Limit the access restrictions!

I've got an even more fun idea, one that would solve this problem quick smart if enough people did it...

Poseballs that have code like this:

changed(integer what)
{
  if(what & CHANGED_LINK)
  {
    key id = llAvatarOnSitTarget();
    llSensor("", llgetOwner(), AGENT, 96, PI);
  }
}

// Owner's nearby.
sensor(integer count)
{
  llOwnerSay(llKey2Name(llAvatarOnSitTarget())+" is on your "+llGetObjectName());
  state normal;
}

// Owner's not nearby, see if they're in the right group
no_sensor()
{
  key id = llAvatarOnSitTarget();

  if(llSameGroup(id))
    state normal;
  llShout(0,llKey2Name(id)+" is a filthy pervert");//insert your slander here
  llUnSit(id);
  llEjectFromLand(id);
}

I dont see the point in discussing things that can never happen. You must have bumped your head son. hahahahaha Remove the ban lines. Uhhhh ok send me your money for this piece of vr land, oh and by the way when youre not there people will automatically have access to the VR land you pay for and we think thats a great idea.... Now thats funny right there I don't care who ya are....hehehehehe Hey I have a great idea. Why dont you put us all on your friends list so we can see when you log and give us your LM so everyone on this forum can come hang out at at your place when youre not there of course. In fact lets all exchange LM's so we can all become friends. Isn't the world a wonderful loving place Uncle Ben. Ohhhh I feel all warm and fuzzy now.
THATS ENTERTAINMENT BABY!!!!

Thanks for that. It's a work in progress, and that was one aspect I failed to spot. Back to the drawing board.

<edit> the same principle applies when using a scanner to detect if the person clicking to view is in range. Result = massive bandwidth costs that could be prevented with simple ban lines. </edit>

---------------------

One thing I am wondering about, would anyone who supports this idea also support the idea of land owners setting a minimum fly through height? If my land was to be open to all, I still wouldn't want everyone who likes apache helicopters annoying the hell out of everyone else by buzzing them with all that noise. I'm pretty certain my neighbours wouldn't appreciate it either. Maybe an option to kill all sounds from your vehicles.

Another thing, what happens if some noob decides that your land would make a great club for him and all his mates, TPs everyone in and fills the sim so nobody else can get in? Worse than being locked out of your land as would happen normally with a full sim, you would be locked out with a massive noob party going on in your house.

Also consider the affect on the few remaining areas that aren't flooded with casinos, brothels, freebie areas full of shouting lucky chairs and other nasties. Areas that have been maintained through neighbours not wishing to spoil an area.
Every one looking for a place to take their virtual g/f or b/f will head straight for these kinds of areas with neither the neighbours or the land owners having much control.
At least if someone starts building a casino in your back yard you know what's coming.
Maybe a neighbourhood watch scheme should be proposed to go with this one.

I got that. I'm just wondering why you're bringing up all this extraneous stuff, moving the goalposts as you've been doing.


As far as my understanding goes, I DO have control, and the right TO that control, over access to the yadda yadda yadda. You saying I don't doesn't change that. When a Linden tells me different, that's something else. I think I can safely assume these things.

...but still owned by someone.

Useful to whom?



"You should just be happy that SL is not like RL", or whatever it was you said, is a pretty thinly veiled "Like it or lump it".
You say your challenging the claim that there is a right to control access (I believe it was YOU that brought up the phrase "absolute control" We DO have this right. I don't understand how you can say we don't. We have this right because we have this ability. Having said that, I understand that Sl is owned by Linden Labs and they can do what they want, yadda yadda, but, until Linden Labs tells me that I DON'T have control over my land, I have the RIGHT to excercise that control and no other customer of Linden Labs has the right to tell me that I cannot, or should not, or that my excercising of those controls is "Abuse".



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

Which I've been doing. (Again, YOU said "absolute right", yet another straw man...) And your response to me, to the RL examples I used to try to explain my feelings on the "challenge" was a "Just be happy SL isn't like RL" dismissal.

Turning off object entry is only a problem if object creation is stilled turn on.

I just tried and flew over an access restricted parcel at 100m as part of a sim crossing with no problem.

On the mainland parcel I have, 3 sides of it neighbour on land that has object entry turned off, if I leave mine on, there is a pile-up of vehicles on my land within a day. If I turn mine off, they get stuck on the one open side, but then I don't have to deal with vehicle owners who can't bother to come back and pick their litter up.

(And I know it's a pain when you get ejected or you need to relog to be able to move, but I spent 30 minutes chasing after my balloon one time to catch up to it as it bounced from parcel to parcel and sim to sim in order to delete it so it wouldn't bother anyone)

I'm not moving any goalposts. I'm not playing a game here, I'm trying to communicate what I think is an important distinction between rights and accidents of how Linden Labs happened to implement access controls.

