they can only have a skybox on land they pay for at 2100 m because the rest of their parcel belongs to YOU? And you people wonder why the automatic response to ALL of your BS claims and BS demands is guaranteed to be "Oh Hell NO! Get off my property!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said: No experience with Orbs as I have never used one but can they not be set to secure a height range of say 2000-2200? Seems to me such would be ideal for those wishing to block people flying into their skybox without hindering through access at other heights. Added-Ok see that was what Extrude is proposing. Would either setting be viable whether scripted or land setting? You can set them to scan the exact size of your skybox if you're simply trying to keep people out of it. With some people, that's not what they're trying to do. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: So now you are claiming your anti-privacy griefer's NON-right to tell parcel owners that they can only have a skybox on land they pay for at 2100 m because the rest of their parcel belongs to YOU? And you people wonder why the automatic response to ALL of your BS claims and BS demands is guaranteed to be "Oh Hell NO! Get off my property!". No, again you are misunderstanding (probably intentionally) that the specific range could be modified. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 2 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said: What if that setting also made banlines above idk 2,000 meters, so that mainlanders can have privacy in their skybox without needing to add everyone to their banlist that entered the region 5000m, that's the official "named ban" overflight height. 2 hours ago, Extrude Ragu said: Seems like it would be a win for both mainland residents and explorers alike. So you define "losing half your property to rabid over-entitled privacy hating griefers as a "win" for parcel owners? No. Unwanted, unneeded, uninvited, unauthorised, and frankly unwelcome anti-privacy griefers on our property below 5000m is not a win. Edited January 24 by Zalificent Corvinus 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: No, again you are misunderstanding (probably intentionally) that the specific range could be modified. No I don't misunderstand you at all, you want home owners too limit their defences to allow anti-privacy griefer to trespass with impunity, the answer is NO. This thread is about the idea of PRE-EMPTIVLY banning potential anti-privacy griefers to keep them out in the height range of zero to 5000m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: No I don't misunderstand you at all, you want home owners too limit their defences to allow anti-privacy griefer to trespass with impunity, the answer is NO. This thread is about the idea of PRE-EMPTIVLY banning potential anti-privacy griefers to keep them out in the height range of zero to 5000m. No this thread is about reaching a compromise in a social virtual world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moles Abnor Mole Posted January 24 Moles Share Posted January 24 I think there is a lot of hyperbole going on and painting with a broad brush making the distinction between those with reasonable expectations and those with unreasonable ones difficult. Terms such as anti-privacy griefer, privacy haters, or privacy zealots don't help matters. Very few people actually want to invade anyone's privacy and bristle at the accusation that they do. Consider also the possibility that extreme reactions tends to elicit responses. I don't personally know many people who have problems with greifers but the ones who do I notice tend to do things that actually attract them. Specifically, people who grief want to provoke a response and live rent free not on your land, but it your head. If you give them that they will keep coming back. Is it a possibility that your problem isn't from travelers but instead with a handful of actual griefers targeting you because they know they have gotten under your skin? 3 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: No, it isn't, go back and read the OP again. It is SPECIFIICALLY about a new type of security device that PRE-EMPTIVELY bans all POTENTIAL over-entitled anti-privacy griefers BEFORE they commit criminal trespass, instead of RE-ACTIVELY banning them AFTER they commit criminal trespass. Which you should have been happy with but apparently not as you prefer to force tp home option which is abusive and quite a degree more severe then the incursion on your parcel. Quote And for the record "let's take away the parcel owners rights to privacy on land they pay for and allow unrestricted access for all anti-privacy griefers" is NOT and never has been ANY kind of "compromise". It's a choice and choice is good. If you choose not to exercise it then it is on your own head. Quote Nor is claiming home owners are to blame for being griefed because they didn't abandon their land and leave for somewhere else You have done both of these things. There is no compromise there, just you and those like you making endless demands for things you have NO RIGHT to. At the end of the day we are all responsible for our choices and the ramifications that result from them. As I hinted at previously and now Abnor has pointed out more clearly, your issues with griefers is as a result of the choices you made. That's pretty clear to all except yourself. Edited January 24 by Arielle Popstar cleanup 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extrude Ragu Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Just going to do myself a favor and step right over all the silly nonsense but just make clear for anyone that might be confused that I was suggesting we added an additional privacy option for mainland residents and give them more control, not to take away any existing functionality. Hope that's clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said: step right over all the silly nonsense Don't step in it, you'll ruin your shoes! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 37 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: I originally put up ban lines around my parcel because the Official LL Behind closed Doors policy requires me to do so, I was then accused personally, and impersonally as part of a subset of the SL population of being : paranoid fools inconsiderate sh*ts imbeciles buckshot-wielding porch sitters morons griefers The very nerve! You are in a category all unto yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 Orbs in general, including my system would be completely unnecessary if general banlines were capable of going up as high as orbs can detect and ban. If that could be configurable as a range for the land owner, that would actually be perfect and another example of everybody wins because those who want an even less severe option could have it. Sadly, I don't think LL will do that, I would love to be wrong and happily retire this option if we had that. =================================================== Now about the topic I started: This topic is about compromise but not in the way that some are thinking. If you want people to choose an option that is less severe for others, you have to offer something that is better for them as well. What I see a lot of in this thread are sentiments that only one side in all this should have to make the all the compromises which leaves them with less. The compromise I started the topic for is not for anyone to have to lose anything but both parties to gain something. Any discussion of people having to cave in to having have people fly over their land is off-topic as far as I'm concerned. So I would ask that people stay on topic which to reiterate yet again is to give back some visual clues, no matter how imperfect, to travelers about the boundaries without taking away the access control that some land owners wish to have. This topic is not about people having to make flyovers possible. Again, please, everyone, keep to the topic I started and don't use this as a platform to try to strong-arm/shame others from the their choices. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: Again, please, everyone, keep to the topic I started and don't use this as a platform to try to strong-arm/shame others from the their choices Good luck! Experience says, it's hard to keep things on topic. (Heck, you already had a Mole step in kinda, at least to comment.) Give people a place to complain and argue about a topic they feel passionate about, and it's hard to stop them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now