Overzealous Security and Rude Landowners

I have to agree here. I basically do the same thing that Jonas does, and nobody has a problem. Short delay on my skybox security, skybox WELL above draw distance height from the ground, only covers the skybox to a reasonable distance, and the ground is kept completely free for boaters and sightseers of all sorts. So if you want to balloon, boat, whatever at ground level, I dont care, feel free.

You don't need to be in my skybox, I don't care what your reason is. You don't even have an excuse for flying near them and they are not much to see anyway - they are quite literally boxes where I spend my time working on builds or spending time privately with friends and very spartan - if I am up there you can guarantee I don't want you around unless you are invited to come there. You can't see the ground from there, or even the sky from there - there's no door and no windows - you have to teleport in. If you want to sightsee the sim, you have complete freedom to do so at ground level - where its far more pleasant to do so, I might add.

I ban people who do annoy me in my skybox, I had one moron (who is presently missing from find) show up in my skybox one night claiming to look for a "bounty" and interrupt a private conversation with a good friend.

I said I dont care what your game is, if someone is on my property, hit or no hit, they are safe here and I will ban you for attacking them. Besides, you can see who is in the skybox with a scanner at a very safe distance away, not by letting yourself inside my box with a cube. End of discussion. He was banned and added to targets list. Of course he doesn't exist now, maybe the AR's piled up on him, looking for "bounties" on safe land.

3 m/s is less than standard avatar flying speed (unaided).

I flew from one corne of the north contintent at 8-10 m/s around 200m and hit NO security.

If I may summarize some things here, this is a typical case of conflict of 'rights' (for lack of a better term). The is the right and need of the landowner to protect their property and privacy. In conflict, there is the right and need of the individual to go about their honest business or pleasure without undue disruption of that activity.

Both sides of this argument have some validity. The two can be in conflict, and solutions to this conflict can be benign or abusive.

And solutions to the problem are problematic without the support of LL. We could all decide here that certain behaviors of protection are acceptable and certain ones are not, and that will accomplish little if other less benign or more abusive behaviors are permitted both by the world system and by Linden Labs themselves.

Does anyone have viable solutions to this conflict to suggest?

The rights conflict is nonexistent. The landowners desires trump in all cases of this. You have no 'right' to flight access except over public land and your own.


A good suggestion is for people to respect the landowners wishes.

Which makes you, by definition, a griefer. "I don't care if innocents get hit by my {insert scripted object here}!"

Whilst I do sympathize with the O/P, i think people should be able to do what the heck they want with their land. I know the land I have costs me more each month than I spend in other MMOGs in like 6 months.

I was quite suprised to hear that if someone enters your private land you aren't allowed to shoot them

Sure 2 seconds, 6 secs and even 10 secs aren't long for a security warning, but if someone is there spying on you then they have plenty of time to see whatcha upto!

Course if you where able to lock the land to group only properly (eg the barriers extended so that your house was out of camera control scroll range) then there would be no need for security orbs anyway.

LL should have spent more time and land on infrastructure. And I might add, allowing you to rez on land where that infrastructure is. A five minute autoreturn would be plenty to let someone rez a boat or a vehicle to drive on a road, or boat a waterway with.

I and the others in my sim have been working on infrastructure ideas, which are coming along well. I've been building pathways through my area so people can walk around easily, places to sit and chat, enjoy the sunset views over the bay in my sim (very pretty I might add). I'm glad to do these things, as I see the ground as a social space, and I like meeting new people on the ground. I've come across a lot of new people in the last weeks, most of whom have been nice. The occasional griefer of course, but the vast majority of the new people recently haven't been. (contrary to the cries I've seen in this forum)

I see it as a good thing to do, to make the sim attractive for nice people to want to stick around and have some fun. I've met a lot of nice folks that way. So since my ground areas and the ones belonging to my neighbors are so friendly to explorers with boat or flying machine of varying types, I see no reason for people to need to be up around my skybox. The ground is more interesting by far.