See, that's the *result* of the decisions Linden Labs made, based on what they thought was necessary to provide a balance between different people's rights.

Useful in the sense that giving people these abilities improves the environment in Second Life, by making it possible for people to do things like operate businesses and create spaces that serve various purposes.

Well, damn. I'm sorry, that's not how I meant that. I was just responding to the idea that the current access controls in SL were analogous to property rights in RL.

So... I apologise for that last sentence, it wasn't necessary, and while I didn't expect it to be taken as a brush-off I can see where you got that impression.

What you have is the ability. You have that ability because Linden Labs implemented SL the way they did.

Now the thing is, this is "feature suggestions". The point of "feature suggestions" is that they are requests for Linden Labs to change things in SL. That is, they're requests that these implementation decisions be changed.

So when you argue that your access controls are a right because they exist, then that they should continue to exist because they're a right, I get all confused. Because that seems like a circular argument.

So I'm not moving the goalposts at all.

I'm not sure what the "abuse" reference in the rest of your message is about, so I can't really comment on it.

Or if it's group-owned land. I've had stuff returned on group-owned land with object entry turned off, but group object creation turned on.

I do believe I said that you can have this happen, not that it happens every time. If you are flying very slowly (below 10m/s) and you cross a single sim border you are unlikely to have a problem. Yes, you get messages *saying* that you have been refused entry, but you don't actually get stopped.

I've gone on journeys at high altitude and had five or ten messages claiming that I wasn't allowed in a parcel for some reason or another, including both object entry and access controls, without getting blown out of the air until the 11th time. At higher speeds, or on long journeys, the probability of getting blown out of the sky because of a full parcel or a parcel with access or entry restrictions increases... and when it happens it could be any of them.

Can you tell me the location so I can experiment with it?

I used to do that, but I'd have to give up flying.

Because it is my property. That is all the reason I need. If anything the restrictions are not strong enough. Cameras should not be able to cross ban lines.

But I think that's the point he's making: it's not really your property because the land has no physical existance, and the area of land is only defined by some coordinates in an IF test on the server, to see if your items get returned or not.

If you own an island, you could argue that you have paid for the server - but still, as soon as you place any objects on that island, they have to be retrieved from the asset server, which your money has gone towards but so has everyone else's.

I own two pieces of property with houses on them and a third parcel that is vacant. I visit the vacant parcell about once a week toclean up the unwanted litter. I removed the access lines on both the other properties recently, being convinced that placing them was anti social. I quickly came to regret that decision. Recently I went one of my houses and there was some guy in one of the bedrooms...no account info naturally. I froze him, ejected and banned him. THEN I noticed that two pose ball sets have inexplicably disappeared. I did not think this possible, but all I know is an uninvited stranger was in my house and some of my property is gone. Access lines are back up and they are staying...period.

That being said, I have no prob at all with people flying over any of my property so long as they high enough not to invade theprivacy of those inside.

GENERALLY those who have paid accounts do not seem to be the cause of these problems. If LL will start phasing out the free accounts I will rethink my views on access. Until then, I limit access. I bought the land with my own USD. I pay the tier with my own USD. I bought the houses with my own USD. I did not pay this money for the entertainment of people who wish to use my things for their own entertainment.

Sorry.

Susanne

hehe. I don't know if this is still possible, but one time I ejected an avatar that was sitting on a cross-beam in my store, and it sent the cross-beam and all prims linked to it into my Lost and Found folder instantly.

It was not at ALL what I expected to happen.

But thats not the point the one you quoted is making. He's saying he paid for the server space. He paid for that portion of the server. It's his.

He doesn't have to let you on it.

If LL wants to give me a forum ban for this they will but I'm sick and tired of censoring myself for people who can't get this through their skull


BECAUSE I OWN THE LAND AND I SAID SO IS A BULLSHIT STRAWMAN ARGUMENT [/rant]

Now that that's out of my system. Banking just because of the xenophobia (and that's really what it is...

xen·o·pho·bi·a /ˌzɛnəˈfoʊbiə, ˌzinə-/ Pronunciation[zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-]
–noun
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange. - source http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=xenophobia&x=0&y=0
)

doesn't justify repeating the same old argument over and over again. Admittedly the arguments for free access aren't much better and smack of people grasping for a socialistic dream world where everyone can access and use everyone else's stuff but at least people give more than the because we said so and we're paying LL for this space and your not even doing that because in reality your renting space on a hard drive from LL if your on the mainland or renting HDD space from someone who rents it from LL if your on an island which is just an extra degree of separation and at any time your little virtual plot and all it's possessions could be deleted by a single command:

@:rm -rf /

and poof, there goes your virtual bed, your virtual bedside table, your virtual house, your virtual land and and everything else.

