Jump to content

Katarin Kiergarten

Resident
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About Katarin Kiergarten

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Having watched this and other threads this week I am not so sure about this, given the number of people who abandoned mainland (which they bought) to get a new Linden home (some did this before they even knew the new homes had sold out) or signed up for premium thinking they knew what to expect.
  2. I don't think you're even talking to me, here; if you've followed this entire thread you'd know where I come down on this, which is that given the functionality of each option, there is not going to be a way to please everyone, but neither side is inherently wrong, either, about what they want or why. We have technological limitations imposed upon us all, here. I see and have experienced both sides. It's a problem that they cannot actually meet under the available options. None of us here can fix that, which is part of the reason this is such a long, heated thread. But you are still missing the fact that actively removing people, i.e. as someone else put it, having to individually opt them out of invading your home, is both inherently unfair and required if ban lines are not allowed. That takes a lot of work, allows intrusion to happen, stress to climb, and just generally sucks for those being intruded upon. Those who want to not have this problem in the first place, and it's completely fair to not want to have it, will not be happy with a delayed orb. So of course they will say so. Why wouldn't they? But a response of essentially "fine, be that way" isn't productive, here. Facts are facts. And facts are what I've brought up in response to your question. That can't be helped except by asking a more-informed question in the first place. Receiving correction about it (twice, as necessary) isn't an indication of a poor attitude on the part of the person doing the correcting. It's as if facts themselves are just not all that popular on this thread in some cases. I don't get it. Don't jump into the debate half-prepared if you don't want your arguments fairly critiqued as fallible, perhaps? What I see happening here is that those who are holding firmly to the erroneous belief that orbs will solve this for those who bought in wanting ban lines (that did exist when they got a new Linden home, btw), for which there is no technological substitute in SL that isn't something like an immediate-ejection orb, are just wishing away the arguments of those who have pointed out their shortcomings becasue they don't want to hear about how their desire for easy travel is going to harm someone else's enjoyment of their home. What's the point of doing that? How we feel emotionally about this is valid, but it doesn't necessarily intersect with what we can do technologically in the ways that will appease everyone. Promoting orbs as capable of something they can't do is a confusing approach to dialogue about this. Of course those assertions will be challenged; they're false. Orbs are not ban lines. Have you actually been harassed to a meaningful degree? It doesn't sound like it. It takes a lot of work to cope with it when it's coming from many avatars in a place where you should be able to expect peace and privacy and are doing nothing to invite it. It pretty well wrecks any relaxation you might have had in that location.
  3. Security orbs can be only as effective as promptly as an estate's covenant allows, which as an estate manager I would assume you already know. Those here critiquing LL's offering of orbs are reasonably predicting that immediate ejection, or even relatively fast (5-10 seconds) ejection, will (obviously) not be options. It's perfectly warranted to critique this because a security orb with a significant delay between detection and removal will not do what ban lines do, period. So there is no reason to wait to comment upon this shortcoming. We know what it is already. I am confused about why you are implying otherwise, though. Security orbs are not magic. Yes, they might work for some residents in cases where they use ban lines instead, but I am referring to the scenario LL has introduced, which is also used in sailing- and flying-friendly private estates, in which ban lines are disallowed and security orbs have a mandated time delay before they take action. That scenario is problematic, and obviously so, for those who want comprehensive, immediate protection.
  4. I'd venture to guess that there's not that much need to wait. Security orbs have predictable abilities, and so do ban lines. Only a security orb set to immediate ejection would approximate what ban lines do, and the odds that LL has come up with a unique orb that does something else we aren't already familiar with aren't high. It'd be interesting if they did, of course. But if you're wondering why people are feeling confident with commenting and critiquing this now, it's likely because we're all quite familiar with what each option does and which shortcomings each has. Only something different from what's already available would be notable. LL hasn't given an indication they're about to offer anyone such a thing. On a note unrelated to your question, the thing I haven't seen mentioned (it's possible I haven't read every last post, but I've tried) but which is a key part of the LL-proposed scenario is that the private estates which allow orbs but disable ban lines also tend to have proactive estate managers who handle issues swiftly. For this new continent, LL seems to be offering only the half of that equation where people have less privacy, but not the half where problematic people are estate-banned quickly. The A/R process is a bit opaque to most of us, and doesn't tend to include a particularly rapid response (if any) in many cases. So of course, people who want more privacy now feel like they're hanging out in the breeze; they know what to expect from LL, and it isn't what private estate managers (the good ones) deliver. So the key half of the equation that would make this more likely to work (keeping in mind that determined attackers collect alts) is entirely missing, unless LL is going to delegate people to such duties.
  5. Search the Marketplace for "eject passenger" or "seat disabler" scripts. They'll help you remove those unwanted passengers easily. I've made a one-seater copy of a couple of my boats by editing the AVpos notecard (in cases where AVsitter was used), but that's more involved. It does keep anyone else from sitting in the first place, however.
  6. I would like to see the Windlass redecorating options updated to include changing the color of the wall that always seems to stay a very non-descript, very dark blue / black. I'm not sure why that's being forced as a default companion color to every single wall color option available, as it just doesn't work in a number of cases. It's okay as a tone-on-tone variant with blue, but otherwise, it's mostly a drawback that seems totally unnecessary. I'd be fine with even a second "walls" section just for that side of the house with complimentary colors in it, but that was an odd design choice otherwise. I like this idea.
  7. I agree in principle on the air travel issue. However, with lag, boats and other ground-level vehicles can lag into ban lines, and what happens to them tends not to be pretty. So while I know to go slowly around residences and not use meaningful speed until I hit open areas, a friend pointed out that inexperience can lead people to attempt things that ban lines will only make worse. And sometimes lag is just terrible on a region anyway. Ban-line visibility can be turned off in the viewer (in Firestorm, at least), if someone really does not want to see them. And I would prefer to guarantee no unwanted visitors and not have to wait for an orb or myself to take care of them. But I don't think that keeping them in this context is going to be ideal. There is no solution that would work for everyone, given the current set of limitations. The standard proposed here by LL is the same one used by private estates that cater to sailing and flying. It is not new or unusual, it's just not something people expect on Linden-controlled land, either.
  8. This is good news, thank you. While we are flipping switches, please consider a default, enforced enabled status for "Restrict gesture and object sounds to this parcel." Houseboats in particular are packed in like sardines. I had to go around and wholesale block my neighbors immediately because too many of them were using inane, noisy gestures without any concern for their neighbors and it was too much of a hassle to bother with figuring out who was doing it at the time. If community is something you want to build, this is another major annoyance to take away from people as an option to inflict on others. And there are many other examples—sex noises, crying babies, etc. that are also problems. Nobody else wants to hear someone's pixel baby every time they're trying to relax at home, or spend time locating said baby to silence it. Thank you for considering it.
×
×
  • Create New...