Limit/Disable llTeleportAgentHome

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

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

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.

That is the whole point of the discussion. I personally believe tp home is a loophole that is being exploited incorrectly as opposed to something that was created to circumvent other limitations. However, even if it is not, that is irrelevant. I am proposing that it be changed and the same limit be applied to it that now exists on bans.

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.

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.

This is about limiting access to a scripting command, not general bans, which are already limited to 200m AGL. Since the discussion has morphed the proposal a bit, let me take this opportunity to redefine things:

First, there are two basic ways to control access to your land:

1. Bans on individual avatars. These bans require the avatar to be named in the land ban list and the "Ban these avatars" box to be checked. This type of ban extends to 768m above "zero" level.

2. Access list only. This allows you to ban everyone in SL except those you specifically identify. You can specify that only members of the group the land is deeded to, if it is deeded to a group, or you can specify everyone except those on the access list are banned (or both can be set). This type of ban only extends 200m agl or above ground level (ground level is not necessarily at 0m), so that limit may not be (probably WON'T be) at 200m on your position indicators.

There is a script function called llTeleportAgentHome that a land owner can use on their land that will send the targeted avatar to the location they have specified in their profile as their "home point". This command can be used by any object on a parcel that the owner of the object owns, also up to 768m. It may go higher but I believe that objects can not be rezzed or retained above that level so that becomes an effective limit (I'm sure Mr. Laws will be quick to correct me if that is inaccurate ).

This command has been used by some landowners to in effect circumvent the 200m limitation described in item 2 above. By placing objects at certain intervals above that 200m limit and scanning for avatars, any avatar that enters its range can be detected and "sent home". This is often done without warning, leaving the unsuspecting avatar with no idea what happened or where they were when it occurred.

This proposal is to apply the same limitations that exist between the combinations of items 1 and 2 above to this command. In other words, above 200m agl, an avatar must appear on the parcel ban list before llTeleportAgentHome can be used on them. This will prevent its use in circumventing the 200m limit on "access list only" limitations or what we are commonly referring to as "general bans".

My contention is that this is a misuse of llTeleportAgentHome and should not be allowed. The existance of restrictions on the ability to set general bans above 200m agl I believe supports that contention.

Some might argue that the existence of the command in and of itself proves otherwise, I respectfully disagree. llShout exists too, but can be and has been abused. Its existence does not give you the right to disrupt other activities and you can/will get in trouble for misusing it. So the mere existance of a certain power does not make its unlimited use justified. The same is true for llTeleportAgentHome. For that reason, I am calling for reasonable limitations to be applied to its use. The original proposal was for its elimination, but further discussion and input led to some revision.



There are many tools available to you without hurting innocent people with commands such as llTeleportAgentHome, but it is an evolving process and it is improving over time. Examples being the changes in group powers so the creation of group land is available to more people without losing as much control as before. Also, the recent additon of the ability to prohibit objects from being rezzed outside your land and entering your parcel.

On the other hand, COMPLETE privacy will likely never be possible. Attempting to stop camera panning through solid objects, I suspect would cause the current lag problems to exponentiate. I'm not sure about the difficulty in being able to "sit" on an ojbect to penetrate other solid objects. I'd think that would have been fixed by now if it were easily possible without a big performance hit.

This is about limiting access to a scripting command, not general bans, which are already limited to 200m AGL. Since the discussion has morphed the proposal a bit, let me take this opportunity to redefine things:

First, there are two basic ways to control access to your land:

1. Bans on individual avatars. These bans require the avatar to be named in the land ban list and the "Ban these avatars" box to be checked. This type of ban extends to 768m above "zero" level.

2. Access list only. This allows you to ban everyone in SL except those you specifically identify. You can specify that only members of the group the land is deeded to, if it is deeded to a group, or you can specify everyone except those on the access list are banned (or both can be set). This type of ban only extends 200m agl or above ground level (ground level is not necessarily at 0m), so that limit may not be (probably WON'T be) at 200m on your position indicators.

