Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Overzealous Security and Rude Landowners

Lynn Kukulcan
Registered User
Join date: 7 May 2006
Posts: 149
07-10-2006 22:07
From: ryan00 Odets
I have to say I , to a extent, agree with Jonas. Now Im going to be stoned to death, but hear me out and before you begin to rant and burn me at the stake think about what I have to say.

If Jonas wants to put out a security orb to keep ppl away from his skybox it is his right to do this on his land. But for everybody to say hey you have to put signs up sayin its no entry and protected is insane. I wouldnt mind putting up a sign if one on all four sides at a certain height was enough. But not everybody flying around i going to come from the same exact angle and direction that the sign is facing.

The whole put a fence up is another insane idea. I havnet been to Jonas's skybox but I have seen a few in my time flying around looking at stuff, and most people dont have a "yard" to fence in at that height.

As for the delay I posted earlier and edited it because I got eager and submitted before I finished. But to refresh the delay should be appropriate for what is being protected. So if you are protecting your skybox at 700 meters 6seconds is quite long enough because if your flying at that altitude there isnt much you can see at ground level. If your protecting your castle on ground level then 15 seconds is more than long enough. IMO any more time than this gives said intruder time to get pissy and litter the parcel.

As for complaints tp home is "griefing". No tp home and eject are not "griefing". A lil rude maybe and annoying yes but not griefing!

The best solution to this is to pay attention to the region/sim you are on/in and that way if you get sent packing you can comeback and hopefully avoid that area agian!!!!!


Dropping a gazillion prims on your parcel, then, isn't griefing, either. A little rude, but not griefing.
Jennifer Christensen
Registered User
Join date: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 112
07-10-2006 22:56
From: Clubside Granville
Once again Ron, I have cited actual proof that Linden Lab designed Second Life for exploration in both promotional materials and documentation at thesecondlife.com website. Please provide counter information so I may ask them which is correct. If Second Life is not meant to be explored they need to edit a lot of web pages.



You've either not searched well or you are being obtuse:

/invalid_link.html

Posted by Lee Linden:

From: someone

We know there's a bit of a gap between the current built-in security tools, and people's desires to be alone on their property. While we allow residents to supplement their land security tools with scripts, it's important not to violate other people's rights in the process.

An acceptable security script should remove an offender from the land, nothing more. Ideally, this should involve two calls: llUnSit and llEjectFromLand. More details on these functions here:

http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka.php?wakka=llUnSit
http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka....llEjectFromLand

These two calls will eject someone driving a vehicle with no chance for them to recover it, so it's important to provide both a warning and a reasonable delay for someone "just passing through", especially if they're not a repeat offender.

llPushObject should not be used in a security script; it's totally unnecessary. llTeleportAgentHome is also a bit unfair to people attempting to fly to another location, and should also not be used. Both these functions have the potential to disconnect someone from Second Life, which is considered a disruptive action.

In my opinion, the ideal security script would have the following features:

1) Scan in intervals greater than 1.0 second to reduce server load.
2) Maintain a list of recently ejected residents, as well as a "blacklist" of names forbidden by the owner.
3) After a new avatar (not recently ejected or blacklisted) enters, wait a few seconds, then warn the user via IM (one time only) that they're on private land and should leave.
4) Give the avatar at least 10 seconds to leave for this first occasion.
5) If the avatar doesn't leave, IM them again, then llUnSit and llEjectFromLand.
6) Add the avatar to the "recently ejected" list. If they return, they receive a shorter delay before being removed.
7) Blacklisted avatars receive a short delay and IM warning before being ejected and added to the "recently ejected" list. Blacklisted avatars on the "recently ejected" list can be immediately removed.

That's a wish list, not a list of requirements. If someone makes that security script, I'll be sure to recommend it!



Owners are doing exactly what Lee said here:

From: someone

An acceptable security script should remove an offender from the land, nothing more. Ideally, this should involve two calls: llUnSit and llEjectFromLand.


Straight from the Lindens to you, courtesy of a simple search ;)
Clubside Granville
Registered Bonehead
Join date: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 478
07-10-2006 23:21
Thanks Jennifer, there was a lot of good information there but it's not what I was looking for. And at the very least the very beginning of the post actually supports my documentation, namely

From: someone
While we allow residents to supplement their land security tools with scripts, it's important not to violate other people's rights in the process.


