200m BanLines!

You're not "locking your doors".

I lock my doors in RL. You can still walk up my path (on my property) and knock on the door without being teleported home. If it were technically possible for me to implement that in RL, and I did, I'd probably do jail time... there's real life laws against booby traps.

What you're talking about is considering it tresspassing and a valid reason to use force against them for someone to pull into your driveway to do a U-turn. If you took that attitude in RL, and implemented it, you'd be lucky to get away with no more than therapy.

There is only one answer to the clown and his pals. Return the favor and ban them. I encourage all landowners to ban those landowners that ban others without reason. Maybe they might get the idea that we are all in this toughter. In other words if you show no consideration to others, you should not expect to recieve any from others.

In other words, your hardship is more important than our hardship.

Fine, but permit me to disagree.

I can orbit you at any point on the grid. That does not mean the lindens said it was ok.

when we were talked to about this we were directly asked 'what abuot fly over rights' and we *SPECIFICALLY* said that this should apply to named bans only, that someone on a ban list does not have those rights, that ban needed to be seperate from restricted access because its *INTENT* by the land-owner is very different.

Its not like that wasn't made very evident from the get go, or like we were not raising the same concerns you are now as well.

Didn't work, though, did it?

And now we're stuck like this.

Nice.

If your script extends beyond the confines of your land in any way, you are violating the ToS.

Indeed Argent...there are a few posters in this thread that seem incapable of separating the idea of LAND from AIRSPACE. If a security script boots me, without warning, and I'm flying 10 meters over someones house I won't argue. That's my fault. If, however, I'm over 200 meters above someones house and that happens...unacceptable.

@Jonas: If you're going to use the analogy of locking your doors, then play it straight. I lock my doors all the time when I'm not home in RL. I also LOCK MY DOORS--so only I or someone on an access list can open them--in SL. What you're doing in SL isn't locking your doors. A more apt analogy would be...in RL, do you have a very tall electrical fence that surrounds your entire house (and doesn't have any signs to indicate that it's electrified)?

Edit:


You are correct...in RL, you can't fly a plane within a certain height of a person's home. HOWEVER, you're missing the facts that in RL, 1) the height isn't set by the individual land owner, and 2) restricted airspace is clearly marked on your charts. I said it before, if I KNEW where your--and others'--security scripts were set to activate then I would avoid them. But I DON'T know. The first indication that there is a security script without a warning nearby is AFTER I've already triggered it, thus losing my aircraft and sometimes crashing my client!

Actually, no, you own the land, not the sky.

Are you going to tell American Airlines that they cannot fly over your house because you own the land and everything above and, and there for they are not allowed to cross into your space?

Get real.

If you want the degree of privacy you are talking about, go get a private island and shut off access from everybody but yourself. Otherwise, get used to being on the public grid.

I've read a fair share of real life anologies in this thread so far, and after doing some quick Googling I came across something very interesting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

IRL there appears to be a practical point/height at which your land ownership ends and public right-of-way begins. Otherwise airlines and even private pilots would require countless home owners' blessings just to fly over occupied land. Sound familiar?!?

I'm not arguing that this should apply to griefers and like minded goofballs. And there should be reasonable protections for skybuids. But, for eveyone just passing through? Look, I don't care what prim you're humping downstairs in your Sanctum Sanctorum -- I just want to pass by and see more of Second Life. PERIOD.

-- Thor

Michi, I haven't heard a single person suggest anything of the sort. Seriously, calm down.

I made a feature proposal to separate "restricted access" and "ban" limit, and to restore the first one to the old value.

Anyone interested can vote this feature here: http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1520

The proposal can also be discussed here:
/142/b3/115484/1.html

Quit giving out free accounts without reasonable authentication.

They ought to only allow "free" accounts by referral, and hold the referrer accountable for the behaviour of the freebie account holder.

Then they should have compensated you monetarily for the time, so you wouldn't have been hurt by shutting the vendors down or moving them to Taco for a couple of weeks, and going off and doing something else for a while.

They caused the problems, they should pay for it. NOT *every* mainland resident.

Nice generalization. In our situation, we have 20-30 people, in our sim, on the mainland, at any given time. 5-6 "team griefers" will often show up and work their artistry.

All the previous ban did was perform a symbolic gesture. 15m might as well not even be there.

It never, ever got rid of them. Now it will.

has nothing to do with 'mine or yours', one is a suffering of existance, one is a suffering of inconvenience.

I would not want to make a call like that, but its very possible that someone had to, at LL. If they can release an update that allays the concerns and splits blacklists from whitelists, in a day, then the inconveinece is remedied, if they hold back on the release of tools that are sorely needed and a mainland staple build gives up the ghost and goes away, that can't be 'remedied' thas a permament loss

And I'm sure this will make so much difference.

I'm not teleporting you anywhere, just ejecting, therefore your point is moot.

IM me in-world, I've got a great "electric fence" sign I put up against parcels with daft access controls (like... an empty parcel with nothing over it, anywhere).

A landowner has a RIGHT to keep you off their property, period, and at any height. They just don't have the rightto block you on all four sides.

With the exception of 4 side blocking - no, you don't have a right to fly over my land.

You think.

That remains to be wrote into law, however, and such is NOT consistant with RL rulings on the subject.

Landowners hardship > passerbys hardship.

Thats a FACT. Disagree all you like.

I highly doubt we'll be 'stuck' like this for long, LL is fully aware of the problem and is probably working right now to find a solution. What my concern is, is that the solution is the right one, for everyone.

Which is:

decouple named ban from restricted access... they're seperate issues, and demand seperate debates and resolutions. No one is arguing 200m named ban, decouple that from the access question altogether, and leave it...

as to access, there is alot of debate over whats appropriate there, why not return it to the way it was for now, and let the debate reach some natural conclusions, find som equitable solutions...

the best one so far seems to be:

charge people a certain amount of L$ a week to retain that status, combined with allowing people to optionally view that status, from any range, like 'hilight transparent' so if someone does elect to do it, it can still be flown around, naturally. but there will im sure be far better coming.

Actually, no matter how many times you state it, it's not a fact. It's your opinion. A fact would be something in the ToS.

Right of access by simply flying over hasn't been written into law yet either. Only no 4 way blocks.

Second life ISN'T REAL LIFE. Go find a SL ruling, not RL. RL precedents mean NOTHING.