Skybox Security?

My right to control access on my land actually does extend from the lowest point I can terraform ground down to, and a bit below that, up to 4192m. I pay for complete control of everything within X by Y by 4192.

I pay for that, you don't. And I have eject power over all of it.

But me personally, I don't exercise that power over more than 90% of it. Its not improper of a person to in fact exercise the right they pay for - but it is annoying, and its not friendly if they do so.

I -WANT- people to visit my land and enjoy the things I have set out for them. So I just exercise it over a few tiny portions not near anyone else's builds, and far away from the public things I have set out.

Actually you can fill an air column with prims (megaprims) but there's no point in doing that. As I said earlier, I don't doubt that LL intended people to fly seamlessly through the sky but it doesn't follow that, therefore people are not allowed to use seciruty devices in the sky. And it's not a rule that people must be able to fly across every parcel of land. If you insist that it's a rule, show it to me please.

These huge invisible zones can only be 192m vertically unless multiple devices are used. 192m from 4096 isn't much and they have every right to do it if they want to scan that far.

I don't. Fliers may find a lot of nuisance out there, but that's not the fault of landowners. It's because LL haven't made suitable provision for seamless flying. If they do find a lot of nuisance, they have reason to complain but *not* about the landowners' use of their sky.

Limitations? Why is there only a 192m limit on security? My security system covers 0m all the way to 4096m, the entire "column" of airspace. Hunters seek out everyone within that space and unceremoniously unsits them from their offending vehicle, and sends them scurrying back to their home.

It's not the fault of the security system owner. It's never their fault. It's someone else's fault.

I haven't said that. I've said that people who abuse them should be treated as griefers. And, yes, it is possible to abuse them.

It's a rule that people must be able to fly TO every parcel of land. It's a rule that restricts Linden Labs themselves that ban lines have a limited height. The

It's the fault of both Linden Labs and landowners. Linden Labs didn't make them put a security orb with too short a lime limit in the middle of a field containing nothing else but Linden trees.

If they have a right to complain, then what they are complaining about is landowners abuse of a shared resource.

The same as if someone put 39 bots on a 512 and kept everyone else out of the sim.

Personally, I feel you folks who are oh so paranoid about your privacy that you have to put up ban lines and security orbs are just plain rude.

If you insist on knocking my planes out of the sky, I'll just have to find another way to pass the time.

I think I'll just cruise around and cam for naked people in a 512 meter radius around me, take pictures of them and demonstrate how well their privacy gadgets work.

Go ahead.

I'll save you the trouble and send you naked pics of my avatar having sex if you want them.

You're missing the point intentionally.

You're willfully blind to why people with orbs put them there. We've said why many many many times in this thread and countless threads before it - so you now have zero excuse to keep misstating our point.

I think the TOS on this forum prevents me from posting those pics here, but if you look for me on Anne Otoole's forums - I think I posted a sex pic of myself there.

I agree. The actual behaviour of most owners of private islands -- only excluding public access to specific parts of the estate, if at all -- is directly contrary to the way Hank seems to think people want to behave on the mainland, given half the chance.

My point is that Hank is mistaken in his basic premise that, because you want to exclude people in general from a specific area, it must follow that what you really want to do is ban them from everywhere under your control. When people do have that power, on private islands, it's not how they tend to use it.

Fine, take all the pictures of me you want. But if I'm on my building platform working, just don't disturb me while you're taking them. It's not privacy I'm bothered about; it's peace and quiet.

Then use mute, not security orbs.

Hint: You don't have to search at random; all the spicy spots have security systems.

I find it odd that this thread has been dealing mostly in absolutes, as in complete freedom to fly the skies vs complete right to control a parcel. I just don't think that's how LL has been seeing it, ever.

In the past when this subject has come up, posters have referred to a Linden demand for a reasonable warning interval for security measures. I vaguely recall that interval being cited as 30 seconds, which I thought was too short and some posters here clearly think is too long, but anyway, there was such an interval mentioned. The premise was that security devices that didn't give that warning interval could be ARd; I never knew what the response was, but based on what happens to misconfigured "!Copybot Protector Lo Spam Version FU" contraptions, I'd suppose the security device would just be returned and the owner would get a warning; if they didn't put it back up without adding a warning interval, I doubt they'd get a suspension.

I'd be willing to bet that this is still how it works. Otherwise that warning interval feature wouldn't be in every security device you can find (with the possible exceptions of Hank's ).

The Mainland *is* a shared resource. All of it is, at every elevation. Landowners are granted the ability to do some things and not others on the Mainland, some of which is enforced by the sim itself, and some by LL. You can't terraform beyond the limits imposed by the sim. You can't dice up your 4096 into 16s and expect to have an account in the morning.

And you can't take security measures without a reasonable warning interval. I just wish "reasonable" actually took into account how b0rked the grid really is these days.

I remember reading about the reasonable warning interval. IIRC, you had to have a reasonable interval and only have it set to TP someone out. Anything more severe could get you ARed.

I would welcome there being more freedom to travel in SL. I pretty much gave up sailing around because I would spend most of my time trying to get back on the boat, or TPing near where I was.

When I had my place, I intentionally situated my skybox so I could keep people out of it, but not interfere with them being on my land or flying above. I actually had a skybox so I could have land people could enjoy without taking away from me being able to enjoy a(not so) private area. I would like it if people near waterways and roads made a resonable effort to allow people to pass through those areas, but I also hope they could also enjoy a place away from people they don't invite.

I think most everyone in this thread would agree to both ideas. It just seems some people are going way to far of either side of the argument.