That post refers to the use of security scripts, not an encouragement to use them. It also appears in the Forums which I had no access to before paying Linden Lab my subscription fee. I was looking for any public places in the documentation or publicity that countermanded the quotes I provided which explicitly state that Second Life is to be "explored". As I am trying not to re-fill the thread with duplicate information, I can only point to my post a few pages back that lists four different pages of the secondlife.com web site that supports our right to explore and not a single mention of your right to the sky.

Before I joined Second Life and paid my yearly membership I was diligent about its features. I am a regular Xbox Live user and to tear me away from the fun of killing and socializing there took something as wonderful and innovative as I saw on the secondlife.com site through its words, images and videos. I had earlier read two articles in Computer Gaming World which were interesting enough to get me to explore the site but I would never have joined a system that on one page told me I could fly across a vast world in a hovercraft but on another page said, "unless the other people don't want you to." Private Islands don't figure into the system I was subscribing to, the land provided by Linden Lab did, nd I was excited by their excitement, amazed at their amazement of the wonders so many people here have created. They wanted to show off, rightly so. And I still have not been provided with a single sentence to dispute the claims of their "What is Second Life?" series of pages.

Thanks again for the search though, Jennifer, and while it was simple as you said, I was asking for "the other side" to document what I had documented for "our side". Sure, I could research both, but since this thread had devolved into quite the debate I was only truly interested in what I would say is the definitive word, namely the Linden Lab published official pages of http://secondlife.com not the protected pages of a forums system which in many threads has revealed conflicting Linden opinions. The main website is as cose to stone as I can see where the Forums are a place to talk, explore, and often change. If they wish to renege on a feature I paid for, "exploration", that is their right, I would just expect them to remove it from their promotional material.
_____________________
Second Life Home Page Forums - slhomepage.com

Second Life Handbook - slhandbook.com

Second Life Mainland - slmainland.com
Lewis Nerd
Nerd by name and nature!
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 3,431
07-10-2006 23:34
What you quote is a typical Linden response, ie completely oblivious to the actual situation that most of us face.

99% of us most likely never have any problem whatsoever with people passing through our land, at whatever altitude.

That answer clearly shows a lack of understanding of the problems of flying, and the contiguous world that SL promote. In TSO, each property was a self-contained plot of land, which although on a 'large map view' were next to each other, when you actually landed you could only see that property and nothing else (due to its isometric 3D rather than true SL 3D). Many people asked whether it was possible to walk from one property to another, but it never happened.

Here in SL you see advertising of a continuous world, in fact at the recent town hall Philip enthused a response to a question about travelling the grid from one end to the other (filling in voids and suchlike) so he obviously understands and respects the need for free access - as do many of its residents.

It's just a pity that a small minority choose to make life difficult for people who happen to stray near somewhere that is isn't clear they shouldn't be going. Even though, of course, the majority of the time there's no reason why people shouldn't be there (especially when the owner isn't online or at home) they disregard the fact that people can't steal stuff, damage their build unless explicit permissions are given, or in any other way permanently affect anything on another avatar's property. The result? Just plain paranoia, nothing else, on the part of the security script owner.

Lewis
_____________________
Second Life Stratics - your new premier resource for all things Second Life. Free to join, sign up today!

Pocket Protector Projects - Rosieri 90,234,84 - building and landscaping services
Spiritfire Musketeer
Designing Knight
Join date: 1 Oct 2005
Posts: 65
07-11-2006 00:25
From: Kerian Bunin
There is a difference in a transiant object like an airship, and a perminant object like a building. If I am flying over I am not counting aginst his prims.


WRONG! I've had MY OWN stuff coming back to me due to over prim allocation because of some jack@$$ flying over my land with a non-physical aircraft taking up over 200 prims. Next time you see someone flying high above your land, open your about land box and take a look. you'll see your prim count go up. It does count.

A prim is a prim is a prim. Unless the transient object is temp on rez, it counts regardless if it's there for 10 days or 10 seconds, regardless if it's stationary or in motion.
_____________________
Owner of Love's Retreat, a mountain resort with a shopping mall, dance club/lodge, and The Chained Tail Dungeon.
Kerian Bunin
Rubbish
Join date: 24 Sep 2005
Posts: 141
07-11-2006 00:32
From: Spiritfire Musketeer
WRONG! I've had MY OWN stuff coming back to me due to over prim allocation because of some jack@$$ flying over my land with a non-physical aircraft taking up over 200 prims. Next time you see someone flying high above your land, open your about land box and take a look. you'll see your prim count go up. It does count.