Since you'd no longer have griefers to deal with either I guess you'd be kinda like that guy from that twilight zone episode "Tim enough at last"

BTW, my defining xenophobia is not intended as a snub at you, I've followed your writings (your one of the 3 I follow the posts of, the other two being Elanthius Flagstaff and on the rare instance when her highness bothers to post Ansche Chung) on the boards long enough to know that even though I disagree with most of your stances expecially those on land rights your intelligent enough to know what xenophobia. I defined it because it makes it so much easier not having to deal with followups and flames from people who don't know what it means or think I'm mis-defining it.


And for those of you who I'm sure will decry my 2 violations of forum rules I think I have a fairly good argument that A) having civility rule makes sense but having a no cursing rule when everyone in the forum (ok everyone who is honest about their age) is over 18 is bullshit and B) Ansche Chung and to a lesser extent Mr's (I assume) Laws and Flagstaff have willingly made themselves public figures though if they were to request it I would remove their names immediately from the posts as a matter of courtesy and respect.

Honestly, I don't care if someone insults me, I'm not a baby who runs to the internet police. Its the tone in which it is said, you're fine.

Second it is -not- a strawman argument. We pay for the land. You don't. It really IS that simple.

You want special access? Make a deal with the landowner.

The strawman argument is saying you have right of passage.

I think we all understand that the space that we pay Linden Labs for is just a space on a hard drive and not real land. I really do.
But that doesn't negate the argument that we ARE paying for that space (albeit just space for entries on a hard drive). We are paying for the service and part of that service is that we are allowed to stop people from wandering all over the virtual area (which is only entries in a database somewhere or whatever... you know what? Throwing out bullshit semantics games, I'm just gonna say that when I refer to SL land, it can be assumed that I am talking about the series of entries in the yadda yadda blah blah blah. I think we all mean that when we say land in reference to SL...).

For me, I'm more against the suggestion that the agreement that I have with Linden Labs, that I pay Linden Labs for, which allows me to stop people from using the virtual area that I pay them for, should be changed, that I should be inconvenienced, that I should lose some of the abilities that I have in this entertainment, so that anyone at all can use my stuff (and when I say stuff, I mean the database god, I'm sick of defining that... )

It's NOT a straw man, it's a very valid argument against this proposal, which is a bullshit proposal, period.


ETA:

Oh, and Xenophobia? Yeah. That's not what it means. I know it might look like that and we could play some more semantics games, but an aversion to people being able to use a service you pay for is a) not a fear and b) certainly not a fear of foreigners.

*waits for the "But it says strangers, too" argument to crop up.

Phohhhhhhh-bia. Phobia. Means a fear of. Xeno. Means different.
That's not what were talking about.
You're incorrect, suh.

Personally I dislike ban lines, but the owner has the right to prevent access whether they are there or not.

There are plenty of open spaces in SL that you can walk around, in fact they welcome you, they want you there.

I manage about 35,000 sqm of land in SL, most of it is parkland or to become parkland, anyone is welcome to use the facilities on this land, but walk in my house uninvited (when it's finished) and you will be ejected, do it a second time, and you will be banned.

It's not just a privacy issue, at times I have half finished projects lying around, things I don't really want out there until they are finished, or perhaps I don't want you playing with my PPV tv, or anything else that I have bought.

At my old house people used to ask to have a look around and most of the time I would invite them in, that is the way it should work IMHO. (and if people respected homes as homes in SL I suspect there would be a lot less ban lines)

I say let this idea die, if people wanted you on their land, they wouldnt have ban lines up.

I think many banned parcels are the result of owner ignorance, not motivated by any actual "need" for access restrictions. Here's my hypothetical newbie after purchasing a parcel:Of course, the intuition fails because by default, no one can mess with your stuff.

The "ban lines" were added at a time when there weren't push restrictions, or "create object", "object entry", "run script" permission categories or even "freeze and eject" actions. Parcel bans were a first stab at mitigating griefers and the effects they could have on you or your parcel. Ban lines didn't live up to expectations and so the finer grained access control was added. To my eye, ban lines are a ineffective legacy feature that cause more issues than they ever solved. Unfortunately, I do not see LL removing that feature regardless of the community desires for no other reason than it would require work that they'd rather apply elsewhere.

There is much talk in this thread about "rights". Rights are fictional constructs of social compact. My "right" to walk across the mainland is no more or less real than my "right" to keep everyone off my parcel which is as fictional as my real world right to keep tresspassers off "my" property.