What I do find annoying as heck are the freaking group ban lines. Even though they went down a bit, it puts a full stop to the boating. Again, this is where LL made mistakes by not setting aside infrastructure areas. I think its a bad idea to expect individuals to reserve right of access - it doesn't work that way in the real world and we can see its not working here either. The public areas need to be reserved to the public. I'm being a "nice person" by making these areas for public use, but I don't have to be that nice.

But since I'm being that nice, I have even more good reason to kick unwanted people out of the areas I do reserve for myself. I made places for the public, leave me my private ones.

No, it doesn't.

Saying 'I don't care if passerbyes get ejected like greifers' is one way of saying..

Did I give you permission to be near my skybox? If they aren't authorized, they get ejected. Controlling my proprty, not greifing. Learn to spot the difference.

How do you know it was never promised?

Show that it was. And show us that LL deoesn't want security orbs - since they would impede the unlimited part.

I wasn't the one who made the statement.

Then someone better meet those. Because we've quoted a linden on how to use security systems.

Hello, McFly! There's some programs that allow cameras to stray where ever they want, rendering the security orb useless in those instances! What use is the orb then?

If you have psychological problems that require you to seek privacy inworld to this extent, then with respect I would suggest that if you could afford it, the best solution would be a private island. That way you can ensure total privacy.

I cannot quote chapter and verse because I am talking about Second Life some time ago. But originally there was a great emphasis on exploration. Indeed, there used to be trans-continental walks organised by Lindens, something that couldn't really take place today.

/invalid_link.html

Lee Linden shows what he believes should be the ideal security script, but again states thats not a list of requirements. He further states what IS required is a warning and the land tools LSL calls. If they meet both these requirements, they're legal. Here's my counter claim. Enjoy.

EDIT: Its AMAZING what you find when you use SEARCH with the advanced options set to the Answers forum ain't it?

Since when is your permission required for me to do whatever I like within the terms of service?

You may not have noticed lately, but flying is a permitted activity, and as many people have tried to explain to you, passing by anything you own is not an automatic right for you to blast people away for no reason.

If people are bugging you then yes you have the right to eject them from your land - but you do not have the right to interfere with their free passage if they are not troubling you.

By the way, your security system in the "vault" isn't working at the moment. It's set to 96m, and it's on a 1024 sq m parcel (32m x 32m?) so it clearly extends beyond the boundary of any land that it's protected. I look forward to when it is working again so I can come back and AR you for griefing me beyond your parcel boundary.

Lewis

I, too, have my private place. I do not believe anyone will come close to it. If someone does that happens to be a griefer, then so what? It's not likely they'd be able to do anything, really. They have a few options, but nothing long lasting that I can see, anyway.

The curious people? Should we really be worried about harmless curiosity? I've met quite a few nice people that way. Even if it did disrupt other things that were going on at the time.

The stalkers? Two people filing abuse reports are better than one, and in my opinion, a stalker in SL is a form of griefer anyway.

Just make the "security" script so it's a verbally activated attachment. "/## Eject [Avatar]." Then you have your security and stuff without the rudeness.

Why don't you want people near you? The only arguments I have seen involved being able to see and hear stuff, and those arguments fall flat with god mode.

I've seen in the forums, over and over how good the security systems are and how bad the griefers are. What I've seen in SL, the griefers aren't so bad, the security systems aren't that useful, the threat isn't that great, and the protection may be as worse than disease.

All griefer attacks I've had were handled quickly and efficiently. I stopped responding to the griefer as soon as they showed their colors. I banned them for a period of time not greater than ten minutes. And I've not yet had a problem with the same griefer twice.

You have merely linked the same post was reported before Ron, which says quite plainly at the top:



According to the quotes I have provided I have a right to exploration, and the only in-world indicator of any restriction to that exploration is ban, access and payment security. The second two protect 50m of your parcel from everyone while the first wholly protects your parcel from those listed. If you had the right to impede exploration the second two would also extend to 768m. And, if fact, for a week that height existed in-world until nearly everyone complained and the Lindens returned the height to normal as the previous restriction had been a mistake, only ban lines were to have been affected. What does this imply? Unless specifically banned we are all free to explore the extents of Linden Lab owned land above the 50m access restriction. And without that enabled, we are welcome to explore below it.

