Sling Trebuchet

Add to that: If someone gets you to view a URL in your browser (in-viewer or external browser) and they have access to that server, they can discover your IP by matching accesses to happeningss inside SL. Generically, this is the same as them using land/avatar music/media. For the very cautious, it would be best to live in a SL that is *entirely* served by SL servers.

"If, on the other hand, it is a 3rd party sim owner having the same ability to track and obtain personal information about me, such as my real world location from my IP Address, then that is something I do have an issue with." Other than LL servers acting as automatic proxy for all third-party-served music and video, there is no way to stop someone discovering the IP that is connecting you to SL. As long as they have access to the server logs/scripting, they can see IPs. That would impose a considerable load on LL servers - and a bottleneck on everyone. They could reduce the load by not proxying for big names like YouTube, etc. If the knowledge that your IP could be learnt is a problem for you, you could 1) use a VPN ( which is going to cost you something for anything supporting SL-level bandwidth ) to mask your actual IP or 2) disable all music, media and/or use your viewer preferences to deny its requests to access servers that you can't trust.

The answer to Are IP Address Trackers again being used in SL? seems to be "Not in this case at any rate". You were both getting SL system messages related to access - and before the TP process proper could get underway - - just as I reported for my attempt to TP into some random place where I did not have access - because the place was not on public access. It seems that LL impose an IP ban ( of whatever duration ) for a ( certain type of ) location. This seems to be imposed when a banned avatar tries to TP in - and most probably also when that avatar is banned in the first place. It seems that the place used an Estate ban - which would explain why your name was not to be seen in the parcel ban list. My own tests in my (group-owned) small mainland parcel did not replicate this. However, the server code I was testing against is different to that running on a private sim/estate.

At last! (ish) "She received a message" is NOT 'full exact'. You did not specify that it was a pop-up message. Nor did you quote the text seen. That was very important detail. Only now do you specify pop-up and I strongly suspect that still you don't quote the full precise text. Compare what you supplied v what I supplied earlier (twice) as a template. /me turns the desk lamp again "DONUTZ UND BLINIZ SCVEINHUNTZ!" Here, for the third time is the standard of reporting that you should use to help people to help you. Try TP to the sim ....... OLN Island. I don't have access there. I just found it by trying remote sims on Map. I saw... - my window goes black - I see the TP progress bar (with zero progress), and then immediately .... - I get a pop-up message window: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Teleport Failed. Sorry, you do not have access to that teleport location ((Close)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- What do you see when you try OLN Island? If that's the template of what your daughter sees when she is refused access to the sim that you were banned from , then it seems that the banning/blocking is being enforced by standard SL features. You now say that she gets a pop-up 'You do not have access to this location'. You say that's it, nothing more. Are you absolutely sure that she does not also see "Teleport failed" ? What is the text on any buttons in the message box? Single or multiple buttons? Does that message box pop up near immediately after the progress bar appears - and with no progress indicated? I can't find any lsl call that would produce such pop-up messages remotely. If a scripted device were to communicate to you remotely, it would use llInstantMessage(), which would appear in your main chat.

All the devices in your home that work through your DSL/Cable/whatever will share the one same public IP address. That address is actually assigned to your modem, not directly to your device(s) The router or modem/router deals with the internal (private) IPs used by each device. Traffic to and from your devices is tagged so that the router knows which internal address is involved. "Locators" can only use a best guess at physical location based on information publicly supplied by the ISP. In some cases that only indicates a city or a regional centre. In some cases the information available from the ISP can indicate a small area. That was one of the objections to the RedZone system. A person who was aware of the level of accuracy of location by IP in their own case would know that another avatar tagged to them by RedZone would be in the same building/organisation/dorm if the IP was fixed. In the case of dynamic IPs, the target would be in an area served by a certain range of the ISP's pool of IPs. In such cases there was a real danger of RL stalking. Some social engineering to get the target to divulge something that seemed innocuous could provide clues as to the identity of the RL person behind the avatar known to come from a given area. End users and victims of RedZone would only know that a common IP had been detected - as the system would have tagged people as alts of each other (correctly or incorrectly) based on IP. Internal to the RedZone system, the actual IPs were known. That would allow a person with internal view to locate a RL person either generally or quite accurately, depending. For cautious people Always have media disabled in preferences by default. Enable it only for specific cases. it is worth bearing in mind that if your viewer accesses content on a third-party server outside of the SL network, your IP is logged by the server hosting that content. If someone inworld has access to the logs of those external servers, they could match you to an IP accessing the server. The matching is guesswork if there are a number of avatars accessing, RedZone got around this by recording all avatars in range of the device and all IPs accessing content that was tagged to that location. This was collected continuously and grid-wide by all RedZone devices in use. Eventually they got a Big Data effect of 'that IP is only accessed when that or those avatars are present'. Matching is trivial if the number of possible avatars is very limited. So - cautious people - if you get invited to somewhere by someone who could have control (as in view of logs) over the music/media servers for that location - and it's just two or a few present - don't enable your media. You can't hear/see beacause ...eh.. some SL/PC problem *sigh*. It doen't need a 'system'. Someone moderately technical could do it entirely on their own as a one-off. Don't every play media that is on an avatar attachment. Also, curl up in a corner. Do not go out. Alternatively go out and live like mad. Just be aware of the possibilities and set your own safety level.

