No Entry for You!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Part II)

As Hugsy posted, AutoReturn is your friend.

You seem upset that you had no response from the perps. That's just being upset that idiots behave like idiots.
If you had autoreturn set to a few minutes, then those people would never have built there in the first place. They would have moved on looking for a parcel that would not poof any stuff they managed to rezz or push in.

Turning on a general ban in response to an isolated avoidable incident is a disproportionate response.
It uglifies the neighbourhood. Furthermore, if the narrow channel you mention is a Linden channel then there is a high risk that people just sailing by will get caught in them. Their vehicles break. It's pretty much impossible to determine where the boundaries are when the 'ground' is up to 20 metres below. Even in low lag, many vehicles are difficult to steer precisely.
It's also difficult to se the lines in time to avoid them, particularly when approaching at an angle.

By turning on a general ban, you hurt yourself
1) You have to go to the trouble of adding new people to the Allowed list. If you forget to do that and they get invited in, they get ejected by the ban - and end up somewhere nearby. That 'somewhere' could be somebody else's living area. Nobody will thank you for that.
2) Your neighbours and all of their visitors would have to be on your allowed list if you want to avoid shoving ugly ban lines in their faces.
3) People simply trying to pass by in vehicles/boats and who accidentally hit the ban lines will wish waves of bad Karma in your direction.


The perps annoyed you once-off. They're gone, but you allowed that single avoidable incident to become a permanent negative factor in the SL experience of yourself and others.



Edited to add:

If all you did was to turn on a general ban, then you are no way protecting yourself from repeat incidents.
The general ban effect only extends 50 metres up.
These same people or anybody else could come along today and build whatever they wanted over the 50m altitude.

You've got all the negative effects of ban lines and none of the positive protection of parcel settings.

I can't speak to the ratio of people complaining of neighbouring ban lines as I have not been keeping records of this.
For my own part, I had to give up on using small parcels because of the lottery effect of changing owners and their approach to the use of ban lines.
What is the ratio by the way?



Who are these "explorers" (as opposed to explorers) and vehicle users "that insist on being able to go where they're not wanted"??

Are they some sort of shadowy FIC or clique? They can't be too shadowy as if they are making "most of the noise" then it should be easy to find their postings.
Let's name names. I'm not sure that I'd like to have people with that sort of attitude around me, other than to engage them in conversation to see what was behind their attitude.

We wouldn't be breaking the TOS in naming names, as in order to avoid being thought of as trolling idiots, we would be naming them *only* in the course of quoting their postings in which they insist on being able to go where they're not wanted.

Just look back at the thread you started a while back about fixing the visual impact of banlines and the thread that prompted you to start it, or pretty much any of the other dozen other threads about it.

Someone inevitably brings up the fact that they can't go from A to B because there's a parcel with access restrictions in the way and going around it is just simply too much of an inconvenience and then others start chiming in and the thread just deteriorates.

Like pretty much anything in SL, some people will use them for good reason and some people won't. Some people will add their neighbours, other people won't. Some people will split off the waterway, others won't. If they were all using orbs things would be *worse* instead of better since if you run into them as much as you claim you'd constantly get unseated and orbited or tp'ed home without any visual indicator whatsoever which in the end is far more disruptive than merely having to go around it or Edit and drag your vehicle clear of them.

They should fix the visibility issue, but the only argument for getting rid of them entirely is because you want to go on land where the owner doesn't want you to. Whether you want to throw a party at their house or sail your boat across really doesn't matter, in both cases you feel that you should have more right to the land than its owner does and you should get to decide that it should be free passage and noone else.

I have a vague memory of someone (?) a good while back actually saying that they thought that they should be allowed to go anywhere they wanted to. I might be that I noticed another person say the same, but I could be wrong there.

