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

[LittleMe Jewell]

Next test:  An alt that was in my land group came to my parcel.  As expected, she was not added to the ban list (security object is deeded to the group that owns the land) and the Access land tab does say 'allow group with no restrictions'.  

She was then Ejected from the group, but she still did not get added to the land ban list.  She walked out of the Parcel and back, but still was not added to the ban list.  Then she left the Region and came back -- that is when she got added to the ban list.  @Gabriele Graves- Is that expected behavior (script only scanning for region entry/exit)?

[Gabriele Graves]

3 hours ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I'd like to try this device to see how it actually works, but I don't have a Mainland parcel. Would it work in a sandbox or in group-owned land, or does it have to be on land the owner of it owns?

Hi Persephone, it only works on a mainland region and I did this deliberately so that people don't misuse it on other estates.  It does work for individually owned or group-owned mainland.  In the latter case as long as you have the right group role permissions.  It will not work in a LL sandbox because you aren't the owner of the parcel and they aren't group owned.  Even if they were you wouldn't be in the group with the right roles most likely.  For other sandboxes, you would have to talk to the owner or groups but it would be unlikely.

[Gabriele Graves]

13 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Next test:  An alt that was in my land group came to my parcel.  As expected, she was not added to the ban list (security object is deeded to the group that owns the land) and the Access land tab does say 'allow group with no restrictions'.  

She was then Ejected from the group, but she still did not get added to the land ban list.  She walked out of the Parcel and back, but still was not added to the ban list.  Then she left the Region and came back -- that is when she got added to the ban list.  @Gabriele Graves- Is that expected behavior (script only scanning for region entry/exit)?

Hi Lil, yes that is expected behaviour and covered in the notecard with the system.  This is so that people you invite in don't get ejected when they just change their group tag.  This seemed like the better approach.  If you invite someone to your land group and no longer want them on the land after ejecting them from the group, you will have to teleport them home before the system will treat them as it does non-group members.  Hopefully this inconvenience should be low and rare.

[elleevelyn]

59 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I am open to discussion on ways that this can be improved as I really want this to be a positive thing rather than negative.

 

maybe a neighbour-friendly option. Orb adds neighbour parcel owners and parcel group to the orb neighbours whitelist. The scan could be done on a timed schedule in addition to manually. ?? Neighbours whitelist not necessarily being the same as Friends whitlelist ??

maybe also a automated Turn on when I am at home. Turn  off when I am not at home. (I meaning all agents on orb friends whitlelist)

[Gabriele Graves]

12 minutes ago, elleevelyn said:

maybe a neighbour-friendly option. Orb adds neighbour parcel owners and parcel group to the orb neighbours whitelist. The scan could be done on a timed schedule in addition to manually. ?? Neighbours whitelist not necessarily being the same as Friends whitlelist ??

maybe also a automated Turn on when I am at home. Turn  off when I am not at home. (I meaning all agents on orb friends whitlelist)

Thanks for the ideas.  I'll look to seeing what is feasible.

[LittleMe Jewell]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Hi Lil, yes that is expected behaviour and covered in the notecard with the system.  This is so that people you invite in don't get ejected when they just change their group tag.  This seemed like the better approach.  If you invite someone to your land group and no longer want them on the land after ejecting them from the group, you will have to teleport them home before the system will treat them as it does non-group members.  Hopefully this inconvenience should be low and rare.

I did read the notecards, but apparently put that bit of info off to the side - I do recall it now that you mention it.  

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

I did read the notecards, but apparently put that bit of info off to the side - I do recall it now that you mention it.  

I don't mind re-iterating the info here though.  It will help others who are curious but are unlikely to take a look.

[Clem Marques]

16 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I don't mind re-iterating the info here though.  It will help others who are curious but are unlikely to take a look.

Does the security orb work on group-owned Mainland if it is deeded to the same group as the parcel? Just curious.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

maybe a neighbour-friendly option

Why?

If you are installing a device to pre-emptively ban all potential trespassers, why make it so the neighbours can trespass? Just because they own a parcel on the same region doesn't mean they are people you want in your home.

 

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

maybe also a automated Turn on when I am at home. Turn  off when I am not at home.

Again, why? Might as well have NO security system and just ban people manually when you are there. Part of the POINT of a pre-emptive ban system is, you come home and there are NO trespassers waiting for you in your living room.

 

So far your responses to this device have all been complaining it works at all, and suggesting ways to make sure it stops working as often as possible.

 

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, Clem Marques said:

Does the security orb work on group-owned Mainland if it is deeded to the same group as the parcel? Just curious.

Yes it does.

[elleevelyn]

24 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

So far your responses to this device have all been complaining it works at all, and suggesting ways to make sure it stops working as often as possible.