We can't share an IP (simultaneously) if we are on separate lines. The IP is the nearest thing that the Net has to a physical address. The way we would share an IP simultaneously is by being on the same network behind a modem (cable or DSL, etc). we have separate internal IPs on the private internal network, but we share the public IP that is linked to the line/cable_modem that connects out internal network to the Internet via the ISP network. That could happen in a business/ hotel/cafe/library/dorm/whatever that offers connections to a number of people but has a single connection to the Net. That connection changing its IP would change the public IP for everyone behind it. An ISP either assigns a fixed IP to a line or serves one up from a poll of available IPs on demand. If we were on the same ISP but on different lines, we might eventually be observed as having been on a certain public IP at different times if dynamic IP allocation gave the line/modem of one of us an IP that had been previously allocated to the line/modem of the other.

In general, Europeans (at least) who were mostly on DSL telephone lines could change their IP by restarting the modem or with a menu option on the modem-management web interface. I understand that for people on cable - more common in the US - changing IP can be a BIG DEAL. The MAC address of the first device connected to the modem (like a router) has to be changed/spoofed. Then there has to be a cold boot of the modem - which might involve having to remove a backup battery. I think the makers of RedZone were working on an assumption that everyone was on 'cable' restrictions. LL would not be making that mistake at this stage.

/me turns desk lamp to shine straight into Marcus' eyes "It vould help if you vould anzver der qvestunz!!" What *exactly and in detail* does your daughter see? For template see my example given in two separate posts above. What *exacly and in detail* do you see? What could be happening is an attempt by LL to make it more difficult for someone to come back in as an alt. It's not foolproof, but it might help against casual griefing (defined as - troublemaking/drama as a knee-jerk response to getting ejected). Not everyone is aware of how to change their IP. The logic would be: A banned avatar get banned or tries to TP into a sim from which they are banned. Log the avatar's IP at the time and prevent access to the sim by any avatar using that IP for x minutes. If LL are doing an auto IP block, they have to strike a balance between stopping 'casual' griefing and blocking innocents. I would guess that if they are doing an IP block, it would timeout. The time would be influenced by a guesstimate of how long it might take a random user to calm down. It would be a balancing act between stopping a dramatic alt and impeding unrelated people who happened to be on the same IP and who also just happened to be trying to get into that sim immediately(-ish) after a banned avatar had been there or tried to get in. Note that only the banned avatar is banned by name. It would be unsafe to assume that anyone using the same IP within x minutes was certainly an alt of the banned avatar. Therefore an IP ban by LL would not add the names of such avatars to a ban list. RedZone did seem to make that assumption and took 'same IP' as absolute evidence. It didn't even allow for x minutes. It seemed to have taken IP as absolute and permanent. Hey! ATTENTION SL DROIDS!!! How about changing the message someone gets when they get ejected? Instead of "You hef bin banned/ejected/rejected/sh*t_on for bin a wery wery notty awatar" how about "Oh man, that sucks! But hey! Never you mind those people. Why not try these places {LMs listed} that could be waaaay better" Break the cycle. Ya never know, it might help PS: I am abjectly sorry if parts of the above has hurt the sensitivies of any ESLers. I promise not to do it again - much.

