Squatters

[Aethelwine]

My tier doesn't go up if some one squats my land. The only thing that could be said to be taken from me is the few seconds it takes to return them.

People can set the permissions on their parcels however they want they can have their ban lines and they can have free rezz and no auto return. That is their right. But both are anti-social because of the impacts on their neighbours

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

4) Therefore, how is doing what the

permission

system

of that parcel allows using it "without permission"?

---

wooo! good question

this is a whole debate all in itself. As I see it, is 2 sides to this kinda debate:

1) online is a technical environment. When the technical environment doesn't prevent us from entering into a online property then is ok to enter. If the owner doesnt want us to enter then is incumbent on the owner to prevent us (lock the door)

2) online is a integral part of the RL and is indivisible from the RL. When a owner leaves their door open, then is not ok for us to take that as permission to enter

in this kinda debate I am totally for 2. Is the ethical position

not that I am a angel or anything. Is just that the 2nd is a ethical position and the 1st is not

---

Number 2 for sure. 

Alot of people get upset if people put up ban lines or security orbs that send you home or eject with little to no warning.  If they want to keep things open keep those "ugly" ban lines off, then they should respect people's rights regardless if the land is set to no rez or not.

If someone doesn't have a high fence around their property in RL, does that make it OK to build something there?  Of course not.  So why is it ok to squat in SL?

---

Is it okay to be an absentee landlord who doesn't maintain their property and allows it to become a public nuisance, as their sole interest in that property is to get their neighbors to pay an inflated price for it? How about if the absentee landlord doesn't actually have to pay a nickel to maintain this particular plot of land because it's free to them due to a loophole in the tax laws?

ETA - Interestingly enough, ban lines and security orbs won't prevent someone from building a house on your land if the permissions allow it, and "no public access" won't prevent someone from building a house and living in it above ban line height.

[Bobbie Faulds]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

My tier doesn't go up if some one squats my land. The only thing that could be said to be taken from me is the few seconds it takes to return them.

People can set the permissions on their parcels however they want they can have their ban lines and they can have free rezz and no auto return. That is their right. But both are anti-social because of the impacts on their neighbours

---

The person that actually owns the land next to mine doesn't have the no rezz or auto return on. As a result, griefers regularly find her place and some of fallout invades my land when it's particles. OTherwise, it's an eyesore 

https://gyazo.com/53ce0d3fcd638ae5b30cd7c2ca516d0f

https://gyazo.com/9429254a498546301a7b7a70a8985ab3

I have several shops on my land. One of those was also accompanied by a shouter yelling obsenities, so not very welcoming for my customers. LL removed the objects when I AR'd it but it was still an inconvenience. 

[wherorangi]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Is it okay to be an absentee landlord who doesn't maintain their property and allows it to become a public nuisance, as their sole interest in that property is to get their neighbors to pay an inflated price for it? How about if the absentee landlord doesn't actually have to pay a nickel to maintain this particular plot of land because it's free to them due to a loophole in the tax laws?

---

in the RL if the property thru neglect becomes a health safety issue the local body council will take steps to remedy this. They won't do anything if is just a eyesore. A private gated estate might do tho according to their covenant

in SL if the property becomes a health safety issue (meaning that sim performance is affected [or like Bobbie says is a greifing which is a health safety issue]) then LL will take steps to remedy this. They won't do anything if is just a eyesore. A private gated estate might do tho according to the covenant

eta; [greif]

[OzwellWayfarer]

I dont think its a big deal either way.

If you find you have squatters, it will take you just a few clicks to get rid of them. Autoreturn and ban. Simple.

And if the land is not being used even though it is being paid for, well isnt that a massive waste? Of the landowners money, of system resources and electricity?

If someone has enough money they can leave expensive virtual land unused for months on end.....why is it so objectionable that someone squats that land if they can? I dont see any real problem. Its not like RL where they can totally take ownership of your property. Even if they build a house on your virtual land, the landowner it still in total control of the sim environment. 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

4) Therefore, how is doing what the

permission

system

of that parcel allows using it "without permission"?

---

wooo! good question

this is a whole debate all in itself. As I see it, is 2 sides to this kinda debate:

1) online is a technical environment. When the technical environment doesn't prevent us from entering into a online property then is ok to enter. If the owner doesnt want us to enter then is incumbent on the owner to prevent us (lock the door)

2) online is a integral part of the RL and is indivisible from the RL. When a owner leaves their door open, then is not ok for us to take that as permission to enter

in this kinda debate I am totally for 2. Is the ethical position

not that I am a angel or anything. Is just that the 2nd is a ethical position and the 1st is not

---

Number 2 for sure. 

