|
|
|
[
Permlink
| « Hide
]
Phoenix Linden added a comment - 30/May/08 08:56 AM
Can you comment on this please?
No, Phoenix was assigning to me and asking for a comment.
It sounds like there is a problem here but ATM it is unclear to me what the exact solution is, mostly because I find it unpalatable that parcel owners get infinite ban rights – I think that very high altitudes should be open-fly zones, but am aware that not everyone agrees with me. That said, since the objects anyone creates at any height count against that parcel's prim count then banned Residents should not be able to create or move objects onto those parcels. I'll ask other LL colleagues to see how they think the feature set should work, and I'll also try to raise the issue in my office hours on Tuesday to measure the opinions of some Residents. So my understanding is that this is a well known issue. Should we move this to SVC?
Yes, I don' t think this needs SEC obscurity, so let's move it to SVC.
I'm only referring to explicit bans where the avatar is specifically added to to the parcel ban list. Since one can obtain any number of security systems that extend the parcel owner controls above the ban line or they can manually eject the avatar, I'm okay with not extending the ban lines provided that a banned avatar has no ability to create objects and that parcel permissions are denied to banned avatars with the exception of flight. For example, if a griefing avatar flies a spam cube over a banned parcel and stands up, than his object would be immediately returned even if the auto return was 0.
The same should apply to object entry and running scripts; a banned avatar should not be able to create, send objects in, or run scripts (with the current vehicle rule exception) regardless of the parcel permissions. In fact, if such a policy was enforced with the addition of disallowing chat over a banned area, you could replace the existing ugly ban line wall system which is now inconsistent. The 800m ban height limit was based on the Havok1 build limit of 768m. Under Havok4, the 800m limit is purely arbitrary and will become more of an issue as more residents make use of the extra altitude. You're referring to EXPLICIT bans, not IMPLICIT bans.
Implicit bans might include: Explicit bans are those bans that you (or a scripted object owned by you) have placed on an specific avatar. On mainland, I can understand the advantages of making airspace above some altitude accessible to all high-altitude explorers. However, if I'm paying for a private estate and I want to carve out a little parcel of land and live above it in isolation at 3000m, I want complete control of that parcel's airspace. If an obnoxious griefer can simply return in a vehicle and buzz me at will, then my only recourses are to eject him every time, install scripted security devices at every 192m altitude increment (twice the max sensor range), or ban him from the entire estate. If those options are not practical or desirable for whatever reasons, then the griefer will have prevailed, forcing me to hide within protected airspace under 800m. For US$295/month per region, I shouldn't have to retreat.
For the best of all possible worlds, I'd like to see an option to allow estate managers to set the explicit ban height across an estate. The default could be 800m to match that of mainland, with an option to specify any altitude up to the 4096m rez/physics limit. Estate managers could then decide if their estate will have common airspace or not, and at what altitude. (This would mean that the drawing of the ban lines couldn't be based on a hard-coded altitude in the client; that altitude would need to be communicated from sim to client.) Corrected from implicit to explicit
I did a little testing and it appears that the actual extent of an explicit ban at present is 768m Above Ground Level, not a constant 800m.
I think 4096m is the minimum height to which these explicit bans should extend. Usually somebody on an explicit banlist has done something Very Bad to the landowner, and shouldn't really be allowed anywhere over that parcel. But if there must be a "free pass" height, it's difficult to see what valid difference it could make to the banned individual whether they have to be at 768m AGL or 4096m. They're nowhere near drawing distance to the ground anyway. About the only reason they'd need access specifically to the space between 768 AGL and 4096 is to grief, stalk, and spy on the landowner's sky builds--which hardly seems an advantage. If the previous ban extended to the build height, I see no reason why it shouldn't do so under Havok4, too. Parcel owners are used to the understanding that banning somebody means banning them from the generally available volume of the parcel. Not upping the ban height to match the build height is effectively an under-the-radar change of how bans are working.
