Overzealous Security and Rude Landowners

Dropping a gazillion prims on your parcel, then, isn't griefing, either. A little rude, but not griefing.

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

/invalid_link.html

Posted by Lee Linden:




Owners are doing exactly what Lee said here:



Straight from the Lindens to you, courtesy of a simple search

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.

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

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.

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.

Thats alright Tiberious, my autoreturn will send your plane after you.

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...

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.

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.

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 ?

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

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

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.

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.)

Flying too fast is suicide! If you dont run into a skybox you will find some jerks security orb!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Thanks for the reply Jack, but I don't think I've moved the goalposts.



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.

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)