Absolutely brilliant solution to bots on your land

Anyone wanting to check out the wasps in action are welcome to see mine.
Hubunny (212,126)

I only have them close to our house in a palm tree and they're set to about a 20m radius.
Further north to the lighthouse we made 'public' for boat launching etc.
If you visit, I have a small underwater park, I don't think the wasps will follow you into the water but if they do you can let me know.

This thread needs banlines

Like you did me? I wouldn't think of it, heaven forbids.





It's not about saving anything for those people who leave ban lines up when they're not there. The reason they do it is very simple. They do it because they can, plain and simple. They can and they do and it's perfectly legal.

Hope this answers many inquiring minds.

I would rather they 'kill' quickly. Saves time.

A headshot will finish them off nicely.

Oh, but how enlightening! I thought I started a thread about a cool beehive. It turned out to be a just can of worms after all. But I think mostly people are being civil about their different views.

I could have a lot of comments on what has been stated here, but nah.

Second Life is a bunch of pixels on a screen. It's a LOT of fun and I think someday it could change the way we surf the web, but at the end of the day -- I go to bed eventually.

Sling, I agree. I think that idea is hilarious.

I wish I could script. I would make some other things like this such as:

A bunch of cute teddy bears that swarm and hug you to death. Or, a bunch of grannies with canes that beat you and yell, "get offa my lawn!" etc...

Totally obnoxious, fun, and practical.

Agree.

But then you'll hear how rude you've been. We wouldn't want to disappoint, now would we?

Hmm....Yeah, I would.

That's the same spiritual-pygmy justification that ad farmers use.

If someone behaves without considering the effect of their actions on others then they have something wrong with them. They are evolutionary failures.

"It's perfectly legal" would be more accurately phrased as "It's not illegal".
"It's not illegal" is not a justification for anything. It's a defence used by someone who can't think of a proper justification.

I disagree entirely. The law exists to prevent those actions which society finds unacceptable to such an overwhelming degree that intervention has become necessary. If it has not become necessary to intervene and prevent a certain behaviour, then it is clear that society in general do not feel strongly enough about it to try to intervene; meaning that it must be acceptable. It may be a behaviour which is mildly irritating (like ad farming or spam), but 'mildly irritating' is insufficient grounds for an intervention; Britney Spears is mildly irritating, but we chose to tolerate her. Likewise, dance music, TV adverts, shops putting up their Christmas decorations in October, people using the word "Metaverse" without a hint of irony and the French are all mildly irritating - but the fact that they are not irritating enough for society in general to prevent from taking place means that they lie within the sphere of acceptable behaviour (close to the border of unacceptable, perhaps, but until society is sufficiently irked to do somthing then it has not crossed the line.)

Laws are driven by feeling within society - and for a law to become necessary, bad feeling against a particular practice must reach a certain threshold. Laws provide a valuable litmus test on the mood of the nation in general - atleast, above the required threshold anyway.

Basically, if something has not been banned, then it means not enough people have cared enough in the past to object to it - then it's all good, baby.

It is not a defence used by people who can't think of a proper justification - It is used by people whose justification is "I do this because I gain from it" - which is an entirely reasonable justification actually - but don't see why they should have to justify their actions to you.

The enactment of a law is simply a trigger point after which a given behaviour is "against the law".
Right up to the moment of the law being passed, the behaviour is "perfectly legal".
"Perfectly legal" is no excuse/recommendation for any sort of behaviour.

The behaviour being made illegal was generally *never* acceptable behaviour. It just took enough time for people to get so sick of the behaviour that they took enough action to relabel the *exact same behaviour* from "irritating" to "illegal".
By your argument above, the behaviour "must be acceptable" right up to the wire. Clearly, this can not be right. Otherwise there would have been no need for the law.


It's morality in SL that should be our concern, and not law.
The enactment of a law is an acknowledgement of failure of social pressures.



As for "mildly irritating"; spam is illegal in many jurisdictions because it has grown rapidly from an irritation into something with a huge negative impact on Net infrastructure.
Just about anybody with a brain could see that spam was a growing exponential problem, but it had to become an actual HUGE problem before legislators creaked into action.

