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

[Arielle Popstar]

7 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Then this new system is the perfect thing.  It doesn't bounce you home or anywhere.  It just bounces you off.  Is.that griefing?

No, I don't see it as ideal and wonder about how the Lab really feels about extending ban lines above 60 meters but as the thread title says, it is a choice to allow a less nuclear option for those who feel a 0 second orb is the only way to prevent trespass.

[diamond Marchant]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This is an issue to take up with LL as it's an issue with their banline system and not the system I have developed.

 

14 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Then this new system is the perfect thing.  It doesn't bounce you home or anywhere.  It just bounces you off.  Is.that griefing?

As creators, we must strive to create products for the virtual world as it exists.

Here is a worst case scenario. On protected waters (I am thinking of Sansara), consider a protected water channel that borders on a private parcel which visually appears to be part of the channel . If the parcel uses any type of orb, an avatar sitting in a water vehicle has chance or passing thru due to the delay (even with 0 sec orbs). If an "exclude all" banline is used, the avatar has a small chance of seeing the banline and avoiding it.

If the "ban by name" banline is used, the avatar has no chance of detecting or passing thru, the avatar will be unseated and the vehicle is typically immediately auto-returned. As a sailor, this is worse case. This case is slightly worse than the "exclude all" banline because the probability of seeing the banline is zero.

The name I use for such situations is "booby trap", as the sailor has no clue about the bad thing that is about to happen.

Note that the sailor is not a griefer or intending to invade anyone's privacy.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

48 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well I think that they are permitted is questionable considering the Lindens do not allow them in Belliserea? and as such they at best are tolerated on the Mainland under some unstated justification or maybe them just waiting to hear enough complaints about them to finally ban their use on the mainland too.

This is speculative to the point of being a form of special pleading. They are not permitted in Belli because, as LL made clear at the time, they are trying to nurture a particular kind of community there; what's more, they are lavishing attention on the enforcement of the rules there that they demonstratively are not devoting to the rest of Mainland. There are zero indications they plan to apply this limitation elsewhere, and it would likely be unenforceable if they did.

"Maybe they are going to change the rules" isn't a justification for acting as though they have.

48 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

And that goes for both parties. You say you are a landowner, do you see the degree of harassment Zalificent says she does?

I have seen a great deal of consistent, ongoing, and targeted harassment -- some of which I have documented here, in these forums.

But there's a vital difference between Zalificent's case and my own. Hers is a private parcel, while mine is, by design, a public one. That's not merely me being "generous": the entire point of the parcel is that it is public. It's not my personal "home": it's the home of two groups I run.

I do have a ban list populated entirely by griefers, but a security orb, including even the one that Gabriele is so graciously offering for free, is entirely redundant and pointless in my case.

Edited January 24 by Scylla Rhiadra
Missing word

[Arielle Popstar]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have seen a great deal of consistent, ongoing, and targeted harassment -- some of which I have documented here, in these forums.

But there's a vital difference between Zalificent's case and my own. Hers is a private parcel, while mine is, by design, a public one. That's not merely me being "generous": the entire point of the parcel is that it is public. It's not my personal "home": it's the home of two groups I run.

I do have a ban list populated entirely by griefers, but a security orb, including even the one that Gabriele is so graciously offering for free, is entirely redundant and pointless in my case.

Do you think you would get even more consistent and targeted harassment if you used a 0 sec orb for security, yes or no?

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

 

As creators, we must strive to create products for the virtual world as it exists.

Here is a worst case scenario. On protected waters (I am thinking of Sansara), consider a protected water channel that borders on a private parcel which visually appears to be part of the channel . If the parcel uses any type of orb, an avatar sitting in a water vehicle has chance or passing thru due to the delay (even with 0 sec orbs). If an "exclude all" banline is used, the avatar has a small chance of seeing the banline and avoiding it.

