200m BanLines!

Any prims above my land count agaisnt my limit. Therefore I am paying for the airspace as well.

You know, I just realized, this is not a thread about security scripts, it's about the 200m+ ban lines. You've already said they have no use for you. What are you in this thread about then?

Yeah, the only time I leave my an airship on someone's land, taking up that prim count, is when I get ejected/tp'd home from some precious space. Let us pass...we're there and gone, taking our prims with us.

I'm not perfect. I sometimes fly into skyboxes that rez too late for me to avoid. It's happened to me in my skybuid (whoever did that, btw, your ship is awsome!) but I'd rather deal with those hassles then run a gauntlet of locked off airspace. Obviously, YMMV.

Because 200m banlines, access priviledges, and security scripts are hopelessly entwined within the nature of secondlife land.

Autoreturn sends your plane home for me. So you don't count agaisnt myprim count - but that isn't the main point of my comments.

Perhaps. This was just about ban lines, wasn't it. Whoops! =\

I'm mostly a forum lurker, but everytime this flyover issue surfaces it broils. So, this is where I decided to chime in. There are quality of life (QoSL?) issues for all sides, that much is clear. The current middle ground though is less than ideal for everyone. Land owners included, 'cause at the current rate you'll always be dealing with the collateral damage (us) resulting in an extreme security posture. There are land owners that don't autoreturn, and one of them had the half-assed gaul to blame me for leaving my vehicle on his land after auto TP'ing me home when I didn't swiftfully rush back to pick it up.

Extreme security burns the village in order to save it.

Nah, the security scripts are a WHOLE OTHER thing to argue over. But that's just MY opinion, probably miniscule and insignificant to you though.

For those who feel strongly about both privacy and the right to pass, please look here.

Hey everyone--as many of you know, I'm an explorer. I fly planes, I don't like being bumped off (as in, *today*) 'cuz of ABOUT LAND > ACCESS tab "whitelists" going up to 200 m above terrain mesh too.

I've already expressed how I feel to my fellow Lindens, and we're definitely going to look at this closer. What seems likely (but not confirmed yet, please keep in mind this is tentative) is that: "blacklist" bans under the BAN tab will continue to be effectively high, but ACCESS won't, and will be lowered.

I fly a number of vehicles made by Resis who've posted here and are suitably concerned; so I'm in the same situation.

We want to respond quickly after changing this for the first time in, what, three years? (Anyone have an exact number?) So... yeah.

Do so, please.

Torley, can we get an official linden word in here on security scripts that eject only?

Torley,

I ask with all due respect, does no one there ever think of the implications of this stuff BEFORE implementing it, instead of constantly scrambling to fix a problem? This is becoming a disturbing pattern of rushing something out and then dealing with the fallout a week later with a new patch (that again takes down SL for hours). This problem is glaringly obvious - didn't it occur to anyone before hand?

I hope they won't be lowered all the way to the old value it was rediculously low and couldn't even completely cover a 2 story house on the ground.

EDIT: I'd also like to see explicit bans raised to 850m. Sky builds shouldn't need a script as the only way to prevent access to explicitly banned avatars.

100m for access only and 200 (or a full 76 for bans? Compromise anyone?

Well if its possible how about this idea. Replace the current ban system with a ban system that will HIDE your land from the griefers on its ban list. They can pass through it but they will not be able to land anywhere cuz there wont be any ground any buildings or anything else. They wont be able to interact with people on that land either.

Thank you for the response Torley. This makes me feel a little better. (I'd feel great if we had a response to Prop. 1503, but I will take what I can get).

I agree, as you do, that Explicit Bannings should stay at 200m. I also agree that general "No Access"/"Group Access Only" bans should be lower to as to clear the airspace.

15m did seem to low. Perhaps 30m or 40m above the ground texture would be a better solution?

It would allow a 2 story house to be covered and still leave a TON of airspace above for flying.

Something to add to your list of stuff to eventually look, if the No Access lines are on a sim border and you hit them from an adjacent sim, you get tossed into the extreme Sw corner of the next sim. Check the Epimethius -> Leda border as an example.

Agreed but in the short term the best that can be hoped for is tweaking ban heights.

As long as that effort is going to be made, why not suggest that BAN height go all the way up as well? Seems a logical addition, if it can be done in the same scope.

I'll compromise and let you keep the high specific bans. Screw access restriction in general. Its probably the second most abused thing in SL.

Well, therein lies a paradox that: there are a lot of things that noone can predict unless you're actually experiencing it. There've certainly been a lot of discussions--including the ones in the forums--and--good lord is someone getting run over by the car in your forum avatar!?!--anyway, to be fair, there are a lot of bad things that did get stopped beforehand because of preemptive community feedback.

They are, of course, problems that are never brought up, because they were stopped in the first place.

Like a certain occlusion bug that would've doled out a lot of pain if it hadn't been spotted early on by Brent and Runitai.

And like that quote from Futurama:
And the screwups? Yeah, they do happen. But if we got some Gary Kasparovs in here, bring your solutions to [email]me--torley@lindenlab.com[/email], I'll hear out your outcomes. I'm looking for "chess players".

You missed one thing I said however. What if the island owner sells and/or uproots everyone without warning. They have no recourse and it HAS happened in the past.

Its got good reasons, you know..thats why I say 100 meters. You can fly at that height right? And it allows for a decently tall building.

Oh come on Torley. When I saw the change announced, the potential problems jumped right out at me like a bonfire at midnight. And to a number of other people too. If nobody at LL could predict this, you seriously need to fire a few people and hire some smarter lindens.

Could I be reading you correctly, that no one even wondered "gee, will this have adverse effect on flying - avatar or vehicle"?

If I am understanding you, I find this a tad surprising from the firm that thought that point-to-point teleport was to be avoided at all costs until it exacted too high a load on the asset server.

I wouldn't mind this so much if the bounce was done away with altogether.
If I had to sum up one that I don't like about SL its that red security text that bleeds though neighbours walls and being bounced around.

1. Please ban the use of that red text and castrate the creator.
People who use it want privacy but all it does is advertise your space to people and irritate/anger them.
2. Remove the bounce altogether and look for a more subtle solution - like gently steering someone in the direction they were originally heading.