As for ad farms being "mildly irritating"? Dude, you should get out more - or maybe try living beside. I never had one near me, but I see them around the place. They are an example of absolutely outrageous behaviour. Most of them are transparently extortion attempts. However, they are "perfectly legal".

Well, I went to get some bees, paid the vendor, the vendor said I was going to receive an object but I never did. Hopefully the seller will respond to my IM.

The SL blog on the home page is reporting in-world problems including transaction problems. Might be good to hold off a while.

Definitely not the sellers fault. In fact, he sent me a beehive promptly after I contacted him. Now I'm going to turn my bees loose. . . lol

Don't use so many big words, some may not comprehend.

Ban lines are there and not only there but put there by Linden themselves for landowner use. Bot farmers or anything similar was not put there by Linden but created by sl residents which is a gigantic difference. You can't compare the two. Comparing them is what's really not having any justifiable and proper and logical answer as to why they shouldn't be used.

“Thanks for having too much integrity for one single person”

to say that those who expect some sort of privacy, or those who "'foam at the mouth' about their security being able to orbit or TP home someone who happens to wander over or near a boundary" needing psychological help is kinda stretchin it. i think its reasonable to expect some sort of privacy in a virtual realm. to think that just because you log in and can trample any darn place you feel, now that shows lack of control of one's RL, as it shows total disrespect and disregard of anyones privacy or space.

Quoted for Truth.

I miss the mainland. My boyfriend and I have a lovely plot in a Gorean themed ACS sim and he has put a great build on it, and I'm bored bored bored.

Exploring used to be an OK thing to do in Second Life, back in the days of telehubs. People HOPED that folks would wander by and admire their build. One might even get pos rated for it.

At the same time, I do hope we'll eventually be able to set up at least pockets of actual privacy. Banlines and ejectors are just a pain to people trying to explore/drive/fly/sail around the mainland. It is true that I don't like being interrupted by J. Random Newb when I'm home, and I don't like having to feel the only way out of that is escaping to a skybox. But when I'm not home, I take the banlines down if I needed them before (which is rare).

The other gracious thing to do is to set your security script with a long enough delay that someone merely passing through can get past it before the weapon goes off.

SL is a better, friendlier place when the homeless, the newbs and the travellers can wander safely. If we don't find a way to run into new people and talk to them, why bother being here?

I missed those days. It saddens me much.

Exactly. I think and hope there's still some of that going on. "Explore" is still one of the options to pick under interests in your profile.

Gee, I just had no idea this topic was such an issue. To those who feel my hiking and exploring was just so much trampling where I'm not wanted or sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong, I am deeply sorry that we have different expectations of what Second Life is. You are all still welcome on my land.

Yeah. Thanks!

I am going to be in world for at least part of Christmas Day and you're all welcome at my place for tree-gazing and happy dancing

I don't have a problem with people who don't want random avatars or cameras to be able to enter into their builds/land.
I simply question the current methods used to try and achieve that.



If you read any of my posts on the topic, you'll see that the big problem is the visual impact of ban lines. They are ugly and intrusive. For a neighbour not to see them, they either have to build a solid screen or stay at least 7 metres inside their own boundary.
Given the ugliness of the lines, it is appropriate to question whether or not they are really needed. The pinnacle of ban line madness is the parcel that is empty at ground level.

Ban lines are at least as bad as ad farms visually. The fact that LL programmers created the look does not make them 'good'. They are an example of a half-baked short-sighted quick-fix solution. I don't believe that the designers ever put themselves in the place of a neighbour. They are the product of a tech design that did not consider the impact on the community.

SO: Ban lines should not be used because ....... (1) they are ugly and intrusive on the neighbourhood.


There is a second issue in that when flying/sailing it is possible to unintentionally hit a ban line, particularly when coming at them from an angle. They generally break vehicles.
People in vehicles would generally *not* want to get off and mess with your stuff. If they get off, their vehicle usually gets auto-returned. The point of using a vehicle is to travel. Someone without a vehicle would be a stronger candidate for 'intruder'.


SO: As a secondary point, ban lines should not be used because ....... (2) they unnecessarily break vehicles.



What's left for someone who wants to keep others out ?
Security orbs seem to be the best compromise in general use at the moment.
However, they should warn people and they should do no more than get the unwanted off the parcel with push or eject.

