Are Home Defense Systems considered abuse?

2) ?

I'd be interested to hear how a security system located in someone's parcel but which extends into my parcel can by switched off. From what I'm experiencing, people who do this are for all practical purposes exercising control over someone else's land (or at least a portion of it).

I made no claims on what you said. However, "unless" is the problem to which i was referring in my hypothetical ("What happens when...".

Please bear in mind that my land is 5616m2 and the HDS extends across a 1792m2 parcel and into my parcel in order to prevent me from peacefully working on my project... which is the intention of that individual.

They can use this:

http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka.php?wakka=llGetLandOwnerAt

Edit: Or this would probably work better, though probably fails for group owned land: http://secondlife.com/badgeo/wakka.php?wakka=llOverMyLand

They can't use llEjectFromLand or llTeleportAgentHome on agents over your land. They have no control over your land, just thiers.

And as I said, llPushObject is not for security use, and is greifing, pure and simple. That's not control in the sense I mean it, it's just crappy behavior in dire need of being consequenced.

llOverMyLand works fine for group land, so long as the object is group owned.

Four pages already. Wow.

What's clear to me at this point is that any form of always-on HDS that pushes/TPs/ejects everyone except a selected access list is considered antisocial and reportable abuse by pretty much everyone responding to this thread. Which is exactly what I wanted to know.

As a result, I won't be attempting to run an HDS in 24-7 attack mode on my skybox. Instead, I will use it to spot-attack somebody who is unwelcome at the time and whom won't respect a polite request for privacy. I presume that using an HDS in this manner wouldn't be considered griefing or abuse, but merely a tool to prevent being a victim of (one type) of griefing on your parcel. Yes, I realize using a push attack could in turn be RAed by the griefer pushed away, so probably it would be best to use an Eject-from-property type of attack. Not sure whether most HDS scripts can do this if the parcel is group-owned but its worth looking into.

Thanks again for all the good feedback and education. =)

BTW, to echo one of the previous comments about why some people would like to have a *feeling* of privacy... Yes, I know you can push your camera pretty far from your AV's actual location. Nothing we can do about that. But maybe the guys responding to this thread (and some girls) don't really understand how frequently females (both AVs and in RL) attract stalker types. It's just amazing how many guys don't understand "no", and feel perfectly justified in showing up at your property and wanting to flirt with you, proposition you, be lewd to you... all uninvited and despite even clear requests to go away and leave you alone. In RL, you have some legal recourse. In SL, the only way to make them go away and stay away is to use some type of security script. There are no police. There's no daddy or big brother to chase them away. Your only defense against such losers is a security script.

How many of you guys reading this thread would feel tempted, upon flying along and seeing several good looking female AVs sitting around chatting in a skybox enjoying the sunset, to fly over and say "Hi". Well, maybe those females would be in the mode to talk with you, or they might not. I guarantee you they would all clam up if they knew you were in chat range, at the very least, switching to IMs which can be a pain if you're not all in the same group. They might be nice and polite and give you *hints* that they'd prefer to be alone. But its rare for many women to bluntly say "hey buddy we're trying to have a private conversation here and we'd really like you to leave." You might get the hint, or chance are you might not. Sorry for the generalization, but too many guys don't seem to pick up on such hints, or if they do they ignore them, hoping vainly to charm the females into liking them.

This stuff happens in RL, and it happens in SL. I've seen it already in the short time I've been here. Several times. Not to mention the potential stalker that I've had to get rude to in order to deter him.

Trust me, there's a reason to want privacy in a skybox and it ain't just for AVsex. Sometimes it's just about feeling like you have some space that other people cannot invade, because you need that space at the moment. Some of the (presumably female) posters in this thread get that concept. Yes, the feeling is *illusory* because of chat bugs and far-watching through your camera POV, but hey, all of SL is illusory. If it works, it works.

Its been a while since I've owned land but last time I checked, the land owner (or the officer of group owned land) could right click an avatar on their land and boot them (equvilant of teleporting them home)

Might save you the cost of buying a device and the CPU time of an extra set of scripts.

Fushi, I'm not discounting that people have privacy needs and strong feelings about meeting those needs. I'm simply stating that security scripts don't actually secure any privacy. If they give people a false sense of security, and that's good enough for them, their need is met.

If they're being bothered to the point of being uncomfortable or afraid, they need to consider a measure that will grant them real privacy such as forming a group to rent a private sim. That's very doable now without paying the upfront cost or having any real obligation other than the monthly rent.

Being a man, I like to think that I'm sensitive enough to not barge in on people's moments. We should certainly all practice the art of realizing that we're intruding and beating a hasty retreat. For that matter, setting up a scanner and sending me a message that I'm approaching a private area is okay. Pushing or teleporting me away without so much as a by your leave, however, is just as rude and senseless as me landing on your platform and refusing to go away.

If we're all going to value each other's space and feelings, it's gotta work both ways.

As it has been pointed out, these security systems don't really stop people from invading privacy, so why have them? They are a very real intrusion on everyone else and I, personally, feel that they should be outlawed.

I bought a very nice Hot Air Balloon that I can't even enjoy because of these scripts. I can't even count the amount of times I have been flying somewhere, only to have to relog. As to a 10 second warning....with the usual lag, who can move out of the way fast enough half of the time? I feel that my enjoyment of SL shouldn't have to be hampered because of other's paranoia or ego!

I don't think that works very well, Solar. I haven't seen an option to eject people except on my larger group's land. On my smaller parcel, there is only the option to "ban" -- and banning only takes effect AFTER they've vacated, preventing them from re-entering.

Also, the avatar access options do not extend past a minimal altitude (i've heard 30m, haven't tested it). My own home is built at a higher altitude to avoid casual wanderers from walking in, and it is above the default security height.

The best solution in my case is to purchase a defense system, though it will never be set to abuse anyone.


Actually, you directly quoted my post and said "I disagree".


And in that case, I'm fully in your corner. That is over and above the criteria for griefing, IMO.

You listed "two valid reasons ... for running a security script" in the post to which I responded. I disagree with the validity of your reasons. In my response, I specifically referenced your second reason since it was current to my own problem:



I then gave a hypothetical in the form of a question that challenged this reason (and I was especially keying on the "as far away ... as possible" part). Which elicited this response from you:



Outside of the quote (which you admit I "directly quoted", where did I put words in your mouth in my response? That's a question, Cindy. And in fact when you respond, you hit on the exact problem to which I was alluding in my question:

{emphasis mine}

The neighbor issue was exactly why I disagreed with the so-called validity of that reason. If someone has a neighbor they don't want near their land because they perceive it as being intrusive, they don't have the right imo to use a tool to force that neighbor from their own land. Period. If that were the case, people's perceptions of what constitutes acceptable privacy would have everyone bouncing around the grid. Your "unless" is the kind of loophole that, imo, makes straightforward enforcement problematic and that is why I pointed it out. There should be no "That is over and above the criteria for griefing, IMO" because the situation should never be subject to an opinion like this.

If I don't like a neighbor, I inform them and then I move. If they follow me and buy next to me again, I once again inform them I don't want them around and then I'd move again (and I would of course document my conversations). But if they then resettled next to my new home, I would then report a case of harrasment. That's within the current ToS.

Is it inconvenient? Yes. Unfortunate? Yes. But over-reacting with justifications for exceptions isn't the solution either imo.

i read the first two pages of posts and the such but i had a question can one make a assultrifle sentry device to this end that fires a laser instead of bullets