Skybox Security?

Ive got an idea let's have a 'ban line experience' for all those people who love security, orbs and ban lines.... put 'em all on an island, give 'em a parcel of land equivalent to what they own and turn the ban lines on to maximum height, call the island 'the Bastille'...

....leaving the rest of us to enjoy the freedom of the sl waterways and airways - well as far as lag, boundary line disruptions and full parcels allow anyway.

Ill throw it up to 60 seconds for ya Argent And its not just me that uses it, some friends do too.

For the record, maelstrom and hank are typical of the people who I was extremized by. Always shouting island, see how you like it, and calling my (reasonable) security greifing, all because they feel like they have the right to my land's use. I'll just keep my reasonable security up and he can keep a reasonable distance from my land if hes got a problem with me securing my land in a fair manner. Middle ground.

I also mentioned Hank could pay me to fly through. Airspace toll.

Hank. Your idea of there being a cost and a sharing of money by landowners simply won't fly. Either you want relatively trouble-free flying, or you're not that bothered about that so you want someone to make money from it. You need to make up your mind. It won't work if money is involved.

You've come up with two ideas during this thread, or at least that's how appeared to me. One was simply broadcasting so that flyers know where to avoid, and the other a money-making one that will have same result. The second one won't work. Flyers won't pay and a great many landowners land-owners won't use it even if they did.

Imo, trying to get a pay system working will be banging your head against a brick wall, but trying to get a 'standard' off the ground, and spread, would be easier - not easy, but easier.

What do you call reasonable security ? How long does your security give to let people move through peacefully.

And if you were 'extremized' by my opinion be grateful you weren't 'extremized' (if you call classing people who use griefing - yes you read it right - griefing tools just to protect some non existent sense of security) by being forced to re-log or even restart the pc by being frozen by some such device while simply flying over someones land...And I notice you wouldnt want to be surrounded by other peoples attempts at homesecurity either.

Still I suppose its easy calling someone who sim,ply wants to move from a to b without being forcibly crashed out of sl an 'extremist'

No thought that your nutcase home security might be 'extreme'

On the whole, they are not, so it's not worth giving it any thought.

ah so thats it - theyre thoughtless....

that explains it

thanks again Phil.

If that person insists that their path includes unrestricted access to people's SL homes, yes, they are an extremist.

But the problem isn't that you simply want to move from A to B, is it? If that was all you wanted to do, you would tp to B directly (not, of course, that that is any guarantee against being crashed out of SL).

Yeah, the thing is, I'd actually pay (something--not microparcel extortion rates, but *something*) for a "pass" that actually guarantees flight across every Mainland sim at some achievable altitude.* But until that can be absolutely guaranteed for every sim, it has zero value to me, so I'd pay nothing. And until people pay, there's no funds to provide an incentive for landowners to comply. So it's a kind of chicken-and-egg game-of-chicken (or something).

Really, there's a much simpler solution. Establish an actual "standard" in the Community Standards: minimum of two minutes warning for all security devices, and five minutes for parcels larger than a 4096. Problem solved. Could have been solved pages ago.
_________
* I think this would be hopelessly complicated, though, even just technically. Imagine, for example, sim A borders sim B with all the property at the A side of the border allowing passage at one elevation, and all the property on the B side allowing it at another. Now, forget that there was a sim border involved.

I want to fly any one of the numerous vehicles available in sl between two chosen points

a) to see how they move

b) to explore and see whats in sl worth looking at... mainly buildings and the textures people have used.

I dont know what youre implying I want to do..

Enlighten me you're free to slander in this forum.

That's a simple example to one that I'd thought earlier. Some land is used for skybox rentals, and skyboxes are stacked vertically, with suitable spaces between them. There may be very narrow elevations that can be flown through without hitting devices. But imagine another stack of skyboces next to that stack - perhaps offset all the way up (zig-zagged). They would be far enough apart for tenants but if they all had security devices, they would be impossible to get through. Then again, flyers would learn to avoid areas like that, as they would learn to avoid areas with the scenario you described.

Or what about the scenario where each parcel in a sim just has one skybox, but the parcels are smallish and the skyboxes are well seperated - but the range of the securities aren't well seperated. It would be a minefield - maybe even fun to try and negotiate.

There's a very simple solution BAN ALL bar the given linden tools for home security.

Oh dear Im being extremist again.... could it be the earlier implication that I have heaven knows what kind of ulterior motive for being able to travel as freely around SL as the system permits without other peoples cuckoo ideas of privacy and security adding further hinderance....

Or just fly around them when you encounter them.

You are - and totally selfish.

Irrelevant to this discussion. There are pleanty of sime where you know you can do exactly that.

If that's what you want to do, walk. Most of the buildings are on the ground.

yes whereas youre just an idiot who wants to entwine sl in yet more loopy rules and exceptions and generally make it more awkward for anyone whatever side theyre on.

oh and while we're about it dunderhead Id like to know how wanting free access to sl for EVERYONE here is SELFISH....

Try aiming your adjectives at the right party.

proving once again youre an ostrich with his head stuck in the ground....

or just purely pulling any old argument out of a hat

...unless of course Ive imagined all those skyboxes filling the air of sl.

All I wanted you to do was accurately to state what you wanted to do, which now you have done -- fly vehicles and take in the sights en route -- which is not the same as "simply move from A to B". Your wishes, in other words, are considerably more complex than just getting from one place to another, and, I take it, you feel they should take priority of the wishes of people who might live in your flightpath, should these conflict with yours.

It just struck me that describing what you want to do as "I simply want to get from A to B" is disingenuous.

Actually all you wanted to do wasrubbish my view and try and imply I had some weird motive for wanting to be able to fly and explore freely.

But next time just for you I'll say I simply state I want to explore SL by travelling from A to Z by way of the intervening letters of the alphabet.

I don't want to make any rules - you do. I'm content with the existing rules. It's you who wants to change them.

It isn't, but that's not what you want. You want free access to everywhere you want to go, specifically everywhere you want to fly. Everyone in SL already has free access to SL.

Oh. So it's not the buildings you want to see - it's buildings in the sky that you want to see. It helps if you can be clear about things.

I don't need any arguments - as I said, I'm content the way things are - it's you who isn't.

If youre content why are you bumping your gums in this forum putting forward all manner of barmy ideas ?

I want free access to fly in sl without being crashed out by someone's nutcase security device as Ive stated time and again. In fact you already told me I should AR anyone who did crash me out YOURSELF.

If you werent selecting points to keep your argument in an issue which you claim youre 'happy with'

Idiot if I want to fly its hardly buildings on the ground I want to see...

Jesus Im battling wits with an unarmed opponent