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

You simply don't/can't read.

Try it.
Go find a ban-lined parcel.
Cam all around the outside. Check each boundary from the outside. Are you seeing the front of the back of the text.? Is it the same on all boundaries?
Cam inside and look out through the boundaries. Are you seeing the front of the back of the text.? Is it the same on all boundaries?

Ditto for a Buy Pass parcel.


It's real simple. I'll try it one last time and see if it gets past your barriers.
If the inside view shows the back of the text, then there is no confusion.

If it happens that you are inside a parcel and looking at the back of some text, and the adjoining parcel has you excluded by virtue of general ban, explicit ban or buy pass, then you see that text as well.


Simple and intuitive.
There's a fence around a parcel.
From the outside, you see the outside of the fence.
From the inside, you see the inside of the fence.

Outside:
NO ENTRY / BUY PASS
Inside:
YRTNE ON \ SSAP YUB

I figured I am going to weigh in on this..

since now most mainland is about worthless ands I grossly overpaid for most of my land, I am going to get my money's worth and take the 5 or 6 parcels that have bantard neighbors... and

I am going to TRASH the area to the best of my ability!

I have plenty of places that there are no ban lines next door..

Ok Sling, I will take seeing my own ban lines, but.....I want all of my property protected by them. All the way to the building ceiling. Surly this is a reasonable compromise?

Now, if you'd payed, you'd know the answer!

As for the "inside" of banlines: I did a little experiment, and flew on top of the banlines instead of camming around them, and, from the inside, while you're inside, they're unmirrored, like they are from the outside when your av is outside--and while you're inside, the outside is mirror-imaged. Now, I have no idea how these things are rendered, but it's actually quite confusing to somebody outside, too, except for the boundary they're immediately facing. Walk to the corner of one and look at the inside of the corner: now, that un-mirrored "no-entry" on the inside, does it mark the inside of a parcel I can't enter? or is it that I can't enter the next parcel over? It's rendered as if it were the outside of a barrier, but it's not. It would actually be much better if it were consistent and the inside appeared in mirror image regardless of the viewer's location (even if it didn't appear at all to the parcel owners).

Anyway, to me, the appeal of making these visible to the owner isn't about being spiteful, it's about the frequency with which this feature is misused, trying for an effect it just doesn't have. For my concerns, a workable alternative would be a big scary orange warning window any time somebody checked the box, saying something like "Are you *really* *sure* you want to turn on whitelist banlines? These only control avatar access up to 50m above ground level and have NO effect on prims entering your parcel, nor on cams, particles, nor physical forces that may be applied from outside the parcel. Unless you are really, really sure you know what you are doing, these are almost certainly not what you want."

I understand that these things can be used for griefing the neighbors, too, but really, I've traveled enough of the Mainland to know that this feature is simply broken by lack of education of its users. Way more than half of the parcels you find with banlines around them are either abandoned or have some completely unrestricted skybox hovering just within unaided flight elevation. That's how it's really being used, most of the time. So, unless there's some more effective way to educate folks about what the different land features really do, a lot of the discussion is about subtleties of how to better ignore the real problem.

Yes. I knew that the rendering of inside/outside was inconsistent depending on angles and position .
Hoever, it's just code, and could be made consistent, but I really don't think it's worth expending effort on.

The basic problem is that of people intruding either though thoughtlessness or disrespect.
By intruding I don't mean passing through. I mean stopping to poke around or barge in on people.
LL can't stop that behaviour. There is no support for someone who feels intruded upon. Some form of access control is essential.

The current ban line system inflicts huge collateral damage on the wider community.
As you observe, many people turn them on either without realising the wider negative effects or realising the limitations.

Making Ban and Pay lines visible to all is really the best way of educating people.
They will see what their neighbours see.
If they go higher than 50m AGL then they will probably notice that the lines which were visible at ground level can no longer be seen, and therefore ..............
People who turned on bans would get an instant feedback. That might make them rethink the issue and look for advice.


