New proposal only slightly related to the Right to Roam thread

This is an entirely different proposal of mine that I think people may approve of a bit more than my last one. I've started a new thread, because it is a new question - it's motivation is related to a previous thread, but it is NOT a continuation of that thread, it is a new thread on a new, only slightly related topic. Honest.

To bring people upto speed - I started a thread asking people if they thought some sort of universal airspace was in order. I met with fierce objections (although the poll ended up with only 52% against and 48% in favour). Many valid points were raised. This (completely different) proposal (which justifies a new thread!) should be to most people's satisfaction, but let's see.

What if LL were to simply add a new option to the land tab - a Yes/No Vehicle check box. Having done some tests, I have discovered that Ceera wasn't quite right in her suggestion that vehicles don't count on the prim count until they are dismounted - they do.

Most landowners that I have spoken to do not object to people flying harmlessly overhead, but have had to take precautions to prevent griefers that also affect harmless people too - i.e the No Script and No Object entry. However, SL is already setup to tell the difference between a Sat-On object and one that is not sat-on - look at your prim count - you will see that "Sat-on" is a category in the break down.

Only a few minor changes would be neccesary to make this proposal work to everyone's satisfaction. First, change the No Object Entry setting to not include "sat-on" objects. Then add a Yes/No Vehicle option too, which would allow/disallow sat-on objects. Land owners then have the choice to let harmless vehicle users in while still preventing malicious objects from entering - or they can prevent both if they so wish (and some would, but many wouldn't); this puts the power into the landowners' hands, most of whom would be willing to reasonable about it.

I can anticipate one objection to this - wouldn't griefers simply fly a malicious object in by sitting on it then dismount and run away? Probably, but what you have to remember is that once they dismount, the auto-return timer starts (auto-return does not affect sat-on objects) - I have yet to see any land other than sandboxes where the owner has not set some sort of auto-return time. So, say I fly onto a parcel with a 3 minute autoreturn. I could float there for ages, but once I get out of the vehicle, it vanishes - the counter starts when the object enters the parcel (so if I floated there for 2 minutes then dismounted, it would vanish 60 seconds later - I have tested this inworld).

This would enable people to cruise their harmless vehicles, would not create new opportunities for griefers and may even generate more passing trade for businesses.
Also, does not require major work by LL, so negligible risk of them breaking anything else in the process as it is not a major change in game mechanics - just a tweaking. They managed to add a No Push Script option several months back without causing problems afterall.

What do you think of that then?

Even just making it "no build allowed" between 250m and 500m would satisfy everyone - flyers, builders wanting tall buildings and people wanting skyboxes - except the militant few that feel that they bought the land so they have total say over the airspace; something which, of course, is not true in real life.

Broccoli

That's the beauty of it! The entire parcel can still be no build from floor all the way up. You can already fly a vehicle into a No Build parcel, if you rez it on a Build allowed one. The militant few would still have control of their airspace with this new proposal, but the ones who want to be reasonable would now have the flexibility to do so while still foiling griefers.

Plus, now they can't accuse me of being a commie, since this proposal also facilitates the free flow of trade through "passing trade".

This would not work for me at all. Currently building a store that has 4 lvls each one spaced 100 mtres apart in the air. I rarely work on the land and have always built mutlple platforms in the sky. If I buy a plot of land I use the sky more than the land and would never endorse a proposal like yours as it would invade my privacy.

The only thing you need against griefers is auto-return set to 1 minute or more, for anything that gets abandoned to be sent back.

Security orbs are a waste of time and money. Why are people really so paranoid about someone looking through your house? You can't steal or damage anything after all.

I guess they're the sort of person who sues their neighours when leaves from their tree fall into their garden. It's really that petty.

Broccoli

No it wouldn't. You haven't read it. My proposal is that you would have the choice whether to allow it or not by simply checking the "No Vehicles" box.

Go back and read it again.

Best (SL) idea I've heard in ages Conan. I HATE those banlines. They are against the covenant on the island where I live.

Porky, what privacy?

Again, beauty of the system is people can still use banlines if they want
Banlines still affect vehicles, and that wouldn't change - as they are preventing the avatar at the helm entering and thus the vehicle with them. If anyone chooses to look back at previous threads I've posted on, they will see that I am very very big on the rights of land owners.

Land owners still have as much control over who comes onto their land as they do now, but they have the flexibility to allow vehicles IF THEY CHOOSE TOO. That's the point that Porky missed. This gives the power to the landowners to be flexible and let vehicles in while still protecting against griefers if they want to be flexible. Those that don't want to, like Porky and Elmore, simply check the "No Vehicles" or "No Sat-On Objects" (whatever we're going to call it) box and carry on as normal. Business as usual for them.

The big problem with banlines is that you don't see them on your land on your account. So people forget that they have them up.

I would suggest two changes.

1) Make banlines visible on the inside of the land to the landowner. Then at least they won't forget they have them up, and they'll get an idea of the horrible view everyone else has to suffer.

2) Make them chargeable. Even a token amount like L$10/hour would make people think twice.

