Lets try to work out a solution for the Security Scripts Issue

Pragmatism states: this is one of many discussions to which we point when attempting to convince the Lindens to make a policy change.

Unfortunatly as so long as people insist on total control over land exposed to public view without any consideration for those surrounding them or travelling to nearby lands this will be a problem.

Note that I am not asking for room to stop and look around your lands and builds, or to watch you and yours engavged in any activity you'd perfer kept private.

You however are asking that I somehow know where land is bordered when I can't see the borders and avoid the land I'm not allowed on when there is no idication of it, in a world where it's traditionally acceptable to expore other's builds.

Your hardship: Put up the SL equivelent of clear boundary markings and a "no trespessing" sign.

My hardship: Guess where I am and am not allowed with nothing to indicate the borders exist.

I've twice quoted an old Latin phrase. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. It means that a person should use his or her property in such a manner as not to injure that of another. Under traditional common law, nuisances were analyzed under a fairly rigid property rights framework: Each property owner had the right to use his or her land as long as that use didn't injure a neighbor. "Neighbor" includes not only land owners in the immediate vicinity, but all those in the villiage, town or city as well as thier guests, employees and agents.

The legal question is simply: Is X the cause of a nuisance?

A total approach to either (total free flght or total property control) does indeed rate as a nuisance for the other. My flying in a minefeild of invisible security scripts, or your inability to have any privacy in your home - either is unacceptable to me.

We need to present a proper comprimise - worked out here and in-world - to LL to get clarity into the TOS on this subject, alow for actual enforcement when nessesary, and perhaps even to get them moving a bit faster on improving the tools we have for controlling access to land so that it becomes far easier for both sides to have what they want (within the nessesary bounds of community and cooperation).

Again I propose the following change to your compromise as written. I did agree until you lowered levels. The levels you have mentioned are unacceptable. The following adjustment would make the terms agreeable.

From groundlevel to 10m above the top of the tallest -land based- build rather than just within 50m? I'me sure people with towers that encompass penthouses should be able to have full security and total control on that area.

No, becasue the 100 plus meters that potentially surround it are unmarked and can not be avoided.

With the current proposal you have a full 25 meter buffer.

I've given a reason why it's a hardship for me - why is it a hardship for you? That is not a question about rights enroached, ok? The question is why is it a hardship to give fair warning to travelers.

Mind, this is for automated scripts. If someone's buzzing around your tower when you're there, you can still manually punt 'em. See, I trust a human brain to easily tell the difference between a traveler - whom I trust you would not molest - and a greifer/peeping tom - whom I trust you will maul for us with all due care.

Ok, lets compromise on this then. Within the bounds of 25 meters from the tower/penthouse, an autmoated script can be used. Beyond that only manual. Under 50m auto can be used everywhere.

Can we agree to that?

I belive that was what Darkness has proposed. If it includes fair warning, then: yes.

Jonas ground to 50m is land boarder to land boarder regardless of plot size.

Above that it is 25m out from the walls of any structure in all directions. up to 768m (this is not new it was in the proposal yesterday). On a smaller plot this in effect still is boarder to boarder. It only really applies to big land plots.

above 786 no security

the penthouses would indeed have full security interrior and from their walls and roof extending out 25m into space

It might look like this

No security|25M security|building with security|25M security|No Security

in the 50-768M range warning would be required under my proposal

What we need to do is work out what warning is fair and appropriate

ideas folks

As long as their needs for security have been factored in I see no problems with the situation.

Perhaps a 20 second warning..plenty of time to move, even with lag.

I'm hip to that. Sufficient for even slow-n-lumbering to turn about and get away.

Ok so from the sounds of it folks can agree on a 20 second warning. If you don't please do voice your opinion.

My question is this

Should there be other warning options.

For example in our use of security on the island the entire underside of a sim size platform is textured in huge warning signs. Security is tuned from the platform up. There is no 20 second warning but then again if you have hit the security you have already breached a solid prim barrier.

Signs are one possibility. They would be a good indicator to the flyer where exactly the edge of the 25m air space of security starts. If they are used how large and how should they be spaced to provide a good visual cue to the flyer.

Someone earlier suggested the development of a beacon system by both the flying craft manufacturers and the security script manufacturers. I rather like this idea but have no idea how feasible it is or if we can get the makers of these objects onboard with us. I suspect that could not be regulated by policy though it would be a nice value added service to customers.

other ideas?

I would just like to know where flying is permitted and where it is not. Getting hit by a security script is no fun even if it is just a warning. I would rather avoid it altoughter.

My ideal was to have Public airways, a route where a pilot know it is safe for flights.

Still thinking about the best way to mark them.

Sorry for just catching up after being away for a couple of days.

There is very little justification for any security system in game, and there is even less warning for any security system that gives insufficient or no warning to anyone innocently passing by.

