Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 If I understand correctly, the "kinder, gentler" part is merely that the orb does not teleport someone home. So in my opinion, whether that is "kinder, gentler" or not is purely subjective. Calling another option "nuclear" is one of those examples of "hyperbole"! Irony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luna Bliss Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Calling another option "nuclear" is one of those examples of "hyperbole"! I agree. I would just call it "an unexpected home visit". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: If I understand correctly, the "kinder, gentler" part is merely that the orb does not teleport someone home. So in my opinion, whether that is "kinder, gentler" or not is purely subjective. Incorrect. Using the banlines also bring in a visual aspect and a hard blocking aspect as well. You could argue that everything is subjective if you want. Edited January 25 by Gabriele Graves 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Calling another option "nuclear" is one of those examples of "hyperbole"! Irony! Of course it was hyperbole but not mine. I merely borrowed this from one of the many arguments on the subject of orbs and thought a) it would resonate with anti-orb people and b) be tongue in cheek. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 Is this what the topic has now become? Nit-picking at the edges at anything? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said: Is this what the topic has now become? Nit-picking at the edges at anything? That and giving me a couple more names for my list which IS a good thing. 😁 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: That and giving me a couple more names for my list which IS a good thing. 😁 I find it ironic that the behaviours in this topic are only making me more sympathetic with people who close their lands. At least they are honest about their motives. 2 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 10 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: I find it ironic that the behaviours in this topic are only making me more sympathetic with people who close their lands. At least they are honest about their motives. That's what happens with contentious topics! And, I'm sure you had the very best of intentions. Please don't let it get you down. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 27 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: That's what happens with contentious topics! And, I'm sure you had the very best of intentions. Please don't let it get you down. On the contrary, I'm pretty upbeat that so far nothing has been revealed that shows this to be worse than the alternative. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Istelathis Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: I find it ironic that the behaviours in this topic are only making me more sympathetic with people who close their lands. At least they are honest about their motives. I think most of us explorers and wanderers are in SL wandering around 🙃 I don't think most people wandering around have ill intentions of griefing people, at least I hope they don't, their intention is probably just wandering around which may be difficult for others to understand, it probably sounds incredibly boring and pointless, but it is what it is. I mean, I spent two hours yesterday just wandering around on a bike, riding to my destination with no real route laid out, I doubt most people would enjoy doing that and prefer to TP. Anyway, I like your idea and prefer it to security orbs. Edited January 25 by Istelathis 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 15 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: 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. I have a bunch of those, so I tested one in Bay City (not a great choice in retrospect) and the results were unexpected. The scripted ban did not give the 15 second grace period of a manual ban, but also it kicked the avatar back across the sim border (maybe luck of the draw?) but somehow he registered as being on a neighboring parcel of the banning region based on where he appeared to be standing and what showed in his viewer's address field. Anyway, he got very wedged, unable to move but still connected to the session. The server, however, had him back in the sim whence he originally crossed, based on the fact that only that region let him sit on a sit target and escape the wedge. During this, he got several messages in rapid succession: Quote [15:02] Second Life: You have been banned indefinitely [15:02] Second Life: The region you have entered is running a different simulator version. Current simulator: Second Life Server 2023-11-07.6790647783 Previous simulator: Second Life RC Magnum 2024-01-19.7590161929 [15:02] Second Life: You have been removed from this land's ban list. (The Second Life "Server" version is the banning region, the "Magnum" is the region he walked in from and got punted back to.) This is just one test and may be a one-in-a-million event. It'll be a while before I get in-world to test again myself, so I don't want to counsel panic based on this one result. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Istelathis said: I think most of us explorers and wanderers are in SL wandering around 🙃 I don't think most people wandering around have ill intentions of griefing people, at least I hope they don't, their intention is probably just wandering around which may be difficult for others to understand, it probably sounds incredibly boring and pointless, but it is what it is. I mean, I spent two hours yesterday just wandering around on a bike, riding to my destination with no real route laid out, I doubt most people would enjoy doing that and prefer to TP. Yeah. Wanderers and/or vehicle users are not typically "griefers." Griefers don't waste time riding their motorcycle to a place they want to strike: they TP there quickly, do their business, and as often as not get out quickly again. The problems are caused, I think, by explorers or wanderers who are not sufficiently sensitive to the privacy of others. I have run across a few of those, but they're a different problem than griefers. I think most ordinary people who cross into a parcel protected by an orb, and given a 5 or 10 second time limit to remove themselves will do so, often hurriedly. To some degree, it may be that an affordance -- orbs and/or ban lines -- designed to protect one against griefers is impacting in unintended ways upon those who are simply exploring. But, as I say, I do get that some who explore are not sufficiently