The Ban Forest

I was flying along the coast yesterday looking for a suitable property and after a short time gave up. After constantly being bumped to 200m or being flung off course around every bend, travel is now a pain in the butt and I know I don't have the patience for it.

At this point we may as well destroy every vehicle in the game. Their application now has been limited to an extent that they are no longer worth buying. On the new continent LL didn't bother placing a protected strip along the coast so now boats are useless there also.

The limits increase were poorly implimented and destroyed the continuity of SL. The main grids are now a worst mess then they were before. There is no good reasons why land blockades should exist when the land owner is not on that property or the game.

more so the thing that would be most annoying is that if they hid the no entry lines and then suddenly you get lanched or get stuck somewhere without even realizeing it this is something that is more of a hinderence then ever especually if you need to get somewhere where there is no tping in allowed or something or if its a no fly zone your stuck takeing the longer way around

Security systems like that are a form of abuse. Report them when you come upon them. I do. They are no different then someone coming along and shooting you with a push weapon and its against the TOS.

I am talking about whitelists, and should start specifying that.

In my little world, whitelists should only be effective when the owner is on the property and group only access should only be effective when a member of the group is present. Ban lists should be perpetually effective at all heights.

Scripted security systems should be shoved *PG Forum Edit*

I honestly believe that access bans should be automatically turned off when the owner isn't online. I really have a dislike for people who keep their fence up 100% of the time and their lines go FAR into water where people boat.

The other day I was on my jetski running around the main grid when with no advanced notices I was sent reeling. I ended up in the ground somehow with my jetski and a weird camera angle and no way to fix it except relog. All because some asshole decided they want their fence up when they weren't home and it reached WAY out into the water that was narrow to begin with.

Lacking common courtesy is something I expect in most people 'til they show me different. and these land owners who leave their fences up 27/7/365 to me are just as bad as griefers they apparently are trying to prevent from going on their property.

I really feel Lindens should have fences turn off (NOT black lists) when an owner is offline. Afterall, if someone were to go into a person's house when they were not online to look around, they wouldn't be able to steal anything!

Just my thoughts. I could be wrong. Afterall.. I'm BLONDE! OMG!!!!


*huggles*
Sav

They correct that in today's update.

Other changes:
* Residents explicitly banned from a land parcel cannot fly in that parcel's airspace, to a height of 768m
** Residents not explicitly banned, but not on the access list, can fly over the parcel at an altitude greater than 50m

Why not raise ban to the 4km or infinity? Well. Because alot of jackasses will ban their neighbors and lock them in.

Imagine in RL if everytime you left your house you were REQUIRED to open all the doors and unlock the windows?

Would you get in the habit of removing all your personal posessions each time before you left the house? Shove them all in a big steel safe so the people who would be exploring your home in your absence could not get at them? Crazy huh?

I am glad to see the limit on white list lowered to 50m... I suppose I may be able to fly again after all.

As far as open access when a resident is off line.. I don't see a problem in that. I seen all the poseballs and sexgen beds already, there is nothing to shock me...(Yes thats a challange ). If you want privacy you go up, not stay on the ground. Not many ppl exploring at 700M...

SL does not work like RL and in a sense all of our things are in a "big steel safe" unless we give permission to copy, etc. Also we are in no physical danger in SL, it would be nice if we could "freize" an intruder in RL as easy as we can in SL. There is nothing that they can do to hurt you with the possible exception of "litering" and that is easy to clean up

If you dont like the rules, dont rent or buy in Dreamland.

In Second Life - unlike in many places in the real world, though not all - a resident can own the water. In real life property rights usually extend to the low water or even high water mark in most places (some countries allow that dry land between the low and high water mark, in tidal areas, are public strip).

But this is not RL and residents own the water. Perhaps LL should consider changing this to be more like RL. But then you run into the idea that owners of private estates (not certain about non-estate land) can change what part is water and what part is land. Plus, unlike in the real world, in SL we can build over water with no change in the cost to the builder or designer thus allowing over-water builds that effectively make water no different then land in many ways.

Perhaps a tool that LL could introduce would allow you to "draw" the boundary lines you want and have the access/ban restrictions apply to those lines and not the actual property lines.

Regardless, it is completely within a residents right to privacy to exlcude anyone or everyone from land THEY OWN whenever they want regrdless of whether they are "on line", a truly irrelevant issue in my view (who cares if a computer somewhere has a connection to a computer somwhere else, how abstract) since a resident OWNS THE LAND REGARDLESS of whether they are online or offline.

This is NOT an issue of "courtesy" or manners, it is an issue of private property rights. It may also be an issue of software design - perhaps LL shold provide more visual cues to an avatar as he approaches a boundry rather then have them materialize in your face suddenly - an experience I have had and not enjoyed either.

