Limit/Disable llTeleportAgentHome

As opposed to nonexistent 'right to travel' concept?

I think the introduction of point-to-point teleporting made people forget that WALKING and FLYING and BOATING are methods of travel that used to get you from the telehubs off to where ever you wanted to be.

Travel USED to happen. All the time. Then we wanted point-to-point teleporting so we could get to exactly where we wanted to be without all that "fly up, turn right 60 degrees, fly forward, around that building that hasn't rezzed up, up to avoid the next one, left 70 degrees, fly down--make sure to miss that overhand--forward another 20 meters, land, and done."

Can you immagine GETTING anywhere when the land around the telehub has the bloody restrictions you want? Keeping me off your land ENTIRELY preventing me from passing though to get to the place on the other side?

When people want to pass through they rarely care what's on the land, and when they do, they look at the builds, not the people. What are you doing that makes you want to keep people 96 meters away? Excuse me, 96 meters away in all directions to a hieght of infinity.

Maybe I just want them off my land and airspace. As the owner, thats a good enough reason.

Oh I see, you want to own the airspace, the AIRSPACE that Linden Labs has tried to set aside FOR TRAVELERS. Not enough to own 768 verticle meters leaving travelers someplace to travel?

In another proposal, Andrew Linden made reference to his objection to carving out "public airspace for private use". In the context of the discussion, he was clearly referring to area above owned land, since it was discussing a proposal related to area at 650-768m above owned land.

I have asked for clarification, but it sure sounds to me like an intent to consider that area "public".

After some review, I ran across another thread where something has been proposed that to me would represent what I view as a win-win for this situation (notice that I did NOT use the term compromise, which is usually lose-lose). That proposal is, in short, parcel invisibility. If implemented IN EXCHANGE FOR right of passage, parcel owners get the ultimate in privacy (no one being able to see what is happening is as private as you can get), while travellers regain their ability for less inhibited travel.

The thread went off into a few tangents, so I am posting the link to page 2, where I posted a reiteration of the original proposal, with some proposed refinements.

Note that Blue Linden indicated that this proposal has some merit, which give me the impression that it could be implemented without a great deal of pain. Take a look. This could be the answer.

/13/92/157916/1.html

The right to travel is baked into the very core of Second Life. It is why there is a single grid with a single world map, and why every region has a unique location on that map. It would be MUCH easier to build a Second Life where every parcel is in its own virtual space, where the only common space is Linden lands, where teleportation is the only way to get around. Phillip Rosedale explicitly rejected that model, citing (among others) Neal Stephenson's comments about the design of the Metaverse in Snow Crash... the book that inspired Second Life.

The world is designed to be connected, to encourage travel across the grid. There is no *unlimited* right to travel anywhere, or else there wouldn't be ban lines at all, but subject to limits that right does exist.

Similarly there is no absolute "right to ban". If there was there wouldn't be any vertical limit to ban lines. All rights are compromises.

But you don't seem to understand the meaning of that word.

Sound more like landowners rights to use the space over any public right to access.

Sounds more like an intent to let owners have full control.

I supported this one. And yes Argent, I understand compromise. But the point is I don't have to let you on my land, period. And I don't have to have a reason to keep you off other than whim.

Hmm finally maybe some progress. Let me now ask you..do you support it in its entirety? Such that travelers should not be inhibited from crossing over "invisible" parcels except perhaps by explicit ban? THAT is part of the deal here. You get your privacy and I get my ability to travel uninhibited, since my crossing of your land no longer has the potential for invading your privacy or sucking up your prims.

If so, then we have miraculously reached consensus.

I don't think you do, because you don't seem willing to give up anything. If you don't give anything up, you haven't compromised. If you take it back after you get some of the things you compromised for because you didn't get everything you wanted, then you haven't compromised.
Yes, you absolutely do.

If I'm flyng over your land at 2000 meters, I don't even know I'm over your land, you don't know I'm over your land, and I can't even potentially interact with or even see any permanent structures on your land or anyone in them, and your security orbs in those structures can't even detect me.

So, that establishes that there are limits to how far you can limit my acces to your land. The only question then is establishing where those limits are: any statement that "you don't have to let me on your land, period" is simply nonsense.

Starbuck - yes, I do. If you left your vehicle, autoreturn hits it, but with the privacy mentioned on that suggestion - I did support it.

Argent: if I was at 2k meters, I could teleport or eject you for no reason at all. Just because sensors couldn't reach doesn't mean if I was flying there I'd have to let you in. You have no right to be on my land.

I only took back what I offered after the certain tardis kept demanding I give more - without giving ANYTHING themselves. So yes I understand compromise, some others don't. Compromise is NOT me offering more and more while the other sits back and demands more offering nothing.

Yes, you're free to be a complete asshole.

If you put up warning signs or give a reasonable warning period, no problem. If you think owning the land gives you the right to blast anyone that happens to innocently wander through, you deserve to get what you give, which is grief. (Not that I would do it or recommend it. But I wouldn't feel sorry for you.)

Owners of land do have rights that need to be protected. Someone shouldn't be allowed to park a vehicle over someone's land at any altitude, so owners need a way to deal with that. Also, ejecting people that pick locks and enter obviously private space.

I don't see an obvious solution here that's implementable. The invisible thing would be great, but it's no good for someone who wants a visible but private home. I think landowners need to be able to use llTeleportAgentHome() as it exists today, but with the understanding that it is a form of griefing to use it with abandon and without fair warning for reasonable bypassers. If you are crusing by and get slammed, you file a grief report.

In the US, you have to post no-trespassing signs to have full rights against trespassing. Why should SL be any different? The reasons are the same.

So, I'm against a ban, but I'm all for socializing and policing reasonable useage.