A prim is a prim is a prim. Unless the transient object is temp on rez, it counts regardless if it's there for 10 days or 10 seconds, regardless if it's stationary or in motion.

Fair enough. However I really really really dislike non-phys aircraft, and using a security orb that ejects / tp homes the pilot is just going to get rid of the person who can get it off your land.

This thread is more or less avaitors/explorers/vehcile enthusiasts vs. home owners/privacy advocates/ect Not alot of new viewpoints have been contributed recently. I think I am going to bow out of this argument for now. I've made my viewpoint known, and I probably should have stoped a few pages back. Either way I hope LL can provide a definate answer. I would prefer to know thier stance rather to be kept in limbo and arguing.
_____________________
Tiberious Neruda
Furry 'On File'
Join date: 1 Nov 2005
Posts: 261
07-11-2006 01:11
For me, it's real simple:

If I get unseated and ejected from an aircraft I'm piloting, I'll leave it there.

You wanna have an orb do your dirty work, I'll make sure you have to take the time to do SOMETHING about cleaning up the mess it's made.


I'll just rez another copy where I can and go on about my business.

That craft returned a piece of your house? Don't force me to abandon it and you won't have to worry about replacing it.
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
07-11-2006 01:15
Thats alright Tiberious, my autoreturn will send your plane after you.
_____________________
Good freebies here and here

I must protest. I am not a merry man! - Warf, ST: TNG, episode: Qpid

You killed my father. Prepare to die. - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

You killed My father. Your a-- is mine! - Hellboy
Tsukasa Karuna
Master of all things desu
Join date: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 370
07-11-2006 01:17
From: someone
The kind of delay you're asking for is one that would give any griefer a shit-load of time to be a total git, which is kinda what the things are used to prevent a lot of the time.


Repeating what's been said before here: Just because it is legal does not mean it is fair and/or just.

A 5 second (or no)ejection delay is an eject for a known greifer. Not for a new person who happens to be flying curiously :/

I've been nuked on my land before... know what i did?

Teleport to a safe location, Open "My land", eject griefer, return all objects belonging to griefer(including hundreds of shieldbreaker bullets), add griefer to banlist. AR at this time.

Problem solved, and no newbies were harmed. I bet that person loved the 500 or so "Objects" getting returned to them suddenly...
_____________________
".. who as of 5 seconds ago is no longer the deliverator.."
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
07-11-2006 01:25
I don't care what you did. I'm acting proactively rather than reacting. If you want to reduce my need for security, go after the greifers. I don't care if anyone whos not a greifer gets hit by my orb, as long as it keeps people period off my skybox.
_____________________
Good freebies here and here

I must protest. I am not a merry man! - Warf, ST: TNG, episode: Qpid

You killed my father. Prepare to die. - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

You killed My father. Your a-- is mine! - Hellboy
Josie McGann
Professional Cat-Herder
Join date: 10 Nov 2005
Posts: 34
07-11-2006 01:54
From: Lewis Nerd
If you really want privacy, and not to be bothered by anyone else in SL.... just log off, for crying out loud. Stop enforcing your paranoia on every other player, and griefing them by sending them away from places they aren't even aware they shouldn't be... especially when you aren't even there!

We do not need "more privacy tools". We need people to realise the nature of Second Life, and that its whole reason for existance is to interact in some way with others (be it in a social capacity, or through commerce). After all, this talk about SL being "the future of the internet" and all that, what's the point of spending months making a website that's password protected and nobody else can access except you? You might as well just put it on your own hard drive and save the costs of hosting it.

Lewis


:-) Lewis, I can agree with you up to a point; I'm as "social" in Sl as anyone and probably more then some. Getting force-pushed with no warning is rude and annoying and I resent not having the CHANCE to do the right thing and leave someone in peace all because they thought it was easier (or funnier) to leave their security no-warn/no-delay.

BUT..

My lifepartner in SL and I have a hobby called "talking". We usually do this curled up in a cuddle chair in our home in a residential sim on an here-un-named private continent. We enjoy each other's company enough to spend time together talking about our RL days and our plans in SL and just generally being chatty.

Then, inevitably, some strange guy drops onto our deck, walks or camera-grab's into our home and demands to "do it". This shows 3 things...