"when she is unable to tp there gets a message saying she does not have access to this region" Can you please quote the exact text of the message that she gets? Does this appear as a chat message or as a pop-up window message? Without that level of information it is very difficult to help you For example, here was my account ( as above) of what happened when I tried to TP to a sim to which I am not allowed access: I saw... - my window goes black - I see the TP progress bar (with zero progress), and then immediately .... - I get a pop-up message window: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Teleport Failed. Sorry, you do not have access to that teleport location ((Close)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is this what your daughter sees? If so, she is being blocked by standard SL code - and not by some scripted object in the sim. If you are seeing the same (apart from the text being about being banned) then you are also being blocked by standard SL code. I don't know for sure, but if you are blocked by an Estate Ban rather than a Parcel Ban, then you might not show up in the public ban list. I suspect that this is the case.

As I understand you: You change IP Your daugter gets in no problem. She gets the usual 'connecting to region'... then 'arriving'.. You try to TP in and get booted Your daughter then can't get in. I'm still not sure what exactly your daughter is experiencing on a failure to get in. Can you quote in full the messages that she and you get - rather than decribe the nature of them? For example, by trial and error, I found a sim that does not allow me in. When I try to TP, - my window goes black - I see the TP progress bar (with zero progress), and then immediately .... - I get a pop-up message window: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Teleport Failed. Sorry, you do not have access to that teleport location ((Close)) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you or your daughter see that at any stage? That purely LL system message *could* be described as "her message simply stated she did not have access to this region". It would be very helpful if you quoted full exact message text and where it appeared (chat or message-box). if that is what she sees, then it indicates that a standard LL process is stopping her - and not some object in the sim that detects her and picks up an IP. For me, my surroundings have mostly derezzed, but I am exactly in the position at which I clicked Teleport. I can rezz the prims around me by clicking around the place. My SL is always laggy. Assuming that you are not at your 'home' coordinates when you try to TP, are you and your daughter still at those precise coordinates after a failure to get into the sim? If you are not on a LL system parcel/sim/estate ban list of a public sim, then you have to 'arrive' enough to be detected by an object in the sim. In addition, the 'arrival' has to get to a stage where some third-party process is able to determine an IP. Let's assume that there is an IP detection system based on music/media/(voice?) - including media worn by a bot avatar. Let's assume that it works even if the avatar has disabled music/media/etc and that the client software still pings the server even though nothing will be downloaded from it. This is certainly not impossible - depending on what the coders have done. A windows program like Cports - which tells you what IPs your PC is accessing - would be useful to detect this. Something like Wireshark - which logs the traffic as well - is more work but more useful. That security system will have network and processing delays. The server - somewhere out in the Interwebzzzz and remote from the LL network - gets the ping. The object in the sim has to detect the avatar, record the name and send that name to a server. A process has to link the ping and the avatar name messages to pair them. Some decision is then made about that avatar. If the verdict is 'boot', a message has to be sent ( over the Interwebzzzzzz) to the object. The object then does the booting. While that third-party networking is going on, the LL severs are gallantly trying to land the avatar into the sim as quickly as they can. Nothing in their process can be catering for the possibility of some third-party process going on. If you try to TP in for the first time in X period - and get booted - then if you then immediately retry, your experience of messages should be exactly the same again. This would be if the booting was entirely carried out by an object in the sim. If you get a different experience on the retry - for example you get a LL system message - it should mean that the process of booting you in the first attempt has added you to a LL system ban list (temporarily at least). A complication for general testers: Testing for LL sim server functions wrt IPs etc is complicatred by the fact that there are different server channels with different code. My 'eject an avatar' object that I used in my test above was a leftover from an investigation of a sim server issue.

"and the mesages should be telling them the name of the object that's teleported/ejected them." Certainly should if the object was trying to emulate the drama queen who booted me from the biker sim It's not impoosible that such a thing would do the booting using the usual llcall (with associated system message) and then proceed to deliver a lecture. The source of the lecture would be clickable in chat.

"and the mesages should be telling them the name of the object that's teleported/ejected them." That is what I had assumed first, but my test with a scripted object doing the eject resulted in a standard system message "Second Life: You have been....." A message was given *only* on the eject. When my banned alt tried to TP into the parcel, she was simply landed outside the parcel boundary. There was absolutely no message. This was simply a mainland parcel though, not a private sim. My vague memory of being banned from the biker sim is that when I tried to TP, I got a near-immediate notice that access was not allowed. It would have been somewhat like a 'sim is full' situation. I never got to whooshing stage - if I remember correctly. I would be interested in knowing what exactly the OP's 'same-IP' avatar experienced.

