200m BanLines!

I think things boil down to this:

1. Most folks seem to agree that individual, named ban (blacklist) heights of 200m aren't so much an issue. Note that it is this sort of "Red Line" that affects the smallest minority of the SL population (mostly griefers).

2. Most folks seem to agree that raising the ban heights on Access control (whitelist) is a bad idea altogether. Note that it is this sort of "Red Line" that affects the largest majority of the SL population (mostly travellers).

The real debate then becomes: Should they have implemented this halfway but immediately, or all the way but delayed?

My opinion:

The answer to that depends. If its possible to temporarily reverse the CC laxing decision now, and put it back once ban heights can be made reasonable - then I think that's the way to go.

However, if LL isn't going to budge on reversing the CC decision, and we just have to like it: Something had to be done to combat griefing now - even if it was half-ass.

then fly where you have a right of access - or have been given permission

They do. They do all the time. I used to live and travel on the mainland, I know how it works, how many random banlines exist, how many people decide that they need to close off their prim TV 24/7.

I've lived next to plots occupying half a sim with banlines on where I've never seen a soul; I've played av pinball trying to fly around in places with lots of tiny banned 512s, but at least then I could keep to, say, 50m and not have to worry. Now I have to go so high I can't even see the ground.

This was not a very good idea in my opinion. I feel bad for those people who are boxed in on four sides (by four different people) with ban lines. Before they could just go up 40m and fly out, now, without some sort of flight assist, they will not be able to fly off their own property. The ban lines go up over 200m, and I can only fly unassisted to about 211m. So all those people out there who have "ban everyone" are pretty much making it impossible to fly around SL without some sort of assisted flight.

I really don't understand why you need to ban everyone. I just use the ban list, if some griefer or stalker starts giving me problems, they are banned from my land. Most people are considerate of others and are just trying to explore this great world of SL. The ban lines only stop people from being on your property, nothing else. Same with all the other security scripts.

I hope they remedy this, but with LL's track record lately, I'm not holding out much hope.

No, its not. 200m is FAR better.

I leave my security on at all time. Don'tknow about you, but I don't leave me home unlocked just because I'm not home.

OK. I am sorry to those with sensitive ears, but I just went in-world to see how bad the banlines are I have to say that this is the DUMBEST F***** thing I have ever seen. What moron thought it would be a good idea to implement this?!

Want a good example of how STUPID this is? Come to Epimethius. We are located between Leda and Cresent, near Yadni's Junkyard.

On the west side of the sim, you have Leda. There is a plot that ban's everybody just north of the road, next to the pyramid. Go from Epi to Leda, into the ban lines.

1. a) they don't appear when you are flying
   
2. b) When you are kicked to the SW corner of Leda. Don't pass go, don't collect your stipend
   

Now head to the East side of Epimethius along the Cresent border. las Nubes has their group-only flag on. Try flying across the sim and you'll end up either a few hundred feet into the air or catapulted into janus to the SW.

Now I own 1/4 of Epi, so I can build away from the borders to keep this from happening from my visitors, but what will happen to the 512m owners when they start turning on all their banlines? Travel will be nearly impossible.

Lindens, if you are listening, you really stepped on your ****'s over this one. Thanks for completely frelling up the grid. You need to fix this one and fix it fast. Make the 200m ban specific to the ban list on the land plot, not the general public.

What are you going to do next, bring back taxes?

Fully agree with you on all points. They need decoupled. They need different height restrictions.

But with the _given fact_ that they are coupled.. having explicite bans too LOW is a greater evil than having access restrictions too high. This is better than what was before as a "lessor of two evils" scenerio. Getting them properly decoupled is the next step (which will require a lot more programming than to just change an integer in a line of code).

Well, eltee, I do hope they change this. I understand and sympathize with people wanting more control over their land and the need to have more effective means of dealing with griefers. But not at the expense of everyone else.