Alot of people get upset if people put up ban lines or security orbs that send you home or eject with little to no warning.  If they want to keep things open keep those "ugly" ban lines off, then they should respect people's rights regardless if the land is set to no rez or not.

If someone doesn't have a high fence around their property in RL, does that make it OK to build something there?  Of course not.  So why is it ok to squat in SL?

---

Is it okay to be an absentee landlord who doesn't maintain their property and allows it to become a public nuisance, as their sole interest in that property is to get their neighbors to pay an inflated price for it? How about if the absentee landlord doesn't actually have to pay a nickel to maintain this particular plot of land because it's free to them due to a loophole in the tax laws?

ETA - Interestingly enough, ban lines and security orbs won't prevent someone from building a house on your land if the permissions allow it, and "no public access" won't prevent someone from building a house and living in it above ban line height.

---

Of course it isn't right that a landlord doesn't maintain their property.  But that is a seperate ethical issue from squatters.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are right about ban lines but some security orbs can be placed at intervals so the whole space is protected.  See all the threads about airplane pilots complaining about this.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

OzwellWayfarer wrote:

I dont think its a big deal either way.

If you find you have squatters, it will take you just a few clicks to get rid of them. Autoreturn and ban. Simple.

It still doesn't make squatting right. 

And if the land is not being used even though it is being paid for, well isnt that a massive waste? Of the landowners money, of system resources and electricity?

Yes, but that is a seperate issue and doesn't make squatting right.  Besides if I want to waste my own money and resources that's my business.  It is not hurting anyone but myself.

If someone has enough money they can leave expensive virtual land unused for months on end.....why is it so objectionable that someone squats that land if they can? I dont see any real problem. Its not like RL where they can totally take ownership of your property. Even if they build a house on your virtual land, the landowner it still in total control of the sim environment. 

If you inherited a piece of expensive jewelry you never wore, I guess it's ok if I 'borrow' it and wear it for a while without your permission.

Yes they can build on property through ban lines or a orb, but they can't use it.

---

All of this is just a false justification for squatting.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

4) Therefore, how is doing what the

permission

system

of that parcel allows using it "without permission"?

---

wooo! good question

this is a whole debate all in itself. As I see it, is 2 sides to this kinda debate:

1) online is a technical environment. When the technical environment doesn't prevent us from entering into a online property then is ok to enter. If the owner doesnt want us to enter then is incumbent on the owner to prevent us (lock the door)

2) online is a integral part of the RL and is indivisible from the RL. When a owner leaves their door open, then is not ok for us to take that as permission to enter

in this kinda debate I am totally for 2. Is the ethical position

not that I am a angel or anything. Is just that the 2nd is a ethical position and the 1st is not

---

Number 2 for sure. 

Alot of people get upset if people put up ban lines or security orbs that send you home or eject with little to no warning.  If they want to keep things open keep those "ugly" ban lines off, then they should respect people's rights regardless if the land is set to no rez or not.

If someone doesn't have a high fence around their property in RL, does that make it OK to build something there?  Of course not.  So why is it ok to squat in SL?

---

Is it okay to be an absentee landlord who doesn't maintain their property and allows it to become a public nuisance, as their sole interest in that property is to get their neighbors to pay an inflated price for it? How about if the absentee landlord doesn't actually have to pay a nickel to maintain this particular plot of land because it's free to them due to a loophole in the tax laws?

ETA - Interestingly enough, ban lines and security orbs won't prevent someone from building a house on your land if the permissions allow it, and "no public access" won't prevent someone from building a house and living in it above ban line height.

---

Of course it isn't right that a landlord doesn't maintain their property.  But that is a seperate ethical issue from squatters.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are right about ban lines but some security orbs can be placed at intervals so the whole space is protected.  See all the threads about airplane pilots complaining about this.

---

If we define "squatting" as putting a permanent build on someone else's land (which I never said was right or justified, by the way), if landowners maintained their land squatting would be impossible. Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong can make another different one that's dependent on the first.

[Bobbie Faulds]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

4) Therefore, how is doing what the

permission

system

of that parcel allows using it "without permission"?

