Limit the access restrictions!

Not true. I have been orbited while standing on my land two meters away from the "cranky old codger"s property. There's all *kinds* of things scripts can do to throw people around without using push.

Where did I say that? I'm looking... can't see that anywhere.

Access controls, object entry controls, and full parcels all have the same effect, other than the message you get as you're unseated and your plane's returned when you hit them crossing a sim boundary at high speed.

Autoreturn, however, has no effect on vehicles at all.

Yes. Oh, my god, yes. There are sims where you can't move a dozen meters to join someone you're actively chatting with except by having them "offer teleport" you across an empty parcel someone bought six months ago, has never visited, and has (as far as you can tell) never logged in.

I can think of several reasons I would not want my no access flag lifted when I am not online. Both assume I have more that a few meters of land:

1) I am working on a 'top secret' build - or even lower secret. With all the content theft that is going on nowadays, I sure don't want people getting a product out before i can finish texturing (considering I am a bit more picky than most when it comes to the final look of my products).

2) I have an area that I do not want freeloaders taking advantage of. I don't want a bunch of hobos sitting on my couch, watching my tv or even listening to my music.

Basically, as long as I follow the TOS and pay for my account, the land is mine and I set the rules. Trying to have the system change those rules when I'm not 'looking' is absurd and would benefit griefers in every way.

An even simpler solution is that you fly around at over 128 meters.

See, this is the problem I have with this. "An annoyance to everyone, while being a benefit to no one". Everyone? They are an annoyance to everyone? THat's bullshit and you know it. They are only an annoyance to folks like you who want to be able to use other people's land. That's not everyone. And the benefit is that, well, no-one can go on their land. Selfish? Maybe. But as has been said numerous times before and doesn't seem to be sinking in, THEY PAID FOR IT. Money. Real money for a real service. They paid for the ability to be selfish and it IS their right to excercise it.


Key words: force-buys. They pay for the land. That's not what you are proposing. You are proposing the same thing, but for free.



It's only a reasonable balance for you. Not for the landowner. And, as people have been trying to explain to you, access DOES have practical consequence. Access is very important to many people.



This is what bugs me, as well. You haven't addressed any of the points brought up.
You HAVE said it very clearly. We get what you're talking about. Always have. What I, and others, are trying to do is explain to you why WE think it is unfair to us, the landowners. You don't seem to want to hear anything we're saying. You just want your free access to our stuff with no consequences. That's unfair.
If you're going to make a serious proposal about this, you at least have to hear out the other side.

In the real world this is referred to (as you note) as right-of-way. And I don't think it means what you think it means... if you want to limit the right-of-way of other people on your land, you have to take explicit, continual, and sometimes expensive action to maintain the rights you're claiming over your land. In the real world you don't get to keep people from coming on your land automatically when you buy it, and if you have a vacant lot you never use or visit, and you don't replace signs maintain fences, you will lose the ability to limit right-of-way. You can even lose the property, completely. You should be glad that land in SL isn't like land in RL, instead of arguing that's what it's like.

It is indeed. Ironic, that.

Unless you own a private island you can not prevent people from downloading any prims and textures you leave out on your land. Even if you own a whole mainland sim you're completely helpless to prevent content theft by someone standing just across the sim border.

Honestly, fly up a little and you can cross those lines. They have height restrictions on them. Instead of arguing that you all can't cross to see your neighbours, go in world and try it.
Hell, you can even trampoline on top of the things.

Some people seem to have missed a few points in this thread. Once again, why should I allow everyone to come and hammer my server watching my TV whenever I am not on my land?
The same applies for those with their own shoutcast server streaming to their land. Not all streams need a real life person DJing (I built a web based jukebox and have a constant random stream going).

What about users who want their friends to able to build without taking up another group slot? With access restrictions and build ability for everyone on the land, this is possible. Take away the access restrictions and your place will be trashed.

As another example of why this is a bad idea, I was recently looking around for somewhere to have a wedding. Some places were open except when a wedding was taking place, but a lot were closed all the time. A lot of "honeymoon" areas exist with similar restrictions.
If you are charging for the use of your facilities, why in the world would you want everyone to have free access when you aren't there? It's a choice that the land owner is entitled to make.

The solution to all those who want to simply fly over is simple. Fly higher. Just watch out for all the skyboxes.
Those who want all parcels fully open all the way to the ground obviously aren't simply looking to pass through.

