Security Coming? LL "promise"?

Me, I would have chosen a different solution, but a solution is a solution and I'm not going to complain. 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.

This will no doubt decrease the number of sexual harrassment / privacy violation reports too.

So... when do we get it? Something tells me it will not be in 2 days.

AD

disagree! No Orbs are still needed. Since people can still move, zoom etc on a plot of land ......Infact there is more griefting now then ever before on people land!

How does an orb stop someone from zooming in... unless it's wrongly "enforcing" your security over someone elses land ?

oh gesh............do people have to take thing out of context.........
As I said in that post
"disagree! No Orbs are still needed. Since people can still move, zoom etc on a plot of land ......Infact there is more griefting now then ever before on people land!"

If FORMS of "Security" zooming anyone can if they are on land that is next to your if its possible to position yourself to do so.

Why do people pick thing out of content and say this is wrong. oh gesh!!!!!!!!!!

sad to see this kind of proposal aknowledged when there so much more important stuffs sl need than a private f*ck-zone .

Well that's if aknowledging mean anything really.

This is VERY disappointing to see yet another restriction on exploration in SL. The real irony is, there is another proposal thread related to llTeleportAgentHome (yes I started the thread) that one respondant pointed out how many increased restrictions have been imposed recently in the name of that almighty "privacy" concept. And apparently, every time one of them passes, someone comes up with how it will "decrease the need for security orbs".

The problem is, there is not only no need now for security orbs, the people that are using them are doing so in order to circumvent restrictions that were intentionally put in place.



This proposal is TOTALLY unreasonable in light of other travel limitations that have been put in place over recent months. And thanks to many of these restrictions, there are many landowners that do not believe there is any such thing as "public airspace". I tend to believe that there is, and this reference to such a thing would indicate that there is supposed to be. But yet another restriction in that area tends to give more ammunition to those that do not believe "public airspace" exists.

It would be great if LL would clarify the concept of public airspace, since it was mentioned in this response by a Linden, and define if it truly exists or not, since there seems to be some ambiguity.

I think it will be a little...so not reasonable for LL to actually use that height. I dunno. Unless said private space mean other won't see/touch it at all. And appeared as empty space that can fly through

Some of you may have seen me posting on other threads such as "A short flight. Blue Linden take note"... I'm very much pro-airspace. I'm pro-sailing too. I try to keep my parcel as open as possible, which means I have an ejection zone that covers a very, very small part of my land (4.3% covered), and reaches only about 35 meters above sea level. It's very rare indeed to see ban lines on my parcel. It has happened once, for 4 hours, during the last month.

One of my pet grievences (besides HATING ban lines, full parcels, overzealous 96 meter radius eject-orbs and borked sim-crossings) is privacy - or rather the distinct lack of it. Call it "a private f*ck-zone" if you like, but no matter the reasons, there are many requests for privacy out there - and more proposals are being posted on the subject every day. Considering how LL are now also revising the abuse management (read, finding a way to let you deal with it yourself, because they don't want to) the need for privacy will be greater still.

I'm hoping that landlords that already hate ban lines, like mine - Anshe Chung, will re-write the covenant to say that it's no longer permitted to use ban lines - as everyone already have access to a private zone in the first place.

As for the orbs, I expect people will keep their ejecting security systems. They are better than ban lines though, since they let you block only a small volume instead of the entire parcel. It makes it possible to guard your home, and leave waterways and airspace untouched. Assuming the orb radius isn't too great, a time limit will even let you fly straight through, no worries.

As I understand the concept - this is what's being suggested: People outside the "super secret zone", CAN'T see inside no matter what they do. The server simply doesn't stream ANYTHING from inside that area to anyone else - unless they too are in the same zone. This should mean that people in those zone wouldn't even show up on the map, and no amount of fancy camera work will let you see anything unless you get INSIDE the zone yourself.