---

wooo! good question

this is a whole debate all in itself. As I see it, is 2 sides to this kinda debate:

1) online is a technical environment. When the technical environment doesn't prevent us from entering into a online property then is ok to enter. If the owner doesnt want us to enter then is incumbent on the owner to prevent us (lock the door)

2) online is a integral part of the RL and is indivisible from the RL. When a owner leaves their door open, then is not ok for us to take that as permission to enter

in this kinda debate I am totally for 2. Is the ethical position

not that I am a angel or anything. Is just that the 2nd is a ethical position and the 1st is not

---

Number 2 for sure. 

Alot of people get upset if people put up ban lines or security orbs that send you home or eject with little to no warning.  If they want to keep things open keep those "ugly" ban lines off, then they should respect people's rights regardless if the land is set to no rez or not.

If someone doesn't have a high fence around their property in RL, does that make it OK to build something there?  Of course not.  So why is it ok to squat in SL?

---

Is it okay to be an absentee landlord who doesn't maintain their property and allows it to become a public nuisance, as their sole interest in that property is to get their neighbors to pay an inflated price for it? How about if the absentee landlord doesn't actually have to pay a nickel to maintain this particular plot of land because it's free to them due to a loophole in the tax laws?

ETA - Interestingly enough, ban lines and security orbs won't prevent someone from building a house on your land if the permissions allow it, and "no public access" won't prevent someone from building a house and living in it above ban line height.

---

Of course it isn't right that a landlord doesn't maintain their property.  But that is a seperate ethical issue from squatters.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

You are right about ban lines but some security orbs can be placed at intervals so the whole space is protected.  See all the threads about airplane pilots complaining about this.

---

If we define "squatting" as putting a permanent build on someone else's land (which I never said was right or justified, by the way), if landowners maintained their land

squatting would be impossible. 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong can make another different one that's dependent on the first.

---

That's BS. In RL, is it ok for people to move into and use a house that the door isn't locked and the owners are away? I'm sure you'd be furious if you had a second home, drove up and found someone had erected a building and were living in your home, right? It's the same thing. The owner pays for it and has the expectation, regardless of how they have the land set, to not have things they didn't put on it there. 

[wherorangi]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

If we define "squatting" as putting a permanent build on someone else's land (which I never said was right or justified, by the way), if landowners maintained their land

squatting would be impossible. 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong can make another different one that's dependent on the first.

---

seems this is a argument for 1)

by 'maintain' then how does that work in practice ? Is only 2 ways

1) a) go to our land periodically, b) respond every time a neighbour complains, and clean it up to the neighbours satisfaction, or 2) lock the door

if is 1) then whats a reasonable period ? How timely should the response be ? How does the neighbour determine satisfaction

if is 1) then isn't this what gated community estates impose on the residents by covenant ?

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

If we define "squatting" as putting a permanent build on someone else's land (which I never said was right or justified, by the way), if landowners maintained their land

squatting would be impossible. 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong can make another different one that's dependent on the first.

---

seems this is a argument for 1)

by 'maintain' then how does that work in practice ? Is only 2 ways

1) a) go to our land periodically, b) respond every time a neighbour complains, and clean it up to the neighbours satisfaction, or 2) lock the door

if is 1) then whats a reasonable period ? How timely should the response be ? How does the neighbour determine satisfaction

if is 1) then isn't this what gated community estates impose on the residents by covenant ?

 

---

Fortunately in Second Life, cleaning up property is very easy -  there's a magical maid that will come in and instantly clean up trash that's been left out after a certain amount of time. All you have to do is type a number in a box.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Bobbie Faulds wrote:

---

---

That's BS. In RL, is it ok for people to move into and use a house that the door isn't locked and the owners are away? I'm sure you'd be furious if you had a second home, drove up and found someone had erected a building and were living in your home, right? It's the same thing. The owner pays for it and

has the expectation

, regardless of how they have the land set, to not have things they didn't put on it there. 

---

Some time ago I heard the story of a husband and wife who had a minor spat. Later in the day the husband, as he put it, "asked her for some sex."

Her reply?

"That's an unrealistic expectation."