We don't know if your stubborn fellow was using the same IP. He had about 3 minutes between visits. I would have no problem changing my IP at a much higher rate than that. Back in the day, I remember discussions about 'good' griefers changing IP as a matter of course so as to evade IP bans by LL. It is not impossible that the sim owner is using a RedZone-like system. AFAIK, such a system can only guess/determine an IP via Media. RedZone built a list of avatars seen to share an IP. As I remember, it banned by name all avatars in the list - not just the avatar that had originally been booted This does not seem to be the case for the OP's daughter??She can get in if she changes IP?? If it is the case that an object in the sim is detecting avatars and ejecting them, then any TP has had to progress to a stage where an object that is scanning at whatever rate can detect them. If the detection-ejection process included determining an IP via media, then the process has to get to a stage when the avatar client has contacted the media server. In the case of the 'same-IP' avatar, the system would have to detect the IP - then check to see if that IP is listed and then get the in-sim object to to the eject. All teh while, the avatar would be getting closer to rezzing in the sim - if not already rezzed. That does not necessarily mean that the avatar typist has to have any awareness of being kinda-sorta-nearly in the sim. I'm well aware , OP, that the handover process is a complex one. Back in the day, it used to be even more complex - with the boots coming last and being deposited in the ass. It would be helpful if we had more detailed information on the TP-experience of the 'same-IP' avatar. One quick test for the OP: 1. Change IP - Disable all media playing - TP in - get booted 2. Can an avatar on the same IP then get in? (Disable voice as well - just to be paranoid) alternatively - OP TPs in with media enabled - avatar on same IP disables all media and tries to TP alternatively - change IP - both disable all media - OP TPs and gets booted - same IP tries.

Yes. I've never had control of a private sim, so I'm not familiar with the options. The test(s) should cover all available options available as standard LL. The purpose would be to see if an IP ban, as reported by the OP, exists with any standard LL option.

I am trying to understand what *exactly* happens and what messages are seen by you and by another on the same IP. I don't control a whole sim, so I could only run through on a mainland parcel. A. Determine messages: 1. I'm in my parcel. So is an alt that I can run simultaneously (and same IP) 2. I look at her straight in the eye and do "Eject and ban". 3. She gets dumped outside the parcel - but in still in the same sim. She gets a chat message "Second Life: Sling Trebuchet ejected and banned you from this land." Her name appears in the parcel ban list. 4. She tries to walk into the parcel over theboundary. She 'bumps' off the invisible parcel boundary and gets a message "Second Life: Cannot enter parcel, you have been banned." 5. She tries to TP in. She lands outside the parcel boundary. There is no message telling her why (But she knows right well biotch!) B. Check for any IP ban arising from the avatar ban I log in a different alt. She's on the same IP as the banned one, but has no problem TPing in. However..... 1.The parcel is her Home location 2. It is also my Home, and.................I am on the same IP I was quite interested in seeing if I would get dumped out based on IP This does not necessarily mean that there is not such LL (temporary) IP ban. If there were a temporary IP ban done by LL, it might be that this is not enacted if the avatar has their home location in the parcel. The parcel is group-owned - so "I" am not the owner. The group is, and I only own the group. It's a mainland parcel, not a whole private sim. C. Check what happens if the ejection is done by a scripted object. 1. Unban her and she gets in 2. Let a script do a llEjectFromLand() on her key 3. She gets dumped outside the parcel and gets a message "Second Life: You have been ejected from this land." Parcel ban v. Sim ban There is another factor. I just have a parcel on a mainland sim. Things work differently if a complete sim is involved. I got ejected/banned from a sim once - a biker sim in which a complete drama queen had access control. Awful people but it still stings I was consoled by other people hearing about it and saying to he "Oh THAT sim " As I remember, when I tried to TP in after the ban, I got some LL message about not having access. The TP sequence never got a chance to "get going". This was some years ago though. So what do we know now? All messages to do with banning/ejection began with "Second Life: ...." This applied even if a scripted object did the ban/eject. The standard texts would be "Second Life: Sling Trebuchet ejected and banned you from this land", for myself doing the action "Second Life: You have been ejected and banned from this land", for a scripted object doing the action. TP attempts work differently for parcels v sims. Without someone banning me from a sim, I can't say what happens in that case. Getting banned by a sim that is assured not to have any special security system would throw a lot of light on the topic. It would also get rid of any unknowns wrt parcels v sims. Any offers ? Go ahead punks. Make my day! I'll TP in, then you Eject and Ban my ass - and my co-IPed alt will either be right with you or go splat like a fly on a windscreen. Plus I'll be able to document the precise messages seen by self and co-IP. If any want to do do the test themselves, I think that the banned avatar and the co-IP should have no connection with the sim (ownership or home). Otherwise it won't necessariy be a true test of the reported issue.