In the longer term, there should be a 'soft-at-the-edges' access control system for general control where needed and the old 'not-an-inch' system for explicit bans.

In the meantime we are stuck with the current ban system.
It's clear that the thing is broken and is used inappropriately.

What can LL do in the short term?
1) Make non-specific ban lines visible to the unbanned. Instant feedback.
2) FERGAWSSAKES - when a parcel is bought, DO NOT automatically turn on all permissions.

I have a feeling that much of the general problem stems from people buying land and not knowing that build has been turned on in the process.
Later they find that someone has built on their land, and they reach for 'something' that they think might stop that. Ah. Access control!

That would be part of the problem. My objections have absolutely *nothing* to do with what the actual landowner would see, but has to do with what visitors and people on surrounding parcels who've been added to the access list would see.

So forget about what the landowner would see, they see "banlines", that's the proposal. My point is that you'd make things worse for *other* people.

Correct.

Correct, "no entry" is nonsensical for land you have access to so you'd need a different texture to indicate the boundary.

Now the point you're missing: if you render some form of access restrictions regardless of whether you have access or not, then you see them from the outside as well. Whether you make it "no entry", or "entering safe-zone" textures doesn't really matter. The point is that you're *introducing* visual access restrictions/"banlines" for *other* people who currently don't see them because they're on the access list.

Once again: I see them when I'm on my plot, that's your proposal, get it out of your head that I'm talking about what I see, I'm not, that's agreed upon. But instead of my neighbours currently seeing nothing when they're on *their* land because I added them to the access list, they'd now see "banlines"/"safe-zone". Your proposal make things *worse* for them instead of neutral or better.

Correct, but are you just going to super-impose them at the exact same spot? The border is merely a line, it's a two-dimensional plane with no depth.

Once again, it's *not* about what the landowner sees, it's about what unrelated people see.

Someone who visits a payment info only, age verified only or pay-to-entry has absolutely nothing to do with decisions about what land options are set. If you think they should be forced to see "banlines" as well merely for visiting then that's fine, but at least step up to the fact that it's hypocritical to demonize "banlines" while at the same time wanting to force more people who don't have a choice in the matter to see them.

If you were only targetting the landowners that would be one thing, but you're also targetting people who do not employ them and don't currently see anything.

If you think my neighbours deserve to look at banlines just so you can have the satisfication of kidding yourself that I'd see my own (which I wouldn't, I don't live on a tiny plot) then you're as thoughtless as what you're opposing.

It’s a proposed change to current functionality; therefore, we can do whatever we want with it. In this case, let’s generalize the term ban lines to access control lines. Access control lines describe what kind of access you have to a parcel. They’re lines done in a style similar to the current ban lines. Text and line color are used to describe the kind of access. The lines are one-sided meaning if you see something on one side, you see something else (possibly nothing) on the other side (i.e., the other side isn’t just a mirror of the “front”). I didn’t describe the complete set before, but, here’s a more complete set of scenarios:

The standing outside list:

1. Standing outside looking towards no-public-access land and you’re not on the list – you see the land wrapped in red NO ENTRY lines.

2. Standing outside looking towards no-public-access land and you are on the list – you see the land wrapped in green ENTERING SAFE ZONE lines. Yes, I realize these are added lines that aren’t seen in today’s environment.

3. Standing outside looking towards pay-for-access land and you didn’t pay – you see the land wrapped in red BUY PASS lines. Today they’re green. In this new scheme, they’re changed to red. Red means you can’t cross the line; green means you can.

4. Standing outside looking towards pay-for-access land and you did pay – you see the land wrapped in green ENTERING PAY ZONE lines. Again, adding lines that aren’t seen today.

The standing inside list:

5. Standing inside no-public access land looking out – you see green LEAVING SAFE ZONE lines.

6. Standing inside pay-for-access land looking out – you see green LEAVING PAY ZONE lines.

I didn’t describe pay-info and age-verification bans. Perhaps they can be treated like no-public-access bans.