You replied: "You don't need access restrictions to keep people from littering". The only other way to keep people from littering would be to turn off object creation and object entry. Auto-return is too much of a pain, especially on rentals.

I'm not sure why you consistently ignore the fact that access restriction only extends about 40m AGL, plus you see them. Would you rather fly over a plot that's access restricted where you know you're safe at an altitude of 100m (otherwise you'd have a visual indication of how far and where the access restriction extends), or a parcel with object entry disabled where there is no allowed height, and you have no visual indication whatsoever?
My point was that vehicles are not a valid reason to argue against access restriction since they don't affect them at any reasonable height, neither is flying (fly higher), or walking (use public roads), or boating (no shortage of Linden protected water).

Let me quote with a few changes.

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 visitor to privately owned parcels are not online. When any of them are, all bans would be in full effect to give others the desired privacy. They would notice nothing new, so where is the harm?

I can very much understand the lack of need for ban lines when you are actually on your land, though, because you pay for it and its your choice who has access.


Equally logical.

Simply put, I pay for my land. You don't.

I don't want you on my land. You don't have a right to be on it, whether I'm on or not.

Trust me, I know what it means.

You say "In the real world you don't get to keep people from coming on your land automatically when you buy it, and if you have a vacant lot you never use or visit, and you don't replace signs maintain fences, you will lose the ability to limit right-of-way. You can even lose the property, completely." which is a straw man and completely misleading.
You're denouncing my analogy with one that doesn't fit in any way shape or form.
You're talking about land that "you never use or visit", we're talking about, ostensibly, a house that you leave when we go out to work.
What this proposal is saying is "When you go out to work, I should be allowed to walk around in your house because it's not fair that I can't." and that's just plain bullshit.

And, please don't tell me that I SHOULD be anything, and then try to shut me up. It's not polite and it's not discussion.


Where's the irony in that?

Actually, a very reasonable grey solution would be the security orb; not the cheaply scripted kind, but rather a built-in land options tool that would allow the user to set the time limit non-access allowed avatars may be on a parcel.

This would drastically improve traveling; not just for "sightseeing", but also functional for scripted aircraft, boats, cars, etc. It's extremely excruciating when trying to cut across a small corner of a banned lot (of which one has NO interest/business in exploring) just to move to a desired location.

I could live with giving unauthorized residents 60 seconds or less to vacate the area.

Right!

With 60 seconds, maybe even as little as 15, a user could just walk, drive, fly, or zap by!

Now, before I get attacked with "OMG, ALEXANDRE!!!! THEY CAN STILL REZ STUFFS in 15 SECONDS?!":

1.) Enable AutoReturn

2.) Disable Non-Group Object Building

3.) Disable Non-Group Scripting

4.) Enable 20 second Security Orb

That's it!

No more problems on either side. The landowner keep his/her/it's privacy and the populous gets easy mobility!

I disable object entry too.

Hold up! Your theory breaks here

According to the proposal, ban lines would immediately be in effect when you login; thus Person B&C would be ejected to high heaven before the first prim loads from your cache

Although, I prefer the orb idea.

Problem with security orbs and stuff.

They're all well and good, but what, as I mentioned before, about folks that DO feel strongly that this is just plain wrong and WILL do something as a sign of protest, such as spawn 10 x 10 blocks that cover their entire property up to a height of about 1000m?
I'm sure setting up a script that will do this with the click of a button before I log off and a click when I log on gets rid of them would be easy as pie for someone and will make them a WHOLE load of money.

Is that a prefereable solution? 'cuz I guarantee it or something like it will happen.

Personally I'd find that quite useful as I'd be able to see the thing before I hit it and probably just pass by thinking it's an ugly skyscraper or wondering what the build's going to be when it's finished.

I had my land set to group, and I decided to be nice and disable it to allow people to go through my lot. Yesterday I went afk for a short while, when I came back, two people were upstairs, in my home, having sex in my bed...I was not amused. I pulled my bed out from under them, banned their naked butts and then put the ban lines back up.

I do not buy items for other peoples use, I do not pay for my land so others can make use of my items..If I don't know you and you don't have access, fly over.

So if Persons B&C are ejected from the parcel mid-coitus, would that make them eligible to be subjected to abuse reports for public indecency? Imagine what a shock it would be for the neighbors without ban lines to have the happy couple land in their front yard.

Lots of you seem to like expressing similarities to the 'real world'. Aside form the fact that Second Life is _supposed_ to be a retreat from the real world, here is an example of a real world situation, as described in the OP.