If the "ban by name" banline is used, the avatar has no chance of detecting or passing thru, the avatar will be unseated and the vehicle is typically immediately auto-returned. As a sailor, this is worse case. This case is slightly worse than the "exclude all" banline because the probability of seeing the banline is zero.

The name I use for such situations is "booby trap", as the sailor has no clue about the bad thing that is about to happen.

Note that the sailor is not a griefer or intending to invade anyone's privacy.

Ban lines aren't that bad if the vehicle is also excluded - that situation's usually recoverable. The problem is when the avatar is excluded and the vehicle isn't. Then you either get the autoreturn or the unguided ghost vehicle continues until it hits something that stops it, sometimes several regions away. I think it also involves whether the root prim of the vehicle crosses the ban line before the avatar does

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Do you think you would get even more consistent and targeted harassment if you used a 0 sec orb for security, yes or no?

No, I don't. The harassment I have received is ideologically motivated; merely adding an orb wouldn't change their incentive to harass me.*

And as for others, I think they'd simply ignore the parcel, as it would in effect no longer be public.

 

* I should note that, since a Linden directly intervened to end the last griefing at my parcel some months ago, the griefing has stopped -- hopefully permanently. The griefer accounts still exist, but my guess is that they were issued a warning, on the strength of their long-term pattern of griefing me, that was sufficiently severe to end their attacks on me, anyway. At least, I hope so.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

53 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

their LL mandated property rights ie 60 meters

LL actually suggest security orbs as one of the "reasonable measures" in the Behind Closed Doors policy, which means they "mandate" that property rights go up a damn sight higher than 60 m.

How far ?

5000m, as that is the Official LL Mandated Overflight height for parcel banned people.

 

44 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

do you see the degree of harassment Zalificent says she does

I get very little in-world harassment these days.

Because my orb punted and perma-banned about HALF the hardcore trespassers, and the survivors have gone elsewhere.

Punt kicking them home, perma-banning them, Abuse Reporting them for ToS violating harassment if they return and spam my IM box with bile, followed by muting and derendering has PROVED it's self effective as a deterrent.

 

[Gabriele Graves]

55 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I re-read the OP recently, and it is actually difficult to tell from the OP if any discussion is desired at all, or this thread was really just intended to offer the free product.

Sorry @Gabriele Graves, that's how it appeared to me when I tried a "close reading".

But then again, I can be pretty darn dense.

 

Discussion about the system and possible improvements where it's feasible, yes.
Even discussion about potential pitfalls.

Not discussion about whether banlines or orbs themselves are inherently good or bad.
Also not a discussion about shaming/blaming land owners for the access choices they want or trying to get people to change their choices.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Not discussion about whether banlines or orbs themselves are inherently good or bad.
Also not a discussion about shaming/blaming land owners for the access choices they want or trying to get people to change their choices.

Or, possibly, about the nature and/or function of "griefing." 

I am in sympathy with your desire to keep this thread from collapsing into one of the flame-wars that threads about orbs so frequently become, but unfortunately the topic of griefing was introduced in a way that made it hard to ignore, or leave unanswered. However, at this point, and assuming there are no further important additions to that topic, I've said my piece.

I WILL say that this seems a really interesting and innovative experiment. It's of no use to me, but, whatever its possible shortcomings, it does seem to me a worthwhile addition to the security toolbox, and definitely an improvement over unforgiving 0 second orbs. It'll be interesting to see if it gets much take-up!

Edited January 24 by Scylla Rhiadra
Grammar. Grrr!

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

As creators, we must strive to create products for the virtual world as it exists.

Yes, as accomplished.  The system works solely within the banline system as created by LL themselves.

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

Here is a worst case scenario. On protected waters (I am thinking of Sansara), consider a protected water channel that borders on a private parcel which visually appears to be part of the channel . If the parcel uses any type of orb, an avatar sitting in a water vehicle has chance or passing thru due to the delay (even with 0 sec orbs).

