Another Vote on the Ban Lines

Well now that you have increased the size of the barrier to 200 meters, people who are flying over the land will have a lot harder time exploring Second Life. Not everyone is out to grief the land and when you are flying over the land, sometimes you are over restricted territory before you know it and you crash and when you return your vehicle is stuck in the restricted land and you are unable to get your vehicle back Especially with the 200 meter barrier now.. Worst some land owners will deleat the helicopter just out of spite. And the Barrier is not just 200 meters for bans but for Access also.. Now, if everyone made their land access only, what will people who like flying and exploring Second Life going to do....

What happened to promoting exploring and flying around siteseeing Second Life?

Another case where Linden Labs caved to the vocial Minority.

Why did linden labs made the ban limit change without any announcement before the upgrade?
Why was it introduced only just before the upgrade? (it wasn't in the 1.10.4.3 release notes and was added in the 1.10.4.4 release notes, release just before the opening).

This change make it quite impossible to fly around if there are parcel with restricted access, even if all the buildings are low. Remember that you can't fly much above 200 m and if the ground level is, suppose, 50m it's impossible to fly above a restricted parcel without some sort of veicle.

I'm really disappointed about this change, expecially considering the way it has been introduced.
May be this is a consequence of the griefer activity improvement after caused by the removal of credit card check, but the solution is even worse than the problem.

It seems to me that linden labs isn't thinking of consequences of their actions.
They make a change, it cause a problem (one that was ease to predict), they make another change trying to fix the problem and this cause another problem....

Please, take time to think about change. Ask the community to comment before making such changes.

This change made impossible to me to move around a parcel I own.
I think I'll abandon it (who will ever buy a parcel with so may "red lines" around it) and downgrade my account.

Raffaele Pirandello

P.S.
Posted also in the feature feedback forum to get comments from other users.
/142/b3/115484/1.html#post1103457

P.P.S.
Also a feature proposal: http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1520

This is probably more a question for Kelly, but if another Linden has an answer to my question, awesome!

I'm guessing that flipping the ban height from 15 meters to 200 meters was a fairly simple change from a development perspective.

Personally, I think this change is a step in the right direction, and long overdue - so kudos on that!

However, many folks have expressed some very legitimate concerns regarding the fundamental differences between Privacy Barriers (whitelist), and Named Avatar Bans (blacklist).

Speaking strictly from a development perspective, how much more difficult would it be to leave the old ban height for Privacy Barriers, but utilize the new & improved 200m ban height limit for Named Avatar Bans.

I think folks are beginning to ask for something like this already. It would be very helpful both from a discussion & expectations standpoint for us to understand just how much effort from Linden would have to go into a change like this.

If this is a relatively feasible request - it might be a method of compromise between those who wish to travel & explore freely around the grid... and those who need better tools to help keep the griefers at bay.

Additionally, as a side question - is the 50-avatar limit on named bans a database limit, or an arbitrary value that was imposed? Is it realistic to remove that cap & make that number completely arbitrary, considering that the majority of parcels barely approach the max today - yet griefing 'hotspots' hit the ceiling rather quickly?

Thanks in advance for your answers!

The ban height itself is a good change, but there has been alot of complaints on it. I just wanted to clarify after having to wade through a whole slew of the complaints on the issue, that the problem is *NOT* with named ban

No one in threads like this:

/108/83/115258/3.html

seems upset or in any way unduly inconvenienced with people on named ban lists, the problem is that currently, 'ban' listing and 'restricted access' listing seem to be using the exact same function calls/code routines...

And while banning by name becoming effective is remianing more or less undisputed, the idea that all restricted access parecls out there, suddenly become massive walls is probably not that cool..

I think what people really want is just the seperation of these two systems, which makes sense, as they are based on different intent.

In a 'named ban' scenario, a property owner is specifically and directly trying to keep an individual they have had problems with off their land, in a 'restricted access' scenario, its more like the person who owns the parcel is just trying to get some privacy.

The imperatives and immediate needs of the two different scenarios would really be best served by different branches of code.

The short end of it is 'ban height' changes are being attacked, by people who honestly have no problem with banning named people, floor to cieling, but rather want free passage over 'restricted access' lands... and thats kind of silly, we shouldn't be *opposed* at all really...

There is no reason why banning someone attcking a social area, effectively, needs to be directly at odds with someone else wanting to fly their airplane around on the mainland some, but who has never cause anyone any trouble.

So what im asking is, Are there any plans to schism apart the 'ban' of the SL client into seperate scenarios, for ban by name, vs just general restricted access? If there aren't, there probably should be...

As they are both very valid debates, and tying them together seems like its causing problems and conflicts that just shouldn't be there.

Since it's degenerating into name-calling on the General Topics thread on this....

The 200m height on the white list massively damages the SL experience IMO. Residents have a right to privacy, and to be protected from griefers; but with this level of obstruction in dense areas, First Land tracts especially, you might as well take flying away and make us walk (or teleport) everywhere.

Something needed to be done, no doubt, but this is way too much something.

-DJ

Aha, more ban lines inquiries! I've merged these all for our easy retrieval--would not want to miss out on them. And other SL Answers schtuff I hope to be back later to take care of, this RSI is eating my hands up and I've still got 3rd Bday todos inworld!

(We've got Residents of all ages posting here, that's wonderful.)

Inshort, clearing confusion:

1. This change appears to be sudden if you haven't in Second Life for a long time, but it's been a frequent (and pained) concern from Resis who've felt at the mercy of griefers, and have expressed many wishes for more mainland parcel tools. This is a solid step. If you wish to learn more, just ask Michi Lumin. She knows.
   

1. The limit for unassisted flight above terrain mesh is actually around 150 m, not 50 m.
   

1. Linden discussions about discrete whitelist/blacklist "NO ENTRY" heights are already taking place. POPULAR thoughtline in the forums, raised by many Residents inworld too. We're on it.
   

And as for the technical details, of course I'm going to ask for Kelly's expertise