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

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

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!

I think you should and suggest it to anyone else that has a land or parcels on the Mainland. I'd like to see what the long term ramifications would be.

[Rowan Amore]

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think you should and suggest it to anyone else that has a land or parcels on the Mainland. I'd like to see what the long term ramifications would be.

No need to suggest it.  You all are doing a fine job without me.  👍

[Abnor Mole]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Abnor also didn't read everything from the beginning and/or misunderstood and then admitted as much in a later post here:

Yes, when I read the part about it "giving travelers what they say they wanted" I thought it was aimed at diffusing conflict through a reasonable compromise that everyone could be happy with. 

[Persephone Emerald]

5 hours 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.

This is probably because the reasonable people have left the discussion or never entered it in the first place. 🙄  It's the vocal minority vs. the silent majority perception problem.

[Alwin Alcott]

23 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

This is probably because the reasonable people have left the discussion or never entered it in the first place. 🙄  It's the vocal minority vs. the silent majority perception problem.

it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want.

You have Belliseria for your travels.

Edited January 25 by Alwin Alcott

[Alwin Alcott]

2 hours ago, Abnor Mole said:

 I thought it was aimed at diffusing conflict through a reasonable compromise that everyone could be happy with. 

Perhaps there's a way, let LL reduce tiers with at least 50% if there's not free use of land they bought and pay for.?
There's enough abandoned land, public roads and water where it's free to fly or drive without banlines.

[elleevelyn]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 (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.")

and

getting our vehicle stuck in a banline and having to edit it off the banline (as is the current situation) is better than getting teleported home without any warning

Edited January 25 by elleevelyn
()

[Persephone Emerald]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

This is probably because the reasonable people have left the discussion or never entered it in the first place. 🙄  It's the vocal minority vs. the silent majority perception problem.

1 hour ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want.

You have Belliseria for your travels.

1 hour ago, Alwin Alcott said:

Perhaps there's a way, let LL reduce tiers with at least 50% if there's not free use of land they bought and pay for.?
There's enough abandoned land, public roads and water where it's free to fly or drive without banlines.

Case in point.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What does "let LL reduce tiers with at least 50% if there's not free use of land they bought and pay for" mean?

"You have Bellisseria for your travels."

Is this supposed to mean only people who have mainland parcels should be on mainland, even when there are Linden roads and Protected or Abandoned land there?

[Love Zhaoying]

I think "banlines for all" would be good.

Symbolic of a likely dystopian future.

Indicating actual security from those who would deny it from you.

Representative of the RL physical and psychological prisons we all inhabit and force on others.

 

[Alwin Alcott]

18 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

even when there are Linden roads and Protected or Abandoned land there?

i can't explain it simpler;  "where it's free to fly or drive without banlines"

 

Quote

is this supposed to mean only people who have mainland parcels should be on mainland,

to be more precise ; ónly owners, and their guests of choice,  of mainland parcels should be allowed on their part of mainland. Nobody else.
 

[Raspberry Crystal]

I really do not like the look of banlines, but how they appear, and usually behave is much preferred to being sent home by a zero second orb.
I would say that most reasonable people do not want to stray onto private property without the blessing of the owner / renter, but the limitations of second life make this difficult to achieve at times, especially with the added confusion of lag and sim crossings and it is a confusing and upsetting experience to be targetted when acting with the best of intentions.

Unreasonable people will be that way whichever extreme of the access debate they adhere to, but even in the case of extremely annoying and inconvenient behaviour, I do not believe any kind of griefing or bullying is acceptable.

I also realise that the perception of home invasion can be traumatic for some people, in ways that they have little control over, and while this can get covered up with masking aggression there is always a person under the attitude.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Anyway, he got very wedged, unable to move but still connected to the session.

And THAT right there, that your test alt suffered in that cross border eject is why WISE orb users choose TPAgentHome rather than EjectFromParcel, it's LESS prone to leaving avatars "wedged", and thus LESS likely to accidentally "grief" the punted person.

 

Just an FYI.

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

6 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But as Zalificent pointed out it is something like 30 out of 50k concurrent or 800k monthly users. 

Try and get what I said right.

the results from MY zero-second orb, how many punted, over what period of time, and the fact that this is on a "major recommended route"  on a map used by these people, caused to to suspect the following.

