Stupid security scripts

Seems like being a friendly, open person who doesn't mind getting visitors or people appreciating what I provide as content for them to enjoy in the game, is a rare thing these days.

When "your" right to privacy disrupts "my" right to roam freely throughout the game, without being ejected or disrupted, whose right overrides the other? You see, I'm not actually totally against security scripts as I understand the desire to have a little privacy sometimes - but I am against antisocial users of them who eject people from their land with no or insufficient warning. If you have beacons up warning people that it is private land and that they will be removed, then that's one thing - but to just cross a parcel border and boom is, whether you accept it or not, GRIEFING - the unwelcome disruption to another player's legitimate gameplay, and I will report every one that I come across. Thirty seconds is a perfectly acceptable reaction time for the average player on an average system to get out of your land - but how can anyone know how big your land is unless you mark it and its boundaries? Oh..... but that means you need a bigger plot of land and can't afford it? Unlucky. Your problem, not mine.

I don't know what the statistics are, but you would probably find that 99% of us couldn't care less what is going on in your skybox, and if you weren't drawing attention to yourself, most of us wouldn't even bother to stop for a second look.

There is no justification for "no warning security", period. It's griefing - not privacy.

Lewis

Voted best analogy on the forums. Ok, maybe just the most colorful. Whatever. I like it.

Examining the other extreme, what would you do if you owned a helicopter in real life, and one day while flying to work a SAM from an unattended automated system slammed into your engine , forcing you to bail (damn accurate SAM...) and when you landed just outside the property from whence it came, the owner shows up and says "It's there to protect me from terrorists, and you had no reason to be passing through my property anyway."

I love extreme analogies.

Anyway, it's obvious to me that the right to pass does not come into conflict with the right to privacy. The problem is really that the tools for securing land are too limited, and too many people are unwilling to learn to use what we do have and put the effort into setting it up right.

In my opinion, no one can complain about Reitsuki's security script because he'd limited it to an enclosed area. You could see it, and easily avoid it. I do believe Kyrah's is like this too. Mine is also.

In other words, they secure areas you can't just fly through anyway.

So when you're traveling somewhere at 500 meters above the ground and the next thing you know you're plummeting to the ground with a little blue box on your screen letting you know you were ejected from a property you didn't even know you were about to enter (or sitting at your "home" with a surprised expression on your face) you're not angry because a person exercised their right to privacy, but because there was no bloody way to know - no warning, nothing you could avoid, just a sudden and unexpected punishment doled out effectively at random.

There's a happy median that is really quite easy to achieve. It's just going to take a little effort on our parts as "citizens" of this li'l "world" - basic cooperation so we can all get to have fun here.

There is one. It's legal. Terribly sorry you dissagree, but the few people who have no manners and make life hard on land owners are also making hard on you indirectly.

On the other hand, I can say that my own design already has the ability to enter height limits for top and bottom of the secured area. That should help limit the abuse a little.

And if a person abuses others with his security, then AR him. ANYTHING can be used to abuse someone else, but they can have legitimate uses to.

Outside of Buildings and Land, I see these security scripts as the act of a Grifter. It is disturbing another which is the act of a Grifter.

Just because something is "legal" does not make it right. If I was rich enough could buy all of the land around someone’s store and prevent anyone from accessing it other than TP. It is "legal" but is it right?

I am sick of getting shot down by resident’s security scripts. Then I am a bad person because bits and pieces of my Tarn fall on their property as "garbage". In my mind people that use security scripts against other residents flying over their land are GRIFTERS!

It starts with scripter, "I just made the bomb, didn’t drop it". User, "it is legal" and Linden Labs for allowing it to happen.

We need "law enforcement" to deal with grifters and stop this vigilante justice once and for all. I call upon Linden Labs to restore the peace to Second Life.

Then you weren't sent home by my security script. Simple as that. (Not that you were, as I mentioned, I kept a log). To be sent home by my script, you were doing something that I clearly asked you not to do. At that point, I don't care if it upsets you or not. You didn't respect my wishes, so I won't respect yours.



