Are some people really so stupid as to expect privacy in SL?

Sorry to hear that Tuu.....but yes, you're right....the landscape has changed. I was talking to some old timers inworld about this topic, and their attitude was always "come look at what I have done!"....and they never read forums, so had no idea the hostilities involved in maintaining an assumed privacy and assumed ownership, with assumed rights.

I would imagine that you could probably go about roaming again Tuu....and enjoying your explorations. If you feel like you have to "Pay" to do that....you take my "Exploration Pass"....I'm paying out the ass, so if that is what is required in SL to move about, you go ahead and use my Pass for the next few years - I'm busy making sofas, and not using it. I'm sure it's still in my inventory here, somewhere.



Yes. Very clear now.

It's not a bad start.


Yes, I guess. But ban lines don't prevent camming, which is surely every bit as bad? A stalker isn't getting much more by actually walking into my house and rifling through my virtual underwear drawer, nor is an industrial spy going to be able to learn more by walking on to a property than she or he would be camming.


Well, not by me, I hope. I think that everyone has to change the approach to this issue.


'Cause I'm a crazy dreamer! (Cue "To Dream the Impossible Dream" . . . )


Yes, this describes ban lines perfectly. Surely SOMEONE can come up with something better.


This!

Just read the JIRA. Why stop there? Why not just sell terrain-less islands? Allow people to be completely separate from the rest of SL until/unless they wish to port out and be social?

Would involve less coding....

then i guess what i have are not planes by your definition.

I still see that rate, with the X-House gone...
on our other land i have a similar rate... usually they appear in pairs or groups.
Sometimes they actually teleport into our house, into the room where my wife and me are.

My guess is that the bigger part of those are newbies who simply see green dots on the map and think "people=action".

Please.... stop. Nobody on the anti-banline side has demanded anything. Not...one.... thing. People are just expressing dislike and thinking ban lines are silly and not needed. I keep seeing that word (demanding) over and over again from different posters and I just don't understand where it comes from. I guess you think it makes you feel like it makes your argument more valid but it's not working.

Even if you can't fly directly up due to some coding limitation on the plane, why can't you simply build a 'runway in the clouds' above the ban line limit?

Why should your neighbors be the ones to adjust to your needs?

I guess you have about as much experience with planes in SL as you do with planes in RL.

None of my neighbors that I have spoken to have responded to my flying with anything but "that's a really cool plane". Including ones with ban lines, most of whom have been happy to take them down when I was actually able to contact them.

How does asking people not to put up ban lines next to public roads override anything? Is a request from a four foot tall ferret so terrifying that people are forced to respond?

I could tell you who I think talked the Lindens into doing it, if I were to name names, but that's not allowed. I know some of the people who REALLY wanted the increased ban lines and who were disappointed when they were unable to keep hovering griefers out of draw distance.

Most of them don't even know they have ban lines up. Most of them don't know what the limitations on ban lines are. They flip a switch and think they've solved a problem.

There's plenty of threads complaining about the lack of privacy. There were many more before private estates came along.


The other Jira I created recently was about ground-level privacy.

I think I've already made it quite clear that I don't agree with those actions, OK?

Four foot tall? Well, yeah, that'd scare the hell out of ME.

I'm all for a zero-warning eject from that sort of space.
but .. followed up by a polite and genuinely helpful/educational automated IM for the benefit of newbies who simply didn't have a clue.

Harking back to my previous mention of warning times...

LL want a minimum warning time of 10 seconds before an orb acts.
Considering that ban lines are almost (but not quite) an instantaneous eject in effect, one would thing that they would be OK with a no-warning eject.
Perhaps the 10-second requirement is an acknowledgement that not all avatars that happen to cross the boundary of a parcel are intent on abuse and may be simply moving through.
Perhaps LL would be happy with a no-warning eject provided that this only happened inside a structure and not in the open air outside.


If I suddenly - and for the first time in over two years - became plagued with a difficult level of physical intrusion into my 'private' space, I'd put an explicit notice outside and set up a security device with zero-warning inside. If any of the perps cared to AR me, I'd argue the case with the G-Team if they actually took action in the circumstances.



I think that the best thing that LL could do would be to replace ban lines with a bare-bones basic security orb system that took it's access list controls from the existing land settings.
There could be an Orb prim in Library that could be rezzed and clicked to set a range - which could not extend outside the boundary.
That would allow orbs to be set up in different zones/altitudes, but with a limitation on the number of orbs related to parcel size so as to avoid excessive lag effects.

Existing Security system creators could still keep a market with more fully featured system.




Ha! Apparently some people can't even get that rate even if the pay L$30/week for inclusion in Search

I'm sorry, but I'm completely at a loss to understand how having part of your house in a privacy zone means you're not allowed to build stuff elsewhere on the parcel. I might as well ask (with neither more or less logic) "If you want to talk to random people, why are you sitting behind ban lines?"

I'd personally go for this. Where I live is mainly a place to relax, unpack purchases, and chat in IM with friends. When I want to be social, I to to a place to socialize...not wander around my neighborhood.

YMMV.

may i suggest that you go back and read some of the posts in this thread?

just as attacking me kind of makes your argument just as pointless. bottom line: either pay the tiers for those who have paid for the right raise those banlines, or move on.

Ok it kind of makes sense now... if you think what I said was attacking then I understand now why you would also think describing how ban lines are a bad solution is demanding people don't use them.
My bad.

