Pay for play banning.

Here's something that might help resolve the "protection" issue... pay for play banning.

Normal banning of individuals would remain free, and exclusive bans (everyone not in a group or list) for a short period (say a week) would remain free too.

Longer term exclusive bans would cost some money, say L$10/week for each protected volume. A 40m high 512m^2 ban would be L$40 per month. BUT... If you had a tall build, you could raise it to 160m by paying L$160 a month. If you really wanted to protect your First Land to the building limit, you'd pay L$800/month for the privilege. If you have a 4096, you'd pay more, or you could split it into separate parcels and only protect part of it.

You could also extend the height of short term exclusive bans or individual bans for the same L$10 a week for bans beyond the default 40m.

The *start height* and *end height* of the banned volume would be separately specified, so you could just protect a 40m by 512m^2 volume around your skybox for L$10 a week.

Tradeoffs:

1. People who currently have their land locked down would have to start paying for it, though they could have their existing ban list grandfathered in for a few months.

2. People who just put bans up and forgot about them would just take them down rather than pay.

These two points would improve ordinary flight for the general public, by reducing the number of exclusive bans that you don't see until you've already run into them. That's what the public wins from this scheme. Now, what do landholders get?

3. People who need higher bans would be able to get them rather than depending on security scripts.

4. People who need to protect skyboxes could protect them.

5. Security scripts that added people to the ban list would work for skyboxes.

6. Griefers couldn't just float over your ban zone and yell at you.

7. You wouldn't get vehicles left floating over your land or crashing into it because you'd teleported the pilot home.

It would need tweaking, but I actually like this.

I like this idea too. I am in both camps on this issue. I have had griefer woes, so I run a security script. Plus, I discovered not long ago that I LOVE to fly, and purchased my first jet

So, a compromise IS needed, and I think that this one would work.

I like this idea too. And heck you could have fun creating security volumes and making a avatar pinball machine.

A long-term benefit for everyone:

8. It would add another money sink to the Linden economy, and improve the exchange rate.

Are you suggesting that, under this model - each time I need to add a genuine griefer to a permanant ban list, that I would need to pay a fee for each instance?

Or are you suggesting that, in order to keep a persistant ban list in general, one has to pay a fee?

If its the latter - no problem here at all - might just be workable!

If its the former - this would mean that a griefer could manipulate the system, and force folks to burn money to be left alone by continuously griefing, using themselves & their alts as each time duration ran out. (Assuming AR's continue to be ineffective). That's not so good.

While I don't have any issue with the idea of having to pay a fee to establish privacy, I do have a small issue with having to pay a 'protection' fee on a per-use basis to protect myself from folks who habitually disturb the peace.

What I'd most like to see is a way to make security in all its forms only usable without restriction on the inside of a build via a bounding box, and implement either TOS or Technical solutions to prevent the use of said bounding box in open airspace areas.

I didn't really address that explicitly, but I didn't intend to imply that every change to the list would be another fee.

I would think that it would be simplest and easiest to understand if you paaid the fee at stipend time for bans that had been in place for the entire previous week. Also, you could continue to ban individual people indefinitely for free within the basic "40m over the parcel" ban zone, you just couldn't ban "everyone but this list or group" or take advantage of the new features without paying.

Or they could just use security scripts that ejected anyone who wasn't on a list.. no special ban lists, just an 'allowed' list.

This would make things worse.

And what about property not exactly at 1 hieght.. cause my land is (at its lowest point) 60 or so..ban lines do nothing

Yeh, they could. That's the worst case, that people do exactly what they're doing now with their security scripts. Or they could take advantage of the new capabilities that they'd get and get improved security with an incentive to limit it to the situations that really need it.

Like, how about a script that turns on the "ban all but group" when you're in range (or when anyone in llSameGroup() is in range), and turns it off when you're not. That'll be a ban that's up for less than a week, is up EVERY time you need it, and isn't ever up when you don't need it.

It'd get rid of the 'oh, I forgot I had ban turned on' lines, and give security scripts something less obnoxious than teleporting people home to do.

If the ban starts at ground level (no lower limit specified), since it's based on volume, it'd go 40m up from ground before you had to buy extra coverage.

Wouldn't SL banning griefers be a lot simpler? Oh, I forgot, this is the land of the free and the home of recidivist. Nevermind.

If the only reason people put land restrictions up and ran security scripts was to keep greifers out, yeh, that would make sense. But that's not what people I've talked to who've set up exclusive ban lines (only allow people in this group or on this list in) generally say they're doing it for.

Sometimes they didn't even know it was there (or still there), because there's no obvious indiction to someone who's allowed in that there's access controls up.

Hmm, I quite like this idea. It's simpler than boundary boxes. While I like the basic idea though, I'm not certain about why you'd want to make it cost a load of money? I mean, if I'm paying for the land, then I don't think I should have to pay to ban people from the parts of it that I use.
I think a combination of two things would be good. Basically you can set 'zones' for banning people, say you want one at 0m to 20m to protect your shop, and 100m to 120m to protect your skybox home.
If fly into a ban zone, you go straight through, you are only ejected if you stop moving within (perhaps for a tiny delay to consider lag).

IMO paying to protect your land/creations shouldn't be necessary. Admittedly I hate it when someone blocks their land, but some people like it, and I know there are a few places I would like it myself. On that note having zones set as accept/ban zones would be nice, ie it either kicks out anyone not on the accept list, or it kicks out everyone on the ban list.

I wouldn't describe 4c a week as "a load of money" for a protected volume, and the reason for the cost is three-fold.

1. It creates a "sink" for Lindens, which will improve the economy over the long term.

2. It creates an incentive to minimise over-use by landowners. Radically increasing the scope of protected volumes without limiting it would lead to the sky being filled with 700-meter-tall columns of ban-lines, and any arbitrary limit (eg, "you can only have a 40m tall zone, you can just control the height" would still fall short of some people's needs. Since the economy is such a large part of SL and since the economy is an effective tool to manage resource usage... why not use it?

3. The public would be giving up part of the right-of-way that starts at 40m, it's only reasonable that landholders give up something in return.