Limit the access restrictions!

Ban lines on land parcels are annoying for many reasons. However they do fulfill a need, which is to allow any people who enjoy access to the parcel to reside there undisturbed by others. Those others can be "anyone else" (a general ban), or just a number of particular people (selective bans).

However it makes no sense to enforce access restrictions while none of the "allowed" people are on the parcel! During those times, automatically lifting all bans would be a great relief for those who like to walk or fly around the neighborhood, or just enjoy a view free from ban lines.

I propose that all access restrictions be automatically lifted while none of those people who normally have access to the parcel are present on the parcel. The entrance of any "allowed" person into the parcel should cause all others to be immediately ejected.

You can vote for this proposal #3047 at http://secondlife.com/vote/vote.php?get_id=3047

Ive been using some land a friend brought on my behalf until Linden fix my account, and you should see all the junk objects people leave behind if you let them. Also sadly Ive met more idiots wandering through and only the odd nice person.

I can full understand why people restrict access. I havent done it yet, but Ill certainly consider it.

Unless you include those who wouldnt normally have access can not build or use push on this land - this sounds potentially harmful

Just wait till the group logs off and then gain access and build on the land.

You can already disable object creation for non-group members, and/or enable the Autoreturn Objects function, so junk objects should not be an issue.

Idiots wandering through are not an issue either, since they would only be allowed to do that while nobody is around.

Yeah in theory that is true unfortunately despite it being disabled, a guy just last night was creating junk on our land somehow. So if they can fix that I wouldnt be too upset at someone looking around.

Unauthorized builds would not be a problem, since you can tweak those settings already, allowing only people of your choice to build on your land. Autoreturn Objects can also be used today, in addition to returning other people's objects at any time at the click of a button.

Im aware you can

But it should be more idiot proof than that. It should automtically not allow non access people to build.

Thus allowing you to invite people over when your online and they can build

But when your offline its protected.

There of course is the privacy argument against this -

its Privacy vs ease of travel mainly?

Of course. But my point is that you don't need privacy on the land while you are not on the land.

Your idea for building restrictions should be discussed in another thread, since it doesn't strictly apply to this proposal.

That depends on the reason for wanting privacy. Personal (avatar) privacy is only one kind.



I disagree; they pertain directly. If we had automatic ban lifting when away, then we'd want those who are benefitting from this automatic ban removal to be prohibited from building and pushing (without requiring additional configuration and worry whether you've set it all up correctly). That leaves scripts, which is a no-win situation: if you allow them, who knows what grief they could do; if you disallow them, vehicles won't be able to pass. I would choose to allow scripts (if allowed on parcel).

Finally, what happens if I'm wandering on banned land with nobody home, and then someone who is allowed appears? This is the real problem case; perhaps the best solution would be to issue a warning that you have two minutes to leave the premises or you'll be ejected (e.g., TP home).

Despite the fact that I'm pointing out difficulties, I think it's a good idea worth pursuing and working out the kinks. I'd suggest that, by default, bans operate this new way, but give the owner another checkbox to disallow all access. With some form of discouragement, since life in SL would be better without so many ban lines.

Also, IMHO, when a parcel is banned but nobody's home, the ban lines should appear green rather than red; giving you the clue that you may be booted out if you cross. There's a problem with this, however: you can't tell which side of a ban you're on. (With the current ones, you're pretty much always on the outside, so it's not a problem.)

That's my $0.02.

Yes, it may (or may not) be a good idea to automatically disallow building by those who benefit from ban removal. Both options would work in my opinion, it's just a balance between work and configurability.

I don't see the need to disallow push, though, since there would be no-one important there to push. But it's a minor point which would be fine with me either way.


Sure, that would work. Or just being pushed to the nearest open-access parcel; either would be good. Of course the least intrusive option for the parcel owner would be the latter option.


I think it would be best not to have the option to completely disallow access, since I can see many parcel owners doing it "just because". It is a shame that some people feel compelled to lock out others from their property even while they are not present, and even if there will be no trace of the visitors afterwards. In my opinion that kind of ban should be disallowed completely, or it will likely be abused (as it is today).

And you don't need to be on the land period. And you don't pay for it. If they did this, I'd just put my 24/7 security orb back. I don't want you on my land. It makes my skin crawl.

Feel free to pay a share of my teir and then I'll give you access.

You want access ' just because.' Youre not getting it. Its a shame people think they have a right to be on your land when you're not there. Would you want anyone in your RL home? Thats how it feels to me.

And its 10 seconds, tops. Not 2 minutes, if I put up an orb.

I'm paying tier (which isn't cheap) for my enjoyment and pleasure. Not yours or anyone elses.

Exactly. My land, my rules.
Me? I don't use ban lines and I don't care who comes onto my land. I have landowner tools to deal with the unwanted, as well as a sharp tongue for idiots.
Regardless of that, I don't want my right to stop people from coming onto it taken away, whether I'm there or not. It's mine. I paid for it. I worked hard to make the money to pay for it.
Unfortunately, you don't have a right to come onto my land. None whatsoever.
The argument of "You don't need privacy if you're not there" neither applies here nor in the real world.