There is a script function called llTeleportAgentHome that a land owner can use on their land that will send the targeted avatar to the location they have specified in their profile as their "home point". This command can be used by any object on a parcel that the owner of the object owns, also up to 768m. It may go higher but I believe that objects can not be rezzed or retained above that level so that becomes an effective limit (I'm sure Mr. Laws will be quick to correct me if that is inaccurate ).

This command has been used by some landowners to in effect circumvent the 200m limitation described in item 2 above. By placing objects at certain intervals above that 200m limit and scanning for avatars, any avatar that enters its range can be detected and "sent home". This is often done without warning, leaving the unsuspecting avatar with no idea what happened or where they were when it occurred.

This proposal is to apply the same limitations that exist between the combinations of items 1 and 2 above to this command. In other words, above 200m agl, an avatar must appear on the parcel ban list before llTeleportAgentHome can be used on them. This will prevent its use in circumventing the 200m limit on "access list only" limitations or what we are commonly referring to as "general bans".

My contention is that this is a misuse of llTeleportAgentHome and should not be allowed. The existance of restrictions on the ability to set general bans above 200m agl I believe supports that contention.

Some might argue that the existence of the command in and of itself proves otherwise, I respectfully disagree. llShout exists too, but can be and has been abused. Its existence does not give you the right to disrupt other activities and you can/will get in trouble for misusing it. So the mere existance of a certain power does not make its unlimited use justified. The same is true for llTeleportAgentHome. For that reason, I am calling for reasonable limitations to be applied to its use. The original proposal was for its elimination, but further discussion and input led to some revision.



There are many tools available to you without hurting innocent people with commands such as llTeleportAgentHome, but it is an evolving process and it is improving over time. Examples being the changes in group powers so the creation of group land is available to more people without losing as much control as before. Also, the recent additon of the ability to prohibit objects from being rezzed outside your land and entering your parcel.

On the other hand, COMPLETE privacy will likely never be possible. Attempting to stop camera panning through solid objects, I suspect would cause the current lag problems to exponentiate. I'm not sure about the difficulty in being able to "sit" on an ojbect to penetrate other solid objects. I'd think that would have been fixed by now if it were easily possible without a big performance hit.

No. You can NOT. To do so would require you to put over 2 million names in your ban list, which only holds 300 names. You can only ban people above that level that are explicitly on your ban list. That coding was done intentionally, since as a programmer I can pretty much bet that it would have been easier to raise the entire set of controls rather than to distinguish between general and explicit bans.

Even in the meantime of the scripting being put back, eject would be used, so you'd just constantly be bumped the same. And since they own the land

- screw you.

Inescusable. If this passed I would simply start talking to people who used security orbs for skyboxes to get it put back the way it had been.

Nothing has been circumvented, landowners have the right to ban anyone at any heaight over their land. We are breaking no right of yours by keeping you off our land.

This is about limiting access to a scripting command, not general bans, which are already limited to 200m AGL. Since the discussion has morphed the proposal a bit, let me take this opportunity to redefine things:

First, there are two basic ways to control access to your land:

1. Bans on individual avatars. These bans require the avatar to be named in the land ban list and the "Ban these avatars" box to be checked. This type of ban extends to 768m above "zero" level.

2. Access list only. This allows you to ban everyone in SL except those you specifically identify. You can specify that only members of the group the land is deeded to, if it is deeded to a group, or you can specify everyone except those on the access list are banned (or both can be set). This type of ban only extends 200m agl or above ground level (ground level is not necessarily at 0m), so that limit may not be (probably WON'T be) at 200m on your position indicators.

There is a script function called llTeleportAgentHome that a land owner can use on their land that will send the targeted avatar to the location they have specified in their profile as their "home point". This command can be used by any object on a parcel that the owner of the object owns, also up to 768m. It may go higher but I believe that objects can not be rezzed or retained above that level so that becomes an effective limit (I'm sure Mr. Laws will be quick to correct me if that is inaccurate ).

This command has been used by some landowners to in effect circumvent the 200m limitation described in item 2 above. By placing objects at certain intervals above that 200m limit and scanning for avatars, any avatar that enters its range can be detected and "sent home". This is often done without warning, leaving the unsuspecting avatar with no idea what happened or where they were when it occurred.