This is extremely doubtful as most people with zero-second orbs are checking every second.

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

If the "ban by name" banline is used, the avatar has no chance of detecting or passing thru, the avatar will be unseated and the vehicle is typically immediately auto-returned. As a sailor, this is worse case. This case is slightly worse than the "exclude all" banline because the probability of seeing the banline is zero.

Simply not true.  The avatar enters the region on the waterway.  All parcels using the system put up their banlines and said avatar will see those banlines as they get close.  Whether or not they are unseated/vehicle auto-returned is dependent on a completely different setting "object entry".  This is the case for any banline use.

You are no worse off in a boat than with anyone putting up general banlines from the about land dialog.

Stop spreading misinformation.
 

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

The name I use for such situations is "booby trap", as the sailor has no clue about the bad thing that is about to happen.

Note that the sailor is not a griefer or intending to invade anyone's privacy.

They are no more a booby trap than another other banline use despite your inflammatory use of language.

Edited January 24 by Gabriele Graves
corrected language use

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Or, possibly, about the nature and/or function of "griefing." 

I am in sympathy with your desire to keep this thread from collapsing into one of the flame-wars that threads about orbs so frequently become, but unfortunately the topic of griefing was introduced in a way that made it hard to ignore, or leave unanswered. However, at this point, and assuming there are no further important additions to that topic, I've said my piece.

I WILL say that this seems a really interesting and innovative experiment. It's of no use to me, but, whatever it's possible shortcomings, it does seem to me a worthwhile addition to the security toolbox, and definitely an improvement over unforgiving 0 second orbs. It'll be interesting to see if it gets much take-up!

Thank you Scylla, the context of your responses was perfectly reasonable.  Generally though to all posters, discussion of griefing is definitely off topic as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the encouragement about my system.  There has been precious little of it, some but far more complaints than even the constructive criticism I had hoped for.

[elleevelyn]

about detecting agents on the neighbouring region before they cross onto the device parcel

llSensorRepeat can do this

maybe the device could rez a sensor_repeat object which on sensor detection sends a message to the device to include the detected agent on the next region

it could be designed so that the sensor will only activate when is positioned within say ?4? meters of the region boundary

this said, sensors can be a bit unreliable sometimes, and only have a range of 96 meters. But still being able to pre-warn away agents most/some of the times, who are moving about near ground level is a friendly thing to do. For agents moving about at 3000 meters exploring skyboxes then I be less inclined to worry about them when they cross from the neighbour region

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Thanks for the encouragement about my system.  There has been precious little of it, some but far more complaints than even the constructive criticism I had hoped for.

Yeah, well... I did warn that this would happen.

On 1/21/2024 at 10:34 AM, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Oddly enough, I was actually considering modifying a copy of my customised orb script to pre-emptively ban anyone entering the region who was OUTSIDE my parcel, since I don't want it banning my invited guests, and I was thinking of a 24 or 48 hour temporary ban. I put the project on hold, since on reflection I decided it wouldn't really stop the constant over-entitled whining about the exitance of private property.

 

I'd still suggest only banning people who are OUTSIDE the defended parcel, and leave interior defence to LL standard ban-lines/group access/white list access and conventional orbs.

Makes it easier to allow one-time visitor for example, you drop the standard ban-lines, let the visitor teleport in, the pre-emptive orb ignores them, as they are inside the parcel at your invitation.

That wy you dont have to add one-time visitors to land groups or access lists, just because you agreed to take a profile picture for them, or help them with their avatar or whatever.

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

23 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Thanks for the encouragement about my system.  There has been precious little of it, some but far more complaints than even the constructive criticism I had hoped for.

Well, I think I'd argue that your ability to respond effectively to those complaints has done a great deal to underline the validity of your approach to the problem. You've provided what is admittedly an imperfect solution to a probably intractable problem, but one that IS (I think) an improvement over existing tools, and that has been demonstrated by the failure of anyone to really undercut this idea. 