Maybe a trade off can be made here. Get rid of the fairly useless implicit ban function and focus on making the explicit ban iron clad to prevent designated avatars from crossing the banned area at any altitude, leaving objects, and running scripts. Even better, to make it so the banned avatar only see's a blank void and is prevented from spying as well.
@davie, this is not relevant to private estate, you can ban the individual from every estate you own, this is a Mainland problem.
@Mercia, If an estate-wide ban is not desirable for some reason, then I believe this issue is relevant as it affects what can be done at the parcel level. The description, as written, proposes parcel policy for all regions, mainland and private.
Davie has a point, as parcel bans on estates are treated similarly to parcel bans on the mainland. One example of a situation in which a parcel ban might be necessary where an estate ban might be inappropriate would be for a situation in which there is a general disagreement between two land owners on an estate, and the estate owner/manager has asked them to please peacefully settle it by banning each other from their respective parcels.
Also, because an estate can encompass several regions, there can be potentially a large number of parcels inside of an estate. I own a small parcel of commercial land where I have a shop that is on such an estate. It would not be practical for me to have to IM an Estate Manager every time that I have to ban an individual from my parcel (granted, this is very rare that I have to do such a thing), and if every parcel owner on every region within the estate had to do so, it would be a logistical nightmare. Allowing individual land owners to manage their own ban lists is clearly the best option, all that needs to be done is to increase the explicit ban height so that such a ban is effective. Davie's suggestion actually has some advantages also if applied to implicit ban limits as well, at least where private estates are involved. I know of a number of private estates that require, as part of the covenant, that land owners must not restrict access to their parcels from the general public (although explicit banning is still allowed). Usually these estates do this so allow open sailing/flying/driving, but sometimes it is merely to avoid the aesthetic issues related to red ban lines. In these situations, the use of security devices is often allowed with stated limitations. Allowing an Estate Owner/Manager to set heights for implicit and explicit ban lines would permit owners to restrict access while still allowing open skies. Allowing implicit and explicit ban heights to be set separately would allow for these estates to have the best of both worlds, low implicit ban heights to keep the sim open, and high explicit ban heights to prevent people who have been banned from a specific parcel from being able to enter that parcel. That being said, this ticket is set to address the main issue of ban height in general, and MarkByron is definitely correct on this issue. If I explicitly ban an individual from my land, I would expect that the individual would not be able to come back onto my parcel. As the usable part of my parcel now extends up to 4096m, I would expect that banning an individual would also extend to that height. Incidentally, if you have the UUID key of the offending individual, placing sensors every 192m is not necessary. The following script, placed into a single object anywhere on your property (and deeded to group if the land is group-owned) should work: key badguy = <insert the banned individual's UUID key here> state_entry() llSetTimerEvent(1.0); timer() if(llGetListLength(details) > 0) if(llGetLandOwnerAt(pos) == llGetOwner()) { llTeleportAgentHome(badguy); }} } } Note that this is just a quick and dirty script written on the fly, I'm sure there's a much simpler method. In any event, the advantage of this is that you would only need to have a single script on your land instead of being limited to sensor range. Andrew, Do you find it 'palatable' that griefers can now drop limitless goatse.cx particle bombs on us incessantly from 810m?
