200m BanLines!

That "if" is the whole bloody issue.
I interact with people all the time when I'm flying. I've had lots of great encounters bopping around on a plane that's got good low-speed maneuverability (like Jillian's "Skitter" or Chage's "Mehve" or a modified version of Cubey's sample plane) and matching speeds with someone or hovering.
Then that paying owner should pay for stronger controls.

Free access controls to (say) 40 meters, then you pay L$1 per day for exclusive bans (not specific avatar bans, group bans) for each 65536 cubic meters above that.
In the Real World, I'm free to fly over your house in my hot air balloon (which I used to do, in Real Life) so long as I don't make a non-emergency landing on your lawn. In the Real World if a path through your property is the only access to a public beach, I have the right to use that path... and if that's a public right of way you may not even be allowed to block it.

Property rights are not absolute. The public have rights too.

The problem of greifers can not be fixed by restricting rights. It can only be fixed by making griefers accountable.

My clever scheme there would be:

1. No restriction on the number of alts per credit card. The main reason people "need" unaccountable alts is because they're maxed out. Get rid of that silly restriction, and there's no pressure to allow cheating.

2. Allow premium members to sponsor friends. Sponsored accounts would be accountable to the credit card holder, but couldn't buy money or land or upgrade to premium... that would have to be done by transferring the account to your own credit card.

3. Bans are per credit card. If a sponsored account gets banned, then all sponsored accounts on that card get banned... that person can't sponsor people any more, but the sponsored accounts have the right to upgrade to their own CC. If a primary account gets banned, all the accounts on that CC get banned, sponsored as well.

4. You'd get one free account per CC, some small number of CCs per household (mailing address). All other free accounts would have to be secondary (either alts or sponsored), and you'd have to have a premium account to create them.

5. If a household gets more than N bans accumulated, that address gets banned.

This would remove the "need" to make it easy for griefers to perate unaccountably.

Indeed, Magnum! As do I, especially when I've run out of ideas and need to steal a few But seriously, I learned most of what I know about building in SL from tootling around the grid and analyzing builds that caught my eye.

No, according to Jeska, that's apparently intended behavior.

So, ya know.

I hate to say it, but... "we told you so".

Then why were you saying that the restricted access walls should go up to 200 meters?

OK, I'm going to go around SL tpnight, at 50 meters, and every time I hit a wall, I'm going to bug-report it.

And I suggest EVERYONE ELSE who thinks this is a daft idea do the same.

Because.

1. It's a bug, whether they think it is or not.
2. They need to know that it's a problem.
That's good, too. I'm going to ask for partial credit for every ban line adjacent to any of my property as well.

"To start I don't think a general fence (not counting BAN only) should be allowed to be ON when the land owner is NOT online. It doesn't make sense to have it on when you are not even there."


The reason for this is because people come to your land after you leave and litter the place, or attempt to screw with you by putting invisible prims everywhere!

Here it is directly from Jeska's fingers...

"The ban limit affects both those Residents and groups who have been explicitly banned from your parcel and any Resident not allowed into your parcel."

And, ban line visibility seems worse then ever.

In this pic, I am less than 20 meters from a banline, right in front of me. Thats like one second flying even unassisted, much less in a vehicle or with a flight booster script.

Never a dull moment in SL, eh?

Yup. Any resident not allowed into your parcel = any resident not on your access list = general access restriction = sucks.

No it isn't. Ban lines don't stop that in the slightest.

Case in point from the police blotter:

You will find alot of dull moments when all the content making accounts get soo damnd disgusted with SL , that they ALL stop comming on and all your left with is griefers and oversexed teenagers.. noone left to make those wicked cool aeroplanes, cars , combat systems, skins, clothing, gadgets , and all manner od scripted objects that take time to do ,, who will want to spend the time in game to build such things? ya its gunna get real dull

It's pretty easy to return objects owned by random people. Pretty easy, but yes, still a bit of a hassle to do it everytime you log in.

A solution to that hassle would be to add a setting to the preferences that enables an automatic return of random objects from your land at set intervals.

Whereas autoreturn does very nicely.

Actually i was intending that with the caveat 'if you want restricted acces to mean anything...' then the height needs to go up. I honestly don't care that much about restricted access, in near three years of running one'f the mainlands biggest social areas we've used restricted access exactly *ONCE* and it turned out to be completely usless as everyone could reach the platforms we use anyway, so screw it.

Ban needs to go up though, and they should be seperate systems

That way they can be argued seperately, because they do have seperae intents.

my best idea for restricted access would be to just throw out 20m bounding boxes on established prims of say greater than 1m on a dimension (assuming those are part of the builds 'structure') and if restricted access is on, those boxes would bounce people, but open spaces where nothing is built, would not.

But thats TOTALLY SEPERATE from any considerations for named ban.

Again, they should be handled seperately as they are seperate cases.

in one case you are banning a specific individual from ever being able to attack you or your guests again, in another case you just want to be left alone, and there is not a specific compelling need to completely block access for any one arbitrary person, as long as they *DO* leave you alone...