It's because the scan limit is 96m. If your's does more than that, then you are using multiple scanners.

Of course it's possible to abuse them. I haven't said otherwise. But we are not talking about abusing them. We are talking normal use of them.

Show me the rule or it doesn't exist. I believe that there is a rule to prevent land owners from setting up banlines so that another land owner cannot walk to his/her land. Is that the rule you mean? If it is, it doesn't apply here.

I'm sure I read on some LL page about a suitable warning period. It was a long time ago and I never found it again. If users don't allow enough time to move on, then, imo, it's wrong.

The sky is not a shared resource. The prims a sim can support are not shared resources either. Off the top of my head, the only shared resource in a sim is script time. By "shared resource", I'm assuming you mean free for all to use.

A couple of people in this thread (you are one of them) are not discussing it sensibly. It's nonense to suggest that a 192m (max) bubble somewhere in a 4096m column can't be negotiated, therefore security devices are an absolute wrong. It's just nonsense. I know that you aren't saying that, and I don't know why you are continuing. You've said, if everyone uses security devices that way, you wouldn't have a problem. But everyone here is talking about using them that way, so why do you continue to argue?

No it isn't. It's no more a shared resource than private estates are. An estate owner pays LL rent for a sim and there are restrictions on what the owner can do with it. On mainland, a parcel owner pays LL rent for a parcel, and there are restrictions on what the owner can do with it. For instance, in both cases, if the owner doesn't want anyone else on the land, they can forcibly keep people off it. It is not shared.

If you can show me anywhere offical that states that the column of space above the land is any different, please do, but you can't.

It's been shown repeatedly in this thread that the column of air above the land *is* different: the ceiling for whitelist banlines is 50m AGL, and even blacklist is 768m AGL. And that's all you get on the Mainland without scripts--in stark contrast to an Estate ban.

And scripts themselves are limited. I pretty much guarantee that anyone on the Mainland using Hank's script without any warning interval will find it gone missing and a warning notice in their email, the first time it's AR'd.

Landowners get certain permissions on the Mainland, very much different from those extended to Estate owners.

(An Estate owner can even carve out 16s to their miserable little heart's content. Believe it or not, one of the old adfarmers did it; oddly enough, she couldn't get anybody to lease them, so she filled them with her own ads until she discovered that then she couldn't get anybody to lease the neighboring parcels. Some people are just too dumb to breathe.)

With the very much more restrictive permissions afforded Mainland owners, we can rationally label it a shared resource, or irrationally interpret those restrictions as random Linden fiat, ignoring the obvious pattern that they all make it possible for people to peaceably share the Mainland.

"misconfigured"?

There's no correct way to configure such a thing, except turning it off.

Ah, but fortunately it's possible--in fact common--for the poor saps who buy this abomination to configure it such that it spams the neighbors, which is good enough to get the damned thing removed.

I've found responses to this AR quite reliable and expeditious--especially when the spammed neighbor happens to be the Governor, and the parcel is at auction.

Qie:

I did say that the restrictions on estates and mainland are different. But both types of land are identical in that they are both rented from LL, and both come with restrictions. That's the point I was making about land and restrictions.

I haven't disagreed that the space above mainland is different to the space above private regions, but it's not different in landowner rights. I even said that it would be good if LL instituted a restriction on placing objects in the space above mainland. I suggested nothing under 768m, but nothing under 1000m or 500m would be just as good. I agree that people ought to be able to move through the sky unimpeded, which is why I suggested those numbers. But no such limitation exists and there is no restriction on mainland owners that prevents them from putting security devices for skyboxes, or skyboxes themselves, anywhere in the column, provided that the devices don't affect anyone on or over other people's land. There is no rule that a landowner must leave space for people to pass through - not on the ground and not in the space above. The only related rule that I'm aware of is one that prevents landowners from making it so that a parcel owner cannot walk to his/her parcel. There should be a rule that allows unimpeded passge at a specific elevation band, such as under 500m, but there isn't, and as long there isn't such a rule, landowners have all the allowed rights concerning their land. Their land, and the space above it, is not a shared resource. I.e. apart from the rule I mentioned, other people don't have a right to move on or over it.

As I've said more than once now, I think that people should have a right to pass unimpeded through mainland sky, and that it should be done by making a 'no objects, no security' rule for a specific elevation band. It's really up to the flying lobby to press for it.

Too bad we can't get its darling creator banned so easily.

How about this?

Given most people are concerned about controlling access to things like skyboxes rather than -- pace Hank -- excluding people anywhere within the x and y boundaries of their land, no matter what the altitude, and given, too, that for most purposes it's sufficient just to deter casual intruders rather than determined burglars, why not detect people's position and only kick them if they're inside the skybox, which is not a difficult calculation to do?

I don't think it would be, and I would oppose such a restriction. I've enjoyed flying about ludicrously tall builds like the Kazenojiin skyhook.

One reason springs immediately to mind. Back when I used to 'play' in SL, I was never really concerned about people seeing things - what they can see are only pixels, and nothing they haven't seen before. What concerned me was people hearing (reading) what was being said during the play. I really didn't want to be intimate with an audience there. So, for me, people need to be kept out of chat range from the 'play'.

Alright. You want it all, and I don't want you to have it all. We disagree.

I assumed that it would be understood that I meant a band and not from the ground up. If you understood that, then we disagree.

I've never had a problem with people who did that.

Well, except for a couple of dimwitted and/or sadistic people who put their landing point inside such a protected skybox. I can even sort of see what they were thinking, if I twist my brain inside out. Maybe.

So make your skybox 40m across.