All those lines are there because access was restricted to a parcel and it’s important for everyone to know exactly what that access is and where that access occurs.



At most there will be two sets of lines that need to be drawn at the same spot: one set describing the ingoing (to the other plot) access control (scenarios 1 to 4) and another set describing the outgoing (from this plot) access control (scenarios 5 and 6). Of course don’t draw them on top of each other. Stagger them using the space in between the lines.



Then don’t have the lines show in scenarios 2 and 4, whatever.

This whole thing is somewhat facetious anyway. While I don’t think that adding the lines described in scenario 5 is really a bad idea, I don’t really think that all of this is the best solution to the problem. Maybe implementing this would be ok, but what we really need is a ban line draw distance setting so people can set it to zero to turn them off or set it to max to see from far away.

--Hugsy

And that was the main thing I was trying to point out . It's like pulling teeth .

"Show access restrictions lines for everyone" affects some, not all, landowners (which is the whole idea), but it also forces them on some unrelated people who currently don't see anything. Regardless of whether that's something you (in the general form) care about or not, it does need to be mentioned as an integral part of the proposal if you're being fair.

(Didn't quote the rest of your post since I agreed with it in general )

For me, the purpose of the ban lines being made visible to the unbanned would be primarily an awareness-raising exercise.
It is simply too easy to impose their effects on the wider community.

People behind ban lines, be they land owners or permitted, are getting a free lunch. Assuming that the access restriction is actually warranted, the people behind the lines are getting some benefit at the expense of the SL experience of everyone else.
It is not unreasonable to ask that if people derive some actual or imagined comfort from a fence, then the fence should be as visible to them as it is to others.


Using the current ban line system for access control is an exercise in selfishness and self-centredness. Alternatively, it's an exercise in thoughtlessness.
Use of them should come with a cost.
Right now, people have them on without realising it. Alternatively they have them on but haven't really stopped to think of the effect on everybody else.

An access control system that might be required to keep out a minority but which targets/punishes the majority is a very broken system.

And it is also not unreasonable to ask that our property be protected to the build ceiling. If I am paying for those prims, if I am responsible for the conduct that takes place there, then I should be able to shut everyone out as high as I can build.

Jaysus Chris!

If only we could shut you *IN*

No need Sling, I only go where I am invited.

But seriously..
Yes, if you want to keep people from messing with your space, you should indeed be able to do it right up.
The problem isn't the principle of access control.
The problem is the current method.

Since you seem incapable of imagining a scenario that doesn't involve you in some way:

You move in next door to me (or I move in next door to you) and when I notice I leave you an IM saying I added you to the access list and to let me know if I need to add anyone else. For all I care I make a group role so you can add whomever you want whether I'm around or not.

The net effect of me having access restrictions on you is virtually zero, you don't see them, neither does anyone else you let me know about or that you add yourself.

Then someone suddenly decides that access restrictions should be visible regardless of access and you download the new viewer and you log on to see my "banlines" where you didn't see any before and weren't bothered by them in the slighest.

Who did that just make things worse for? Not me, since they're too far away for me to notice them. The only person who "suffers" would be you since you're now forced to put up with them and there's no longer a point in me being a good neighbour since whether I add you or not, you'll see something either way.

"Since you seem incapable of imagining a scenario that doesn't involve you in some way:"
This is really funny, as for some time I've been thinking exactly the same about you

I haven't mentioned this opinion, as it would be getting into flame territory.
But seeing as you have raised the thing, and seeing how wonderfully pot-kettle it is .... bing!!!!


Your post proves the point.
It's all very well for a few neighbours to effectively hide each other's ban lines from themselves and their friends. They can do this by each giving the others complete control of access to their parcels via group roles.
You trot that out, but in doing so you "seem incapable of imagining a scenario" in which such agreements are the exception.