01..He can't read profiles
02..He has no couth at all
03..He is overly optimistic

Anyway, I don'y see much harm in maintaining a 30-second warning security during those times when we want to be alone. Not all the time, just during those moments when things are quiet, nice and its great to be in SL. My reasoning is this, anyone NOT out to grief me will heed the polite warning and leave.

Sl is all about respecting other people's privilige of doing their own thing. The key word is RESPECTING. I'm not fond of Gor, but I don't invade their sims and try to "free" anyone. I expect the same behaviour where my home is concerned.
_____________________
~Josie McGann
Saur Holt
http://forsakenhearts.blo
Join date: 18 May 2006
Posts: 803
07-11-2006 01:54
From: Tsukasa Karuna
*sets out chairs*

*sets out multiple trays of pies, cakes, cookies, and other goodies*

*clears his throat*

Ahem. This is a rant post. Should you not like rant posts, please do not read it, do not vote on the poll, and have a nice day.

Anyways, i'm playing around with a spaceship of mine today, fly around for a while, i see a large group of people gathered in an area and wonder whats up. (Usually it ends up being a tringo match or something).

So i hit the transporter (Drops a ring down to the surface that you can use later to go back up to your ship), and get stuck in the edge of this person's house.

I'm trying to sort my camera out since it's bouncing madly between the inside and outside of the house, while simultaenously trying to find the transport ring so i can get out of this mess.

THEN, i get a dialog and a message from a security ball saying that i will be ejected in 6 seconds if i don't leave. Which fails to work, because the land i was on was group land, and the security orb apparently wasnt grouped from the many error messages i see on my screen.

All of a sudden, _____ comes up to me and they're like "wtf r u doin in my house?" (thats a direct quote, btw.)

So i'm fighting with 3 things at once, i manage to bang out a message apologizing for the intrusion while trying to fight my client back into shape, and i suddenly get teleported home.

About a minute later, my transporter ring gets returned.

About another minute after that, my ship gets returned, UNLINKED :mad: .

Nevermind the fact that i'm in a zoned rental sim that dictates all security devices must be set to 30 second or greater delays.

So i IM this person nicely, again apologizing for popping up like i did, and tell them that if you want your security system to work, you need to set it to group and up the delay while your at it or the landlord may get annoyed.

No response.

If the orb had indeed orbited me like it was trying to do, i'd have taken great pleasure in AR'ing this person.

Personally, i can deal with the occasional vehicle crashing into my house. It happens, i've had some funny conversations that way :)

So how about you? How do you feel about security objects?

I do not like it, i cant fly anywere and have fun flying , cuz evar one land is blocked.
why cant air space be free ?
Lewis Nerd
Nerd by name and nature!
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 3,431
07-11-2006 02:02
From: Jonas Pierterson
I'm acting proactively rather than reacting.


You aren't quite using "proactively" in the right context. If I see that there is a flat tyre on my car, then "proactively" I would put on the spare before going to get the puncture fixed.

What you're doing is actually changing the spare tyre just in case you get a puncture that day, when there's no indication of any problem whatsoever.

I'd put it down to "over reacting" more than an actual reaction, because ejecting anyone who exists and happens to wander by is NOT by any means a reasonable reaction.

How far does your security orb work around your skybox? Because if it goes even one metre over the boundary into another person's land, you are violating the ToS. Presumably you do realise that even without the 'god mode' addon, people can cam into your super-secret skybox and see what you're doing, making the whole 'privacy' thing a joke.

Lewis
_____________________
Second Life Stratics - your new premier resource for all things Second Life. Free to join, sign up today!

Pocket Protector Projects - Rosieri 90,234,84 - building and landscaping services
Lewis Nerd
Nerd by name and nature!
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 3,431
07-11-2006 02:05
From: Josie McGann
Then, inevitably, some strange guy drops onto our deck, walks or camera-grab's into our home and demands to "do it". This shows 3 things...

01..He can't read profiles
02..He has no couth at all
03..He is overly optimistic


Sure, that's unwanted and intrusive - something that security would be useful to stop - but that's very different from someone flying by and not actually caring about what the green dots on the map may or may not be doing.

In other words... your example, valid reason for security. My reason - not a valid reason.

Lewis
_____________________
Second Life Stratics - your new premier resource for all things Second Life. Free to join, sign up today!