I guess we wouldn't want to infringe on those airspace rights. This reminds me of back in 2004 when we had to pull teeth to get Linden Lab to raise the ban height on the mainland from 40m above ground level. Do we have to have all of those arguments again? Nothing has changed here except now people These are the same arguments we heard back then, that basically there are tons of implicitly banned people who deserve and need the rights to fly their vehicles over the parcel they're banned from. Ridiculous. The only reason implicitly banned people come back to the parcel they're banned from is to cause trouble. You guys (LL) don't deal with this day in and day out. You don't deal with trying to welcome newbies to your area while it's raining pictures that are so disgusting that it causes nausea. Back in 2004 we had a 'symbolic' ban height, the 40-or-so-meters, and all the same arguments were launched by Linden Lab, "In real life, you don't own the airspace above your house..." ... In real life, you can't fly. In real life you can't create matter from nowhere while you're flying above someone's house and drop it on them. I just can't believe we're going through this entire argument all over again. If build and script ability has gone to 4096, implicit bans should as well. Period. Right now, there is a "griefer amnesty zone" over 768m, and they ALL KNOW IT, and they ALL USE IT. I don't see why LL is defending those rights in spite of the folks who have to live here every day and try to keep a cohesive community going. And FYI, our "parcel" on the mainland is about three sims contiguous. So I'm also tired of people saying that the mainland should remain fully griefable because of the "choice we made" or something — we put this together before private islands existed, thank you, and paid just as much if not more for this land over the years. The ban height matched the build height before. There was no amnesty zone. Now, there is. And it's causing problems. To think that the plight of "avatars implicitly banned from a parcel are having their rights infringed upon by not being able to build over that parcel" is just absurd. Parcel owners shouldn't have limitless ban powers, I suppose, but I guess banned avatars should have limitless griefing powers. That sounds fair. When they decide to use this 'zone', there is NOTHING we can do about it. We have to just sit there and take it. I don't understand why Linden Lab thinks this is a better option. @Andrew Linden
I rent server space from linden labs. The server space is delivered in the form of 3 regions. I have the right to block someone's access to the server space if that person is deliberatly disrupting the normal operation of the server space. This is a very basic function of any internet server. 1) Mainland parces set for no-public-access should have a height limit on the ban lines to permit people to fly over them in their jets. 2) Banning someone by NAME should remove their ability to be over your parcel of land, full stop! 3) Private estates should not have the height limit on ban lines from point (1). 4) Banning someone by name should have no exceptions at all. The banned person should have no ability to be over the land. Anything less is substandard service on protecting server space. Darling (pre-morning coffee) Brody I think the current ban height is sufficient and should not be changed.
Also, I would propose that anyone who has to put up ban lines, should have to look at them, too, like the rest of us. ban lines on private regions need to be unlimited height, or at least configurable through estate tools. If you cant ban someone from the region you cant protect the region. Sim crashers are all script based objects that do not need to rez these days. if someone can get into your region they can crash it.
For systems like BanLink you need these ban lines to be unlimited to correctly remove the griefers. Darling Brody FYI Folks - I'll be importing this tomorrow when Pjira/Ljira are done with some tweaks. Thanks for your patience.
Chaz, please remember that we are talking about explicit bans here, those are bans on specific individuals placed on the banlist of a parcel or estate. This is not intended to affect implicit bans, such as restricted access. The implicit bans are what most people refer to when they talk about "ban lines," and those are limited to 300m so that they do not interfere with the ability of other residents to fly through.
However, explicit ban lines are a different thing entirely. We're talking about situations in which a specific individual has been banned from a parcel or estate. Often, this is because specific individuals have harassed the owners or residents on the parcel or estate. The ability to explicitly ban is essential to keeping SL peaceful. Agreed, please, please, please, lets focus on Explicit bans only... Speaking as someone who used to live on the mainland on a 512 plot, with access restricted parcels on three sides... Implicit bans are plenty strict already. Had the person on my one open side decided to restrict access to their plot, and had implicit bans gone all the way up... I would have been unable to enter or leave my own land except by teleport. Thats just silly.
TL,DR version: Explicit bans should cover everything, Implicit however can't be used to block traffic. The problem with having the explicit ban height being infinite is what to stop a landowner from griefing by placing security orbs at 96m, 192m, 384m, etc.... and setting it to ban everyone who comes nearby explicitly via the parcel ban list? Especially on strategically shaped and sized parcels in a region you could essentially build a virtual giant brick wall that wouldn't let anyone through.
Granted it's already possible to auto eject people this way with security orbs but banning is limited by height and abuse of security orbs is discouraged by the fact that setting them to be too parnoid is an ARable offense. Unless a TOS or technical change were put into effect to stop people from brick walling their parcel indiscriminately to everyone to an infinite height then this could/would become a new griefing tool on the mainland and would be a big mistake. Edit: The exact numbers I used aren't correct, you wouldn't have to start at 96m, you could implicitly ban everyone then start at the end of that +96m with orbs to explicitly ban people above that. I think that the preference should be for aiming to preserve landowner rights. Also, the scenario that you lay out, Gordon, would have been possible in the pre-H4 setup as well. All that this ticket is asking for is to update the explicit ban height to the max built altitude, just as it was at the max build altitude under H1.