Never mind your waving. What about bowing down while blinded by the brilliance of my brain? Oh, and hi

OP, You say: "I then logged in and attempted to teleport there, but no luck. I still got the message telling me I am banned from the region (still have no idea why though!). My daughter then tried again to teleport there. This time she received the message telling her she didn't have access to that location... Are we seeing a pattern emerging here yet???" Yes. It's a very clear pattern. You are not permanently on the parcel (LL ban list). If you were, you would permanently see the 'no access' when you try to TP. Also you say that others have inspected the parcel ban list and not found your name there. You seem to be able to TP in again after some time has elapsed after your last ejection. On arrival - or during the TP sequence as soon as an object in the sim can detect you - you get a "Banned" message and get ejected. "You are banned" or the like is not a LL system message. You likely get it from an object (The name would be a link - which when clicked would the location of the object sending the message.) This points to a system that maintains a private ban list - and most likely over a number of sims/parcels. An object in the sim would scan incoming avatars against the private list. It does the eject by putting the avatar on the LL parcel ban list - but for a limited time. The rationale for 'limited time' on the LL parcel list is this: Over time, the number of entries in the LL ban list could grow into huge numbers. This might begin to chew server resources. This would be compounded across multiple servers if the private system were to ban an avatar from all sims in a group if they are banned from any sim in the group. How to reduce this effect on LL servers? There is no date-stamping of the bans in the LL list. A private ban list can 'prune' names off the based on time elapsed time since last detected. As for the IP 'ban' aspect .... I would guess that when an avatar is banned from a parcel (using standard LL methods) the LL servers put the IP on a system ban list for the parcel --- for a **limited time** ( x minutes, hours ). That would be useful to stop an alt from coming straight back in. This functionality was at the heart of RedZone. It would make sense for LL to implement it after banning RedZone because of the private information it revealed to users. As IPs are not unique to RL individuals, this can only be a temporary ban. The result of such a system - combined with the LL servers doing a short-term IP ban would be what you report. You get ejected/banned - sent home. In the immediate aftermath, you then have 'no access' and anyone on the same IP has 'no access'. After some elapsed time – set by LL – the IP ban expires. Anyone on that IP can then TP in. This includes you! - But you get kicked out on arrival – and your IP gets temporarily banned (by LL) again. Rinse and repeat.

Perhaps you are correct. Those things were spewing, but the timestamps on the messages seem to post-date the blocking. I found that very alarming. But... there could have been a big queue. A factor would be the stage at which blocking occurs - at the time of sending or in the receiving stage I contacted the landowner, who zapped the prims and fixed his land settings. No doubt the perp will find another parcel to base in, so when he stats spamming again, I'll arrange a test that might check if a long queue is the reason for apparent failure to block Thanks

EDIT: Anybody who paniced - calm down. 1) No exploit involved. The prims are simply sending IMs. As they are objects, they don't appear as IMs from avatars. They turn up in the Local Chat of the target. No mystery. All normal stuff. 2) The apparent non-blockability seems to have been as Innula suggested. There would have been a major queue of incoming IMs existing at the time the senders were Blocked. They should have eventually flushed through. The good news is as conatined in my original question. The messages start with a 'sender' which is a link to the location of the object doing the abuse. If that happens to be on land that the owner has left with build and no autoreturn, the landowner can be notified and the prims zapped. End of edit ============================================================================= I came across something very strange (to me) - tech-wise. The target of the abuse reported that Local Chat 'was invisible'. They typed something. It appeared only for an instant above the chat bar. Incoming chat might flash or might never be visible. The reason turn out to be that a set of objects was spamming them, with long strings of blanks/spaces. This resulted in really! rapid scrolling of text in chat history. The characters at the start of each message were a link to the object ( and its owner) responsible. This is where it gets strange. The objects were in another sim. Not even an adjacent sim. They were half-way across the grid. The messages were not appearing as IMs. They appeared in Local Chat. So off I went to look. The perp had found some land with build on and zero autoreturn. Up at 4000m they had rezzed what seemed to be a controller prim and 10 slaves prims. The controller prim was invisible, but flagged its presence by the normal 'whirlwind' effect when an object is chatting. I assume that it was controlling the slave prims over a local channel. All had different owners - but I assume they were all alts of one RL person. Each prim in turn spammed the victim. I presume that this tecnique allowed a faster spam rate and couls also make it more difficult for the victim to block. Now it gets really! really! strange. Blocking the owners and/or the objects did not stop the spam. The things and owners were ARed of course, but does anyone hold their breath these days? Does anyone know what exploit the perps are using?

