Skybox Security?

I cant believe people wouldn't want the spectacle of any sl aircraft passing over their land or flying past their skybox...

I love watching people pass by in their vehicles - spaceships, cars, boats, aircraft . Id love to see zeppelins and vast space battle cruisers...some hope though, as they can barely handle lindens boundary probs or the full parcels....and on top of these technical probs people want to cause further problems to protect their ludicrous sense of privacy with a device that would get them ar'd if they used it else where in sl.

Then keep going. It's likely to be a safe route much more often than not.

It wouldn't have happened in the sky as banlines don't go up very far.

Nothing is going to be perfect, and there are always going to odd occasions when something gets difficult. That's just the way it is, and I don't see it as justification for the total non-use of security devices in the sky. If those odd occasions are too much for someone, it's best they find something else to do instead. I can't find any sympathy for an attitude that says, "it happened to me once, therefore all skybox security devices must be banned". I'm not suggesting that that's your attitude. I'm saying that, just because something *can* happen once in a while, doesn't mean that things that cause it to happen should be banned, when those things provide a lot of good function to a lot of people all of the time.

I'm pretty sure ejecting someone from your land is not grounds for an abuse report.

Which would be better - a quicker passage across land that says you shouldn't be there, or getting zapped? I see no reason to set a warning period so long that a very slow vehicle can safely get across a parcel, just because the person in it prefers to go very slowly. That would be a bit selfish on the part of the flyer.

hehe. It's balloonists who need to do that. They are the ones with the problem

Why? What is the benefit to the landowner zapping people quickly when they're not even on the property?

And... have you ever been in a hot air balloon? The ones in SL are already far more maneuverable than the real thing.

Not paranoid at all. Just curious as to why you sent them. If it was your new super-duper security device that covers every cubic inch of a column of space up to 4096 meters, it's just silly.

I declined them all anyway.

Play Queen "I Wanna Be Free" and you'll be okay.
Or Foreigner
Or Lady Gaga - please play her,
That's all the security you need - the power of song.
Jigs.

I am sure that lots of people would enjoy watching such craft pass by - I'm one of them. But that has nothing to do with the discussion.

How about "it happens on a regular basis, therefore security devices should be conservatively programmed."

How about:

If there is a resident in the property, 30 seconds warning, no more than 40m past the furthest edge of the visible build.

If there is no resident on the property, 2 minutes warning, no more than 5m past the furthest edge of the visible build.

What deviltry could a bad guy get up to under those conditions?

That has nothing to do with it. If a balloonist finds him/herself is a situation that needs speed to avoid getting zapped, a go-faster option would be very useful. It's just commen sense. It's nobody else's business whether or not the security is on when the owner isn't there.

No. Is it relevant?

of course it does and who are you to decide what does and doesnt have to do with a discussion anyway ?

No problem for me. It's the attitude I stated that I don't have any sympathy for. Others might have a problem with some of it though. Nobody needs 2 minutes. If 30 seconds is suitable for when people are there, then it's suitable for when they are not.

Well I reckon its relevant when you started asking about ballooon speeds and Argent responded mr 'self appointed mod'

I'll explain. The discussion so far has been about the rights of different groups of people - flyers and landowners. Whether or not it's nice to watch flying craft go by has not been part of the discussion, and doesn't address any of it. I hope that clears it up for you

Whether or not it's nice to watch flyers go by is relevant to the rights of flyers and landowners? Whatever.

Patronising to....

And rude....

I think Phil really doesn't understand the mainland, sees everyone as a potential griefer, and could care less about the need and wants of others or the community. SL is not a solitary game but a virtual community as far as the mainland is concerned.

One minute he's asking about balloon speeds - people answer him their remarks aren't relevant... of course him making a comment specially to tell us they aren't relevant are relevant I suppose ??

I thought it was well established that it's you who doesn't understand the mainland - from way back. It was certainly established that it's you sees people as griefers - you posted that opinion enough times. I don't use a security device so I don't know where you you got the idea from. Wishful thinking?

The ones advocating the use of 'security' devices are the griefers.... If someone flung you across sl caused you to crash out of else or need to log out - you'd be within you right to ar them.

The fact someone gives you ten seconds to get out is supposed to make this okay presumably....

The irony is that sl is hardly swarming with great clouds of people to necessitate that degree of security anyway....

Ah. Your'e back to posting real discussion. Welcome back

So you, along with Hank, think that they are griefers. That's fine. They are not, but you are free to think it.

Of course you'd be within your rights to AR such things as you described, but skybox security devices do one of two thing - eject from the parcel and TP home. Neither of those are ARable. If you come across one that orbits you or causes you to crash, AR the thing - with my blessing.

ETA:
Also, if you come across one that gives no warning, AR that too, although it would be better to first ask the owner to allow people time to move on.

Thank you for your continued blessings on what I post in the forum and what I can do in world. Personally Id never thought of fling a report on anyone SO FAR however taking your advice the next time it happens I'll follow your words of wisdom and do so (I may even drop a friendly notecard pointing the person I ar in the direction of your suggestion ) and hopefully so will anyone else in the same position. Who knows if enough people start filing reports AS YOU SUGGEST lindens will get so fed up of dealing with them they'll ban the things.

Well done Phil.

If a customer finds himself with a need for a fifth dining chair, a "copy" option would be very useful.

If the owner is there, there's a green dot. If security is only in paranoid mode when there's a green dot, and you avoid green dots, you won't run into paranoid security.
I already explained this point several pages back, by the way.

If someone who had never sat in a chair was criticizing you for the design of your chairs, would you consider that relevant?