I think we really need to stop letting the Perfect be an enemy of the Good.

Interestingly, re. Zalificent's post above, most of the objections I've seen here (I've not done a thorough survey, though) seem to come from those who are on the anti-orb side of the issue, which seems to me ironic as this system is designed primarily to respond to their objections. (It's hard to see what those who now use 0 second orbs "gain" from it.)

It's a bit as though the very word "orb" is just a red flag for some, and that nothing short of the utter abolishing of any form of parcel privacy would be sufficient. And that makes me a bit uncomfortable, because I do have a lot of sympathy for vehicle users who have problems with orbs.

Or maybe I overstate the case.

Edited January 24 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Gabriele Graves]

12 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Yeah, well... I did warn that this would happen.

 

I'd still suggest only banning people who are OUTSIDE the defended parcel, and leave interior defence to LL standard ban-lines/group access/white list access and conventional orbs.

Makes it easier to allow one-time visitor for example, you drop the standard ban-lines, let the visitor teleport in, the pre-emptive orb ignores them, as they are inside the parcel at your invitation.

That wy you dont have to add one-time visitors to land groups or access lists, just because you agreed to take a profile picture for them, or help them with their avatar or whatever.

 

I will consider adding this feature.  This is a very useful observation.  Thank you.

[Rowan Amore]

For now, I'll be sticking with my 30 second orb even though it's very disconcerting when I get an email that someone entered my parcel.and hung around for 30 seconds even with the warning.  I know no one can steal anything or whatnot but if you've ever been a victim of a home robbery, you'll know that's not the point.  It's still seen as an invasion of my private area.  So, I do hope all you travellers understand how your random exploring might impact others well being.  Intentionally or not.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, I think I'd argue that your ability to respond effectively to those complaints has done a great deal to underline the validity of your approach to the problem. You've provided what is admittedly an imperfect solution to a probably intractable problem, but one that IS (I think) an improvement over existing tools, and that has been demonstrated by the failure of anyone to really undercut this idea. 

I think we really need to stop letting the Perfect be an enemy of the Good.

Interestingly, re. Zalificent's post above, most of the objections I've seen here (I've not done a thorough survey, though) seem to come from those who are on the anti-orb side of the issue, which seems to me ironic as this system is designed primarily to respond to their objections. (It's hard to see what those who now use 0 second orbs "gain" from it.)

It's a bit as though the very word "orb" is just a red flag for some, and that nothing short of the utter abolishing of any form of parcel privacy would be sufficient. And that makes me a bit uncomfortable, because I do have a lot of sympathy for vehicle users who have problems with orbs.

Or maybe I overstate the case.

^^^ This.

16 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Yeah, well... I did warn that this would happen.

Yes and I was fully prepared before going in to this what would happen.  Sometimes you just have to do it anyway.

Still, I am dismayed at some of the true to form responses and those where it is clear they didn't read everything before commenting.

[Gabriele Graves]

2 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Now that you ask, I wonder: If an avatar crosses into a region at a parcel with the autoban system, the banline will pop up and the avatar will suddenly be on a prohibited parcel. If the banline is added manually, they get 15 seconds to scram after which it's the same as llEjectFromLand, but I haven't tested what happens with llAddToLandBanList as in this system.

I have tested what happens when an avatar is on the land when the scripted ban happens though not directly after a region crossing.  The avatar is moved to any adjacent parcel that they have access to.  I cannot test a region crossing in conjunction with this as I don't have any land bordering one.

[Love Zhaoying]

We need to bring back "orbiting". 
The higher the orbit, the better the view. "Orbs" are misleadingly named. "Bans" and "Ban lines" are passé.

Put the "orbit" back into "orbs"!

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

We need to bring back "orbiting". 
The higher the orbit, the better the view. "Orbs" are misleadingly named. "Bans" and "Ban lines" are passé.

Put the "orbit" back into "orbs"!