Let's take an ordinary residential block. You have 2 rows of property and any number of parcels in each row. For the example, let's use 5 parcels per row.
===road===
|A|B|C|D|E|
|Z|Y|X|W|V|
===road===

Ok, we will say, for example, that you live, or land, on Lot 'Y'. I happen to own Lot 'X' and Joe Pimplepopper owns Lot 'D'.

Now, in the REAL WORLD, if you were to hop my fence to go visit someone in Lot 'W', I could file a tresspassing charge. So, common courtesy (and the law) says that you will walk out to the road and down the block to visit your friend.

Forcing fences down is NOT a valid solution to your travel issues. A valid solution is for YOU to travel at a higher altitude.

Sightseeing is not a valid arguement. I did NOT build my home and landscape my property for YOUR pleasure. I did it for MINE.

If I WANTED you to enjoy my work, I wouldn't have the fence up. If I WANTED you to come on MY land and play with MY toys, I wouldn't have the fences up.

You can thank each and every 'pixel slapper' in this game for all this. You can blame mall owners that have NEVER allowed people to open packages on even a small portion of the lot. You will NOT, however, tell me I _MUST_ allow people onto my land, whether I am online or off. That would be the same as a city government telling you you HAD to let homeless people live on your property, leave their trash behind and totally ruin every ounce of land value you may have.

Take into consideration that I am simply pointing things out from the point of view of someone with fences up, simply stuffing a little common sense into this idea - I do not OWN land in SL, I gave that up 6 months ago for reasons that do not apply to this thread. If i find someone's trash on my rented land, I simply add them to my ban list. Amazing how many of those people are 'NO PAYMENT INFO' residents. I actually hate all the fencing too.

If you want easier, ground level ways of getting around, how about proposing that LL buy back some land and create more PUBLIC ROADS?

Please, Mickey, will you set that aside for a minute. I'm not talking about any specific case, or any specific example, and I'm not endorsing the original poster's proposal. I don't know if you noticed that, though I've definitely tried to avoid giving that impression, so I'll say it flat out: I don't support the original proposal.

I've brought up a few issues here. First, there's the assumption that there's some right to absolute control over access to the volume of space defined by the borders of one's land. Second, theres the general case of access controls on land that's unoccupied. Third, there's the question of whether these access controls are even useful.

Finally, I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm challenging the frequently asserted claim that this absolute right to control access exists. How you respond to that is up to you... but some responses are more useful than others. Shutting up is actually not one of the more useful ones, and not the one I'd personally prefer to see.

You could ignore the challenge.

You could acknowledge that this isn't an absolute right.

You could respond to the challenge with some reasons other than the status quo why it should be an absolute right.

None of these require you to accept the original proposal.

As you have no doubt realised, I'm referring to auto-return. Turning off object creation doesn't do the job, and turning off object entry is too buggy to actually use yet.

I'm sure there are situations where auto-return isn't adequate, but for the vast majority of cases it's better than using access controls.
I'm not ignoring any of this: (a) you can't see them more than a few meters away, (b) you can't see them at all across sim boundaries, (c) When they are at sim boundaries they can still effect you at any altitude, (d) there are sims with an average slope greater than 1:1, so you have to fly at least 300 meters above ground level to be reasonably sure of avoiding even the ones that aren't on sim boundaries.

Neither, the erroneous warning messages about object entry are annoying and the bugs in object-entry make me worry about whether the person who set the parcel was aware they were setting themselves up the bomb.

But unless that parcel is on a sim boundary, disabling object entry will not prevent me from flying through it.
Have you tried flying recently? Or boating? Or driving along Linden roads? You can find yourself unseated, your vehicle lost underground, and yourself having to log out to get control of your avatar, at ANY altitude, and while travelling down Linden roads or along Linden waterways, with NO warning, if you hit an access controlled parcel at a sim boundary, and there are access controlled parcels extending into Linden roads and Linden waterways.

Access controls won't prevent them from doing that. They can hover over (or trampoline on, if you prefer) the restricted volume and steer their camera to the screen.

That's a good reason for retain access restrictions when nobody's on the land. "I pay for the land" isn't.

That's another good reason.

It's a choice the landowner should be able to make *because* the consequences of not being able to make that choice are bad. Not because there's an absolute right that comes with the land and overrides everyone else's rights (including the rights of neighboring landowners).

That's not obvious at all.