Gabriele Graves
-
Posts
3,646 -
Joined
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Knowledge Base
Everything posted by Gabriele Graves
-
I'm on Firefox 122 on Linux and I'm not seeing any issues accessing the forums or any other part of secondlife.com
-
I always assume that no matter whether a topic poster wants discussion or not, that they will get it so it never occurred to me to have to give anyone permission to discuss the topic. Is that not the expectation? I definitely expected it.
-
It was really the repeated things you said that simply were not true that raised my ire. I'm happy to concede, I may have been hasty about that. There is just one point though I would like to address: I don't see this as a product, I see it as just a project from a hobbyist. It may certainly look like a product because I have employed branding techniques but it only looks like that. Think of it as play-branding, nothing more. I don't sell any products here, everything I do make available to others, I give away for free and have no intention to change that ever. I don't make my living in SL and never have. I don't need to nor do I desire to do that. I did make a singular product once over 12 years ago (a voting contest system) when I toyed with the idea of paying for my land solely with proceeds from SL but it was not using the "Graven Hearts" branding and eventually I sold the whole rights for that to another person when I went on hiatus around 2010. The Graven Hearts branding came from made-up vampire clan (that was never an actual clan) that a friend and I came up with for some informal roleplay when I came back to SL and just put some artwork together for fun. I use the same play-branding thing for all the projects I intend to give away and it's just my attempt to make everything consistent and look just a little bit polished. I really don't have anything to sell anyone. I'm not saying you are saying that at all but I feel there might be confusion and suspicion lurking around the Graven Hearts thing a little in this topic for some reason especially when the word "Product" is being bandied around. So I hope this clears that up for anyone who was wondering.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
The litmus test here for any issues should be: If not, well I can live with that unless there is a reasonably feasible mitigation that can be made.
-
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.
-
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
-
On the contrary, I'm pretty upbeat that so far nothing has been revealed that shows this to be worse than the alternative.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^^^ This. 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.
-
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.
-
Yes, as accomplished. The system works solely within the banline system as created by LL themselves. This is extremely doubtful as most people with zero-second orbs are checking every second. 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. They are no more a booby trap than another other banline use despite your inflammatory use of language.
-
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.
-
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. I already stated several times that this not perfect because the banline system isn't perfect but under the circumstances where banlines are visible, they have visibility where orbs do not. You are wrong the fact that there is no benefit because they are very obviously visible in more circumstances than orbs. In addition the banlines prevent you from going on to land you don't have access to regardless of visibility.
-
Thanks though I felt it was useful to actually clear up any confusion about why I started the topic and ask nicely.
-
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.
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr