New group open to all. Skybox Hunter

You can ban people all you want up to, what, 50m now? Above that is open space, as it should be. Everyone loves to raise the RL comparisons, well let's raise this one. You don't own the airspace above your RL property - the govt does. And if I have the means, I can fly over it, through it, around it and photograph it as much as I want. To me, the same thing applies in SL. You can build in the sky, but you put up with risk that someone will come flying along. Don't like it - stay on the ground where ban lines work or buy a sim. You can even put up security, as long as it doesn't violate ToS and make movement impossible. The Lindens will, and have, shut those down before. By limiting bans to 50m, the Lindens, AKA the govt, have given implicit permission to explorers to travel about freely above that and see what can be seen.

See you in the sky!

Bans go up to 768m. Keep up to date.

In general, I don't like skyboxes. Most people use them for privacy which is completely irrational. It's nothing more than attempting security through obscurity.

Unless you own a private island, you can be seen and visited. Unless you activate a parcel barrier, anyone is welcome to arrive at your parcel. That is the nature of SL.

If someone is interrupting you on your public parcel, you certainly have every right to ask them to leave, eject them, or even ban them from returning but you can not claim their presense to be an invasion of privacy even at 700m.

Have to agree with Trixy. No surprise there.

It's quite clear to me that by designing the system as they did, with bans limited to a minimal height above ground, that the Lindens fully intended that residents have no expectation of privacy above that level. This belief is made stronger by the observations that they do not like security systems, and they do not tolerate those that impede free movement unreasonably. So I think if you're truly believeing you have any right to privacy above ground, you'll be disappointed.

It's your option to ban anyone you like from your land - have at it. I really have little interest in your land, particularly when it's occupied by the kind of people who find such bans necessary. Above that though, those of us who explore are free to travel. Whenever I get hit by an obnoxious security system, I AR it. More than a few have been taken down as a result. I don't believe security systems should be allowed above 50m but the Lindens have seen fit to allow it with restrictions to accomodate free travel and that's good enough for me.

Privately owned land is by definition not public.

Unless they own a private island they cannot claim unlimted exploration.

I don't think so, not for TPing home. Anything over a small push without warning is a separate situation.


Absolutely. I have no problem with individuals setting up security devices on their land or asking people to leave. And when asked, people should leave.

I do have a problem with those who instantly labelled these skybox hunters as griefers and demanded they not go ahead with their planned activity at all. Those who want to forbid this activity altogether are attempting to speak for everyone when they make blanket statements like skyboxes are meant to be private...hence my comment about missing the zoning commission elections.

You said "the idea behind a skybox is to be left *alone*". Maybe that's the idea for you, but it certainly isn't the idea for everyone, and there is plenty or proof for that in all of the posts that are receptive to this idea.

Then good for the Lindens, I'm glad they made a decision. It's also no problem for me. Whatever the Lindens allow is what I'll do, and at the moment I don't think they disallow camera movements inside ban lines. I can explore the same they explore the inside of the Titanic - by remote observation. That's good enough.

They also let us eject you from the land at any height. Thats clear evidence the Lindens intended for the landowners to be able to control who was on the land. Above 768 m feel free to explore, thats where ban lines go to.

EVERY member of the skybox hunter group is on my ban list. Whenever someone lingers and gets logged as being ejected several times, I AR them. Several have disappeared from find for a few days.

I don't understand how so many people can have such a base misconception between "OMg my land is open for anyone to walk across and someone did I think I will make noise about them for sneaking onto my land" and "it's your responsibility to put up a fence that says "no trespassing" if you want to exclude people" and "No, you don't get to stop people from looking/photographing a public view of your publicly viewable construction."

/JUST LIKE/ in real life, the landowner should put up a fence if they don't want people crossing.
They should put up a wall if they don't want people seeing.
They don't get to stop people from taking photos of a publicly viewable facade.

Photos of the /inside/ of /closed/ skyboxes w/o owner's permission? Nail the perp to the wall.

If - like myself - /all you have/ on your property is a skybox, there's nothing at ground level or even at flight level that distinguishes my property / airspace from anyone else's - my neighbor's, public land, the adjoining sims. It requires turning on a view of a normally hidden feature to see the borders, and even /then/ there's nothing distinguishing my land from Governor Linden's without checking each and every parcel for a name, then that name's profile, then their arbitrary preference to not have jaywalkers but no fence. Or should I IM everyone for permission before crossing?

If you don't like visitors/peepers/whatever, /use your security tools/. If you leave your land open, it will get walked across.

If you want to eliminate the drama, you might want to change the name from "skyboxes". There are indeed builds in the sky that are worth seeing, and most people with an elaborate build in the sky generally won't mind you *looking*, so long as no one is home.

But the term "skybox", well, it's generally used to describe a private retreat in the sky. Not only is it a term that is likely to cause difficulties with skybox owners, but is also likely to suggest to members that they should pry into the places where people go for privacy, rather than looking for good, airborn builds.

Just my opinion, but clarification here reall would, I think, help eliminate the current contraversy as well limit as future conflict.

If that's what the Lindens now choose to allow, that's cool, if unfortunate. Airspace ought to be public, as it is in RL. This will kill vehicle transportation, plain avatar flight and result in a grid that is little more than a batch of 40x40 "countries" with tyrannical dictators for which you'll need to arrange passports to get anywhere. Misguided by the Lindens but it's their ball. Hopefully they'll come to their senses when the grid starts to fracture too badly.

For now, the unlimited God mode camera will do, as I don't have any great desire, nor need, to be on any specific parcel. That's why security systems really cause me no concern - they are easy to avoid.

I can't wait to get more members than you can fit on your ban list...

Hoho -here you go,you are a griefer at heart,my sim has been taken out of the grid map just in case...and my mainland plot now..has no warning for a tp home

Not a greifer, just a smart-ass. And I can't wait to AR you.

I'll cycle, and set extra names into a security orbs 'targets' list, whom it will eject without warning, as soon as you enter the property. Works just lik a ban and completely legal.

You can have as many members as you want, my orb can handle hundreds of targets.

you are funny,you are going to AR for taking a sim out of the map?
you made my day,you are funny

Perhaps you're missing the point within the heated nature of the discussion.

I've never claimed that looking around at high altitude is "griefing", that's bending the definition of griefing all out of proportion.

My own contention is that there is, and should be, a middle ground between turning on the bans and the orbs, and a free for all, anything goes anywhere sort of world. It involves something called "respect" and another thing called "politeness".

See, I don't &want* to have to ban everyone and leave access only to a whitelist. Despite apperances, and even despite the weekly griefing attacks, I don't mind seing new people on my land. I don't mind saying hi to people and chatting, I don't mind showing people around.

However, and this is where this "politeness" thing comes in, if my gf and half a dozen of our female friends are sunbathing nude on out beach, I think that we should have every right to say, "I'm sorry but this is a private gathering," and expect the guy who walked into the middle of it to move along.

With my skybox, I have a big, featureless wooden cube done in a tasteful cherrywood finish. Near it, is a big platform with a half finished Aliens Dropship that my gf is working on, a mostly finished Stargate with DHD, etc.

Believe it or not, I don't get bent out of shape if I come home and see someone wandering around the platform looking at stuff, or even hovering near the house, looking at it.

However, if my gf is on the platform scripting, or building, they may get asked to go away and let her work. (Or she may take the excuse to take a brak, and show them what she's doing.)

If I'm in the house, and they're hovering nearby, they probably will be told, "This is a private house," and be expected to leave.

If my gf and I are undressed, be it to change or for other reasons OTOH and someone is hovering outside obviously looking in, they may get a request to leave, or they may simply be abruptly banned, depending on my mood, and how long they've been hovering there.

What gets entirely up my left nostrial however, is the asumption going around that seems to say that I have no right to ask any of these people move along, or to expect that in some circumstances that people will actually decide *On Their Own* to keep moving and not to intrude.

The attitude that SL is just one big playground, and that I as a landowner/sucker may have built some better equipment and subsidized a section of it, but that that doesn't give me any right to be able to decide that I want to reserve the use of it for just the people I want there.

That unless I shell out for a private sim, that I should just suck it up and deal with it if *anyone* wants to come around and bug me and my friends, any time, for any reason. That there *shouldn't* be any expectation by anyone that they will be left alone on land that have bought and paid for under any circumstances whatsoever, and that anyone who does is some sort of reclusive prick, who needs to be slapped down with an AR, or just by having their land swarmed by "the people".

Personally, I've tried to be polite, and I've tried to be reasonable, *and* I've tried to point out that the lack of same from the other side is going to cause more an more land owners to start banning everyone, *all* the time.

However, my pleas for politeness, conisderation and moderation seem to be falling on deaf ears, and instead seem to elicit an even more denial that anyone should have an right to privacy.

*This* is what really bugs me.

I didn't know you needed "suitable toys" to cam inside a place and sit alone on someone elses unused sex ball. But hey, if that's what gets you off...

I question the accuracy of calling it "private" land. Resident owned perhaps, but not private.

There are almost no public roads and everyone in SL can fly. Traversing resident owned land in order to reach a destination or simply explore is not only commonplace, it's encouraged and often unavoidable.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you're right, I do have the option to ban people, and I'll use it if I have to. I hate to ban anyone, but unfortunately some people still don't seem to understand that certain areas are not for the public.

I go to a lot of trouble to make my ground builds interesting so that visitors will enjoy wandering around; I think that should be enough. My skybox is by invitation only; I don't want the location publicized, or pics taken of the inside, unless I give permission, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that.

I'm aware that there's no real privacy in SL, but I can make an effort to get close. I don't understand why some people are so offended when others try to have a private space. I don't want to be alone 24/7, but now and then, I do.

It's not even the exploring part that bothers me, it's the covert aspect of it. It's the idea that I'm doing whatever I can to have some small measure of private space in a world where everything is accessible, and some people still won't respect that, and will come on in anyway.

If i had a skybox i would kill for privacy... Literely...

Just use this is your outer wall textures. If they don't take a hint, consider it fair game to kill them.



No excuses like "it didn't render!" cuz its a 256X256 image that don't take long to render.

Bingo, Harris! This need to travel is precisely why I AR every security system I run into that does not allow sufficient time, at normal AV speed, to fly to one edge or the other of the parcel in order to take an alternate route. I'd estimate my success rate in getting these reconfigured or shut down at better than 95% based on revisiting the locations later.

I strongly encourage anyone else who wanders the landscape/skyscape to aggressively do the same. The Lindens do take it seriously.

I might not be aloud on your land but your welcome on mine. I own a 1/4 sim and have 3 main interesting builds placed out. I realy do hope you do come by for a look and maybe even get to know me. You and all the others have nothing to fear from me or any respectful person with a touch of commen scence.

You wouldn't be aring mine then.

Not interested. I'm above being a hypocrit - I won't go on others land when I've banned them on mine. Thats part of why I haven't seen Fox and Jack's skybox, despite being invited.

It isn't you I worry about, its those in your group who may not share your respect for others.