Jahar, I agree in terms of landowner rights but there has to be a line and allowing someone to unscrupulously hold all traffic hostage just because they feel like it I think crosses the line. As to this being possible now, your right it is but not using parcel ban lists above 800m and not without risking an AR if you start ejecting people with no notice. My point is that it is not possible currently to stop someone completely if they're above 800m.
There's several problems with the scenario that Gorden came up:
First, you can't ban everybody because you're limited to 300 in the list. Second, if somebody went to the extraordinary task to build a staircase of security orbs spaced 192 meters apart from the ground to 4096 meters, they could just as well use those security orbs to teleport people trespassers away. While a security orb is scripted, a legitimate one uses the authorized owner land functions to teleport unwanted visitors away, and there's no abuse in using land owner function to ensure one's privacy. If scripted weapons are used, that might be an AR offense but if the parcel is set to damage and the land owner uses weapon turrets with prim bullets set to damage, one might be hard press to prove abuse. Third, since most avatars flying over the mainland are going to fly at a low level sufficient to see the ground below them (below 512m max draw distance), the imaginary ban happy griefer can today still ban 300 avatars up to a sufficient altitude (768m) to disrupt most innocent flyovers. Of course, the determined and no so innocent banned avatar can take advantage of the current lapse in ban altitude and start griefing the land owner at high altitudes as described in this JIRA. Fourth, even if the ban altitude is raised to 4096m, the banned avatar can still fly over the parcel (above 4096m) minus sitting on any object that they could maliciously drop on the banned parcel. Easier yet, they can go around the parcel or use the map teleport to teleport within the sim. Last, if somebody indiscriminately bans people (esp his neighbors) using the land ban or other means, they can return the favor and it will be far worse for him since he'll be facing a multitude of ban lines that might surround his entire parcel. That applies today under the current limits and would still apply if the limits are raised. The other thing to remember is that even in the rare situation that Gordon's scenario would occur, and let's be realistic here, it's a very rare possibility...it's still not a major problem. If someone really doesn't want me on their land, there's ultimately not much I can do about it. Likely their neigbors will all return the favor if they're really causing problems.
However, the problems that this ticket seeks to fix are both common and very serious. If I ban someone from my land, especially land where I have a store, I expect that they will be banned. I would expect that this person will not be able to fly up to 800m and cause trouble. Think of how many people have skybox testing pads above their stores, for example. It is imperative that Linden Lab grant their paying customers the proper land tools. The ability to ban is an essential part of these tools. First of all your right, the situation I described is pretty far out there and extreme and is rare From reading the comments it seems like the issue isn't so much having a higher ceiling for privacy and more about people being able to drop griefer objects on other people. Admittedly the privacy issue is still a big issue especially since skyboxes are the only place to really get peace and quiet on the mainland but for the dropping issue I don't think that just raising the ban limit is the best way to fix it.
In my opinion, implicit bans for altitude should have a fly zone height range and that be it, say just above cloud level for 50m and then blocked access above that resumed.
For explicit bans I think defaulting to noscript/norez/safe should be for that range but still allow fly-over but only in that small range. It'd set a standard fly height and people wanting sky zones protected can simply skip that small area and continue a bit higher. Since its the same effective idea as the implicit you can add a simple checkbox on estate or land properties for a 'complete' block for all altitudes. @ Alexa Linden & Co Any news? Was it fixed, rejected, lost, forgotten, eaten by your pet dog? This was imported in Jan 2009. If it was approved it is a simple alteration to a constant. Any news? Saw this again when Darling's edit popped up on my list of jira changes. There'd still be some support for something like this by the people who are rabid (read paranoid) about their privacy but I think the main support for this would disappear if LL would just fix their utterly broken system of allowing full parcel permissions high in the sky. If a change were put in place to either apply all parcel permissions up to 4096, at which height it becomes irrelevant whether they're set or not, or to apply some other sane solution to the problem then it would be a better use of LL's time and be a much better solution with almost no downside (unless badly implemented) vs this proposal which has the potential to cause huge problems.