Then again, I'm living in a country where gated communities are becomming ever more popular. As yet, we've not reached the South African habit of 4m high, razor-wire topped walls around all private homes (those too prove ineffective when burglars drive trucks through them).

Oh well.

Actually, your "right" to walk across the mainland IS less than your "right" to keep everyone off your parcel, because there is an agreement already existing, stating that you may keep people off your property (even though that property is just database harddrive entries yadda yadda yawnyawnyawn). There is no agreement saying that you can't, which is effectively what the OP wants... for LL to say that people can't have access restrictions. This, to me, is just plain wrong and smacks of presumption and entitlement.

I know it's never going to happen but an easy solution to all this would be to (hopefully after fixing some serious stability issues) figure out a middle ground like one of the more sane middle ground options like some of the invisibility or teleport ideas but that isn't going to happen, neither is another good solution which would be incentives to have landowners either own land that they'd keep as open space or have cleanup privs on the land to prevent trash build up and get a stipend or whatever for doing so as long as it remained open space.

If anyone sees a pig fly let me know

I originally wasn't going to respond to this since it has all the appearances of a meager attempt to draw me into a flame war but on the subject of the definition take another look, it is an unreasonable fear or hatred (and I know hatred is an expansion on the typical meaning of the suffix phobia) and in this case it is the hatred of a foreign concept that would upset the status quo of the landowner class.

The comparison between SL land and RL land breaks down almost immediately due to the dynamic of access controls in SL (access controls, ban list, security orbs) vs legal access controls in RL (trespassing, littering, public indecency laws). First of all while both are paid for with real life currency you'd never walk into a random person's house in real life and have sex on their bed however in Second Life there is a class between those who see land as only a virtual construct and landowner rights as a tempest in a bottle versus those who see Second Life land as a real commodity and equate privacy on their land to my previous analogy of walking into a stranger's house.

Access controls not only act as an anti griefing tool but they are the only incentive to own land on the main land as removing them as many who have posted here would do except for bans against specific people after they've caused problems would undoubtedly cause chaos because of massive griefer attacks but would also remove any reason for anyone who values using their land for something meaningful to buy mainland land and would drive any serious landowners out which I think most people would agree would exacerbate the already rampant main land problems.

I think the reason why people do stupid stuff in a virtual world that they'd never do in real life other than possibly because they can get away with it with essentially no problem in SL other than a land ban or an AR that will never be acted on so there is currently no reason other than their own morals and reasoning. Also even if someone were to follow real life social norms social norms vary from country to country and while I do not have the exact numbers I know that a fair number of residents are now from european countries so who's to say that what's normal in say England or Belgium when it comes to social norms should be forced on people in San Francisco or New York or visa versa. This of course would be assuming that social norms effect how we act in Second Life which from what I've seen in my residency in SL has not entirely convinced me.

Thsi relates to access controls in the fact that if everyone had an agreed upon natural or artificial ruleset of norms that they followed then we'd never have these issues assuming that the norms stressed what norms stressed such as privacy and security but also not interfering with legitimate actions of others just as an example, the complication this of course would cause is that there is no real way to get people to accept a solution broadly enough to do it not to mention getting a group of people to agree on what norms are what and how to deal with conflicting norms.

I think I got my general facts straight but let me know if I screwed something up in the basic facts.

Speak for yourself.

But seriously, if people want to boink or even hang out on my parcel when I'm not there, they certainly cause no harm to me. If I happen to log in and find others in flagrante, I have the option of being amused (I personally don't get sexxorz), or ejecting them.

I'm sure this is old school (old SL) mentality from when there were no such restrictions, and people would respond politely to "would you kindly leave my house?" Oh brave new world!

You do make a good point about "agreed social norms" which simply won't happen in today's SL without programatic enforcement. And I do see the merit of the claim above that there is a de facto social compact because ban lines do exist. However, SL is still very much an experiment in how people do interact in a virtual world, and the rules ought be more plastic than they are. But I do fear I am rambling on a subject that is quite moot.

I believe the old school enforcement method when you caught someone doing lude acts on your bed was a shotgun and the statement "get the hell away from my daughter"

Don't think so. I'm only 6 monthes old and here is what a visitor may read if he clicks on my online status on my virtual desk in my virtual "home":

« Feel free to come, sit, rest, inspect objects, even to rez some prims if you need. I just ask you not to bother me if I'm building or scripting. »

Knowing that I can return objects, eject or ban griefers is enough to me. Nobody can break, damage, move, loose, steal things. And nobody except me can push the red button rebooting my computer network or loosing data.