You seem to be arguing that your rights as a person who wishes to use a jetski trumps the land owners rights to determine who enters his property.

This is very UN real-world like and seems to fly in the face of some basic premises about private property. A fascinating issue however! Why not re-frame the discussion as one about private property rights and not about courtesy and see if applying the same solutions we do in the real world can work here in SL?

I may have failed to explain my point clearly - I am not saying you would lock your things in a box to prevent THEFT - of course no one can TAKE something if the rights are not set for it.

I have personal belongings that I do not want people to see. In my home, in real life. For example, my boss doesn't know I am a smoker - I don't want him coming to my home when I am not there and finding a carton of smokes on the counter. I don't want my mother in law coming in when we are out and looking in the drawers to find the new sexy panties I bought my wife last week.

And if I own land in SL and I don't want people coming in when I am not there and LOOKING AT MY STUFF - whatever that stuff is - isn't that my right? Shouldn't that be my right to determine? Loniki?

PS. I made up one of the examples in my RL world...

Personally I think houses should have more properties. I was talking to someone about this just yesterday. I feel houses should be totally secure, not the open properties. I would love if homes were truely lockable. I would love to see cameras not able to penitrate objects and I would love it if you could not hear a conversation taking place outside a home.
This is what we need.

Unless you have a large lot there is nothing (within the TOS) you can do to prevent residents from looking at your stuff. Continue to say this is an control issue not privacy issue.

It absolutely amazes me as to the sense of entitlement some people have.

Regardless as to *why* someone might have a ban in effect, or a security system on their property, it's THEIR property. The individual who has restricted access to their land... whether they rent or own... has PAID for the right to do so.

I utilize both the blacklist feature and security scripts to keep griefers out of my parcels. I don't care if I am there or not, I don't want [insert griefer here] pestering my clients, my friends, or my prim fish, while I am online or offline.

As far as I am concerned, the blacklist ban height should be infinite. As for the other methods of banning, 200m might be a bit too high, but the original height was a joke.

People who think banlines should not be in effect when the property owner is offline, or that security scripts are evil (no notice security scripts are against the TOS), are either griefers themselves, or people who haven't suffered the wrath of a moron with "compensation issues".

Everyone seems to flip-flop back and forth between "well, in the real world ... " and "this isn't the real world so ... " picking and choosing arguements that fit their cause.


SL isn't RW, by definition. Placing RW rules or laws into SL can be difficult if not downright silly.

You don't "OWN" anything by paying LL your tier. You don't actually OWN anything tangible. You're renting server space. Digital property rights are pretty sketchy.

Forcing RL property rights into SL? How is your RL home so similar to a digital slew of code that you feel you can push the same rights there?


In RL there are public areas owned by the government (roads, waterways, etc) allowing reasonably safe and public passage to and from locations. - In SL most areas are nothing more than lot after lot butted up against each other with little to no passable terrain between them. It makes it difficult to traverse anywhere without walking on, driving on, or flying over someone's property. Slap up ban lines, security scripts, or just plain massive F'n flat prims in the way and you're restricting other's ability to get places freely/easily.

In RL you can slap up a fence around your property, but it will not keep someone out if they want to be in. If someone needs to get from point A to point B and your land is in their direct path they can physically walk over it, even if you'd "rather they not". Tresspassing? Sure .. if you want to be a stickler about it, but if they're not causing any harm or being a jerk about it who cares? - In SL your ban lines and security scripts completely inable anyone from functionally walking over your property (and in many cases, flying over it).

In RL people can actually pick up and walk off with your belongings. - In SL that isn't possible ... so personal theft is not a factor.




There is a direct neighbor to my friend's estate that has some kind of security set up where whenever I try and walk or fly from my friend's home to another nearby ... if I just barely CLIP the corner of this guy's land I lock up and get sent realing into the sky a few hundred feet in the air, and tossed a lot or three over it seems. It extends high enough where I have to get some decent altitude to make sure I don't trigger it. It is annoying, angering, and downright silly to me for someone to do that.

I've also gotten trapped "bouncing" between two or three different sets of Ban Lines as well, to the point where I had to TP home and start over again, because I litterally could NOT get away. They were on either sides of an incline on a hill, so I couldn't land safely without sliding into one of the ban zones.



Maybe if you could adjust your ban lines, or whatever ... have them encompass just the home, it would be better. People walking/flying over a corner of your land that big of a deal? Plus .. think of it ... if you could adjust ban lines, you could have a house open to the public, but set your ban lines to a specific room or floor if you want an "off limits" area to the general public.



... or maybe, we should just ALL erect our Ban Lines. Lets ALL put them ALL up. Cover the whole map with completely impassible terrain for privacy's sake. Make a "huge and open world" that is neither. Everyone has to play in their own yard. If you don't own land you have to buy some or stick to sandboxes from now on.