Pocket Protector Projects - Rosieri 90,234,84 - building and landscaping services
Jonas Pierterson
Dark Harlequin
Join date: 27 Dec 2005
Posts: 3,660
07-11-2006 02:09
From: Saur Holt
I do not like it, i cant fly anywere and have fun flying , cuz evar one land is blocked.
why cant air space be free ?


1. Use english. If english is not your first language use your native and I will use babelfish to translate.

2. It can't be free because the landowners pay for it. They have the right to keep you out.
_____________________
Good freebies here and here

I must protest. I am not a merry man! - Warf, ST: TNG, episode: Qpid

You killed my father. Prepare to die. - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

You killed My father. Your a-- is mine! - Hellboy
Erbo Evans
Electric Resi
Join date: 22 May 2006
Posts: 49
07-11-2006 03:28
All I'm going to say is this...

This evening, I saw an event at Soulmates pretty much completely wrecked by a persistent griefer who came in and started orbiting people. I myself got orbited twice...the second time literally as I was filling out the AR on the guy for orbiting me the first time. Because of this, my friend, the host of the event, made much less in tips than she normally makes, and I sure didn't have as much fun as I might have.

We're going to be running a club of our own soon. When we do, I need the ability to nip these problems in the bud quickly. I need to be able to drop the Banhammer on someone as soon as they've been identified as a griefer, ban them and get them sent home as quickly as possible...for the sake of myself, my business partners, my employees, and my customers. So you can imagine where I stand on the poll question.

(Vendors of security systems capable of providing this level of functionality within a club consisting of several discontiguous but closely-spaced venues, please feel free to contact me.)
Ranma Tardis
沖縄弛緩の明確で青い水
Join date: 8 Nov 2005
Posts: 1,415
07-11-2006 04:12
From: Jonas Pierterson
I have added a warning, one that allows you to fly over if you go faster than 3m/s . I've already given some room. Its your turn. Shaddap and quit assuming.


Flying too fast is suicide! If you dont run into a skybox you will find some jerks security orb!
Jack Harker
Registered User
Join date: 4 May 2005
Posts: 552
07-11-2006 04:24
From: Kerian Bunin
The thing is I've flown over the mainland and none of people private skyboxes are at the same level. Ive tried to dodge between ones at 300, 500, and 700. Flying at 1,000m just to avoid all of this is ludacris.


This is something that LL should have addressed even before they introduced P2P teleport. A no build flight corridor. There really *ought* to be a pre defined level where someone who wants to fly can go and fly to their heart's conetent without bumping into stuff, running into security scripts, etc.

I'd be in favor of this even if it wound up being on the same level as my current house and forced me to rebuild.

If LL did this, then it would give flyers somewhere to fly, and would allow me and anyone else who's looking for privacy in the sky to build at a location that would be reasonably safe from passers by.
Jack Harker
Registered User
Join date: 4 May 2005
Posts: 552
07-11-2006 04:35
From: Kerian Bunin
Thanks to the intentionally vauge wording of the Community Standards it could be.


Harassment:
Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.


Behaving in a manner which is likely to cause annoyance.

Linden Lab has made it clear in abuse reports they interpret the community standards with the broadest meaning possible.

Ejecting me without warning sure as hell is an annoyance.


He uses a warning though.

And someone coming up to my home and buzzing around it, trying to peek inside when I'm home is also an annoyance. Which is the major reason why I'd ever want to use a security system.

Note, I personally don't do that. If someone is buzzing around my house in the sky when I'm home and I don't want them there I usually tell them that it's a private home and ask them politely to leave. If they don't, *then* I'll consider ejecting them and banning them to prevent them from coming back.

That said, I do support the right of a land owner to eject with a short warning. Stretching it out gives griefers too much time to come in and cause trouble before ejecting them.
Tiger Zobel
hoarder
Join date: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 391
07-11-2006 04:45
Well, now's as good a time as any to mention my interesting flight last night...

As mentioned in Burke's thread on security system wants, I took a long flight to see just how bad these in-air security scripts are. After flying well over 20,000M I had run into the grand total of ZERO scripts... though I had run into an awful lot of skyboxes, thanks to image lag. (note to self: make sure you drop the details down before trying to fly)

As an explorer as well and someone who uses security scripts, I can see both sides of the argument and agree with both, to a degree... but it's now at the point that the scripts are much less zealous and obstructive on the whole while the calls for them to be further controled/removed entirely continue unabated.

