Lesser of Ban Evils, and Requests

Having all ban heights at 15meters was pathetically inadequate in ALL regards. I dont think there has EVER been a post denying this fact that wasn't written by an avatar who has been a known greifer or by the alt of said greifer.

Increasing the 'black list' bans up to 200m is truely appreciated. Due to skyboxes 512m would have been better to help cover people who have have multiple 'levels' floating above their property that get used as 'pseudo basements' or other reasons. For this you have the undieing thanks of the WHOLE community (minus greifers who dont count).

15m was also unacceptible for the restrictions placed on 'white list' enabled land. The whole community understood this and is very grateful for an increase. Sadly as these bans are a lot more encompassing 200m is too drastic. 64m would have been best, with potentially increasing to 128m to cover taller buildings while still NOT hindering flight. Maybe not 128m but that would be another experiment to carry out to see how well the higher number works.

I understand that due to the 'current' technical limitations (mainly the fact the two ban features are not de-coupled from each other) a compromise was IMMEDIATELY needed to help deal with the public outcry due to lax verification methods (that we understand are still under review as an experiment).

If nothing was done _At All_ that would have been far worse than the current fix. The current 'fix' though is in itself broken, though it Is by far a lesser evil than the previous situation.

I'm quite grateful that instead of leaving things alone, and instead of drastically raising both limits to the needed 512m height (some say infinate) that Linden Lab made a compromise to give us an IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TOOL to help deal with our current issues.

Understanding aside the feature _IS_ still broken. What we _Need_ is to get the two ban features decoupled from each other so that White vs Black lists are not handled the same. They need seperated in order to have the most protection while causing the least disturbance. They serve different _Purposes_ and should not be treated the same.

There is also the need for more developement on the number of people contained in these lists. 50 is not enough. Nowhere near enough. What I suggest is increasing the ban limit to 100 avatars (though MUCH higher is _Needed_ ). From there as new names are added to the list it will automatically remove the oldest entry. This has been mentioned by another avatar already but it needs yet another aspect. Anytime a given SPECIFICALLY NAMED avatar on a black list attempts entering a parcel that 'ban list entry' gets its date updated. That way entries that are actively keeping people out are not the ones recycled out of the system as new names are entered. If a person is black listed that ban entry needs to AUTOMATICALLY apply to all accounts listed as an alt. No information about who is an alt needs to be visible to the land owner. It can be fully kept server side but the ban NEEDS to cover alts. As a minor optimization the system could even be set to automatically cycle names out of the list that hasnt been effected in over 3 months.

There are of course ideas on how to ban people based on OTHER criteria but I believe these are seperate issues to be considered. This topic is ONLY dedicated to how Black List and White List style ban needs to be governed. I've carefully thought this through. I've not attacked anyone. If you are responding here please do NOT drift to other attacks or comment on ANYONES post but this one. Discuss THIS idea. Not others responses and off topic rants. We want information, not noise. Thank you. A potential Linden Response to this thread is available for those interested.

EDIT:

If you want to get off topic fee free to plug a LINK to another discussion with quick mention. Just keep THIS discussion on topic.

Well, I agree with that... Unfortunately, a lot of folks are taking an 'all or nothing' attitude, and not differentiating between the two. So I'm betting the ban height will simply be set back to 15m, even for explicit, named bans.

Ok officially adding this to the proposal =-)

Also as 'another' compromise could Linden Labs please reduce the 'dual limit' down to 128m till the two features are decoupled? Thats maintaining the pleasantness of whitelists at a level that is forever acceptible while still being an increased usability in black list.

Another thing. Is there any manner where either the norther or southern continent could have White Lists totally disabled? This would allow people to have an entire region they could migrate to for the sake of having completely access free land. Call it another 'experiment'.

Yes this kind of thign will upset residents currently owning land there but it will attract just as many more. They can use the normal methods of selling current land and relocating to sort things out.

If we have to keep parcel level ban/allows rather than implementing something more flexible, then could we at least CHOOSE the heights to have them effect? Say you can define up to 60m as allowed users only, but you can choose at what height it starts, and where it finishes, e.g it could begin at 200m and end at 240m to cover a 40m heigh skybox.
Bans would use the same area as well, people don't really need towers larger than 60m to be private IMO so it seems more reasonable, as 75m+ is a good cruising height for flying usually, and since most people use skyboxes for privacy anyway, it would be better to be able to define a skybox as private rather than the land beneath it.

I have no care for ban features protecting skyboxes personally. I think those are a concept that should be dealt with via a security system that gives avatars a 5 second warning.. ejects then.. if stil there 5 seconds later (might have been sitting) unsits ejects and after that blacklist them for IMMEDIATE tp home.