No, that's specificly illegal.

As for making SL a cold place to visit... People snooping on me when I don't want them there makes it a hostile place to visit, so I'll take cold over hostile, yes.



You understand wrong.



"Griefer", not "Grifter". A grifter is one who scams people out of their money.



No, but it's a good first step.



Actually, that is specificly forbidden by the ToS, it's not legal.



I think people who snoop around my builds when it's clear I don't want them there are griefers. See how that works?



And this logic is absolutely valid.



Griefers are dealt with. The problem is, you alone do not define what a griefer is.

The person paying for the land in question gets priority.



It's a case of the minority ruining it for the majority, I agree, but there it is.



Such a shame that a clearly private area is like a big red button for idiots with no sense of respect, isn't it? Again, it's people like that that ruined it for the rest of you.

Just because it is "legal" makes something ok? That is what you are saying. Use to be "legal" to hang someone that stole from you. Being "legal" makes everthing ok is what you are saying.

What about blocking a property makes it illegal? It is their land and as you say might makes right! My needs are the most important thing and can not care a thing about other residents cares or desires. I come first in all things!

Also have you ever seen my name on one of your security scripts? I have given up my flying my Tarn. The game is less enjoyable for me. I hate TPing everwhere! I am sure that others feel the same way, perhaps if enough paying customers state this Linden Labs will do something about it. If my enjoyment continues to go downhill, I will sell my land and become a non paying resident. How many others have already done this?

It is not you I am mad at, it is the others with there random security scripts. However your reaction about your "right" to do this to others makes me suspect of your motovation. Think you "enjoy" making other people unhappy.

I call apon Linden Labs to take away the power of police enforcement and bring law and order to Second Life.

Getting teleported home has always seemed to me so wrong. "I get to decide when you are going home" - er, no. However, now that we have P2P it isn't nearly as much of a hassle getting back to where you were trying to get to when the other resident decided you were going home instead.

This whole issue seems to be a matter of, this is how it is, like it or lump it. Too bad for people who like to travel in vehicles. Oh well.

As an aside, regarding ban lines - which is an aside cause ban lines do nothing but bump you - but here's what kills me: Someone makes an absolutely lovely property, landscaped and everything, and it's beautiful. EXCEPT - it's surrounded by ugly red lines, whether they are home or not. Kinda defeats the purpose of making a beautiful property!

coco

No worries, Ranma

If anything, I got myself a little worked up in my own post. So, my apologies

If you spend a lot of time around crowds, grief is just an inevitablilty in Second Life - and I can accept that. Its just immensely frustrating to me that Linden has provided such a weak toolset to proactively *prevent* grief before it happens.

On a good note, Linden has stated that they are working on better mainland land tools - and those are scheduled to come the first quarter of 2006. It'll probably be delayed, but I'll be overjoyed when they come.

As far as Privacy in Second Life, I have mixed feelings about it:

On the one hand, I believe airspace is a commons. I may be able to build there - but its only logical to me that others' travel should not be hindered by my activities there.

On the other hand, Linden Labs expressly markets the ability to "Own" virtual land in Second Life. If you peruse the website, you can find many instances where they specifically tout this feature.

"Ownership" is defined as the state or fact of exclusive possession or control of some thing, which may be an object or some kind of property.

Because ownership implies the ability to control one's privacy on property one owns (At least in Western Culture), it seems only natural to me that new residents that come here expect a certain degree of control over who can visit land that they own.

The problem is, the toolset just isn't there to allow any privacy at all. Cameras can be panned, cubes can be sat on & moved around.

IMHO, one of two things needs to happen:

Either: A) Linden needs to officially redefine the concept of "Ownership" in their marketing to reflect the idea that the entire grid is a commons.

Or: B) Linden needs to officially sanction privacy, and limit it as to not interfere with what should be the commons - by giving us the tools to enforce it properly.