 

you might be addressing the wrong person. I have not made any complaint about this type of device

moving on tho

i get that you have a very firm view of what you want - completely locked down parcel only accessible to you and those on your whitelist or group. Is ok to want this and to have it. Out-of-the-box this system does this. And is nothing wrong with it doing this

however people not you, can view privacy for themselves in different ways. Like for example I only care about privacy when I am on my posestand in my changing room. With this system I could do this for my changing room parcel if it could detect me - tun on when I am present, turn off when I am not. At the moment I do this manually but sometimes I forget to turn off.  For me I would like to automate this

being neighbour friendly. people who try to enter my changing room, aren't typically the neighbours, they are rando flybers. I dunno if you ever been caught up in donut war with your neighbours. Like you start it by ban the neighbours, the neighbours retaliate and ban you. You look at the minimap. Your little parcel surrounded on on all sides by a sea of red - a donut blocked on all sides

now this again may not be any worry to someone who likes donuts

for sure we could say that we can add our neighbours manually to the orb whitelist. My suggestion is can this be automated please

neither of these breaks the operation of the system. They are optional extras, use them or not as suits

 

[Henri Beauchamp]

4 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

In Cool VL Viewer there's just View / Ban lines which I had checked, so that all matches.

There are more options in the ”Preferences” floater, ”Cool features” tab, ”Misc.” sub-tab: ”Always render known close ban walls regardless of collision risks” check box and ”Ban walls maximum rendering distance” spinner. Do read the explanatory (and long) tool tips for these too...

I advocated, several times, during the Server User Group meetings, for getting a capability that would allow the viewer to request all ban lines in a given region (agent region or neighbouring ones alike), so that the viewer could draw the walls when you need them and draw the forbidden parcels in the mini-map, without having to wait after the server to send you that info (which often comes too late, especially when driving/sailing/flying). But so far, this went into deaf ears, sadly...

Edited January 22 by Henri Beauchamp

[elleevelyn]

4 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

During my testing, I didn't see any messages from the LL ban system on my testing alt.

just a fyi on Linden system message re. banning

it happens in only one situation as far as I remember. We are on a parcel and while present the land owner changes the parcel to No Access. We get a system dialog message which says (paraphrasing as I can't remember the exact wording) "You no longer have access to this parcell. You have 15 seconds to leave before you will be ejected" and thats what happens if we don't leave. We get ejected after 15 seconds

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

8 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

But so far, this went into deaf ears, sadly...

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

I'm sure I remember another TPV dev stating that the server's "reveal ban-lines" distance USED to be greater, but that the Lab nerfed it after a prolonged campaign of constant whining, most of it from the same people who now constantly whine that the nerfed range is too short.

 

LL probably feel reluctant to undo a requested nerf at the request of the people who requested it, because after getting what they wished for, they found they didn't like it.

So now those of us who didn't constantly whine about ban-lines existing at all, have to put up with constant whining from people smacking into them.

 

8 hours ago, Henri Beauchamp said:

I advocated, several times, during the Server User Group meetings

From what I've seen of the "brilliant ideas" that filter down from that "User Group Meeting" mess, they would only listen to you if you proposed some insanity that ruins SL as a whole, like anti-gravity tax, or banning skybox owners, or a web-cam based auto gurning system with digital arm-thrash anti-technology, or some other Pretentious Bloody Rubbish.

 

[Raspberry Crystal]

I must be tremendously unpopular.
I haven't ever had had anyone invade my parcel.

In all the time I have been in SL.
 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

23 minutes ago, Raspberry Crystal said:

I must be tremendously unpopular.
I haven't ever had had anyone invade my parcel.

In all the time I have been in SL.
 

Oh here we go again...

 

Breaking News : if you don't live between ANYWHERE that ANYONE ever is, and ANYWHERE that ANYONE ever WANTS to be, you won't get random over-entitled trespassers constantly whining that they can't trespass in your home.

 

Some people get MORE random over-entitled trespasser trash then they want. If you don't, this device isn't meant for you.

[elleevelyn]

2 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

You complained

 

responding with suggestions to OP's offer to consider suggestions, isn't complaining

I made 2 suggestions in response to OP's offer to consider suggestions for other features. I will say them again

1) neighbour white list, not necessarily the same as friends white list. And it would be nice if this could be automated. scan using llGetParcelDetails. If the system isn't automated then people have to be added to the parcel white list (Always allowed) manually.  What people ? the people not in our group who we are happy to not ban.  To automate this the system has to maintain an internal whitelist because there is no LSL function that allows us to permanently place a person on the parcel's Always allowed white list.

2) automated On/Off switch triggered by presence of parcel owner and/or group and/or person on whitelist

OP may not take either of these suggestions up. and is ok if OP does not. One reason for not doing this is that they are nice-to-haves. The same outcome can be achieved by the parcel owner doing this manually

 

Edited January 22 by elleevelyn
more

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

One reason for not doing this is that they are nice-to-haves

The whole point of the system is to : 

Automatically pre-emptively ban ALL potential trespassers.

If it automatically disables it's self, it's NOT doing it's designed purpose and is utterly useless. An "automatic security device" that automatically renders itself utterly useless is NOT "nice to have".

