Limit/Disable llTeleportAgentHome

This "feature" is abusive and is being used to confound abilities to explore. I see no problem with owners being able to eject unwanted avatars from their land. But the use of this command destroys peoples ability to explore the SL world safely.

I've run across these things where the "warning" was 6 seconds. One cannot escape in that short amount of time with today's lag issues.

The only option landowners should have to remove people is ejection from their land. Sending an avatar to their home point goes too far.

I've run across these things where there's NO warning.

Still I don't want to see LL nerfing any more calls, even ones I don't use. They always seem to get things wrong. Better they should make aggressive security scripts less necessary. Provide better privacy, and better access to the security tools we DO have... like scripted tools for parcel accesscontrol lists.

Also... it should be against the TOS to use any security script to chuck an avatar around without warning _no matter what call is used_.

You just gave me an idea, a mandatory warning function you have to call before you can use the security functions against a user. I'll write up a feature suggestion.

I disagree whole heartedly. I've stopped counting the number of people who've barged into my home and when confronted by me whip out the "exploration" excuse. This has happened enough that i've bought one of these home security systems. Ejection just is not good enough. Many "explorers" are in reality, griefers. Once ejected, they stand outside the parcel border firing in. Sending them "home" is humane & non-violent solution. And yes, i set it to 6 seconds. My reason is this: my door is locked. if one insists on forcing their way in anyways, then i insist on forcing them back out, and not just to the edge of my land where they can shoot at me.

The only other solution is red ban lines. But I don't like them anymore than anyone else does, and i've no problem with people crossing my land. I don't care if they stop and "explore" despite there being nothing to see. It's when they force themselves inside my house (which is locked), that i take objection. And the nice short 10m range of the scanner covers the interior quite well.

Ones right to "explore" does not override anothers right to privacy. Perhaps the suggestion might better be limiting the range of the security systems to only cover the interiors of places that are not intended for public access. That would be a fair compromise to allow explorers a chance to explore, while still protecting the rights of the landowners.

well i consider that every person that actually pay for a slice of server should have any rights they see fit on anybody that land it theyr server slice, as long as the person can still tp home and it can't mess with his inventory and/or money balance

How does teleporting them home stop them from coming right back and attacking you?
If everyone using security orbs was that restrained, there wouldn't be a problem. But I've found myself teleported home without warning when flying a *hot air balloon* with a maximum speed of 4 meters per second fifty meters from the nearest visible prim.

If you would like to suggest an alternative solution to people like that, short of taking their toys away from them, I'm all ears.

That would be up to the people writing the scripts, and they seem to acknowledge no restraints.

Well I can assure you that if I am hit with teleport home in the future it will be reported as abuse. I am sick and tired of this. If you do not want someone on your land, that is what access restrictions are for.

Secondly, these teleport home devices are being used to circumvent the 200m limit on ban height. I have been hit by them more than once when intentionally flying over the 200m limit and having to come back and hunt down a ship or wait for it to be returned is getting beyond annoying. It is ABUSE. NO one has the right to ban anyone above the 200m limit. That is why there IS a limit.

I've gotten "you are flying in restricted airspace" one too many times. Airspace above 200m is NOT restricted and no land holder has the right to do so. To repeat..that is why there IS a 200m limit.

I suggest that anyone being hit by these things should begin filing abuse reports. Because that is exactly what they are is abuse.

EDIT: I believe that is 200m above the ground level, not 200m above "zero".

The current implementation of access restrictions is worse. Access restrictions are now effectively infinitely high at sim boundaries... I've had my plane trashed and been thrown 9 kilometers underground by crossing into a restricted parcel when I was hundreds of meters over the *building limit*.

Skyboxes.

I would say, though, that any "defense orb" that takes *any* action without enough warning to allow an innocent infinger to leave *easily* after sending an IM should be treated as abuse. And any "defense orb" that takes any action when there's nobody on the property to be defended probably needs to be considered abuse as well.

I've seen a few places that have extremely short warning time limits, or no warnings at all.

While I strongly disagree that it's the landowner's right to use such draconian measures, and spoils SL for the genuine explorer, I also offer a note of hope: such radical views are extremely rare, and likewise, the probability of encountering such a poorly configured security system are also extremely rare.