People need to go out and check for themselves just what it's like out there now, not just take other people's experiences/past experiences/a single occurance as an indication of the entire grid.
I have done so... I regularly do so... and I know that most of the complaints about them have very little to do with the reality of SL


Oh, and for those who call for us to turn them off when we're not there/logged off... some of us feel rather violated if we find out that someone has been playing with our private stuff.
And before anyone says they're just pixels, they're not real... they all too often have an emotional "attachment" to those pixels, so they are much much more than *just* pixels and have a reality all of their own.
Now, someone's going to be a smart arse and mention picking them up before we leave/log off... which is kinda why we have land in the first place... it's somewhere to leave our stuff out for whenever we want to use it, rather than having to rez them each and every time. (imagine the inconvenience... the time needed to rez them, the time needed to get them placed right over and over again... Imagine just how disillusioned people will get and how many will decide that owning land just isn't worth it... it's all too possible to see people tiering down/leaving SL over this :( )


As it is, I have my own recommendations...
Ground level residence? Use the land tools access-only list... it works at ground level, so not really much need for a security orb.
SkyBox/in-air residence? Security orb set to eject but only after a warning and only in the smallest possible area that will cover your building/skybox.
Tiger Zobel
hoarder
Join date: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 391
07-11-2006 04:56
From: Ranma Tardis
Flying too fast is suicide! If you dont run into a skybox you will find some jerks security orb!

From: Ranma Tardis
I just tried a flight across an major land mass at full speed in my tarn and then with my jet pack.
/108/13/118830/4.html#post1134914

From: Ranma Tardis
I dont know how you can fly like you do because every trip of mine ends in diaster. The lousy things crashed my server 3 times in less than 10 minutes!
/108/13/118830/5.html#post1135081

Anyone want to take bets that it's the speed that's crashing you, not the scripts?


Oh, and 3m/s is slower than the flying speed of an unaided avatar... not exactly fast, is it?
Jack Harker
Registered User
Join date: 4 May 2005
Posts: 552
07-11-2006 04:58
From: Clubside Granville
Thanks Jennifer, there was a lot of good information there but it's not what I was looking for. And at the very least the very beginning of the post actually supports my documentation, namely



That post refers to the use of security scripts, not an encouragement to use them. It also appears in the Forums which I had no access to before paying Linden Lab my subscription fee. I was looking for any public places in the documentation or publicity that countermanded the quotes I provided which explicitly state that Second Life is to be "explored". As I am trying not to re-fill the thread with duplicate information, I can only point to my post a few pages back that lists four different pages of the secondlife.com web site that supports our right to explore and not a single mention of your right to the sky.

Before I joined Second Life and paid my yearly membership I was diligent about its features. I am a regular Xbox Live user and to tear me away from the fun of killing and socializing there took something as wonderful and innovative as I saw on the secondlife.com site through its words, images and videos. I had earlier read two articles in Computer Gaming World which were interesting enough to get me to explore the site but I would never have joined a system that on one page told me I could fly across a vast world in a hovercraft but on another page said, "unless the other people don't want you to." Private Islands don't figure into the system I was subscribing to, the land provided by Linden Lab did, nd I was excited by their excitement, amazed at their amazement of the wonders so many people here have created. They wanted to show off, rightly so. And I still have not been provided with a single sentence to dispute the claims of their "What is Second Life?" series of pages.

Thanks again for the search though, Jennifer, and while it was simple as you said, I was asking for "the other side" to document what I had documented for "our side". Sure, I could research both, but since this thread had devolved into quite the debate I was only truly interested in what I would say is the definitive word, namely the Linden Lab published official pages of http://secondlife.com not the protected pages of a forums system which in many threads has revealed conflicting Linden opinions. The main website is as cose to stone as I can see where the Forums are a place to talk, explore, and often change. If they wish to renege on a feature I paid for, "exploration", that is their right, I would just expect them to remove it from their promotional material.



In this case, you seem to be moving the goal posts. You asked where it said that, and you've been shown it, and now you seem to be saying that it's not good enough because it's in a forum post, not their main web pages...a precondition you hadn't set at the time you asked.

As for stuff on the web pages that you can see before becoming a resident, I think that that really can't be considered the case, and that you should really consider that stuff to be more marketing fluff than anything.

The fact is that unfortunately, Linden Labs really *did* misrepresent what you could expect inside of SL, particularly when it comes to using vehicals.

