Another Go at Ban Lines

It's about time LL got rid of ban lines and hard coded a security bot/system in. They are ugly and ruin mainland.

A way to select who's objects can stay rezzed, say by group or whitelist would fix a lot..

a smart Object return system of sorts

If you're a neighbour it's not quite so straight forward but this is a viewer issue that should be dealt with by Linden Lab and if people could turn the visibility of banlines off the issue goes away.

As long as this thread has popped to the top again, I'm having second thoughts about the whole whitelist access restriction ability with respect to Groups. There's a lot of discussion about the 25 Group limit in the feedback-to-T thread about extra perks for Premiums, and there are some interesting suggestions there, notably Argent's astute observation that only a small share of Groups really need to affect land access--which feature we are told is responsible for the huge performance impact of a higher group limit, given the current implementation.

So I'm thinking that if parcel crossings never required a Group-related query, we could have lots more Groups without having to re-architect anything. And I'm thinking that, practically, not being able to grant access only by Group may not be such a big deal.

What if Group access restrictions could no longer be applied to parcels, in exchange for an across-the-board (not just Premium) increase in Group count to, say, 50?

Maybe someday Argent's idea of land access Groups would be implemented and then those special Groups could be applied again.

The specifically-named whitelist could still apply, so folks could still create these ground-level-only banlines, but they'd have to maintain a list of all members with access permission.

Other than a minor convenience, I don't really see the big win of Group-based access control, nor do I see it being used for very large Groups for which it would be more than a convenience.

If it *is* just a matter of convenience, not a concern that the 300 name limit would be exceeded, perhaps we could lobby LL to give us an LSL function that returned the keys of all group members for scripts set to that group, so a simple open script could just populate the whitelist automatically with the existing llRemove- and llAddToLandPassList() functions.

(I believe that Group-owned land can achieve finer-grained control than is possible in About Land by restricting access completely and then granting it to specific Roles in the Group, but I've never actually tried that. If that works, it would mean the 300 limit would only affect individually-owned land intended to be accessed by Groups larger than 300 members--which I suspect describes the null set.)

It is NOT a viewer issue. Whether ban lines are visible or not, they still cause problems for neighbors and for vehicles.

Unfortunately there places that use group-only access for groups that are much larger than you can manage with access lists.

They cause no problems for neighbours or vehicles who respect the wishes of the land owner to stay off their land.

You're driving down a Linden road, or a Linden waterway, or are flying over an empty field, and with no idea that some doofus has put up ban lines on the edge of the road, there's no indication that the land/water/air is being protected by ban lines, no "keep off" signs, no fence, no buoy, not even a rock wall... no notice except (if you happen to NOT hit it at a sim boundary) a brief glimpse of red lines before you're thrown to the ground unable to move,while your vehicle shoots off unpiloted, or you're hurled to the bowels of the earth and the client crashes.

For what? Straying over an unmarked line?

No, the current access control mechanism is completely inadequate, does not express the wishes of the people who use it... they just use it because Linden Labs doesn't provide any mechanism to get the kind of privacy and protection they actually want.

I think that the banline tools should be made stronger. Is not enough to just have the option to turn the redtape off visually in our viewer. I think if is going to be changed then redtape should have a strength slider to make it bigger and bolder and 100 for not visible/transparent. And a distance slider so we can set how far away they become visible.

If this happens then we can happily live next door to a please-respect-my-personal-space neighbour, without getting flashed by redtape, which is all most people are saying when they restrict access I think, and also have a great tool to help us navigate when we fly around. It would be great to be able to see a banline from 64m or even further away when I'm zooming around.

If the client crashes that's a Linden Lab issue, the doofus doesn't want you on their land, respect their wishes.

I like what I do the best. I only set the banlines up when I'm at my home, and when I log off I turn them off, because I really don't care about people using my home when I'm gone. In fact, I encourage strangers to use my home when I'm not there. I like to get the most use out of my land as I can, and if other people use my bedroom or stuff, I don't care. As a matter of fact, I should set up a tip jar for people who use it often when I'm not online!

But yeah, the best thing to do is to only keep banlines up when you're online. When you're offline, you shouldn't care who's doing what to your house, as it's virtual and nothing bad could happen.

Plus, it can make for some really funny conversation. One time I set up text trackers in my home, so anyone who would use my home would also get text recorded. Since it was my land, it wasn't against any rules, so it's fun too!

How the hell do you do that when you can't tell what they are until after you hit the damn things?

You were making it out that anyone who finds the physical behavior of ban lines a problem was doing it deliberately, and that's just not bloody true, so quit the hell babbling on about "not respecting people's wishes". Christ.

LOL...love it!

Yeah; I apparently misremembered something that would have dealt with this on Group-owned land. I'd recalled that Owners and I think Officers can get on Group-owned land, even if the land didn't have public or group access enabled and they didn't appear on the individual whitelist. In fact, in my testing, they could get on age-restricted parcels without have age verification, and I suspect the same is true for restriction by payment status.

However, looking at the list of parcel-related Group Abilities, I'm not seeing a specific "always allow access" checkbox that my faulty memory had fabricated. So whatever Ability has the side-effect of granting such implicit access is probably not something a Group would want to grant to the Everybody role.

(Personally, I'm so hungry for more group slots, I'd be fine with driving the large groups to some other arrangement (like a dedicated private island), but that's not realistic. And anyway, it's all just a very bad design limitation.)

Anyway, sorry for the distraction.