If you really must have privacy on your rented parcel of land, then the easy solution is to let the 'no entry' lines go right up to 768 sq m, they are plain to see from a distance and anyone flying can go around them.

My simple conclusion is thus:

Anything that affects, moves or otherwise takes control of my avatar preventing me from doing what I desire to do, without my permission, I would consider griefing.

I have a dance machine, when I activate it it asks my permission to act on my controls. I have a 'hug' attachment that asks for your permission if I activate it on you. Why should security scripts be allowed to work without my consent - especially when NO warning that it is there is given?

Lewis

Lewis we are now working out a warning system. Security is a fact of life in SL. It isn't going away so we are trying to find a compromise that is livable for as many as possible.

Thoughts on what would constitue adequate warning would be much appreciated.

*shrug* I get by quite adequately without needing any whatsoever beyond the 'ban avatar' list.



As I do not feel that *any* warning should be necessary on the simple reason that no security is necessary, that's kinda difficult..... but I would say that 20 seconds is fair, as long as there are plenty of adequate warnings - be it signs or beacons or whatever - placed around the boundary of the script's radius of action (like a 'bubble'), which should enforce itself no more than the camera zoom away from any point of the place being protected, and of course should not overlap into other's property.

This would mean that using air space for legitimate means between ground and 'skyboxes' unhindered remains - which is, after all, the main reason I posted about the problem in the first place.

But I still stand by my original statement that drawing attention to the fact that something is 'protected' is more likely to make people stop and look, and try to get in, than merely pass by. I enjoy other people's creations in game, and if I see something as I fly by I want the right to go see what it is. If the owner doesn't want me to, then that's ok, as long as it is clear from a distance that they don't want me to, and i'm not going to be kicked 3 sims away for doing something I wasn't aware I shouldn't be.

Lewis

I wouldn't put signs or beacons up myself. I reserve my prims for my own landscaping, not for making ti easier ofr others to navigate.

Signs and beacons are a drain on the prims of the landowners, with no effort put forth by the flyer. As we have come to the agreememnt on the security that technically, does not limit flight too much, lets see both sides give something.



Theres an idea, it would eliminate security scripts entirely, and provide a warning sign without killing the landowners prims.

and this boys and girls is why I love P2P. I haven't been hit with a retarded security script since it was brought back.

There is no pleasing you! You are upset that people come on your land and want to tp them home, push or otherwise inconvience them. You want everthing your own way! Lisen up! It is not going to happen. If you want people to stay off your land you need to let them know! Your security scripts are RUDE. I dont want to fly over your land, I dont want to encounter your security scripts. In fact I dont want to see you or chat with you either.

It is my wish to avoid landowners who do not want me to overfly their property. It does take a little effort on their part however. Cant avoid something that I do not know to avoid.

Ranma, if you can't address a person respectfully then don't address them. Until you can quit the personal attacks in your posts I will further be ignoring them.

edit: typos fixed

further edit: If you did not wish to speak to me or chat with me then do not IM me anymor ein world. I have never tried to contact you yet you did me, making sure I knew who 'killed' your av, as well as asking me the name last night.

I hate having to TP everwhere, Remember the SL motto? Your world your imagination? I dont stop doing something to please a few people. I have the right to enjoy SL as much as they do!

You are too sensitive, I called the scripts rude, not you. Also you have rejected every comprimise, every solution. I will not be quiet, I will not give up! I just ask for the right not to be harassed by security scripts!

I have the right to go through SL in a quiet enviroment free of harasement!

Jonas and Ranma, you BOTH are detracting from the thread. Jonas, you attitude is going nowhere, you're hurting the discussion more than helping it at this point, and you've already made it quite clear multiple times how you stand on the issue. Ranma, your anger towards Jonas is turning this into too much of a flamewar, and you're also made your points abundantly clear many times over. Could both of you please either go to the other security scripts thread, or just bow out of this one?

I promise not to write anything more about him. Not angry with him but frustrated. Will only write if have something positive to contribute.

Extending the ban bars to 768 is a coding change and therefore beyond the scope of this project which is a codification of policy change.

Jonas I suggest if you really want ban bars to 768 you begin a campaign for it in Feature Proposals and start a proposition for it.

I do firmly believe there should be some sort of cue to flyers that can be seen (or heard) at a distance.

What I need is help in figuring out what this should be.

I just said it was a good suggestion Darkness, though I will be working on a proposal.

And Felix, I also choose to ignore you at this point, obviously you haven't seen the agreement I made to Darkness [no sec] [25 m] [build][25m] [no sec] bit

I just feel making landowners put signs up is too much of a hardship.. while spending Lindens on a script or writing one yourself is a one time cost..signs cost you prims..and keep them hostage until you take the signs down.

Which is easier..... a simple code change, or a policy change?

Lewis