So I'm afraid I couldn't enjoy your citation as it was neither relevant nor new information beyond what had been cited earlier. Again I invite anyone to povide any documentation that is counter to the "What is Second Life?" promotional material or site documentation. With that in hand I will contact the Lindens and ask which is correct policy. Until such evidence is provided however, I have given ample real official documentation that we have a right to explore.

I am sorry exploration is dead. Most if not all of the privacy freaks are either American or Candian. It helps me understand the country I am a resident of better. I dont care about your feeble protests that will follow oh anti social ones. I think Second life is going to become a series of private islands.
I understand that most Americans are not anti social it is a shame that so many have become so. Perhaps this is all part of the experment of second life.
I cant interact with the anti social ones anymore it is bad for my wa! Well this is my last message on this thread as well! Say goodbye Jonas!

Pointing out a couple things you may not have noticed:

"Security with adequte delay/Don't touch my avatar" is currently outvoting "Landowners can grief on their own land" by a large margin.

Something else not even covered yet was the fact that the person is violating island rental agreements by having an orb set to shorter than a 30 second delay.

I see the problem.

Other people on this thread see the problem.

Every single other rental sim owner sees the problem.
(EVERY ONE. has text in their agreements about these things and keeping the delays long enough!)

Linden response to the problem:
While we allow residents to supplement their land security tools with scripts, it's important not to violate other people's rights in the process.

To Jonas:
LL has just told you that other people have rights on/above your land.

Your move.

When I had my home on the mainland at 700m above ground level I had the right to use a security orb to protect my home. Now I'm pretty responsible with those things as I use Unsit/Eject only and the scan radius only extends 5m from the actual house itself.

Now a few things I must address: I put my house that high because there was another build below my home that was publicly accessable by my choice and because 700m up is well out of the flying zone in wich the restricted access problems existed. The problem area effected by the whole restricted access lines was the zone between 50 - 250m above ground level wich is where 99.9% of your explorers, passerbiers, and aviantionist fly. Again, my home was WELL above that mark and my security orb is legal as it uses Unsit/Eject and issues a warning before doing so. If you can't handle a security field that extends around my home with 5m buffer space tough sh!t. I made sure it doesn't eject you when you're flying around at NORMAL ACCEPTABLE HEIGHTS and that you won't be griefed for getting within 96m of it without knowing what hit you, respect my wishes that I do NOT want you in my home unless I know you. Without my security orb I had to deal with people leaving traps and garbage all around my home. I've even rez'd in on someone using MY home as a F'n personal sex dungeon! And my home was at 700m! Someone even flew up and walked into my home then threatened to grief me if I didn't give them L$. How f'd up is that?

So tell me why I shouldn't have a security orb in my skybox home when I've had to deal with that even though I've taken resposible measures to ensure everything is legal and reasonable. I like to explore SL as much as anyone else as my favorite past times include driving around SL's roads in my Dominus Shadow as well as flying around in it, my aubreTEC Osprey, or my aubreTEC Osirus besides the usual unassisted flights around the grid. As a home owner and traveler, I know both sides of the story and have seen life in both shoes. All because I choose to live in the sky and not on the ground does not mean I forfit the right to say you cannot enter my home.

Thanks Ron, you've listed the height of your skybox. Building at that height doesn't interfere with traditional exploration in any way. I'm sure some will call rifling through your stuff "exploration", but I for one do not.

As you say, it's that middle area above the access restriction that is the problem, which I tried to cover in my posts. Like some others have posted, I've flown over both the traditional "Mainland" and the "South Continent" fo hours at a time. It is jarring when after that much time of viewing the world, stopping occasionally to check out an interesting landscape or build, to get smacked with an eject. It is security systems installed below the cloud layer that are bothersome to me.

Do you know what I would love? A uniform, defined space for skyboxes. If all skyboxes were at 700m, I would be easilly able to avoid them. I could operate at 150-250m for siteseeing and run at 500m for speed and acrobatic stuff, and never bother a soul. Its negotiating skyboxes that are all over the map at 300, 500 and 700m and avoiding sensor based security that is using the full 96m sensor range that sucks.

You know what I would love? For people to quit trying to box in skyboxes at certain heights. We own the land We own the airspace. You have no right to free passage.