Suggesting that it  

1. shouldn't Ban people who haven't trespassed YET and

2. shouldn't ban the neighbours and 

3. should automatically disable itself

turns this into nothing but a substandard version of your existing conventional zero-second "punt kick and ban" orb, that it was supposed to be a "no punk kick" alternative to, and renders it pointless and obsolete before people even hear about it.

 

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

neighbour white list, not necessarily the same as friends white list

Why exactly should non-friend neighbour be white listed AT ALL. My last next door neighbour was some arrogant over-entitled vehicle fanatic planning blight spammer, who thought she had a RIGHT to build on my land, I certainly wouldn't have wanted that stuck up privacy hating tart white listed on my parcel. EVER.

 

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

automated On/Off switch triggered by presence of parcel owner

Why would I want a security device that doesn't work some of the time? I don't want to log in or teleport home from elsewhere, and have to either manually kick all the trash off the parcel, or wait 15 seconds for the orb to do it. I want the trash to have NEVER been there at all.

 

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

these suggestions

Are, without exception, all part of a "be nice to home invading anti-privacy griefers" mentality, that directly opposes the basic concept of this device.

 

Edited January 22 by Zalificent Corvinus

[elleevelyn]

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

The whole point of the system is to : 

Automatically pre-emptively ban ALL potential trespassers.

 

 

you keep saying in thread after thread what you want and why you want it - which is ok.  Adding automated nice-to-have options doesn't change the way in which you would deploy the device.  The automation suggestions if they were included would be disabled by default because they are options. They have to be enabled to work

how does adding a person to the parcel Always allowed list (or internal whitelist) preventing that person from being banned from the parcel by this device, lead you to think that this is being nice to home-invading anti-privacy greifers. Is nuts to think like this

Edited January 22 by elleevelyn
typ

[Qie Niangao]

Couple suggestions to consider:

Might be worth mentioning in the instructions that any existing bans may be lost when testing the device. If the device is adopted, that won't matter, but if a new user isn't sure, they may want to note any bans they want to be sure are still established if they decide to stop using the device. On the other hand, it may be a rare occurrence that one of the pre-banned arrive and leave the region while the device is being tested.

As far as I know, the device can only work on group-deeded land if it is itself group-deeded, so it may be worth checking that when the device is rezzed or changes ownership and suggest group deeding when warranted. In case it saves time, here's a bit of an old land radio script I wrote to do something like that:

checkOwner()
{
    list parcelDetails = llGetParcelDetails(llGetPos(), [PARCEL_DETAILS_OWNER, PARCEL_DETAILS_GROUP, PARCEL_DETAILS_ID]);
    key parcelOwner = llList2Key(parcelDetails, 0);
    key parcelGroup = llList2Key(parcelDetails, 1);
    key parcelID = llList2Key(parcelDetails, 2);
    key myOwner = llGetOwner();

    if (myOwner != parcelOwner)
    {
        if (parcelOwner == parcelGroup)
            llOwnerSay("This is group-owned land. To function as a land radio, the enclosed 'Stream changer' must be rezzed on the parcel and deeded to group secondlife:///app/group/"+(string)parcelGroup+"/about");

[… and more land-radio-specific stuff follows. In this case, instead of handing out a "Stream changer" maybe just suggest deeding the device itself to the group. Also note that llOwnerSay() works here if triggered by on_rez or CHANGED_OWNER, maybe not if called elsewhere]

 

[Luna Bliss]

15 hours ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

NO trespassers waiting for you in your living room

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?

Edited January 22 by Luna Bliss

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

you keep saying in thread after thread what you want

You haven't been paying attention. This isn't "what I want", it's WHAT THIS THING WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DO. The only person here repeatedly asking for "what they want" IS YOU.

 

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

Adding automated nice-to-have options

You are not proposing "nice-to-have" options, you are proposing "what YOU want" options that DELIBERATELY counter WHAT THIS THING WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DO.

 

1 hour ago, elleevelyn said:

lead you to think that this is being nice to home-invading anti-privacy greifers

"Please be nice to home invading anti-privacy griefers, stop it banning the neighbours, stop it banning people before they trespass, stop it working at all when you are not there, give home invading anti-privacy griefers a chance to invade!"

 

All your suggested options are intended to STOP the device doing WHAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO DO.

Go back and reread the original post, and the usage instructions that come with it, it is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PRE-EMPTIVELY AUTO-BAN EVERYBODY WHO ISN'T IN THE LAND GROUP, ALL THE TIME, 24/7.

 

Don't believe me?

On 1/21/2024 at 6:10 AM, Gabriele Graves said:

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. 

 

 

Edited January 22 by Zalificent Corvinus

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

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?

Ah...

"SL is JUST a game!

I can do what ever I want, where ever I want, when ever I want, to who ever I want, with NO repercussions!

Your property isn't property at all, and you don't own it, so every where is unlimited public access.

I'm the ONLY real player, every one else is just an NPC, so the Grid belongs to ME ME ME ME ME!"

 

THIS is the modern Griefers charter.

[Qie Niangao]

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.)

[Arielle Popstar]

2 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.