Nothing wrong with security scripts for skyboxes. But you need to ensure people on on YOUR property and not just nearby (dont spam with messages unless valid) and make sure you DO warn them in the first place.

So mostly i think skyboxes are an issue not even MEANT to be handled by ban features. They're not MY priority for as useful as i think they can be and for as much as i like them.

So you'd rather have a script running sensors every 5 seconds processing users based on allowed/banned lists and slowing down script performance for EVERYONE? My skybox is secure enough by merit of being really really high up and having a protected TP system to get there, discouraging 99% of people who might try to get in there. And really it's not just skyboxes, the main reason for people wanting higher ban lines is that the places they want to protect most might be higher up than 15m, but they may very well have areas on the ground that don't need to be restricted, e.g if they have a tree-house.

But also, many people may only have need for a 25m ban height, or only need 40m of protected area at 20m above ground level. So if it's made optional/adjustable then it would be vastly more flexible.

No. I would rather have a parcel_entered( integer num_detected ) event and avoid sensors. No ammount of hard coding in variable height choices will ever fill EVERYONES desire for security via land controls. There are just too many different heights, different lists and more. Let the privacy feature cover a ground height that is aircraft friendly. Let the Ban feature work on the person, their alts and their objects and be height unlimited.

Let specially tweaked out sub options be implimented in scripts so that customization can be done as the customizer wants on their own. I've posted many times that I understand the developement process, I understand that as features are completed they put groups onto a new project and support that multiple things are being done concurrently. I just think its a better use of resources to work on projects that you -cant- suppliment via script. (though a few more events would really be nice).

I think that security scripts should be made against the TOS and the land tools improved enough to cover skyboxes to a reasonable height. Bringing the white list ban height down is not going to improve flying in anymeanful way. Due to cross sime problems and security scripts i have been forced to quite flying. Thus I am being griefed ever day. Nobody cares about my rights only theirs! the 512 owner who want to control his airspace to the stars.
I prefer ban lines to 6 second countdowns or no warnings!

I think that security scripts are the answer, not the problem.

Unfortantly LL has mucked up llPushObject so that we can't use it to give you a gentle push. Even with the fancy math that is suposed to make it work, it still goes ary.

We need a LLPushObjectAbs that applys a desired push regraurless of distance and have it set so that it has to be used an object owned by that land owner/group.

I would really like to see security scripts having the ability to send out lots of small tiny pushes so that your craft changes corse as if there was some wind.

As a club owner I need to keep griefers away, however I don't see the current ban system as really usefull since they can continue to grief you from 2 sims away.

We need llReturnObject and a sane push that is allowed under the TOS.

Sure, wish I had an American Dollar ever time some foxtrot alfa’s security script dismounted me from my vehicle and orbited me crashing my server. My last flight I was at 600 meters AGL for crying out loud just having flown past my landmark in a new craft. Never saw what hit me! I was making my turn to return to my landing pad.
The way most residents use security scripts makes them griefers. Crashing someone’s viewer is the act of a griefer! I now restrict my flying to FS9 and real life aircraft.
Second Life shows me that a lot of the foreign "freedoms" are just ways to oppress other people. They have no value on their own merit. Freedom without responsibility is worthless.

Well, not to toot my own trumpet, but the idea I posted and am in favour of are boundary boxes which are essentially a special type of prim allowing you to define an area where rules do not apply, alternate name is 'zones'. Anyway, the basic idea is that if you are in a boundary box, then rules apply to you differently, for example, your chat may only be heard by others in your boundary box, similarly you can't hear anything from outside (if those options are set). The basic proposal covers all security concerns, there are loads of extra cool things that could be added but would not be important.

While scripts can do things like kick people off your land, it's a lot of scripts doing things that the server could do much faster/batter since it has direct access to all the information.

Har:

Given it some thought. I think the skybox limitations should be seperate item in about land than the banlines. With them dropping the building protection to 50m and seperating Ban lines to 768 we are back on the right track.

What i propose is for a 'sky protection' tab added to about land. Within that tab will be a checkbox for 'activate sky protection'. If you checkmark this you will have two height fields to specify a range of up to 100m in height. This will enable a banline protection matching what you desire. Limitation would be that skybox limits must have the lowest value at LEAST 256m elevation. This will protect peoples choice to fly through airspace while also protecting a landowners building and privacy rights at any height.

Now on this 'Sky Protection' tab will be both a Black and White list set of fields. In these fields you can enter avatar names or group names. If you activate the white list only someone explicitely listed or in a listed group may enter. At all times regardless if the whitelist is used or not anyone explicitely named in the blacklist can not enter. For clarification explicitely named avatars in the whitelist trump being banned based on group membership.

Honestly this is how i think all ban lists should work by enabling group access/restrictions. Is that a seperate topic?

I would then assume that explicitly named avatars in the Ban list trump groups in the White list?