I'll just repeat. It's mine. I paid for it. If you want to place restrictions on me and force me to open up my land to others if I'm not online, you better be prepared to shoot me some cash to help pay for it.



How is it being abused? I'm really curious about this.

It's fine to lounge at anybodys house as long as they're not there?? Uh.. /me votes no.

I would be happier to just be able to see the ban lines coming so I can fly around them.

The person who pays for the use of the land has the right to determine how it is used, whether or not that person is present.

It gives some people the creeps to have strangers wandering through their homes, especially those who have put a lot of effort into making a personal safe haven in the craziness of SL. Just knowing that someone could potentially come in and make themselves at home when they're not around, and possibly even still be there when they log back in, is very unsettling to some people.

No way the rights of these paying landowners should be violated just because some tourist wants to wander through and can't be bothered to fly above or around the banlines, and the landowners shouldn't have to go through the extra expense of buying a security orb either.

I will add that yes, I think ban lines are ugly. There are plenty of other unsightly things around too that are allowed to exist. Are ban lines overused? Maybe - but I'm not going to judge what another landowner feels is appropriate for their land. They pay for the use of their land and have the right to restrict entry.

I'm glad you keep your land open.

I guess it's a difference of mindset. If I have something and I can share it with others at no cost or inconvenience to me, then I am happy to do so. I'm sorry not everyone feels that way, and in fact it is all too common not to. Banning others while the threat of griefing does not apply (like when you are not on your land) is IMO abuse of ban powers.

For what it's worth, I should say that I haven't yet had many very bad experiences with griefers on my land, so I haven't so far become bitter and disillusioned in a "get off my lawn!" kind of way. It is of course possible that with enough negative experiences I too would want to deny people access at all times as a way to get back at the world.

Anyway, the difference to the real world on the issue of "intrusion" is that in SL, there is no risk of theft or littering (unless you allow littering). Therefore I can readily allow people on my lawn, and even inside my house, when I am not there.

The other kind of privacy, as in freedom from others' snooping on your stuff, doesn't exist even today in SL, as the camera can go beyond ban lines.

*sigh*

There are no absolute rights. Every right is a balance, that's why there are limits to how high ban lines project and what you're technically allowed to do in a security script [1].

You can't base a rational debate on unlimited access controls, or on unlimited right of way, and any absolute declaration of "rights" in a discussion like this basically comes down to a refusal to actually take part in the discussion.

I don't want to have the ability to ban specific people taken away [2]. On the other hand... I'm prepared to have the ability to keep random unknown people from passing through my property taken away, given a scheme that doesn't open up the possibility of abuse and respects the privacy of landowners.

Hell, a scheme that gives me privacy on my own land (and no, folks, you don't have privacy on anything less than a private sim) would be a heck of a payment.

[1] Though I've run into a number of scripts that go far beyond what you're supposed to be allowed to do and have yet to see any sign that it's possible to get abuse reports against landowners taken seriously... even when I owned the land next door and their script was projecting its "perimeter" onto my land!

[2] See [1]... I'm a landowner and I'm quite prepared to eat my own dogfood here.

I dont disallow access to my parcel. Anyone can use it and help pay for it as well. My land is banned to everyone but my group and anyone not in the group can use the facilities anytime they like for a fee of 500 lindens when they buy a pass. If you wanna play then you gotta pay. I cant believe anyone but non land owners and free accounts would support this so they can use everyone elses land and facilities for free. I have no problems with people banning land just because they can, especially when they are paying for it.

I agree with this. The question is of course where that balance is.

Just to be absolutely clear, I'll say again that the proposal applies only when the landowner (and friends) are not on the land. When any of them are, all bans would be in full effect to give them the desired privacy. They would notice nothing, so where is the harm?

I can very much understand the need for ban lines when you are actually on your land, though.

If people don't like how ban lines look then a proposal to allow each individual client to be able to turn off the rendering of them is more logical. If my rights to restrict people from making free use of my land is taken away or gimped in any way, i will network security orbs from floor to cieling if I have to.

I do however like the other person's suggestion about selling passes. If you wanna cross the bridge then you gotta pay the toll.

Well, consider that you are currently getting free access to at least 90% of the sims and land in Second Life. I think if you had to pay a fee to get access to any land other than your own, it would quickly become more than a nuisance.

you people are too funny. i think this is a wonderul proposal. all i want to do is be able to fly around without annoying ban lines in my way as well. yes, there would be kinks to work out, as with everything. and as for keeping your most precious virtual land 100% private, cant do it anyway lol. as someone stated before with camera controls, anyone can see wha youve got hidden there if they really want to. even if there were temporary access just to pass through, that would be great. flying around is one of the joys of the game! lighten up

Having a piece of the world to call my own and allow who I want into it is more of a joy to me than flying around. A joy I PAY to have.

people can still SEE what youve got even with ban lines