No-fly zones are killing the fun

Sim boarders ... for real that needs to go back to how it used to be or at least some semblence of connected cohesion that SL used to have...if you make a proposal ill vote on that one.

I think that when someone sets banlines he or she should be able to see them, at least on log-in. That would stop the accidental eternal banlines, at least. Same about the red minimap - if that comes about the owner should see it the way others do.

lets push the debate to private sims. I would be very interested to have extended controls over avatars that teleport in my sim (after all , you are there, you abide to the rules right?)

Could it be possible to add to estate owner full scripted control over visitors of the sim ?(excepted their personal assets and the right to tp away of course)

There should be some way and option or something to set up so you can see ban lines on the mini-map I have it open all the time for navigation purposes when I fly. Some places are really odd in thier application of banlines too. When I was a newbie I would always fly out of Abbots and in 3 out of 4 flights I would hit the same ban lines on this place in immaculate sim. This banned area is maybe 30x 100 yards so tiny and quite annoying. Only reason I bring this up was I hit the same place last night as was shot offworld in a crash loop. My fault really but on the places you dont know. Maybe turnup the alpha or something on the banlines so you can see it at a farther distance?

In other words, the illusion of privacy. A peeping tom who's quiet is still a peeping tom.

They wouldn't be a very good peeper if it was otherwise

The effectiveness of banlines or anything else like that is a poot point and shouldn't be part of this argument. It's a whole different thing. Important? Probably.
But it's not an argument for taking away landowners abilities or breaking the agreement.

The ineffectiveness of banlines doesn't mean that we shouldn't be allowed to have them.

It's a legitimate point in the debate.

In the absence of other factors, no, but it is relevant.

There's no "rights" involved, no agreement to break. There's nothing in the TOS about rights, nor guaranteeing access controls to landowners. Access controls on land are a feature, they have a certain value to landowners, they have costs to other people (including other landowners). Framing the discussion in terms of rights and refusing to quantify the valie of these features is a great way to derail the conversation but it doesn't actually produce anything of value.

The questions should be:

1. What are the features actually worth.
2. What are the features costing.
3. What could be done to increas etheir value?
4. What could be done to reduce their cost?

Given how inflexible and restricted the design is, it shouldn't be at all hard to come up with changes that simultaneously reduce their cost and increase their value. Unfortunately these proposals get buried in the pointless "rights" discussion.

Ok, if that's the case, you should be able to do whatever you want to tresspassers. A friend of mine tp'd home to find 2 people in her bed and had the nerve to ask her how did she find that place. then you have those who just go up to your house and walk in. So, if SL changes that, they need to put in TOS that if you tresspass on someone's property (since you spend lindens that cost "real" money), you may be subjected to getting shot, orbited, or any other unpleasant actions and owners are not responsible and can not be reported.

Now, if they do that, I'm all for it.

Turn off the safety on your land. A little heart signal lights up on the top of the screen. LL says this in its community standards....
'Most areas in Second Life are identified as Safe. Assault in Second Life means: shooting, pushing, or shoving another Resident in a Safe Area'
You gave them fair warning by turning your safeties off , yet they are still screwing around in YOUR bed?
Grab your shotgun and indulge yourself.
Blow an innocent balloonist out of the sky just cus hes siteseeing from point A to point B and doesnt have the time to get through your unsafe zone which he wasnt aware of to begin with? A different concept that needs to be fixed somehow to the mutual satisfaction of all involved.

Ok, here is a solution to the problem, why not make 150m-200m a free fly zone? That should protect homeowners and skybox users. This may cause a problem for those using towers and skyscrapers, but they could use a security orb which warns you.

So could skyboxes in the area.

That used to exist. It was taken away some time ago.

I like to fly around and explore, but multitudes of unmarked "No Entry" zones are making it more and more difficult. Add to that ones that give about 2 seconds warning.

I want my money!

You’ve ignored my last 15-20 support tickets!

I WANT MY MONEY!

-Ben

Heh. You and me both. Give it up. They hide behind TOS.

There's really no argument here.

People can put up restricted access lines if they want. They're not wrong. They can do so if they choose.

Unsociable? <insert adjective such as 'morally'> wrong? Rude? Maybe.
LL *should* create reserved fly, vehicle, and passage space? Maybe.

I find ban lines annoying sometimes too. I've had neighbors lock me in with theirs, so I'd have to fly high to access my land, which was in a corner.

But anyone has a right to use the tools LL provided, like the restricted lines. What's the question here?

Well, the problem has been solved the problem in both of my neighborhoods. I sent an instant message to the landowners surrounding me asking if it'd be possible to have fly through access, and within two days all but one owner* cleared the access.
On one property, it was totally my fault! When I bought the land, I had unknowingly blocked everyone from it (you can't see your own red lines and being new, I didn't have any friends to tell me it was there!), and they assumed I was a creep so they blocked me from theirs! Now we're all wide open and everybody's happy.
On the second property, the surrounding owners had had a tiff with the former owner of my property and vice-versa, so everyone had been retaliating. I think it had started with one of them putting up a sky ad, which annoyed one neighbor, who blocked his, and that had a snowball effect through the area. This made matters worse since apparently, property values drop when they are surrounded by blocked properties, which is why I could afford to buy it in the first place. Everything is cool now. Even the original owner of my property is happy now. I felt bad for benefitting from the situation so made a hefty donation to her favorite charity.

You may fly over my place at any time.


However, I reserve the right to open fire with these shiny AA guns I found. Thank you for flying. Have a nice day.

If your aircraft is "wearable" and you fly above 800m you don't get any problems with ban walls, full parcles and object entry. I edited my freebie C-Tech plane so I could wear it, and made a notecard with all sitting anims for my zhao. I have flowen all over SL with it and have had "almost" no problems at all.

I hope you all plan on being verified flyers

Not that it'll do much on land where the owner cannot verify their age and sets up banlines to protect them from LLs new policy that we are 100% resposible for anything that happens on our land.

Soooo flying OVER an ADULT prop is gonna bounce us off that now????? CRIPES! Like we need some more hassles to air travel. " WELL NO, I DONT WANT TO VERIFY MY AGE SO I CAN VISIT THE WHOREHOUSES, I JUST WANNA FLY!!!!!"

*growls* I live on a hill above 200 metter that deffently wouldn't work

I do just that. Even upped it to 8 seconds since I was told that was the guideline.

But honestly, it comes down to those prims count agaisnt me. Anyone moves a giant ship onto my land, expect it returned without any question or warning.

How about if banlines use had a surcharge (if that's the right word) applied to the avitar turning it on? Linden labs could tinker with the banline surcharge price until the spider web across the mainlands leveled off at around 5 percent.