This proposal is to apply the same limitations that exist between the combinations of items 1 and 2 above to this command. In other words, above 200m agl, an avatar must appear on the parcel ban list before llTeleportAgentHome can be used on them. This will prevent its use in circumventing the 200m limit on "access list only" limitations or what we are commonly referring to as "general bans".

My contention is that this is a misuse of llTeleportAgentHome and should not be allowed. The existance of restrictions on the ability to set general bans above 200m agl I believe supports that contention.

Some might argue that the existence of the command in and of itself proves otherwise, I respectfully disagree. llShout exists too, but can be and has been abused. Its existence does not give you the right to disrupt other activities and you can/will get in trouble for misusing it. So the mere existance of a certain power does not make its unlimited use justified. The same is true for llTeleportAgentHome. For that reason, I am calling for reasonable limitations to be applied to its use. The original proposal was for its elimination, but further discussion and input led to some revision.



There are many tools available to you without hurting innocent people with commands such as llTeleportAgentHome, but it is an evolving process and it is improving over time. Examples being the changes in group powers so the creation of group land is available to more people without losing as much control as before. Also, the recent additon of the ability to prohibit objects from being rezzed outside your land and entering your parcel.

On the other hand, COMPLETE privacy will likely never be possible. Attempting to stop camera panning through solid objects, I suspect would cause the current lag problems to exponentiate. I'm not sure about the difficulty in being able to "sit" on an ojbect to penetrate other solid objects. I'd think that would have been fixed by now if it were easily possible without a big performance hit.

What about private islands? if i remember the scripts beyhave the same way being on a private island or on the mainland.

Why do people insist so much for a pass right when being even allowed to log on for free is already a privilege?

2.6 Linden Lab may suspend or terminate your account at any time, without refund or obligation to you.

3.3 Linden Lab retains ownership of the account and related data, regardless of intellectual property rights you may have in content you create or otherwise own.

4.1 You agree to abide by certain rules of conduct, including the Community Standards and other rules prohibiting illegal and other practices that Linden Lab deems harmful.

well it will affect private island and i am sorry but in my island i want to be able to use tp home the way i deem necessary.

Why would i even need a permission to eject a cheater ?

screw you.

Sorrym, guess I overexplained. Again, this is only applicable to mainland. On a private island, no one can "fly into" your island so the 200m limitation would be irrelevant to you. And a parcel or estate ban still extends 768m. So you would in NO WAY that I can imagine be affected by this change.

Oh and..I do not log in for free. I pay a monthly membership + a significant tier fee. And that membership fee affords certain rights to travel, without which SL would probably cease to exist. As Argent pointed out, LL has recognized those rights by placing certain limits on what landowners can do with respect to blocking that travel. Allowing explicit bans up to 768m, while restricting blanket bans to 200m agl strikes a fair balance. But the abuse of llTeleportAgentHome circumvents that balance and interferes unfairly with the safe passage of innocent travelers.

Well so much for any chance of this continuing to be a mature and civil conversation here... reported btw for a forums TOS violation though I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last person to do so.

Well so much for any chance of this continuing to be a mature and civil conversation here... reported btw for a forums TOS violation though I'm sure I'm not the first nor will I be the last person to do so.

oh i would be, if teleportagenthome is modified in any way it will pose problem for private islands too, and if you had any use of it like in a game votekick function?

It isn't because some have no use of teleportagenthome that nobody has one.

What's that? I didn't violate the rules since I didn't swear.

besides this has never been a mature discussion - he's never acknowledged he has no right to travel over land he doesn't pay for. The TOS he wants quoted has nothing of the sort.

If he wants to make his point let him quote it saying 'anyone may pass your land at x meters,' with the full quote in context.

As the purpose of this forum is to gain understanding of all implications of a proposal, can you explain further how you will be affected? I am not understanding your concern.

Since the only possible entry into a private island is via teleporting, the teleported person would most likely land under the 200m ceiling (unless your landing zone is above that, which I doubt). So if you have a teleport home orb at that point for people not pre-authorized, they WILL be teleported home, just as you would wish to do.

If someone is on your land and you want to eject them, you put them on the ban list, and your teleport home action WILL still work regardless of their altitude, if this proposal were to be put in effect as written.