Most security bots a bit anal though. As I've said, I really like the bees sort of idea.
LOL! If I wanted to keep people out some Grannies with sticks shouting "Get off my lawn" would be numero uno!!! I'd love that.
That sort of thing achieves the aim of keeping others out without griefing the neighbourhood visually and without breaking things.

Let's be clear.
I don't have an issue with "those who expect some sort of privacy". That's fine.
It's the ones who glory in tales of TPing home or Orbiting that need help. Read my post again.

I totally agree that it is reasonable to expect some sort of privacy. Respect for others should be the norm.


I think that some way of keeping disrespectful people off our land is absolutely essential. There's no way that Daddy or Mummy Linden is going to keep the unwelcome away from us.

For me, the ideal method would be something that ushers the unwelcome out of a private space. It should warn at the boundary of the space and start to exert some push if the avatar does not begin to move along. The push should increase until the avatar is out of the space.
The thing should be polite and firm. There is no need to go all "SIR!!!!! STEP AWAY FROM THE VEHICLE!!!!!!!". There is definitely no need to wage war, to TP home, orbit or kill.

Grannies with sticks!!
Wise-cracking cartoon animations!!
---- now that's the ticket


Perhaps I've been lucky. I've only had to eject two people in nearly a year.
I seriously wonder if many people put up security do so simply because they can, and not because they really need to.
I've spoken with people who had lines up with out realising that they had done so. I've spoken with people who did not realise that the ban was not actually protecting their skybox.

Grannies with sticks!!
or diminutive teddy bears!! Tiny Ninja Teddies!

I really dislike any and all broad-brushed definitions, one of which was given earlier about "exploring" and/or "hiking". I really enjoy exploring the various set-ups in this SL world because there are some very good creations in here. I have no desire to intrude upon any person's privacy in doing so. Any collective statement saying ALL "explorers or hikers" are just being intrusive is a crock of B.S. I have found some neat little shops and clubs while out hiking around.

If this world was set up with distinct "roadways" or paths, this kind of exploring would be much, much easier. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be even remotely possible due to the randomness in which things are created within each and every SIM.

Instead of TPing one to two SIMS away to a venue, I would prefer to fly, hoping to see something new on the way. But, even in the short 5 months I have been on board, I have encountered more "Ban Lines" than were originally present. Some of these now block easy access to stores, shops, and clubs, and I wonder if they don't also inhibit patronage at these places.

Now to be clear, I am all for privacy because, just as in RL, I believe each person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in SL. I really dislike anyone snooping around my "house" in RL or SL....and I will deal with an intruder not too kindly if their motives are anything but innocent.

Since our SL house is on the same land as our store, I will look in to finding a colony of these bees to guard the perimeter of the house, although I would prefer using my panther instead.

I want one.

I wouldn't need access restrictions if "explorers" showed the least bit of common decency, but so far I've come across only one single person who didn't waltz around like they own the place.

My house is up against a sim border, the landing point is at the farmost edge, you have to literally squeeze past the scarecrow to get onto the walkway and then you have to walk about 50m to actually get to the "front door". *Noone* can claim they just stumbled inside "accidently".

Yet time and time again "explorers" do intrude and always have some excuse ready about why they just have to go through all that trouble just to come bother me when I want some privacy (meaning I either want to be alone, or I want to be with the person/people that are there).

That's ignoring all the clueless newbies, the ones who think my house makes a great place for them to invite others over and the escorts who turn it into a brothel by tp'ing their clients over, the vehicle users who can't be bothered to clean up their mess, and so on.

There's also the fun fact that asking someone who just waltzed in the door to please leave is inevitably met with "why?" and more often than not further griefing when they have to be ejected because they just won't leave on their own.

Restricting the parcel to group eliminates all of that hassle and bother and they simply go bother one of the neighbours, although I think by now the other 4 people who live on the sim have done the same thing.

The majority of "explorers" on the forums may well be respectful, but the majority of "explorers" in-world are anything but and until that changes, people will keep putting up access restrictions so instead of ranting about "banlines", make it a point to educate others on what is and isn't socially acceptable and you'd be halfway there in eliminating them.