You're already completely anonymous on the internet ... how much more privacy is really needed? I dunno' ... who am I to answer. I personally have nothing to hide.

I flew around kind of a lot yesterday. It wasn't that bad. I mean.. it wasn't the vacation trip of a lifetime but really the ban lines were not that bad.

There were one or two sims where it was nasty so I went to the road. You know, this might have a benefit no one has thought of -- it might make the roads important again.

That is the right way to solve the problem.

Jarod often tells me that Second Life is a scam is the sense that it fools people into believe that they own property, prims, textures, avs et al when we don't. Those things are all so many bytes on a hard drive and the in sole possession of Linden Lab.

It's also wrong, though perhaps not a definitive scam, to convince people that Second Life affords them any sense of privacy at all. Anonymity perhaps, but not inworld privacy. Do Not believe that security scripts and access lists prevent people from seeing what you have rezzed over the land mesh. That's simply not true. It's not at all true. It will never be true.

Your "property" is public domain just like your browsing habits and email. Please Please Please understand that before you find yourself compromised.

The banline tools are there for a reason.

Whether I own the server or rent space on it, I am paying for the feature. It's part of my $9.95/mo+ tier.

Regardless of whether or not the issue is privacy or protection from griefer's isn't the issue. It isn't your place to dictate how I should utilize the banlines on my land.

I don't care if people have anything to hide or not. I have no issue with people using full bans on their property. I can fly over or around it.

Dearly Darlings,

I've not been here as long as many of you, however I too have seen a change since the open registration has been in force. At my home in Green I have been assaulted twice. The first time the weapon was a gun, the second was a club. I thought I was safe in a PG land. Between that and the left prim garbage...I'm one unhappy purpled haired old lady! I reported the first incident. I did not bother with the second. The ban list will need to be as Mr. Lambert suggests; a mighty big one.

I've always enjoyed meeting people who have come to visit my home...I'm not very friendly to strangers now and that makes me sad. Too much like RL!

In real life if someone came into my home with a gun, I would have no hesitation shooting them and buying new carpet.

I only spend 40 USD per month so I'm quite sure LL has no interest in my opinions...I'm not a major customer. I do believe the entire office need's to read "I Know It When I See It" and "Who Moved My Cheese?" Aside from the nice folk at the Help Desk I find the rest of LL support to not be very helpful.

Ever Yours,

Show

If they hadn't "visited", they wouldn't have been on the ban list in the first place, you antagonistic fuckface.

If I may, I'd like to present another side of this argument. Everyone seems to forget that the minute you wander out onto the Internet, you have no privacy. Your ISP knows where you go, anyone who really wants to know your habits and has the technology, can track you. You might even think you are anonymous on the forums with your alt account, but no. Anyone with admin privileges can see the IP address on every post. Why is privacy in SL so important? With a few exceptions of those who's RL identities are known, nobody knows it's you.

Fact is, we are all grown-ups here (regardless of how some of us might act) and there isn't a sex ball anywhere in SL with a set of positions that most of us either never heard of or haven't tried. Why the puritanical "OMGZ, someone might know I have a doggy style sex ball at my house?" I mean, come on. Get over it. 3/4 of the residents in SL have a doggy style sex ball set. Big deal. There is nothing in your house that everyone else in SL hasn't seen 100 times somewhere else. Now, I do agree that it is disturbing to log in a find someone else enjoying your toys, but that's why it's easier to just rez things when you need them rather than leave them out. Make that part of the foreplay, be creative for a change.

Wanting some privacy when you are logged in and at home is one thing. Wanting it on 24/7 is just paranoid delusional, IMHO.

For me, privacy is more of a "leave me alone, I'm scripting" or perhaps "discussing business, keep out of chat range". I understand that LL has access to my IP address, and they even know my real name and address (I'm premium)!

The simple fact is, there are people I do not want on my property, especially since I have clients and business associates there often. If someone has an issue getting banned from my land, they should have thought about that before griefing, or they should start worrying more about what they are doing than why they can't access an area I pay to occupy.

If other people don't want to be seen playing with naughty-poseballs, then that's their business. Who am I, or anyone else, to question why they want to be left alone?

While I can see 200m being extreme for all the forms of banning, the blacklist feature should absolutely be at least that high. Hell, if I had my way, if I blacklisted someone, they wouldn't be able to cross my land regardless of alititude.

The 24/7 bans are essential to keeping griefers away from my customers and associates when I am offline. I don't want to lose business because some self-righteous bum-dumpling with a watermelon gun decides to bounce people off my parcels.

~cough~ I've said many times theres a 6 second warning. Get with the times.