I'm not saying that they intentionally are trying to mislead people, but that a lot of the people who work for LL seem to be getting in world only occasionally, and only in limited areas, and never as actual regular players (That is, without a "Linden" name.) and as such seem to have a rather rosey view of what the situation "on the ground" is like.

Those of us who are here know that when it comes to using vehicals, that SL is pretty much broken. You're limited to a small number of prims, you're likely to have all sorts of troubles at sim boundaries, you've always been at risk of running into stuff in the sky...and now you're at risk of running into agressive security scripts.

So, yes, I'd say that the videos you've seen in about SL, and what you've read *were* misrepresenting what you could actually expect to find inside of SL. Which means that maybe you should consider aproaching them and asking them to stop doing so in the future.

Personally, I don't think that you're totally out of luck yet, and there an awful lot of things that you can still do in SL that I think you'll find will make it very worth-while to be here. Unfortunately, flying cross country in a hovercraft to explore free of obstacles isn't one of them at this time.
Lewis Nerd
Nerd by name and nature!
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 3,431
07-11-2006 05:09
From: Jack Harker
He uses a warning though.


Yeah, which is essentially "by the time you read this, you'll find you're no longer here" because it is so short, meaning it pointless.

With the lack of adequate boundary warning until it's too late, a simple text chat warning is not enough.

Lewis
_____________________
Second Life Stratics - your new premier resource for all things Second Life. Free to join, sign up today!

Pocket Protector Projects - Rosieri 90,234,84 - building and landscaping services
Clubside Granville
Registered Bonehead
Join date: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 478
07-11-2006 05:17
Thanks for the reply Jack, but I don't think I've moved the goalposts.

From: someone
In this case, you seem to be moving the goal posts. You asked where it said that, and you've been shown it, and now you seem to be saying that it's not good enough because it's in a forum post, not their main web pages...a precondition you hadn't set at the time you asked.


I asked for policy posts that said, contrary to what is advertised before entering Second Life, exploration was not truly one of the "features". The post cited to me was merely a list of guidelines that one Linden recommeded in contructing security scripts, while throwing an initial caveat that such scripts could not violate the rights of others. I have extablished the right of exploration and no one as of yet has cited any page or post that goes against that assertion. If exploration were not truly a factor do you think Linden Lab would have been as quick to drop back down the access height of 50m following the uproar that came with the change of ban heights to 768m?

Nowhere in the Linden post does it say, "Oh, yes, use these measures to keep people off your parcels because you have absolute control of the comings and goings of all residents of Second Life". It is merely a friendly recommendation to take into account special circumstances involved when unknown traffic appears and recommends against push and teleport home actions which are also available through scripting as are the recommended unsit and eject features.

To put it more plainly, please find me anywhere that Linden Lab has said that contrary to the 50m access restriction that you control the volume of space above your parcel. I understand that prims in the air count against you, and that many people prefer to live in the sky to escape laggy land-level builds. Perhaps there needs to be a flight corridor, though this is tough with a variety of sim heights and many skyscrapers. At least Jonas has built his skybox near the build ceiling well away from the casual explorer. Many others do not. Builds in the air below the cloud layer are the real issue here, or their associated security scripts. Given the 90m scanning range of a single object a security script at this location (typically 175m) can easily affect the average explorer which is what I believe many of us are having a problem with.

Either way, what you say is misrepresentation has yet to be proven. I need actual Linden Lab copy that goes against the many already cited posts I provided before I can properly confront them over what the true policy is. At this point the policy is plain to see at http://secondlife.com/whatis/ and given contrary evidence I will pursue it with the company.
_____________________
Second Life Home Page Forums - slhomepage.com

Second Life Handbook - slhandbook.com

Second Life Mainland - slmainland.com
Tiger Zobel
hoarder
Join date: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 391
07-11-2006 05:30
Just a quick question... what would constitute "exploration"?

As far as I can tell, flying around, driving around, walking around, p2p via the classified listing, the event's listing, the map, the picks in people's profiles... are all exploring.


Is exploring being denied? Not at all...
Is unlimited exploring being denied? Yes, but that was never promised...



:edit: and scan range =/= active alert range... that can be set much lower, and usually is. (as far as I know, the scan range is set to 96M and can't be changed... but heck, I've been wrong before and I'm basing this on the various scanners I have... all of them are set at 96M and cannot be changed)
1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 17