It's all a matter of proportion.
On one extreme there is the type who uses somebody else's place as a private or public brothel.
On the other extreme there is the passer by whose boat would wander 0.01m over the parcel boundary for a few seconds as they are trying to sail past.
Ban lines do not discriminate between the two extremes.

Properly configured orbs would not be worse. They (should) give some time before they act.
I think that an orb that orbits is a TOS violation under any circumstances. I think that action without at least a 10-second warning is also ARable.
Ban lines are extremist. With the best will in the world, it's easy to wander slightly over a boundary. 0.01m over and Bang!
The absolute worst is a channel or road that angles through a sim.

I don't think that a wish not to be unseated as a result of unintentionally clipping the corner of a parcel constitutes a demand for free passage over a parcel.


I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm fully supportive of people who with to keep others physically away from their private areas. It's the methods that I take issue with.

The ideal in my view would be an integrated access control system that was soft at the edges of the restricted zone. If the system were layered, I'd be all for instantaneous no-warning ejection from the inner zone - on the basis that the avatar had ignored warnings in an outer zone.
An integrated system could allow for the temporary display of zone boundaries to whatever avatars have hit the boundary and are being warned off. Yup! This is a situation when temporary display of 'ban lines' to an individual avatar would be an extremely good and helpful thing.

Perhaps a third-party orb could shoot out particles to indicate a boundary line when it is warning someone.


Edit to add:
An integrated SL access control system would be the best option.
There could be standard messages that
1) Avoided confrontational terminology
2) Automatically took the national language in use by the client viewer.


Or - maybe as an added benefit, people could enter their own customised text for the system warning messages that *they* wish their client to display.
Masochistic people could go for something like "Get your slimy putrescent corpse OUT of this parcel NOW!!!!"
Normal people could opt for something like"The owner of this zone is so overawed by your wonderfulness that they feel unworthy to have you here".

We have that, it's what you're complaining about .

If you know you can't sail an angled waterway, why insist on doing it anyway? Edit the boat, rotate it, set it to local axis, turn on property lines and you can drag it across protected land with a single arrow until you're in a Linden water sim and there's nothing that'll bother you there.

There are literally hundreds of sims that are "vehicle-friendly", be it Linden-owned or private-owned. I honestly cannot think of any reason why you couldn't go there and enjoy it instead of stubbornly insisting that you should be able to step wherever you feel like it and make your own life difficult by *choosing* to sail where you know there are banlines instead of water where there aren't any.

Yes, it would be nice and convenient. It would also be convenient if access restrictions extended all the way up to 4096m² so they cover skyboxes and age verified parcels had a point, if vehicle users cleaned up after themselves or if you could keep prims from entering your parcel altogether, if people weren't obsessively focused on green dots and invited themselves over, etc, etc.

At least we have a compromise (leaving out the visual aspect which does need work) in place right now that annoys everyone equally .

Here's why I like SuezanneC's suggestion of making banlines visible to everyone including the parcel owners:

Most whitelist access restrictions are just mistakes made by new landowners who don't know what they really mean.

There are perfectly good reasons to use whitelist banlines, and we've heard about them in this forum many times. But that's not the reason most banlines exist. I've IMd new parcel owners who just put up banlines to ask why, and more than half the time it was because they wanted to keep griefing *prims* off the property, but didn't understand auto-return nor the no-build option (nor how ineffective access restrictions are as protection against prims). Some didn't even know they'd set access restrictions--nothing showed up in their viewer, right?--having simply locked down everything they could find in About Land, following some prim-strewing griefer escapade.

So, if they were visible, at least the owner would know they had the option set, and might even try to figure out exactly what it does (and doesn't) do for them. And if they're unsightly, there's a way to make them invisible in the viewer--surely it's more parsimonious if that only has to be done by the few landowners who actually want the access restrictions than by everyone who might ever encounter all the ones set by accident.

And how would you tell the difference between a parcel you have access to and one you don't? Access restrictions aren't just about "no entry", but "buy pass" as well.