Qie Niangao wrote: ..... From what Jack used to say, I gather that prepping land and putting it to auction is only the start of a labor-intensive process. .... What's to do? The current process is: A. When Mainland is abandoned, the Gov becomes the owner and the land Description is amended to "Abandoned by <avatar name> on <date>" B. Eventually, an auction ID is assigned in the land description (and the land is cleared). That seems to trigger the land showing as purple on Map. C. Some time later the parcel is entered into the auction system. D. The auction takes place E. The winner gets hit with the tier and the cost. The parcel becomes owned by the winner. The logic for accounts and sim is as if the winner had gone to the sim and bought the parcel at the winning price. If that involves a tier jump, that happens automatically. The winner is assumed to be aware of the implications for tier levels The current non-automated actions would be B,C and E. The auction system is a customisation of eBay. (B) and © could be done in a single process. (E) simply simulates a purchase on the ground. How difficult is it to create a programmed interface to the auction system? It doesn't even have to be a direct database interface. A software package can simulate a user interacting with a system. Someone would need to keep an eye on it, but they would be watching for exception conditions only - as opposed to driving it along.

Qie Niangao wrote: ........ It worries me a bit that Kelly thought viewer changes would be necessary to make the set-to-sale logic give preference to neighbors. I'd have thought that it would be quite tractable to simply find that neighboring owner who shares the most non-Linden-owned perimeter, set the land for sale individually to that neighbor for, say, a week, and send an email to that neighbor alerting them to the sale. If they don't buy after that week, put the parcel for sale to Anybody as with the current plan. .... I should have though that simply putting the parcel into the auction queue automaticaly would have been the easiest thing to do. That would leave the neighbours with a chance to bid - against each other if necessary - so fairer. It would also put an obstacle in front of the bots - which may have been why that method was not used.

Alazarin Mondrian wrote: ... Sling, you forget one thing: in theory land barons can set the land at sky-high prices if they want but Adam Smith's Invisible Hand in the form of tier bills will eventually force their hands to lower their prices to prices that residents are prepared to pay. At least I hope that's how it will play out unless there are some strange people out there who simply want to hold masses of unsellable land for some unknown reason. According to gridsurvey.com, about 7% of Mainland is abandoned. I make that about 400 sims. It's not abandoned because of the price of land. That's just a once-off. It's abandoned because of the cost of tier. That's each and every month. Even at L$1/m, that area is not going to shrink significantly. So ......the main effect of a shortsighted decision to try and dump a warehouse of non-earning land might well be to infuriate people who are paying tier and would pay a bit more tier if they could get more land in their current mainland sim.

"No more employee hours devoted to auctions" ?? What's to devote? Just automatically put abandoned land in the Auction queue after the previous-owner grace period. That way the neighbours have a chance. It feels like the approach that would reguire the least coding. - That would be 'least' other than just handing it `to the bots of price-gouging dealers at L$1/m. Bots will be programmed to target sims in which available land is in short supply.

I get the impression from that chat log that the automatic setting for sale at L$1/m to anybody is a done deal. ===================================================================================== [12:05] Andrew Linden: However one thing that was not done was to give preference to neighbors once the land does go up for sale. ……… [12:31] Pauline Darkfury: I can see scammers jumping on 16s for sale for L$16, setting them for sale again at L$1000 ............ [12:31] Kelly Linden: If it becomes a problem then it may need to be revisited. ====================================================================================== Who the hell thought that one up? It's absolutely moronic. The bots will snap up such land in seconds. Sim neighbours will be faced with whatever markup the dealers reckon they can gouge. What the hell are LL playing at? Is this some sort of sick experiment to see just how angry they can make tier-paying resisents? It's often commented that Lindens don't have the slightest clue about in-world. This has got to be one of the most perverse moves by LL in recent history. I'll save the Moderators some work and pre-moderate the following. *edited for gross vulgarity* LL !

Clearing cache and relogging generally fixes that.