"...rabid (read paranoid)..."
It's neither rabid nor paranoia... we're still getting hit with this. Over and over. Like, just this week. I'll not attach screenshots as they aren't suitable for the pJIRA (nasty). This is a real issue, with a real impact on the real mainland for real folks paying real tier. Please leave the hyperbole and ad hominem out of this. Thanks. It is not about being rabid or paranoia, it is about the fact that you can not keep griefers out of private estates. With a region costing $295 per month in rent we have a RIGHT to block access to people who have caused deliberate problems. We are talking about explicit bans. that means when you add the name of someone to the land ban list. ie. banned-by-name We are NOT talking about implicit bans. that is when you mark your land as no-public-access. ie. all banned by default The difference is that we want to prevent someone who was banned-by-name from entering the parcel/region and being able to effect the parcel/region. For estate owners banning someone is not about petter desputes like the mainland, it is about preventing someone from crashing the region or launching replication weapons etc. If you do not own land Gordon then you do not understand the frustration at paying $295 a month for server space with a built in "exploit" capably of taking down your server space. Why wouldn't you estate ban someone that dangerous?
Darling, if you pay $295 a month for an estate, and we know you do, then as Harleen said you can just estate ban a person. When it comes to explicit parcel bans however the solution isn't an infinite height it is fixing the holes in how scripting and rezzing permissions are handled on properties both when you have access to the parcel or are implicitly banned and are explicitly banned and I know we're only talking about explicit bans with the main issue but when we're talking about fixing those holes the effect goes beyond explicit bans.
I suggest opening an additional JIRA that requests the script/rez perm settings effects to be raised to 4096. Well, to my knowledge that is already the case for rezzing, tho scripts still work fine above 80m or so. Link it to this JIRA.
As for Estate bans..yes, yes estate bans (as opposed to parcel bans) should still work region-wide, no matter the height the person tries to TP in. I agree tho that parcel bans should go all the way up in rezspace. @Gordon Wendt
The estate ban list only has 300 slots for names. So you can only ban 300 people. Parcels also have a similar limit to how many people can ben on the list. Parcel bans can be accessed via a scripted object, and also can have an expiration placed on the bans. Estate bans do not. This makes it possible to place a 30 day ban on someone which is long enough to discorage them from comming back, while allowing the ban to expire soon enough to avoid filling the 300 slots. However a parcel level bans against a person as not effective at stopping a griefer because the ban does not have infinate height. It is perfectly reasonable for an explicit ban to have unlimited height to prevent the person from being over your land at all! Part of the explicit ban is the inability for your objects to enter, touch objects over the land, run scripts etc. So when the explicit ban goes up higher, those restrictions will go with it. That is only sensable. Otherwise a griefer can just instruct a weapon to move up and over the ban lines before moving down again to harass someone on the restricted land. Gordon, do you jsut appose stuff because I think it's a good idea? What are your motives? Why is it so difficult to comprehend? The explicit ban limit was not designed to prevent overflight - it was designed to prevent the banned avatar from entering the rezzable area of the property owner to either harass the owner or rez objects for griefing purposes. Under Havok 1, that was 768m high, but since the rezzable area has been raised to 4096m under Havok 4, it's a no-brainer to raise the explicit ban limit accordingly. Fix it!