Is there a valid reason why it would make sense to see the "buy pass" after people have bought one? If there's not, why wouldn't people just switch from "no entry" to "buy pass" instead since they wouldn't see those and you're no better off?

How would you even tell which parcel the "no entry"/"buy pass" applies to? Right now they apply to the parcel that's behind them, if they're visible from both sides you have no idea. Someone who's clueless about what they are but has them turned on wouldn't get divine inspiration that tells them it's due to something they did, they'd assume it's something their neighbours did to them instead.

Or for that matter, why should my neighbours have to look at them even though I added them to the access list? I'm not taking them down whether I can see them or not, so instead of annoying me you'd just end up annoying the neighbours instead.

The visibility does need work, but suggesting solutions primarily out of spite isn't likely to make things better.

Umm...

/me hangs head

'kay. But how does auto-return work with stuff you've bought from other people? Like my house? When I bought that, did every piece of it become mine? Also the stuff I put in the house, or maybe that was given to me. Or scenery like trees that I didn't plant. Won't that be returned too?

Believe me I have had my experiences with banlines, having owned 20K m of land in my area surrounded by channels that I liked to jetski through and plenty of land to drive on. I have been ejected from my vehicles and I hate it too - that's not what I meant to put anyone through. I just felt disrespected and taken advantage of, and that was my temporary solution. It was late and I was really sleepy.

Thanks for your advice on this too.

In About Land / Objects, you can list all owners of prims on the land.
Refresh List.

If you own the prims, then they are not auto-returned.
If you need other people to be able to rezz stuff then you can use group facilities.

Start simple I say
If you need help with the group thing, just ask.

You own the stuff that you buy; the creator remains the same. If it's in your inventory, you own it.

If the land is owned by you directly (i.e., not group owned), then anything owned by you on the land (which should be basically everything) will remain.

If the land is deeded to a group, then I believe you have set the group for each object. Then it will remain.



If you have trees on your land that are owned by someone else, you might want to just get your own trees. Otherwise, make it group land and have the tree owner set the group for the trees.

--Hugsy

People who put up no-public-access ban lines obviously want to create a "safe" area where only they and their friends can enter into. I see nothing wrong with that. It is, however, important for them to know exactly where the boundaries are for the "safe" zone. Therefore, from the inside there should be lines that read "LEAVING SAFE ZONE" done in a style similar to ban lines. This wording also helps to avoid the potential confusion noted above.



If the ban lines are good enough for nearly everyone else to see, then they're good enough for you to see.

--Hugsy

Of course, this opens up an opportunity for a griefer to annoy you into putting up ban lines with which you effectively grief yourself visually, with little or no further effort by him. Doesn't even have to be a neighbor...

How?

If they grief you into putting up no-public-access ban lines, then you're just being annoyed by the same thing that you're annoying almost everyone with.

If they grief you into adding them to the black-list, then the safe-zone lines don't need implemented for that.

--Hugsy

Try camming around to look at ban lines from the inside.
What you see is 'the back' of the No Entry / Buy Pass texture.
It is quite clear that your camera is behind the lines.



To assert that a wish for ban-liners to see their own lines is "out of spite" is to admit that there is something to be spiteful about

If the display of own ban lines is only done if the ban is general, then just banning individual avatars by name would not cause the lines to be displayed to the access-permitted avatars.

Thank you everyone!

I have my own trees, and put them up. But my trees are fancy. The trees that were already there make really good background trees. Background trees are good. Land without background trees is bad.

Do you like trees? I do.

Is it possible for someone to not like trees? I don't think so.

Now, on to plants. Do you like plants? I do. Hey? Why are you flexing your hands like that?

Can someone explain to me setting a parcel to "pay-to-enter" when all that's on it is some poorly terraformed land and an empty pre-fab?

I wouldn't even see them, my house and any other spot on my land I actively use is too far from the border to see access restrictions.