Hence they need to be forked into two seperate functions/routines.

There is no arguing that... once they *ARE* split, then you can argue all you want about the merits and retractions of RESTRICTED ACCESS ZONES... but those arguments really honestly do have *NO BEARING AT ALL* on named ban

if you are on my ban list, you have no right to fly over my land, *period*...

if however i have set my parecl as restricted access, i would have NO problem at all with a plane flying by so long as it stayed sufficiently clear of my build structure... I'm saying in that instance that 'i don't want to interact with you right now' not 'i have interacted with you and deemed you to be someone i will never allow back' the intent, is just very different

hence again, the two systems should be split, and implemented, and argued about, seperately.

Another good idea may be similar to 'hilight transparent' have some kind of view menu setting for 'hilight access' which would *not* hide ban/access lines so you could see them from a good way away while flying and just avoid them.

I would also not be averse to having some kind of 'listing fee' for restricted access much like for advertisements etc now... again yer asking for complete privacy that may be something you shold pay for, on the mainland...

Asking to have some ability to ward off someone firebombing your area every single night for weeks, just really should not be part of *THAT* discussion.

That is one hell of a fantastic idea, eltee!

I'd equate it much like having an unpublished telephone number in RL - I have to pay extra for that.

If folks had to pay L$30/week to turn on the *whitelist* (Ban everyone), I think its usage would be a lot less widespread than what we see today.

Edited to add:

Something like this could be even more amazing. Say Linden did implement something like this. And as part of the implementation, they turned *off* everyone's whitelist due to the upcoming charge, and you had to re-select it to turn it back on (and agree to the fee).

Not only would a lot fewer folks turn it on, but it would 'undo' all those ban lines of folks who have left SL, or gone long-term dormant.

Just a thought

I will also say in all of our discussions with LL in the forums and in world when it came to land access tools, we very very *explicitly* seperated the cases between named ban, and restricted access.

All of the controls, and enforcements, and abilities that come with named ban, that are sorely needed, have NOTHING TO DO with what would be needed or appropriate for restricted access only land, they are two very different cases and both we, and the lindens we talked to stressed that and understood that.

That is why i say that the current 'overlap' of helping ban height also affecting restricted parcels, is probably just a temporary thing... Robin, Philip, and many others were fully aware that the two cases *ARE* seperate, and the system needs to change to allow that.

It was just decided most likely that the overwhelming need for the mainland social areas to be able to protect themselves from the massively rising griefing/attacking problems, *TODAY*, immediately, outweighed some slight flyability issues that would arise, wihch could be patched up next week with abit more time to retool some code.

This was the *direct* impression we got in all of our interactions, both forums, and in world, and I see no reason to doubt that right now.

I agree with Travis...stellar suggestion.

Edit:



*sigh*, but then why didn't the Lindens just say that? It would have taken Jeska an extra twenty seconds to add that info to the ban limit post. Even if it's not guaranteed, to at least know they're trying would be better than not saying anything.

They aren't only extremely high, too high to fly over, they are buggy as well.

I was flying around trying to get a sense of it when I came up against a ban line that went up into the clouds. Ok, that is high, man. Then I went around it, and found that I could fly into the very property that had a ban line from the other side. Hmm. So I continued to fly, to test it, and then ran into the first ban line which ejected me out to the other side (and then some). Then I came back and then couldn't see the ban lines at all this time.

So, it's not only absurdly tall, it's buggy and unpredictable as well.

Not good.

Seriosuly, I will help feed this back to the people we talked to in the first place on this. The two systems need to be forked, and handled differently, there is no argument there at all that i can tell. It just will obvously take a bit more time to do something like that, than just change iBanHeight = 40; to iBanHeight = 200;

Given the types of ban effects and controls we were talking about for named bans, there really is no doubt in my mind that there *WILL* be a code fork with those two routines, coming.

And yes I also agree with travis just like how they did lights when implementing 1.10, when they change/fork the restricted access system, it should be automatically globally disabled, and then if people want to play/pay with the new system, they can individually re-enable it without any trouble, just re-check the box.

While that's all fine and dandy, increasing the height of the ban lines only does so much. They can still stand/float right next to your property line and lob missiles or what have you into it. Not much has changed, really. Or they can just fly over the 200m and drop physical bombs all over the place. Same old, same old. I don't expect much will change just because they have to stay higher up.

Sorry, did I miss something?

There are more changes coming down the pipe, *NO ONE* is saying this will fix all the griefing problems in SL, but it *IS* a step in the right direction, and there will be more steps coming soon. This was just the fastest to implement and most urgently needed because UNTIL ban had the range to be useful, none of the more advanced or useful things *tied* to ban could really be implemented

do a search in the SL forums on 'ban height'

the issue of making ban (NAMED BAN) useful is something we've been arguing back and forth for easily 2 years now, or more