There is little cause for panic or alarm - this is not the way of all SL, just the view of a vocal fringe contingent.

While it's certainly a landowner's right to teleport people home, the system prevents them from doing it unless the person in question is directly over their parcel to start with. If you know where the forbidden zones are, you can avoid them completely.

This brings me to my next point - if your privacy is so valuable, do us all a favor and erect ban lines around your parcel. At least that we can see a split second before we crash into it, instead of flying along and suddenly finding ourselves teleported home without our ride.

Sudden teleportation without warning puts us distantly elsewhere, which is exactly what orbiting does, and that's considered to be against the ToS by the vast majority of citizens. We might learn from the parallel and be more considerate of the traveller even as we keep our security systems in place, by giving them not only fair but useful advance notice.

I would say the probability becomes near unity if you do any amount of low-altitude flying.

There is no limit on ban height.

There is no unrestricted airspace.

Explicit ban goes to 768m

Get your facts right, there is no 200m limit.

Teleport home is already limited so you already have you wish- It can only be done on land you own, or that you have land rights in the group owning it.

So..

1. You're completely wrong on a ban limit

2. You're completely wrong on a unrestricted airspace height

3. Teleport home is already limited, so your feature was granted before you asked.

i have now more than 2 sims worth of land and i edict the rules as i see fit, if you want to tell me what i can do or not on server space i rent, well i invite you to come share my bill.

in 90% of the cases the person complaining about being restricted in their wandering do not even verse a dime to Linden Labs, if you aren't a customer, do you think you have the right to complain?

I see it like server rental, if i decide to refuse access to your IP range or to redirect you on an error page (wich is roughly the same) i have every right to do so, and i don't have to warn or inform everybody about that. I am free to use or not use every discrimination rule i want if it makes me smile, im adress finishing by a two, coutry of origin, the browser you use. Same for sl.

You're being deliberately obtuse. I agree that referring to all access controls as "bans" is sloppy, but it's clear from context that we are referring to parcels that limit access to members of a group or accounts on an explicit list (ban everyone but ...). This is the most common kind of access control, and the one that causes the most problems, because despite it being technically limited in height it acts as if it was infinitely high during region crossings.

You remind me of someone who was hanging around the land and economy forum last year, with the same kind of deliberate "literal minded idiot" approach. Similar name, too. Odd thing that.

I'm a customer... not as big as you, perhaps, but I've had over 1/4 of a sim at times. Almost always when I hit one of these aggressive security orbs or unnecessary access controls the landowner has much less land than I do, and pays Linden labs correspondingly less. A lot of the time they've been in the parcel next to me. This kind of paranoid [expletive deleted] hurts landowners too.

I guess it depends on where you fly. I try to stay near cloud level if for no other reason than I keep ploughing into people's over-large buildings if I don't, never mind the security systems. This might account for the differences in our personal experiences. I retract my earlier statement then.

But I've still rarely encountered the zero-warning ejection or teleport-home security systems. Usually you get at least a few seconds warning, and if you're traveling at high speed to start with, that's usually plenty. I pity the poor fellow flying without a vehicle in such cases, though, because he can't fly fast enough to get out of the way before he's suddenly translocated.

From the knowledge base:

http://secondlife.com/knowledgebase/article.php?id=265



I suggest you get your OWN facts straight before telling others theirs are wrong. Ban only extends 200m above ground level. Just find a parcel with ban lines around it and fly up 200m above and you will find that you CAN fly over it.



That is exactly the point. As is documented above, you do NOT have the right to ban above 200m higher than ground level. You should not have the right to perform llTeleportAgentHome above that level either.

Pay attention to updates, they raised explicit ban height to 768. get a friend to explicitly add you to the ban list and even at 500 meters you'll find you can't enter..

Because you are wrong, and were too lazy to do research. And even above 768 landowners have a right to teleport you home or eject you, because they are over their land. When you pay a portion of their teir or rent, then you have a right to say, otherwise, they can constantly teleport you home 4k m over their land.

As documented by Linden labs, you are wrong in every aspect.

Ok I have no problem adjusting my proposal.

The point remains that there ARE limits to what you are allowed to do above 200m agl. You cannot ban EVERYONE by a general restriction of access to the parcel.