There is no "inside" to banlines, only two outward facing sides... what you refer to as the "inside" is the access restriction of the plot in front of you.

Currently, it's true that there is no "inside" to banlines. The proposal is to change that. Should you ever decide to actually leave your house and take a stroll around your land, you should see barrier lines similar to what everyone not on your access list sees.

That's the proposal. Personally, I really don't think that's a bad idea. Ultimately though, as I've stated various times before in other threads, I think there should be a ban line draw distance setting. That way folks can set it to zero when at home and set to max when flying.

--Hugsy

Nope. There is an "inside".

For some time I've been seeing the mirror image when my camera goes behind the lines.
I just checked again last night before posting. !! Definitely an inside to them.
That's using the latest RC, but it's been that way for some time as far as I remember.

That's not an inside because what you're seeing is based on where your avie is, which is outside.

If you make access restrictions visible on what you call the "inside" then you loose any visual indication of what access restriction is present on a neighbouring parcel unless you made it complicated with a whole list of "if this on the parcel you're on and that on the neighbouring parcel then you see A, but if this on parcel you're on and that on the neighbouring parcel then you see B, ..." and so on with half a dozen different scenarios and half a dozen different textures that noone is going to be able to figure out.

You'd also still make the situation worse than it is now for anyone who's already on the access list and not currently seeing anything, or for people who are running a "pay for entry", a "payment info only" or an "age verified only" venture.

Not having them render at all ever and simply having the pop-up show when you run into one would be far more intuitive than what you're asking for with "dual-sided banlines" but you refuse to see it because you're more intent on finding a way to annoy other people than an actual solution.

ROTFLMAO!!

Brilliant!
Why don't you take some time out before rushing to respond with something like that. Use the time to go and find some ban lines, cam around them ----- and think logically.

Right now, purposefully designed into the client code, is a routine that shows precisely what a set of ban lines would look like from the inside if they were viewed from the inside.
Your position (so to speak) is that this is solely for the case of banned avatar camming inside an pointing their camera out. Your position is that if LL turned on ban line for those actually inside then this would completely ignore the existing code that correctly renders the view that would be intuitively expected as if the words were on plastic film stuck onto a window.

You really are determined not to see anything - so much so that you go through the mental gymnastics above.






You're still digging away there.
The rendering of ban lines is a function of the settings on a parcel.
It's very simple.
If the rendering of ban lines is appropriate to the scene, they are rendered.
IF the camera is inside a banning parcel, then the view of that parcel's lines is rendered that which would be expected.
If the next parcel would also trigger the rendering of ban lines for the avatar, then they are rendered as appropriate for the camera position.
There is no need for some complex set of rules as you suggest. Noone has to figure anything out, because there is nothing to figure out. It's already there in the code. The only 'missing' factor is to enable existing rendering of ban lines for the unbanned.





The only one of refusing to see is yourself and your inside outside.

"Not having them render at all ever and simply having the pop-up show when you run into one would be far more intuitive than..."
When I suggested that a few posts above, your reaction was to come back with "We have that, it's what you're complaining about . "
You didn't take any time to think about what I was saying. You just wanted to shoot down whatever it was.


You don't read. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that time and time again, I have posted that my only issue with access control is the current methods.
I have been proposing solutions.

Your efforts have been to either misinterpret in a red haze or purposefully ignore what others post.
Your solution goes along the lines of "change nothing", "not an inch", "from my cold dead hand".


Ban lines as implemented are the bastard creation of a deranged techie with near-zero social skills.
There are better ways of giving essential access control to residents.
Yes. "Essential". Read it again. Sling says that access control facilites for residents are *essential*.
STOP! Breathe. Read it again.
And again....

Stand up. Take a little stroll. Stretching exercises. Breathe gently and evenly. Be the breath. Let your insides be outsides. Be the middle.

Read it again...
Think.


