Skybox Security?

To be honest, I've found the explanations there to be a bit dense (I mean, "packed", "difficult"; I don't mean "stupid". I really need something more basic before I can make head or tail of those. But I will get there eventually.

On my terms, I'm not banning anyone from myself and Hal's lands. It's not much point. I am shortly gonna be back in-world once I get my computer probs organized and building my gallery in zindra and there's not much use in having a private home/gallery if its locked away.
Security in real is one thing but I have learnt that even there, the more locks you put on, the less friends you're gonna have (not that I advocat "open" house).

The best wiki (imo) for scripting is http://www.lslwiki.net/lslwiki/wakka.php?wakka=HomePage

I never use the secondlife pages as they are nowhere near as good.

My experience is that they are heavy handed and are fundamentally unnecessary, especially when they stray outside their own land.

Philip Linden years ago said the skies were for everyone, and free for people to fly through. With security systems you end up making it a crapshoot if you can fly across the world at high altitude due to bots that go running around ejecting innocent people.

I will AR anyone that has a security system that is overzealous as pushing an avatar, crashing their client, sending them orbiting for no reason is GRIEFING.

Is ARing someone who is slightly paranoid really worthwhile? After all, if you are on someone's land and they don't want you there, they have every right to deny access. Aring and counter-measures just compound teh issue.
Why not just live peacefully with each other?
It's my "thing", I know, but better to have humour than spaffle and schlag each other.

This is what you get if you use an Orb and -NOT- banlines.

Say it with me everyone:

"Banlines don't do anything for anything in the sky. They only make ground ugly and glitchy for walkers."

Get a brand like Hippo that you only need to buy once and can keep copying - and you can rez one at each skybox and protect just the space of the box and a small bit of airspace around it.

Say it with me folks:

"This is not about camming, its about keeping people out of places that any rational person can see just passing by are private."

You can AR me all you want, but its my land and my rules over how I use it and who I let into it - so I win.

If you can explain why you were in my land at 4000m up where the only thing to see if clearly and obviously a home... well, you can't.

That just means you didn't measure the location of your house correctly and you were actually inside their land.

There is a reason banlines don't extend up to infinite height...to allow people to fly through the public airspace. What you are doing with these griefer tools is to make it so people can't fly around SL at high altitude. The area up that high is public airspace, and is shared with you. That's why LL didn't make banlines go that high, it wasn't a bug. This was discussed years ago, and people agreed that temporary existance in the public airspace above "your land" was acceptable. Hence no "towers of banlines" in the public skies. Of course you can control what stays over your land on a permanent basis, but what you guys are doing with 30 second "get out or I'll orbit you" is GRIEFING.

If you are flying at high altitude on a balloon or a device, you are flying pretty fast and you will most likely never see your house in the sky. You run into it, and it might take awhile to sort out what happened because you ran into some "sky garbage". Then your griefer tool comes along and ejects the person from the land, or crashes their client (in violation of TOS), or at worst makes them lose their vehicle because that doesn't get returned home.

I don't care who's in there when I'm gone. And I don't care about people watching me - even when I change - heck I usually walk the public or private and held out as open lands of mature and adult sims nude unless I see indications or signs that I shouldn't.

I care about someone hopping onto my couch or my bed or whatever or joining me and my guests and trying to chat us up.

I think not exactly duplicate. At least my intent in citing 472 was because it seems more general, whereas I take 22 to mean specifically the problem of crossing directly into a prim-full parcel. God only knows what LL takes any of them to mean, assuming the crippling of vehicles is not actually a strategic direction for them, all evidence to the contrary.

Road and rail vehicles travel at ground level. Even Caledon has discovered lighter-than-air vehicles. Because of the number of whitelist banlines on the Mainland, travel below 50m AGL is hazardous at best, so vehicles travelling above that altitude are common. It's not for sight-seeing, but high-altitude flight can be a lot of fun especially in a group, and is really not that rare.

One reason you might not notice the high-flyers is that some of them travel quite fast--fast enough to rarely even be detected by sensibly scripted sensors--when things are going well. It's when things aren't going well that a security system can be just the extra aggravation that might provoke a flyer into an irrational homicidal rampage against the landowner. If a parcel didn't have griefers before, it may well be courting them by installing a security system.

I very much doubt that. I'd put the balance at a couple orders of magnitude the other way: hundreds or more times as many problems with vehicle border crossings than there are actual newly-discovered dickheads bothering people for the first time on a parcel. It's the irrational fear of dickheads that's common.

I'd say if you come into my skybox and start trying to boss me around or hop on my bed and use the sex animations on me... its not me who's griefing you.

What you need to realize is that I have a right to control who enters my land even for 0.1 seconds. That I give you a warning is a courtesy to you. That I let you use it freely at ground and below my skybox, and that I have shops and cafes down there - that's not your right to use them - its a courtesy to you.

You have no right to be there, not even for a micro second. Its a privilege for you that I let you in.

You obviously are a newbie and probably don't understand that this was discussed YEARS ago and it was decided that the public airspace is a shared resource, and that harassing people who are solely passing through your airspace is GRIEFING. Either you are innocently misunderstanding the use of public airspace, or you just don't care about our SL community and want to harass others.

I have no right to be there? What in goodness gracious makes you think that? What gives you the right to be on the mainland? Do you even understand what the mainland is about? Do you even care? WHat are you doing on the mainland? Why are you causing trouble in the public skies? Why? Are you some griefer who has made another of several dozen alt accounts so that you can come in here and tout the "benefits" of griefing people who use the public skies?