 

There are almost certainly LESS than 100 of the hardcore, deliberate, privacy-hating, over-entitled, fake-explorer griefers on the Grid.

There are possibly less than 50.

The typical encounter rate was 1 trespasser trash every 3 weeks, all were established avatars, not 1 day old griefer alts,  most were payment info used, some ere obviously premium subscribers, some are quite obviously from Belli.

The usual incusrion height was around 2500m, 500 m above the top of the Belli mandated free fly zone, indicating the intruders were deliberately LOOKING for skyboxes and platforms, not legitimate "explorers" but "griefers".

There was strong representation from assorted vehicle fanatic groups, including the SLCG.

The most vociferous of the 30 banned people was SLCG, the one that made threats to have all members of their "vehicular griefers club" retaliate against me.

 

And to touch on a point @Gabriele Graves made about non-representative types spoiling it for the others, that's partly due to the fact that said "spoilers" invariably present themselves as the self appointed heroic spokes-bigots for ALL vehicle users/explorers, and the "nice ones" almost never stand up and say "no they are not with us", they just nod and smile and say "hooray, hero types standing up for our rights".

 

I can't tell an innocent green dot from a guilty one on the mini map, there IS now way to tell until the guilty one attacks, so, I don't bother trying. Parcel off limits to all.

Some guidelines though.

"Explorers" exploring at altitudes where they literally CANNOT see anything TO explore, are NOT explorers.

"Travellers" who stop IN your parcel without a good reason are NOT "travellers".

Anyone entering a house or a skybox uninvited, is an anti-privacy griefer.

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

55 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

Is this supposed to mean only people who have mainland parcels should be on mainland, even when there are Linden roads and Protected or Abandoned land there?

It means, with 500 plus LLDWP owned regions of intercontinental sea, and the vast planning blight that is Belli, with all it's roads, rivers, lakes, and a massive mandated free fly zone, and with all the abandoned land and LLDWP protected roads and waterways...

Why the HELL to these people NEED to trespass in our private property, and why the HELL should we let them.

 

Question. They have literally thousands of regions worth of places to "explore", so why are they cruising into MY 4400 sqm parcel, at altitudes so high they can barely see the ground as a postage stamp below?

Answer. They are NOT "innocent explorers or travellers".

 

 

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

And THAT right there, that your test alt suffered in that cross border eject is why WISE orb users choose TPAgentHome rather than EjectFromParcel, it's LESS prone to leaving avatars "wedged", and thus LESS likely to accidentally "grief" the punted person.

Teleport home is even more disruptive, especially for a vehicle user.

I have exercised extreme forbearance in this thread. These are all perfectly dreadful things to do to fellow users, but I'm hopeful that this system in conjunction with three proposed further changes by the Lab will make things substantially less hostile. Those additional changes are:

1. Automatic simulator flagging of parcels that use scripted access functions EjectAgent, TeleportAgentHome, and AddToBanList, so viewers can visually warn of their proximity,
2. Viewer access to neighboring (or universal) region data about parcel banlines and scripted access function use, and
3. Bouncing occupied vehicles off banlines.

If these all happen, then I think dynamic autoban will usually be less disruptive than a zero-second orb. The proposed changes would be doing most of the heavy lifting here, but autoban could help in some cases, especially when combined with #3.

There's a reason I've been worrying about a couple aspects of this approach. First, the edge-of-region behavior is effectively the same as a zero-second orb at best, so it's important to make sure it's not actually worse for some reason we have yet to discover.

Potentially more problematic is notification-spamming neighbors whenever they return to their parcel. Sure, there's a way for them to suppress all notifications (at least in some TPVs), but residents should not need to make that choice just to innocently use their own parcels, nor should their guests be greeted with such notices on every visit. Fortunately, @elleevelyn helped identify what the autoban user must do in locating the device to mostly prevent that problem, but I'm not sure the significance of the situation has quite registered. Unless autoban users are careful about this, they absolutely will get AR'd, and when enough of these ARs are associated with this system, it could be blacklisted. And frankly, weighing the marginal benefits and costs, that would be justified.

[Theresa Tennyson]

 

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Question. They have literally thousands of regions worth of places to "explore", so why are they cruising into MY 4400 sqm parcel, at altitudes so high they can barely see the ground as a postage stamp below?