While we wait for the replacement of ban lines with something better thought out, there is some fiddling that can be done.
There can be options to suppress them visually, depending on absolute, movement, speed, distance, minimap, etc.

I think your resistance to the idea of seeing your own ban lines is interesting.
It shouts to the rooftops that in your opinion, ban lines are a very unwelcome sight.
You want to build a dirty great ugly fence around your land - but you don't want to see the fence.


There are very good reasons for making ban lines visible to the unbanned.
It's not uncommon for people to be unaware that their land is showing them. It's not uncommon for people to remove ban lines when neighbours ban them in turn.

In the long run, there shouldn't be ban lines anywhere.
And....... in case the red mist is descending again .... read it again:

Sling says that access control facilites for residents are *essential*.
Yup! Sling. That would be me.. saying that...

You're standing on the inside border of an access-restricted parcel and are looking at the neighbouring plot. You think it's simple and should just render "no entry" like it would for someone on the outside.

1. How would you know if you have access to the neighbouring plot? You're seeing the "no entry" for the plot you're on, there's no longer a useful visual indication of whether or not you can go there without actually trying in which case you might as well not render them at all since they no longe serve a useful function.

2. If the neighbouring plot is set to sell passes, "no entry" isn't appropriate, you have to see "buy pass"... when you buy a pass, you have access to the other plot, but you want to render "banlines" for the plot you're on so after someone bought a pass they'd see "no entry" instead of a clear path. How is that in any way intuitive or easy to grasp?

That's just two problem cases.

Here's what you actually said, Sling:
"Not showing them at all ever" isn't the same as "showing them temporarily". Secondly, suggesting you don't render them at all is because of the fact that showing them on "both sides" makes them visually useless.

If you have a group-restricted dock where group members can rez their boat to sail into Linden waters, that plot would be surrounded by "banlines" since you want everyone with access to see them no matter what. If one of the neighbouring plots has access restrictions on as well, there's no way to tell which parcel to avoid which leaves "banlines" without a useful visual function. Hence you might as well not render them at all because they don't convey any information anymore anyway.

If my neighbour's aren't visible to me, my own wouldn't be visible to me either. You even know that I do actually have them on one side of my plot, you even paraphrased me about it in this very thread.

If you make "no entry" visiible regardless of whether you have access to the plot or not, then my neighbours will see mine despite the fact that they're all added to the list. What useful purpose is served by making them look at them when they don't bother them any at all right now? I never once argued about what I see, in every post it has been about what others would see.

As impossible as it may seem for you to grasp, I personally don't think they're a pain at all and it truly wouldn't bother me, there's far worse things *shrugs*. However, I do care what my neighbours see and add them so they're not bothered if they feel different. Your "solution" would make things worse for them, not better and leave me just as indifferent without seeing a thing.

That is true, and a very good thing - for the nuisance trespasser who is not really a griefer. However, there is the problem of griefer alts, which leads people into resorting to the general banlines in response to griefers. That is the problem I was referring to.

I'm not sure why it's all that complicated. Perhaps because I'm not really concerned about what people see in terms of ban lines when they cam around. If I'm standing somewhere and can't access some other parcel because of access restrictions, then I see ban lines around that parcel. Or if I'm standing somehere *I* have access to but is no-public-access, then I should see, well, not ban lines, but leaving-safe-zone lines. The "worst" thing would be the possibility of having to see both ban lines and leaving-safe-zone lines.



Doing those things throw up ban lines for "everyone" else to see. Again, if they're good enough for everyone else, they're good enough for you.

In other words, this is basically the point of the suggestion. Perhaps if people who employ these capabilites (and I'm not against employing these capabilities) had to see lines similar to the ones others have to see, maybe they'll think a little bit harder about whether or not it's really necessary. Especially people who are newer and don't quite understand how bad the ban lines can be.



I'd rather have a draw distance setting because there are times I really would actually like to see the ban lines (and see them from a distance).

--Hugsy