These are virtual planes. They have the properties assigned to them and are not bound by RL physics. If you puchase a plane not capable of VTOL that was your decision to do so, not some neccessity.

And even if you have bought such a plane you could still build your runway above the ban line limits.



There is nothing wrong with asking. Re-read your prior posts though. You seem overly upset with anyone who says 'no, I like my ban lines, thanks' to be content with merely asking. That is the impression you give. Your current neighbors may think 'really cool plane, np' but that does not mean everyone would think that or should.



It is very difficult to keep determined griefers away. That is true RL too despite newer and stronger anti-stalking laws. That does not mean such efforts have no value against the less determined griefers. It is like saying that because it is impossible to prevent all crime we should disband all police forces.



Look, I haven't said there is anything wrong with asking people to take down their ban lines. My position that it is wrong to expect them to or to think less of them simply because they do not wish to.



But how many of them have no problem with strangers wandering onto their property? In other words, are/were those complaining complaining about ban lines being annoying, or were they wanting additional measures available to supplement them?

whatever.
also if you read any of m previous posts, i called banlines a necessary evil until something better comes along. but again, whatever.

Ok. I accept your two whatevers.

just get me coffee dam you!!

Apart from a tagline like "Ban ban lines" seen around on one of the posters.
Apart from the occasional mentioning that "banlines should be removed".
Apart from claims that banlines suit no purpose other than as a griefing tool and are therefore obsolete.

And of course, by claiming that banlines are silly and not needed, aren't they implying they want them removed altogether?

Personally, I haven't *ever* used banlines, but I know exactly where people using them are coming from.
Because of that, I feel banlines should be *fixed*, not removed. And just 2 fixes to banlines are all that's needed really.
1) Fix banlines so people riding a vehicle into them are no longer ejected, but instead "pushed" or "bumped" out of the parcel.
2) Fix banlines so not only an avatar, but also his camera is blocked from entering a parcel.

There are 2 more fixes, that are not critical, but which will help relieve some stress over this subject:
3) Make banlines more visible from bigger distances. Whether it's by including a line color to the "view land borders option" or by using better textures, improved visibility of these things will help a lot.
4) Include a setting to alter the altitude of banlines. Their height should always be ~50 meters, definitely not more, but altitude could be set so people can (for example) raise them around their skyboxes, while leaving the land below open. Or the other way round, of course. Including an altitude setting to banlines should also make people more aware that banlines do NOT stretch forever, so it would be VERY clear that creating a banline at groundlevel will not protect the skybox at 2718 meters altitude. This misconception is probably reason for many people raising banlines while they actually have no use for them.


Sorry, but banlines do have their purpose, even if they're not exactly good at it.
And the RL neighbour who continuously cuts the corner to his driveway acoss my lawn will find some nice punctures in the hood of his car next morning, simply because I lack "banlines" in real life to keep him from doing that. Thank god I at least have the option to raise them in SL to prevent this from happening. If I don't like him cutting his corners across my lawn, then by all means, I'm glad I have the ability to prevent him from doing so.

Del, had you done that to me, I would have not only AR'd you for stalking, but would have added you to the ban list. What you did was beyond creepy..

She has every right to use her land as she sees fit. You however have NO right to go peeping tom on her. I find you creepy and childish.. If I still owned mainland I would add you to my ban list on general principals.. Thankfully I now own my own homestead and no longer have to put up with creeps like you.

Yes. "Implying they want them removed" is a far cry from demanding. Nobody is demanding anything.

Given how long SVC-22 has been there (the longest-running acknowledged and unfixed major bug in the JIRA), I'll believe this when I see it.

Not possible, the camera is client side, and client-side security is pointless. Something like my recent privacy proposal allowing a parcel to be marked private so that the private contents on the parcel aren't even downloaded IS possible.

This one should be #1. This one is absolutely critical.

#3 would be "show the banlines to the people who have them up, at least when they're outside the parcel, so they can TELL they have them up and where they are.

This is basically my "skybox zone" proposal, but I've put my votes on Gigs Taggart's "privacy pocket" proposal now since it;s a superset.

I think you'd be safer putting in some tire spikes. Those are at least legal.

What if his crossing the corner of your lawn left no trace of his passage whatsoever - not so much as a blade of grass moved?
Would it still warrant punctures in his hood?

What if he could fly, and his landing glide just happened to pass over the corner of your lawn?
Would that warrant shooting him down?

First you like to introduce some RL analogy.


Next, you conveniently hide behind the "it's only a game" excuse.


So there's a lack of consistency in this matter, on both sides of what we could call SL's own "Iron Curtain". The solution doesn't lay in insisting you're right, the solution lays with convincing LL to fix things, that while the tools provided look good on paper, that their implementation leaves room for a lot of improvement and fixing.

Granted, there are a LOT of things in SL that require fixing. Occasionally, some get handled in client and server updates. But we just don't know how high fixing this is on LL's priority list. We don't even know whether the things discussed in this thread can be fixed at all, and LL doesn't seem interrested in giving out information about their priorities or the limitations of the system. We rarely see developers or even forum moderators answering questions. The only way we know that they're occasionally here is when a thread gets locked. Come to think of it, this almost sounds like the WoW-Europe forums, lol.
Actively using official site forums doesn't seem like standard practice in customer relations. It's more like something to spend some 30 minutes on, about twice a week, to lock down the more embarrassing threads.