We're getting some "slippery" replies here on the new ban height.
I believe some folks who are posting these protests do not realize that "access lists" and "ban lists" are two separate things. Perhaps they have not owned land, and do not realize that the 'access list' is different from the 'ban list'.
For one: I do not think there is ANY reason that an INDIVIDUAL, EXPLICIT ban should be ANYTHING lower than 200m. Ever.
However, **access lists**, i.e. "whitelists", this /could/ be seen as an issue. I honestly am not putting forth an opinion on access lists - because I don't use them, nor am I sure what the answer should be. (Maybe 'no access' should really mean 'no access'..) --
My point is just that there should NOT be a compromise on *explicitly banned individuals*.
I'm posting this to let others know that these are two different things, and to remind Linden to consider it when looking at all of this.
The answer is decoupling, not throwing out the whole change alltogether.
The change to 200m for *explicitly banned individuals* can do nothing but good. I can't think of a single valid protest where an 'absolute' ban should not be applied to *individual, explicitly banned avatars".
Please realize that folks are mostly complaining about *access lists* where "everyone is banned but one person". This is a different category alltogether.