respectful of boundaries. Edited January 25 by Scylla Rhiadra Typo 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Istelathis said: I think most of us explorers and wanderers are in SL wandering around 🙃 I don't think most people wandering around have ill intentions of griefing people, at least I hope they don't, their intention is probably just wandering around which may be difficult for others to understand, it probably sounds incredibly boring and pointless, but it is what it is. I mean, I spent two hours yesterday just wandering around on a bike, riding to my destination with no real route laid out, I doubt most people would enjoy doing that and prefer to TP. Anyway, I like your idea and prefer it to security orbs. I too am an SL explorer and wanderer and have spent many years traveling around mainland in one form or another. So I absolutely understand and agree that the vast majority of people wandering around don't have any intentions of griefing people. Griefing was the furthest thing from my mind when I was making this. Unfortunately Zalificent and others do have a point in that there are some people with very entitled attitudes both wandering around inworld and here in the forums. These people are like really bad PR for all us, they make the most noise and therefore end up being taken as representative of all travelers and wanderers. So the rest of us end up being tarred by that brush. The phrase: "This is why we can't have nice things" springs to mind. Thank you for your positive vibes about the system, I'm glad you like it 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 15 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: On the contrary, I'm pretty upbeat that so far nothing has been revealed that shows this to be worse than the alternative. You should be. The negative responses here are relatively few, and likely not representative. I am only a part-time vehicle user and explorer, but I do it often enough that I know what a pain it is to inadvertently (often because I'm a crappy driver) leave the road and cross over an orb-protected boundary. I'd be personally very grateful if the result was getting "bounced" back rather than TPed home. The latter is a terrible pain, because it's usually difficult or impossible to get back to where you were. Anyway, feel good about this. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 6 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: I have a bunch of those, so I tested one in Bay City (not a great choice in retrospect) and the results were unexpected. The scripted ban did not give the 15 second grace period of a manual ban. I noticed that 15 seconds grace period doesn't work from a scripted ban when on the land even when not part of a region crossing. It didn't trouble me much because most people are going to manually eject as well once they realise that the grace period exists after they manually add someone to the ban list. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 14 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: I have a bunch of those, so I tested one in Bay City (not a great choice in retrospect) and the results were unexpected. The scripted ban did not give the 15 second grace period of a manual ban, but also it kicked the avatar back across the sim border (maybe luck of the draw?) but somehow he registered as being on a neighboring parcel of the banning region based on where he appeared to be standing and what showed in his viewer's address field. Anyway, he got very wedged, unable to move but still connected to the session. The server, however, had him back in the sim whence he originally crossed, based on the fact that only that region let him sit on a sit target and escape the wedge. During this, he got several messages in rapid succession: (The Second Life "Server" version is the banning region, the "Magnum" is the region he walked in from and got punted back to.) This is just one test and may be a one-in-a-million event. It'll be a while before I get in-world to test again myself, so I don't want to counsel panic based on this one result. Finally, a trap worthy of the "Saw" franchise! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 (edited) The litmus test here for any issues should be: Quote It is worse than inadvertently and without warning ending up on a parcel with a zero-second orb covering the whole parcel with a blanket TP home? If not, well I can live with that unless there is a reasonably feasible mitigation that can be made. Edited January 25 by Gabriele Graves 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond Marchant Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 2 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said: Stop making these false claims. 2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: 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. My primary claim is that banlines are visible only at short range and are very hard to avoid. So far as moving vehicles are concerned, this seems to be a very TRUE statement. @Abnor Mole's first post in this thread tends to agree. I understand that this system is intended to be a total lockdown of a parcel and is designed to prevent any public entry. It succeeds very well in this objective. Kudos. If I wanted to avoid all camming into my parcel, I would use this because it works. However, the title of this thread suggests that it is "hopefully stepping back from the nuclear option" and this is supported by a claim that a banline approach is good alternative to orbs because banlines are visible. There is an implication that this system is "traveler friendly" when it is not (hitting a banline may have different outcomes but all are bad). So my issue really concerns the marketing of the product rather than the product features. Because it is free, very easy to deploy (no setup other than rezzing, deeding, and switching on) and works, it may get used by some who don't understand or care that it has a specific goal of totally excluding public access at all altitudes and that there may be consequences for others. If it were my product, when the object is rezzed and again when switched on, I would display in local chat a notice that addresses these issues (like a warning label). My experience is that notecards don't usually get read. Privacy is good and for some, this may be the way to go (and for hopefully for most, only when entertaining). Edited January 25 by diamond Marchant 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 15 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said: Unfortunately Zalificent and others do have a point in that there are some people