Well I am going to expand my ban list to people who disagree with me and those that have active no fly zones above their land. Why you might ask and I reply why not? Why should you be able to fly over my land if I can not fly over yours? As for above 200 meters I have security scripts and repeaters. I can make my entire land no fly zone to 863 meters for you selective pests. It would be easier you me to close my land to all but a few but not willing to do that. I am still a member of the free flight movement for all of those that allow the same.

It is a pitty that my script can not be set no warning for a certain pest but that is the way it goes!

Really? How?

Griefers suck, yes, no argument, but blocking the skies and restricting traffic for everybody is just plain stupid.

LL has always relied on resident feedback for ideas and features, etc, why? because generally the people whom things will affect, will have a good idea about how/why they need to be affected.

The fact that this could affect 'access restricted' parcels was actually *SPECIFICALLY* something that had come up in the forum threads on this topic, and something that very specifically was raised as a concern.

It seems that overall the systems were just coupled, and that decoupling them will take some time. It would have been *really good* if this had been introduced with that consideration already taken care of.... But the need for abating griefing on some of the bigger mainland builds was so pressing, and so increasing, almost exponentially over the last week and more, that mebbe someone made a judgement call.

If it would take 2 weeks to fully integrate the ideal system, and long long time mainland owners are talking about buckling uner the griefing in matters of days, mebbe that call needed to be made.

I fully agree that the access restricted land should be dealt with *DIFFERENTLY* than land someone is banned from, NO ONE HERE disagrees with that, that i have seen. Just like pretty much no one disagrees named bans, needed to be alot more effective than they were.

Thats not heads vs tails, thats the same side of the same coin, really, its just unfortunate it looks like a system hiccup or design issue prevented that from being properly seen, and has caused problems like the arguments here. We're doing our best, everyone in this thread, to try and allay those concerns, and get LL to see that that change would be beneficial. You can help us all be part of the solution, help build the case why that seperation is needed, or you can sit here and curse and swear, its your choice, and im really sorry you got put in a position where you feel you have to make it.

If your land is so small that a warning is ineffective, then there is NOTHING you can do that will be effective.

Give me ONE valid reason why you should be able to enter an area the land owner doesn't want you in.

Have you considered therapy?

My security system does the BEST it can. I consider that effective. As land owner, that is the bar for it to meet.

Excellent thread! Can I finish it with a rant about furry ageplay now?

Have the people who consider it greifing for me to lock my doors when I'm not home (metaphorically) considered therapy?

Depends on your definition of greifer. The ban lines show who owns the land..you have no right to fly over others owned land, no matter what you imagine.

Not just "really good", it's completely and utterly inconceivable than anyone sane would have made this change without decoupling the access controls from the bans first.
I call that a "misjudgement call". It's not a "system hiccup" or a "design issue", it's just a plain wrong decision.

We consider it griefing to be tp'd home with no warning. Do you understand we don't care what you have on your property and aren't interested in stopping to investigate?

Actually, you do. The only question is where that right ends. It's clear that 15 meters is probably too low, and 4096 meters would be too high... but when I can't fly from one of my properties to a friend's build across the border in an adjacent sim, without risking being thrown further than C4 has ever tossed me... that's nuts.

And this incident just indicates what a completely idiotic idea it is just to listen to the feedback of a couple of people and not put it out for general discussion.

I'm sorry, I really am sorry that you guys have been griefed, I've stood up for you in numerous other places and said "yes, actually, people are saying that there's more griefing no matter what the published AR stats are like, and I believe them, it's happening". I've stood up for better landowner tools, scripted object eject functions, increased ban lists and so on.

And the only thing that gets through is something stupid that basically fucks everyone living on the mainland because of the socialgeographical environment there. In a way that a moment's consideration would have highlighted.

Colour me fucking impressed by the whole system.

I'm being part of the solution by saying that this is NOT the way to add "features" to a release, just talking to a few people. Under ANY circumstances. EVER.

What was the right decision then?

Mainland communities are *suffering* terribly, the people running them are suffering, and its not a 'ooh darn i can't fly here i'll have to teleport instead' suffering, its a 'can we put ourselves through this *another day*' suffering