You answered your own question before you asked it.

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Try and get what I said right.

the results from MY zero-second orb, how many punted, over what period of time, and the fact that this is on a "major recommended route"  on a map used by these people

 

 

[Zalificent Corvinus]

20 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

 

You answered your own question before you asked it.

 

Ohhhhh!

I see!

So what you are saying is, that it if ONE over-entitled anti-privacy griefer unilaterally decides that somebody's private home is "a recommended route", that makes it ok for all their anti-privacy griefer friends to grief the home owner, because over-entitled anti-privacy griefers are MORE important than mere home owners.

Yeah right.

Your failed argument has failed, again, as usual. 

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Ohhhhh!

I see!

So what you are saying is, that it if ONE over-entitled anti-privacy griefer unilaterally decides that somebody's private home is "a recommended route", that makes it ok for all their anti-privacy griefer friends to grief the home owner, because over-entitled anti-privacy griefers are MORE important than mere home owners.

Yeah right.

Your failed argument has failed, again, as usual. 

 

That wasn't the question. Does it answer the question you asked, which is why they were there?

[Zalificent Corvinus]

36 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Teleport home is even more disruptive, especially for a vehicle user.

How exactly is "teleported home, and free to go about their business" MORE disruptive and ending up "wedged" in Schroedinger's Wedgie Space, and having to relog, exactly.

NVM.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want.

You have Belliseria for your travels.

Speaking of "small minorities", whining or otherwise, there don't really seem to be that many Mainland owners who are trying to keep their land completely no-access either. From the forums, it appears to just be a handful of people, and most of them are in this thread already.

[Qie Niangao]

9 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

How exactly is "teleported home, and free to go about their business" MORE disruptive and ending up "wedged" in Schroedinger's Wedgie Space, and having to relog, exactly.

NVM.

Perhaps the "NVM" means you figured it out for yourself, but then I'm not sure why it warranted a post. The reasons are that, for vehicle users, you've left the vehicle stranded and at least temporarily cluttering somewhere from which you were teleported home. For non-vehicle users, getting "wedged" may not require a relog if you can find somewhere to sit in whatever region the simulators think you've landed, and for vehicle users you can either extricate the vehicle (and maybe sit on it) or at least tidy up, and if you actually do need to relog, you're back in the vicinity of your travel and merely need to find a rez zone or other parcel with visitor-friendly settings.

Anyway, leaving all that aside, I tried the system at another region border and got different results. Haven't gotten wedged at that spot yet, so that's reassuring, but ban-initiated ejection at region crossing does seem pretty odd. It now says that it's allowing 15 seconds to scram but it doesn't; rather, it just tosses the newly-banned avatar up in the air a couple dozen meters and lands him on a nearby parcel, but not necessarily the nearest parcel nor the one from which he entered as I saw in Bay City—but it does seem to favor returning him to some parcel on the same region from which he entered.

I hate testing in Bay City (the neighbor's NPC bot is going to think I have it out for him) but I think I need to make sure yesterday's  behavior was just a fluke, as I suspected. Also, I did not get that bogus 15 second warning in that test, but keep getting it today, so that's another loose end. Probably they're all standard issue SL bugs but best make sure it doesn't exacerbate them.

[Arielle Popstar]

7 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want.

You have Belliseria for your travels.

But I assume you have no data to back up that the people who are out travelling the mainland are in fact new freeloader accounts of no fixed address? There is the possibility that a good percentage of us are other homeowners who are out for a drive, fly, or boat cruise checking out the neighborhood.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There is the possibility that a good percentage of us are other homeowners who are out for a drive, fly, or boat cruise checking out the neighborhood.

There is a 100% possibility that they are NOT paying for the parcel they got kicked out of.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Zalificent Corvinus said:

There is a 100% possibility that they are NOT paying for the parcel they got kicked out of.

But it still refutes @Alwin Alcott's attempted argument that these griefing perpetrators are freeloaders who do not contribute to SL. Didn't your own data assert that most of the problem travellers were established accounts that had PIOF?

[Alwin Alcott]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But I assume you have no data to back up that the people who are out travelling the mainland are in fact new freeloader accounts of no fixed address? 

they are not paying to use the land of others, in your, and others reasoning, it would be fine you buy a car, i see it on the parking lot and take it for a ride.