Bans above 200m agl require someone to be explicitly banned. Therefore the same restriction should apply to llTeleportAgentHome. Above 200m agl, require that the avatar be listed in the parcel ban list before this command can be applied to them.

While I personally still feel tht llTeleportAgentHome should be disabled and landowner ability limited to ejecting from the parcel, it is apparent there are too many strong opinions to the contrary for this to be accepted. So this particular compromise accomplishes both purposes. Landowner's rights are maintained within the restrictions apparently intended, while not interfering with "innocent" travellers explorations.



THAT is really the crux of the argument. LL clearly did not intend for blanket bans above 200m agl or they would not have gone to their efforts to separate the general ban from the explicit ban (which is why I missed the distinction earlier). My contention is that llTeleportAgentHome should not be allowed to be used to circumvent that restriction.

Your argument is tantamount to saying United Airlines has no right to fly jets over your home without your permission. And yes, I know, you are about to say RL <> SL. Just an anology.

In a hot-air balloon, or in ANY vehicle slow enough for low-altitude flying, "a few seconds" won't even be enough time to turn around. Particularly when you're flying a vehicle that's made some attempt at realistic control properties (and if not, you might as well just use an attachment flyer).

I'm a landowner and I don't consider that I have a right to eject people or teleport them home without warning, no matter what Linden Labs' policy may be, unless I have a reason other than their mere presence to believe that they're a troublemaker. There are very few absolute property rights in real life, and the best evidence is that absolute proerty rights are a bad idea in simulations as well... unless you're trying to simulate what happens when you create an environment that rewards antisocial behaviour.

I would be happy with a proposal to limit "general" bans to 200m...IF someone couldn't fly up to 201m and enter my land, then come down to bother me. That's simply just too easy to do.

If they could make that limit a solid block on top of that 200m as well, like a solid ceiling they couldn't penetrate, it would be fine.

Of course, I could be wrong about how "general" bans work now.

Comparing land access to RL to that here in SL is not legitimate. In RL everyone can't fly over my fence in a free vehicle, and there are real police I can call if they do get in, and a real jail they can be put into, for their very first offense. There is, effectively, no penalty here for tresspassing. It is not at all like RL.

I'm not sure how I feel about the teleport home thing. There just needs to be a true, always effective way for people to be able to use their own land undisturbed. I am certain that the frustrations over there being no effective way to have privacy have caused the teleport home option to be used.

I just took the general ban off my little first land plot a few days ago, because I realized I really didn't need it. It went up about 10 seconds after I bought the land, mainly because I had been greifed and orbited so much in the week before I bought my land. It was an "enough is enough" reaction, a real need to have some time without hassles. Feeling helpless to defend yourself makes people do extreme things.

If there were a good way to keep out the scum, there wouldn't be this problem. If SL were to really find a way to stop greifers and keep them out, one that actually WORKS, this wouldn't be a problem. I personally think they should hire at least 500 new employees to work on just the greifers, and make it very plain to newbies that not every place is public.

i think it all fall to the problem that some peoples are upset of the tp home function and want a decision taken for others, if you don't like tp home, fine don't use it, but don't try to impose your view on others.

Star- yes I CAN ban everyone even above 200m. I pay for the land, not you, so you have no say. Lindens Labs intended for the function to work over 200m height, or it wouldn't be available. Simple enough, and proof that what you are saying has no merit.

If LL didn't want owners ejecting or TPing home over 200m, then they would have never allowed it.

RL and SL are different on this issue. In rl AA can fly over. In SL I could ban them from doing so, and be within my rights.

Argent- Right now I don't own, but when I did (and I will when prices go down again), I do have a right to eject and tp home without warning, though for a security orb I use a 6 second warning. If I am personally there don't expect a warning.

In a hot air balloon you made the choice of vehicle. Your problem, not mine.

There isn't, and the tools that are currently available don't do anything to protect you... they just make innocent passers by secondary victims. And there's no conceivable "super ban line" or "super privacy script" that would do the job, either. What is needed is a Linden Labs provided solution oriented around privacy rather than retaliation or "physical" access control.

Unfortunately, I don't have the option of not having the views of people who like abusing it imposed on me.