If everyone on sl respected others privacy.. we wouldn't have this issue. I personally feel every time soemone greifs a third time they should be sent to a prison sim with other greifers for a month

If it kept happening when they got back.. let them stay there permanently or be banend for good

No, I said it's a good start. Difference.



It is illegal because the lindens said it is illegal. Further, it's deliberate obstruction, verses deliberate invasion.



No. Further, like I said, I discontinued use of my security script when I befriended a couple of private island owners that don't mind if I use their islands as a workshop.



Compare that to the people who would sell their land if they weren't allowed to enforce privacy.

Be carefull playing the "vote with your dollar" card. It cuts both ways on issues like this.



First you call me rude, without ever explaining why or appologizing. Now you say I enjoy making people unhappy. I don't take forum chatter very seriously, but that's starting to tread very close to defamation of my character... and it's most certainly not true.

My motivation is simple: I think people who own the land have more right to decide what goes on there than people who don't own the land. Provided that they are not catastrophicly abusing the land ownership priviledges, or in some other way violating the terms of service (such as using the land to post racial insults, or something), I'm for not degrading the rights of paying customers to do as they wish on their land.



You call upon LL to basicly castrate land owners. "Sorry, please keep paying us, but you don't have any right to decide what goes on on that land your paying 50 bucks a month for."

Sorry, I can never accept that logic. The day I loose the right to control my own land, even if I choose not to, is the day I take my dollars elsewhere, and I suspect a ton of other people as well.

My livelyhood in SL depends on vehicles, and you will probably not find a bigger fan of them than I. I don't hate vehicles by a longshot.

Heck, my land is almost right next to yours in Andromeda... Look to the north, my land is *littered* with vehicles i'm working on, to the point it's a bit ugly at the moment.



I've always been of the opinion that banlines should be toggleable on a property-by-property basis.

I wasn't saying that was your attitude, Reitsuki. I'm saying that having heard this discussion ever since I've been here, it seems to be LL's attitude.

Hey, I didn't know you were a neighbor of mine!

About the banlines being toggleable - I don't think I know what you mean.

coco

Yeah, feel free to drop by the hunk of rotting plywood and stone. Terminal laziness kills half my builds.

Toggleable banlines: Many ways to impliment this, but the most basic example would be right click on land that is restricted and select "No longer show banlines from this land" or something like that, and while the land is still restricted, you don't have the ugly lines to deal with.

Didn’t mean to call you Rude and apologize for offending you (deep bow)

Also I didn’t say you enjoyed doing bad things to others it just seemed that way from your postings. It was my impression and not actually saying it was true. Again apologize for offending you (deep bow)

About the other, you keep talking about "land rights"; I am talking about air or over flight rights. In RL if you took out a stinger every time an aircraft overflow your property, you would go to jail and probably executed.

I have decided to sell my property. Just in case you are close to me and relocate to the new continent. Hopefully you are not there and there are no security script users there. Then again I might not re buy land and become one of the no pay residents.

The problem with these scripts is that with the current LAG, you never see the stupid things until it is too late. Then there is no time to do anything. You might be clear going forward but maybe not or if you double back it places one in danger. I LOVE to fly! Perhaps the Lindens should establish air routes for us to use that would not interfere with the Lords/Ladies ever so important privacy rights. Also navigation aids to help us fly these routes.

Again, "killing" is not an apt metaphore in SL.

Still, in real life, there is the concept of "protected airspace"... Why do you think jets dont fly at 500 meters in real life? In context of SL, you're safe above 865 meters (Highest a built will survive is 768, widest range a scanner can scan is 90 meters). Below that, LL has decided, is land-owner space if they want it to be.

Great! Flying above 865 meters is boring! Also LAG is the big problem. I have flown into different structures by pure accident. I did this once just flying without my Tarn. Ended up getting stuck in some fellow’s wall! Would have made a nice picture of my rear half protruding from a structure. So you are saying that the security script only has an effective range of 50 meters? I suppose yours were invisible objects?

Actually, in general aviation you can usually go as low as 500 feet AGL without a problem and even lower outside of cities. Also only the government has the right to make "no fly" zones not landowners.