An alternative or addition to (2) is that they automatically turn off after one hour and/or on logout (not sure how that might work on group land though). That still gives you peace and privacy if you want to build or do something on your own land which, in all honesty, is what ban lines are *really* for.

Broccoli

So we'd just be able to fly through them? Even so, much better than at present. By the way, is there any reason why banlines have to be visible at all?

That's an interesting thought, but not really relevant to my proposal. Perhaps that's something worth looking into as a separate proposal. I'm not suggesting that we change anything other than the No Object Entry and the creation of a No Vehicle option - that is all.

No, we couldn't fly through banlines. Banlines would not be changed in the slightest. Those land owners that choose to use them still can. Although I agree that banlines spoil the view, atleast it gives you some warning not to try and fly your vehicle into them, so you know to go around. Perhaps having a setting in the Client menu to make them visible/invisible to your viewer is an idea - but again, that is not relevent to this proposal of mine. Good thinking though.

No, ban lines are to keep people off of your property. It doesn't matter if I am logged in or not, if I do not want others on my land I should be able to keep them off, period! Yes I am one of the militant "It is my land I will do what the hell I want with it" people. Private property is the base of civilization, we start to lose our private property rights, we become less civilized.

I agree with Chris on the banlines, and under my proposal Chris would still be able to maintain the status quo. Banlines should remain. My proposal gives an extra choice to land owners as to whether to let people fly over their land. This proposal is a good thing for land owners.

Eek!

I do agree with your proposal Conan, this one anyway . As long as the land owner has the ability to prohibit access to his land, it is acceptable.

Just to clarify, as there seems to be some confusion as to what I am suggesting;

1. Banlines remain.
2. If a landowner has banlines, but forgets to check the "No Vehicles" box (thus allowing sat-on objects to enter) the banlines still prevent entry - thus overriding the Vehicles permission. Thus land owner privacy is maintained.

As a soon to be land owner my self, I wouldn't have it any other way. My previous proposal was ill-thought out - but I have given this one a lot of thought, taking into account the previous objections.

I have never used JIRA- does anyone want to help me put together a proper proposal? Perhaps some land owners and some vehicle users together so that both sides of the argument can have equal involvement. We want it to be mutually satisfactory, afterall.

I would tend to find that people who ban everyone from their land for NO OTHER REASON than "because they can" are quite less civilised to start with.

Permanently erected banlines are the SL equivalent of sitting on your front porch shooting anyone who dares to touch your gate, which as far as I recall is actually illegal.

Broccoli

Well although I dont have any official way to ensure privacy whilst up in the air, I rely on a number of factors to acheive it, Firstly sim crossing is very unstable/impossible in some instances whist in a vehicle, also allot of people use ban lines etc. add to that the lag incurred when trying to move at speed, as a result hardly anyone is flying around in a vehicle because their experience is being interupted and ruined by the above issues. I know they lowered the effect of the ban lines some time ago, but doesnt seem to have encouraged aviation within my area. Basically, flying about is not enjoyable, and this is appealing to me, it stops people encroaching on my space, years ago poeple were travelling the world in a variety of contraptions and it was annoying having some idiot land his 100 mtr long star destroyer in my front garden and to have people zooming around at all lvls. Since the introduction of P2P TP's, ban lines and and all the other issues associated with scripted travel I can go weeks without seeing another AV. Therefore keep up the good work LL on making vehicle travel extremely difficult as I for one am against it.



No need for me to read it again as I have the ability to read and understand basic english. Regardless of whether i am given the options of a "no Vehicles" checkbox it will still lead to a higher likely hood of my privacy being invaded. Your proposal will make it more appealing for people to travel in vehicles, as a result more Avatars will be moving about the grid at varying heights, thus increasing the likelyhood of my privacy being comprimised more often. Also, if my neighbours buy into your scheme and allow vehicles above their land then people will have more oportunity to invade my privacy and they are being encouraged into my vacinity by the fly zone. Unless of course your "no vehicle" checkbox is going to stop people disabling their camera restraints and also stop them swinging their camera onto my land and into my buildings? If not, then in my opinion your idea sucks.

So, to quote myself...

It was inevitable that someone would come up with a tenuous objection. Porky's objection now seems to be to people doing things on their own land or on the lands of people other than him. Odd. Basically Porky, what others do on their own land is none of your business - you're not the only land owner with rights.

I'm still trying to get my head around how ban lines makes us more civilized? I am surrounded on three sides of my property by ban lines (on a private island) and the 4th side without ban lines is the ocean sim boundry. I can sort of understand why property owners don't want just anyone on their property (like non residents of the sim), but what about their neighbors? Why is it that these land owners don't want to get to know the people living next door to them? How does this make us more civilized?

Bring down the wall - Pink Floyd.

In real life, people did indeed have dominion over the air above their land, to the ends of the universe, until pressure due to the perceived social necessity of mass aviation overturned that right.

There is no pressing, world changing need for such aviation in SL.

You asked our opinions on your idea, Your idea will encourage more avatars to travel and move around at varying heights. This PERSONALLY doesnt appeal to me as I like my peace and quiet. Its as simple as that. If you are not happy with my opinion then maybe you shouldnt have posted your idea in a public forum.

More akin to fences and good fences make good neighbors.