The down-side is of course that there is a great risk of people creating very over-zealous ejection/push systems to run up there in their privacy zone - to keep people from getting inside to see... This would make it a pain in the <beep> to take a vehicle through this "layer". This is why I said I would have preferred another solution. ( I like the idea of placing this zone below ground level. )


Bullshit. I can't even count the number of people that AFTER being informed to stay away from my house, by my home made security robot, have decided to walk INSIDE my home with x-cite penises hanging out, and guns at the ready. There is no limit to the shit that goes on around my house. My landlord insists on a 15 second warning before a security system kicks in, so no one is ejected from my land until at least 15 seconds have passed since they received the rules. The ejection zone covers only 4.3% of my land, and at least one out of four people that enter my parcel make a beeline for my house - and get ejected. In the 15 seconds, I have been shot at, cursed at, given lewd suggestions, flashed.. you name it. That's 4.3% covered - and about 10 people ejected per day.

There is no limit to people's lack of respect for others' privacy and property. Since I hate to use ban lines - having my security orb is a <beep>ing necessity! The only reason I even have a 15 second warning is that my land lord demands it. Ok, a warning makes sense for 1024 sqm parcels, but my orb covers only 4.3% of my land for crying out loud... I need a security orb.

I have owned an ejecting security system since the day I logged on, and found people having sex in my living room. I'm keeping my orb, and I'll leave it running regardless of whether I'm there or not.

AD

This solution is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Linden Labs seems determined to destroy aviation in Second Life.

I would like to see a little more detail on what is actually going to happen (if anything). I would hope that LL would be forthcoming in putting such changes up on a beta grid and announcing exactly what they were going to be beforehand. I am sure that everyone remembers the fiasco of ban lines suddenly shooting up unannounced and blocking off half the grid for aviators.

The highlighted text is the reason this is unacceptable. Either Linden Labs would have to give you extra ban lines at that height, ready to smack down even more aircraft, or (as you note) people would use agressive security orbs to get the same result.

Acceptable variations on this:

* The security zone is a parcel option at ground level. If enabled, you get this security zone inside your ban lines.
* The security zone is in a location where movement isn't currently possible... underground, for example. This could be implemented without breaking any content by playing games with the region corner.
* The security zone, wherever it is, is based on whether you're on the parcel's access list rather than on your location, and if you're not on the access list you're phantomed while you're in the zone.

Where is this happening? I mean, I hang out in areas that are traditionally griefer-magnets, and I can actually count the number of times I've had to deal with griefers approaching me aggressively on my land. I've actually been orbited by a neighbor's buggy impact-based security scripts *on my own land* more often. I've turned on access controls for our land a total of three times, and one of those was a false alarm.

I live in a void sim, rent half of it. It's smack in the middle of Anshe Chung's Dreamland so it's residential only. The number of griefers tend to vary with the day of the week. Holidays and weekeds are the worst of course.

For a while, some nearby sims accidently got set autoreturn=0 and since I lived next door to three of them, I because a target of everything while people played "sandbox" around me. Rare occasion but still...

Most of the time, it's just random people showing up, heading straight for the house (because I'm there), receiving and ignoring the rules, then receiving and ignoring the warning, and then ending up ejected. On a good day, they settle for that and go elsewhere. On a bad day, they start being real griefers, and I whip out the old ban-bat and start swinging.

It's gotten MUCH better the last few days, when I realised that it wasn't a covenant breach to ban all without payment info on file. Still get the occasional one though. Guess I'll see what happens over the next week or two. For the record though, the two worst cases of abuse I've been subjected to were both for people with payment info on file - and neither one has been banned despite abuse reports.

Usually it's not aggressive attacks. Mostly unsolicited sexual "offers", being annoying on purpose, try to see how close you can get to the house without being ejected - and repeating the process over and over... Flying around with weapons in hand, though not using them. Running around with penis attachments sticking out... Things like that.

I'm convinced 10% of the adult grid is below 15 years of age.

AD

The parcel invisibility proposal outlined in the thread referenced below would be a much better appraoch. With that proposal, there is a win-win solution that gives landowners privacy rights while respecting and restoring the limitations that have been placed on air travel within SL.

/13/92/157916/1.html

Starbuck: that's the "phantom zone" suggestion, which has also been acknowledged by the Lindens.