About the return to home function, how does that work? I am a landowner and do not know how. What is good for the goose is good for the gander!

Hmmmm evidently someone is getting worked up about this issue.

I just logged in to find a huge nuke sitting on my property, just waiting for someone to set it off.

Thankfully the 'return object to owner' function made it easy for me to get rid of this unwelcome intrusion...... but that's all it took. I could wreak great revenge on this individual who inflicted this terrible act upon me..... or I could just ignore the idiot, as it's probably an alt anyway. I chose the latter.

No avatars were harmed in the making of this post.

Lewis

Sorry, my private lab is not there for your amusement.



Lag is much better higher up!



Yeah, it happens.



Um. I don't know how your getting that from my post.



...The hell? I have no IDEA what you mean there.



I am the government on my land in SL, since there is no formal government as such.

Lindens have set the flight ceiling at 865 meters, give or take a bit. You can certainly try to fly below that, but below that you have no reason to get upset if something blocks your path... What if I had a 300 meter tall build?

Also, section 121.657(b) of the FAA regulations in america stipulate no flight below 1000 feet, either from ground level or "other obstruction to flight.", to quote the most recently published regulations. I would define a floating building as an "obstruction", if they could exist IRL.

If we want to drag RL regulations into this, as I've repeatedly said is a very bad idea.



llTeleportAgentHome. It's a script function. It's pretty simple, actually. Just tie it in to a sensor or, if you like, collision event or volume detect or something.

[Also, section 121.657(b) of the FAA regulations in america stipulate no flight below 1000 feet, either from ground level or "other obstruction to flight.", to quote the most recently published regulations. I would define a floating building as an "obstruction", if they could exist IRL.

If we want to drag RL regulations into this, as I've repeatedly said is a very bad idea.


You are not reading the regulations corectly, Part 121 - OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL OPERATIONS. It is for comercial airline operations from Air taxis to the large carriers.

Part 91 - GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES is for private aircraft operation. My tarn would probally be classifed as experimental. Also as a helicopter.

Minimum safe altitudes: General.

Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

The regulation is written for safety and not the privacy of landowners.

There are also regulations for buildings. How high they can be built, what type of lighting they must have etc. Also please note that they are noted on the charts as for position and height since they are a meance to navigation.

Actually, your post still backs me up. "Congested area" I would define as any non-empty sim in SL.

I wasn't reading the regulations wrong - they both say the same thing so far as I'm concerned. I just did a quick textual search for flight altitude restrictions, I'll admit, but I remembered 1000 being abought right.

There are also building restrictions in SL - No build may be higher than (768 + 30 - (float)llGround()) meters tall.

A "congested area" is a large city. Population levels in SL are very low per sq mile. I am still looking for a correct defination. It is not in Part 1 - DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS. Sec. 1.1 General definitions. Also please note that my Tarn is a helicopter. Vertical Takeoff and landing.

(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.

In any case SL allows builds higher than the higest building in the world! They are also not marked on the charts! Only way to find them in SL is by running into them.

Ah, but SL doesn't have analogies to rural and urban. We have void and non-void.



Cool.

Your point?



And now we see why I say we need to stop bringing RL into things.

Isn't it great that SL allows such wild creations?

I'd actually be interested to know how many of those responding here who have some kind of security system on their virtual land actually do so because of griefers, rather than to keep out people who in all honestly probably wouldn't have even bothered them unless they had been attacked - in other words griefed - by someone's security script without warning?

After all, even if you're working on some "top secret" project (and let's just remind ourselves this IS just a game), what's the big deal of someone wandering past who doesn't even know - or most likely even care - what you're doing until you attract their attention?

Unless you have adequate warning that you have a security script that attacks people innocently wandering past, YOU are being the griefer, rather than the person innocently wandering past - and on that basis I will continue to report any that I find that bother me.

As there is no way not to be shown on the map as a green dot, the whole concept of 'privacy' is currently rather pointless anyway.

Lewis