 

Since that post isn't funny, and you didn't add "is joke" at the end to tell us it's a failed attempt at humour, should we assume you are openly advocating illegal griefer weapons?

Asking for a friend.

[diamond Marchant]

The OP claims that this new autoban system is "stepping back" from the "nuclear option", referring to orbs that send you home.

I am simply pointing out that this is NOT the case. This system is no better than orbs and may be worse because it cannot be tailored to altitude.

The primary reason it is NOT better than orbs is the FACT that the banlines are NOT visible until you hit them. Passing the buck to LL does not resolve this issue.

The term "booby trap" applies to the manner in which the device is deployed, not to the device itself. In my example of a protected channel next to a private parcel, if the parcel is visually distinguished with buoys or similar objects that suggest "do not enter", it would not be a booby trap.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, diamond Marchant said:

The OP claims that this new autoban system is "stepping back" from the "nuclear option", referring to orbs that send you home.

I am simply pointing out that this is NOT the case. This system is no better than orbs and may be worse because it cannot be tailored to altitude.

The primary reason it is NOT better than orbs is the FACT that the banlines are NOT visible until you hit them. Passing the buck to LL does not resolve this issue.

The term "booby trap" applies to the manner in which the device is deployed, not to the device itself. In my example of a protected channel next to a private parcel, if the parcel is visually distinguished with buoys or similar objects that suggest "do not enter", it would not be a booby trap.

Stop making these false claims.

I can stand at least a little distance back from banlines and see them perfectly without hitting them.  I can even see them when traveling towards them if my velocity is low enough.

People with zero-second orbs who are stopping all public access are not tailoring them to altitude.  That is who my system is aimed at and I have been very clear about that.

Nobody should be deploying this system if they want any kind of public access.  I have been very clear about that as well.

I don't know what your agenda is but it's clear you have one and it isn't about trying to help anyone.

 

Edited January 25 by Gabriele Graves
word correction.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Stop making these false claims.

I can stand at least a little distance back from banlines and see the perfectly without hitting them.  I can even see them when traveling towards them if my velocity is low enough.

People with zero-second orbs who are stopping all public access are not tailoring them to altitude.  That is who my system is aimed at and I have been very clear about that.

Nobody should be deploying this system if they want any kind of public access.  I have been very clear about that as well.

I don't know what your agenda is but it's clear you have one and it isn't about trying to help anyone.

 

People just love to argue and push buttons, especially on a divisive topic.

[Love Zhaoying]

On 1/23/2024 at 6:20 AM, Gabriele Graves said:

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.

I guess we have no "toast" options on the official viewer.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

26 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said:

The OP claims that this new autoban system is "stepping back" from the "nuclear option", referring to orbs that send you home.

I am simply pointing out that this is NOT the case. This system is no better than orbs and may be worse because it cannot be tailored to altitude.

The primary reason it is NOT better than orbs is the FACT that the banlines are NOT visible until you hit them. Passing the buck to LL does not resolve this issue.

The term "booby trap" applies to the manner in which the device is deployed, not to the device itself. In my example of a protected channel next to a private parcel, if the parcel is visually distinguished with buoys or similar objects that suggest "do not enter", it would not be a booby trap.

Possibly I'm missing something, but you seem to be faulting this system because it doesn't do something that it was never designed to do in the first place. It's like faulting a can opener because it does a terrible job as a food processor.

This orb is, as Gabriele has made clear on numerous occasions now, designed as a "kinder, gentler" option for people who don't want to provide access to their parcels at any altitude or for any amount of time. They don't want to "tailor" accessibility at different altitudes.

Now, we can have a discussion about whether that kind of attitude is valid or not -- and god knows we have here, on many occasions. But it would be irrelevant to a discussion of this particular orb, because that's not what it's about: it's concern is with making it less likely that one will run into a 0 second orb, and that the consequences if one does are less severe.

How is that not a good thing?