Why don't you just go back inside your house and do whatever it is you do (from your forum profile it looks like sex) and keep it to yourself. It looks like you are enticing people to come "look". I could care less what you do up there. But when I run into your sky garbage, I'll say "I'm very sorry to interrupt...you see I was flying at 4096m and ran into your house"....hopefully you'll say "No problem, could you please excuse us...we are...ahem.....busy"....I'd then say "Oh, terribly sorry"...and I'd be on my way as quickly as possible.

What you propose is virtual "banlines" form the ground to the sky, instant ejection/teleportation of anyone who has the audacity to stray over your land even for a "microsecond". You want the public skies closed down all because you don't have the sense to treat the mainland as a community. I'd bet you are a real joy to live next to in a RL apartment complex.

By whom was this decided, Hank, and where may we consult details of the decision?

I ask because I'd always been under the impression that to stay within TOS you're supposed to give people 30 seconds' warning before a security thingy boots them, but from what you say, it's questionable whether they are legal at all, at least above ground level on the mainland. I can't remember where I got the 30 seconds thing from or what official status it has, if any.

I am sure you're correct, but people might want to check it for themselves.

I remember it in direct discussions with Lindens, including Philip Linden, as well as at Town Hall meetings of the early days. It all came up because of the switch from the prim tax, to prim limitations on land and how that would affect the public skies regarding vehicles as well as automated things such as "roaming birds".

I've never heard of anything official regarding "time to vacate". Public skies are just that, public. This is exactly why banlines only extend up so far...it's not a bug or a technical limitation. That was done on purpose to allow people to freely pass through airspace on a vehicle.

As for 30-seconds, that's just some empirical number people have come up with. To me, any automated ejection of someone passing through public airspace is GRIEFING until proven otherwise. Ejection or teleportation home is reserved for MANUAL treatment of griefers. Otherwise, we just have blackholes (who knows when your group of balloon travellers are just going to disappear) in the sky.

You can AR all you like, Hank, but the only effect will be you wasting your time. LL wonlt do anything about a security device that covers the person's land. In other words, it's not an ARable thing. But please, do waste as much time as you like

Well then screw the mainland, screw working with others, and screw the community. Thanks for making Second Life a less better place to live in.

Let's screw the mainland. I'll script make a security system that will make it so that you have virtual banlines, and it will work hard to orbit, crash, and harass anyone who even thinks of flying over your land. The audacity! You will become the joy of your neighbors as they are continuously thrown about for their transgressions. And best of all it'll be released free so that it'll become the standard, and we can destroy the public skies once and for all.

Well, I'm sorry, but people are entitled to some degree of privacy, and the range of security devices is limited, so I come down on the side of people's ownership rights and not on the side of vehicle riders.

We have different opinions then. I think mine is right And it's nothing to do with a fear of anything. It's everything to do with wanting to have some degree of privacy that isn't disturbed by whoever feels like disturbing it.

So, if I put a skybox up for myself, and I don't want to be disturbed, then I'll use a security device. Other people's desires are irrelevant as long as I only cover my own land.

If LL wants to make navigation room in the sky, they can incorporate a 'free zone' between certain levels. I don't think anyone would mind that. In the meantime, things are as they are, and land owners are right to use security devices when they don't want to be disturbed.

LMAO! A shared resource LMFAO! You need to wake up, Hank

My pleasure

I base my experience off of boating. I find banlines to be most of my troubles. When I had my place, I kept a skybox at 200m in the air and a security device set to 40m (with the option not to cross outside of my land) with a notice and 20 sec later they would be sent home. I disagree with pushing or orbiting security systems. I did it like that so i didnt interfere with aircraft (land vehicles were not an issue as I was away from roads and oceans). I like to have security so i dont have to stop wat im doing to have people go away. Chances are, if my system was on, I didn't want to be bothered.

I think I see where you're getting so wrong, Hank. Perhaps there used to be some "public skies" but there aren't any now. The sky above a parcel is owned by the parcel owner. That's why they can put skyboxes up there. I hope that helps.

Catherine Linden: Liberty Tesla: How will you prevent RL$ land buyers from crowding out L$ land buyers? Will sim capacity be increased enough to accommodate both?

Philip Linden: Again, I suspect that this will not happen. We will conduct both L$ and $USD auctions in a blaanced way,
Philip Linden: and will not add sims too much beyond resident growth.
Philip Linden: So we don't want to the world to be huge and empty.

Catherine Linden: Carnildo Greenacre: Question for Philip: How will the new limits affect projects that aren't tied to land, such as birds that are free to wander the world?

Philip Linden: Carnildo your work has inspired us here!

Zebulon Starseeker: *works shotgun bolt*

Philip Linden: We will make sure that there are 'extra' allocations in all sims that allow objects to hang around like your birds.
Philip Linden: It is the same problem with vehicle.s.... there will be a budget for these sorts of prims.
Philip Linden: So yes, we will solve it. I love the birds... I designed the original ones for those who remember alpha!

Thanks. But you say, "I've never heard anything official regarding 'time to vacate'"; probably most residents of SL have never heard anything official to the effect that you're apparently not really supposed to have these security orbs in place anywhere above ground level.

Did what these Lindens apparently said when the matter was discussed several years ago ever get written down anywhere and published, in the way that -- for example -- there's pretty clear statements about what you can and can't do in the way of publishing IMs or whatever?

There you go then. They *did* make allowances for such things as birds - temporary prims.

They failed miserably with the other bit - about not want the land to be empty - but I suppose the making of money interfered with that idea.

Apart from that, there is nothing there. Nothing about the skies being a public resource - nothing.