The explicit ban also prevents the banned person from interacting with your objects so they can not cause problems from outside the parcel. ie. touching/paying/etc
While the original idea was to stop then from building, there have been additions added over the years as griefers get more tricky. Right now I can rez objects way up at 1 millions meters above a parcel using little hacks viewer hacks. This is why I have suggested that an explicit ban should have no height limit at all. I do agree that a minumum of 4096 meters should have been automatic with havok4. Just like the llMapDestination cap should have been automaticly raised to 4096 in havok4, but it took about a year for that one. With the new parcel based script memory limits it will now be possible for people to teleport in above the limit and rez objects that eat up all your script time! Again I Say NO HEIGHT LIMIT ! Explicit bans are all about preventing someone from effecting your land after they have previously caused trouble. So lets lock them out properly, or not at all. I agree with Markbyron (the issue's reporter) and others that this issue should be only about getting the logical step taken of raising the limit for explicit bans up to 4096 and that the issue of rez,script, and other prims should be split off into another issue and the issue of raising explicit bans to infinite height should also be a seperate issue. If done smartly the former is a good idea and would get my vote but the latter is one I could never support because it is illogical.
How is an explicit ban with an infinate high illogical?
Remember that with custom viewers you can teleport to ANY height, and build at those heights without the objects being returned! Gordon, what is your motivation. From what I can see you are attempting to leave loopholes that griefers can use to bypass an explicit ban. Why? You are missing parts of my comments then darling Darling. I am openly in favor of fixing the issues with the height of build and other restrictions being capped way too low allowing griefers to fly up and drop objects on a parcel however I think it should be a seperate issue.
If I were the one doing this I'd split the current set of discussions into 3 feature proposals 1) This one which proposes to fix the height for explicit bans and make it 4096 2) A proposal to fix the flaws in no script and no build restrictions, one that does not include any proposal to tighten the scripting restirctions to use the words "all scripting" or the like. 3) A proposal to extend explicit bans up to infinite height. I support the first to although number 2 is tricky because similar issues have been hijacked by people who do not like the exception for AO's existing. I strongly oppose the third as I've stated before. I'd be willing to agree with Gordon's proposal there if it means that we can get this ticket, his #1 proposal, fixed soon (1.27 or 1.28), and then worry about the hair-splitting issues with the other stuff later. Let's fix the height for explicit bans and set it to 4096.
Markbyron put forth the best rationale, I think, in that this is simply a matter of extending the existing 768m ceiling to match the new 4096m ceiling that was created with the release of Havok4. At its heart, this is really just about fixing the explicit ban feature of the land tools so that it recognizes the new 4096m ceiling. As for the other issues that have been raised, give them their separate tickets. I don't honestly know how I feel about them, but they strike me as being very different and rather more difficult issues. Right now, I would prefer to just raise the explicit ban height from the H1 ceiling of 768m to match the "new" H4 ceiling of 4096m, as has been done with many other SL features since the release of H4 and the new 4096m ceiling. Why is this bug still open?
Doesn't it affect 1.27? 1.30? If it was resolved, then how? I don't see any comments from Linden's that explain what was changed, if at all, or is going to be changed. Updated for current server version
How about this:
'Leave explicit ban height at 768 or whatever. "
Bad idea! That means we can not remove griefers from our land. People like myself are paying $295 per region, per month. We have the RIGHT to deny access to someone who is deliberatly disrupting the normal operation of our region. Personal vendetta be dammed! We PAY FOR THE USE OF THE LAND we have a RIGHT to use it, and prevent those who abuse it from being over it. Prims are already assigned to land, and very soon CPU will be handed out on a per parcel basis too. Having someone over your land who can eat up the resources you have paid for is totaly unacceptable! Explicit bans must have infinate height. Impliced bands can have a heigh limit as they are for ground level privacy, with the designed ability to fly over them. I'm sorry, but Andrew is right. Giving you the ability to ban people up to infinity gives YOU the opportunity to grief THEM. People ban their neighbors all the time for trivial reasons. I myself had a neighbor ban me from her parcel and go absolutely bats**t because I asked her to leave me in peace. With my suggestion, no one will be able to drop spam cubes or anything else. It will get stopped at the top just like it's stopped at the edge today.
If you are really paying $295 a month and someone is a jerk, then just ban them from your estate. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Bug
Open
Critical
Explicit Ban Altitude of 800m Exploited Under Havok4 - Raise Explicit Ban Altitude from 800m to 4096m