SO, yes..if your telehub happens to be above 200m agl, then you would be affected. But that is the ONLY change you would experience with this proposal.

To reemphasize one more time: This only effects people flying into your land above 200m. That does not occur on a telehub restricted private island.

Your right in the fact that LL has explicitly given you the tools to do what you want at any height (below whatever the build hight threshold + 96m max detection range or whatever it is) but I have to agree with the point about LL making a somewhat unofficial enforcement of right of way by limiting their built in tools excepting LLtelporthome and the bounce tools by having the built in tools be height limited.

My question for you then is what do you have against people going across your land if they stay far away from your buildings and don't invade your privacy and leave as well as taking all their prims with them the second they cross your sim land (i.e. people flying either using fly, scripts, or vehicle) as long as they aren't using a huge prim filled airship I don't see why you'd object to it as long as they pass through quickly and don't cause prim litter. I guess this isn't a discourgement of using lltelport home but more of allowing 15 seconds or whatever to let them trhough.

I think something that LL should implement is bounce and ban and/or tp home and ban that way you'd get rid of them and with no intervention on your part they'd be added to your ban list. Yeah that could lead to abuse both by griefers and by landowners but it would probably be a fair compromise to 0 second delay tp homes because using a 10 second warning or whatever you could easily auto ban them afterwards and get them away with no need for you to get involved and would be a great automated system.


</dream of things LL will never do>

The truth is LL will never implement this stuff. The only way to get them to implement something is to make a huge fuss and for best results get some big publicity person like the high land baroness Ansche Chung et. al. to support it since they can and will put up a stink to get what they want since LL has repeatedly shown that they won't listen to us little guys no matter how many of us rally for what we want, double so if half want something and the other half are dead set against it like in this case.

I used a delay with warning on my security orbs. Not 30 seconds, I HAD turned it up at one point but the antisecurity orb side wouldn't bend to meet me in the middle so I turned the warning time back down. It won't rise about 6 seconds again - lesson learned.

Would you mind elaborating on "the antisecurity orb side wouldn't bend to meet me in the middle", friend? Every "compromise" that's ever happened in SL to strengthen the illusion of security has been in *your* favor. When have you and yours ever given an inch? You've got the ability to turn off push, you've got your ban line limits raised, you've got object-entry disabled, you've had it your way every damn step. The folks who want to travel, rather than hiddling behind walls, we're the ones who've taken it in the neck every time.

Now we can't even fly over 1000 meters because the Lindens have broken so much trying to make things easier for you, and you're still whining that *we* wouldn't meet you in the middle? Christ!

You were there I belive. when a certain tardis wouldn't accept me making my orb 30m and a 20 second warning... instead still saying it should be gone entirely.

So? That's their opinions. Their opinions have zero impact on your ability to operate in the world. What they say in the forums has no effect unless Linden Labs changes policy or code as a result. But here's what Linden Labs has done as a result of the debate in these forums:

* Increased the height of individual bans from 15 to 768 meters.
* Increased the height of other access controls from 15 to 200 meters.
* Increased the effect of access controls on vehicles to 4096 meters.
* Given landowners the ability to prevent more LSL calls from being effective on their property.
* Given landowners the ability to prevent objects from moving onto their property.
* Made access controls effective against teleporters.

Each of these represents an actual, real, loss of freedom for travellers. One of the things that led a number of us to *accept* these compromises and stop fighting them in the forums was the argument that they would make security orbs less necessary.

These are real compromises that we can't turn around and say "oops, I'm sorry, someone in the forums is bitching at me, I'll take them away again". Not only have we (as a group) met you in the middle, I think we've gone far beyond the middle... and what have we gotten for it?

* We can't fly planes any more. Period.
* We can't fly over land without a flight script, because access controls are above the "ground force" limit.
* Boats and land vehicles are more problematic, though not as bad as planes yet.
* AND you're claiming that *you* gave something up in the process?

Please, look at what's going on in the game, not just going on in the forums, and think about just how much your compromise actually means.

Now that people will have a private place to go to, the need for ban lines and security orbs at other altitudes between 0 and 650 ASL are significantly reduced.