with very entitled attitudes both wandering around inworld and here in the forums. These people are like really bad PR for all us, they make the most noise and therefore end up being taken as representative of all travelers and wanderers. So the rest of us end up being tarred by that brush. The phrase: "This is why we can't have nice things" springs to mind. Thank you for your positive vibes about the system, I'm glad you like it But as Zalificent pointed out it is something like 30 out of 50k concurrent or 800k monthly users. The downside I see to your banning thing is that though it is a great alternative for those who ban and kick to home, my fear would be that those who presently only use the banlines to secure their parcel and which flying travellers can fly over after being bumped up to 60 meters, will now have a total block from traversing their land, thereby requiring the traveller to purposely go left or right to get around the ban lines. Only relevant for fliers but still a possibility that more parcels will be blocking travel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 8 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said: it may get used by some who don't understand or care that it has a specific goal of totally excluding public access at all altitudes and that there may be consequences for others. *** THIS SYSTEM IS NOT SUITABLE FOR USE IF YOU INTEND TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ON YOUR MAINLAND *** Unlike other security systems, the Graven Hearts Mainland AutoBan System is designed to keep your land completely inaccessible from others using banlines alone. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diamond Marchant Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Unlike other security systems, the Graven Hearts Mainland AutoBan System is designed to keep your land completely inaccessible from others using banlines alone. 13 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said: I understand that this system is intended to be a total lockdown of a parcel and is designed to prevent any public entry. It succeeds very well in this objective. Kudos. uh... got that 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, diamond Marchant said: uh... got that So, what's the problem? She states it in the MP listing. She needs to.follow up for.people unable to read? I'm assuming it's in the notecard as well. If someone isn't going to read either of those, chances are they'll ignore any chat warning, too. Honestly, I'm seriously thinking of setting my orb back.to zero at this.point. Kudos! 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 (edited) @diamond MarchantI'm going to assume malfeasance from you at this point. Abnor also didn't read everything from the beginning and/or misunderstood and then admitted as much in a later post here: I have never pushed this as a general purpose solution for anyone. Edited January 25 by Gabriele Graves 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gabriele Graves Posted January 25 Author Share Posted January 25 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: But as Zalificent pointed out it is something like 30 out of 50k concurrent or 800k monthly users. The downside I see to your banning thing is that though it is a great alternative for those who ban and kick to home, my fear would be that those who presently only use the banlines to secure their parcel and which flying travellers can fly over after being bumped up to 60 meters, will now have a total block from traversing their land, thereby requiring the traveller to purposely go left or right to get around the ban lines. Only relevant for fliers but still a possibility that more parcels will be blocking travel. It clearly says that this is not a system for people who want to keep their lands open to the general public. Why would someone who currently has their land open, use this system when it states it's not for that? I cannot be responsible for people who suddenly decide to close their land, that is a choice they are making for themselves. Edited January 25 by Gabriele Graves 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 54 minutes ago, diamond Marchant said: My primary claim is that banlines are visible only at short range and are very hard to avoid. So far as moving vehicles are concerned, this seems to be a very TRUE statement. @Abnor Mole's first post in this thread tends to agree. I understand that this system is intended to be a total lockdown of a parcel and is designed to prevent any public entry. It succeeds very well in this objective. Kudos. If I wanted to avoid all camming into my parcel, I would use this because it works. However, the title of this thread suggests that it is "hopefully stepping back from the nuclear option" and this is supported by a claim that a banline approach is good alternative to orbs because banlines are visible. There is an implication that this system is "traveler friendly" when it is not (hitting a banline may have different outcomes but all are bad). So my issue really concerns the marketing of the product rather than the product features. Because it is free, very easy to deploy (no setup other than rezzing, deeding, and switching on) and works, it may get used by some who don't understand or care that it has a specific goal of totally excluding public access at all altitudes and that there may be consequences for others. If it were my product, when the object is rezzed and again when switched on, I would display in local chat a notice that addresses these issues (like a warning label). My experience is that notecards don't usually get read. Privacy is good and for some, this may be the way to go (and for hopefully for most, only when entertaining). I am trying very hard, and without much success, to understand what you want here. Gabriele's system uses the built-affordances of LL's land controls: the ban lines, their effects, and the distance at which they become visible are all features built into the platform and the viewer. And I'd argue that they are features, not bugs: I certainly wouldn't want a forest of ban lines to spring up at a distance of 30+ m. every time I entered a new region. You say that "hitting a banline may have different outcomes but all are bad" -- so, what would be a good outcome? (And, I'm sorry, but bouncing off a banline rather than being aggressively TPed home or out of the region is a better option, even if it is still "bad.") Can you describe what you'd LIKE to see in the way of security systems? What are your desiderata? What would make this a "better orb"? 3 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