For many years I lived in the city of Detroit, which is well known for its abandoned buildings which are often longstanding public nuisances. Most of those buildings aren't "abandoned" - they have legal owners. They're just owners who don't actually live there and who either don't or can't maintain their speculative property.

http://detroiturbex.com/content/index.html

In Second Life, though, you can maintain your land with a few check boxes and dialogs. Usually the same people who are really into defending their rights as property owners in real life are the people who talk a lot about "personal responsibility" - at least for other people. Where does personal responsibilty lie here?

[Luxen]

I'm agree with you.

But:

Do we can trust this ethical point to resolv all the Squatters problem?

-> Me: I don't think, so no for me.

So: What can we do?

-> To take care at our Lands and to try to explain at all to take care at their lands too.

And like i said before, some new users can think that they are in a Sandbox (If there is nothing to explain or to forbid to enter...)

[wherorangi]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

If we define "squatting" as putting a permanent build on someone else's land (which I never said was right or justified, by the way), if landowners maintained their land

squatting would be impossible. 

Two wrongs don't make a right, but one wrong can make another different one that's dependent on the first.

---

seems this is a argument for 1)

by 'maintain' then how does that work in practice ? Is only 2 ways

1) a) go to our land periodically, b) respond every time a neighbour complains, and clean it up to the neighbours satisfaction, or 2) lock the door

if is 1) then whats a reasonable period ? How timely should the response be ? How does the neighbour determine satisfaction

if is 1) then isn't this what gated community estates impose on the residents by covenant ?

 

---

Fortunately in Second Life, cleaning up property is very easy -  there's a magical maid that will come in and instantly clean up trash that's been left out after a certain amount of time. All you have to do is type a number in a box.

---

lock the door

[wherorangi]

---

Luxen wrote:

I'm agree with you.

But:

Do we can trust this ethical point to resolv all the Squatters problem?

-> Me: I don't think, so no for me.

So: What can we do?

-> To take care at our Lands and

to try

to explain at all to take care at their lands too.

And like i said before, some new users can think that they are in a Sandbox

(If there is nothing to explain or to forbid to enter...)

---

what is the rule with land in the real world where there is nothing to prevent us from putting stuff down on the ground and leaving it there ?

the rule is: Do not litter

we don't need a sign to tell us not to do this. The absence of a sign does not gives us permission to litter

when we can put stuff down, and when we do, then the rule is: Pick it back up again before we leave

is the same rule that applies in the forests and wilderness. If we carry it in then we carry it back out again

[Luxen]

Well, i'm agree with you yet.

But:

Do you let your door open with no fenced in your garden... some months?

And in real: to build a house and objects need time... In secondlife in 3 seconds someone can rez a castle in your garden and that will disturb all your neighbors... Perhap the Sim itself...

What will you tell at your neighbors?

-> "It's my ethical point to not lock the door" ?

But you are right to tell that is not ethical to squatt a land. It's important and very true. Perpahs a lot forget this point so i understand you when speak about this.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

4) Therefore, how is doing what the

permission

system

of that parcel allows using it "without permission"?

---

wooo! good question

this is a whole debate all in itself. As I see it, is 2 sides to this kinda debate:

1) online is a technical environment. When the technical environment doesn't prevent us from entering into a online property then is ok to enter. If the owner doesnt want us to enter then is incumbent on the owner to prevent us (lock the door)

2) online is a integral part of the RL and is indivisible from the RL.

When a owner leaves their door open, then is not ok for us to take that as permission to enter

in this kinda debate I am totally for 2. Is the ethical position

not that I am a angel or anything. Is just that the 2nd is a ethical position and the 1st is not

---

There's an old Steven Wright comedy routine where he says he lived near a store that had a sign that said "Open 24 Hours." He went to it "just as the owner was closing it up."

Steven Wright: "But your sign says 'Open 24 Hours'."

Store Owner (irritably - how could you be so stupid) "Not in a row..."

There are certain areas in real life that we take for granted permission to enter - stores and other businesses, amusement venues, parks, etc. We don't ask permission of a store owner to go to their store. However, we do pay attention to the hours of operation they post, because we assume they grant us permission to enter at those times they're "open" and not when they're "closed." In an environment like Second Life operating hours aren't a factor because places can be completely automated.

In most places in real life there is some type of zoning that tells us if the places in a general area are typically open to the public or typically private. In Second Life there's no zoning - you can open a store or a club right next to a private home, and land that was previously a store can become a private dwelling or vice versa. A building full of pictures might be an art gallery or the private home of an art lover. My home is in a very public area near a new-resident support venue and I intentionally landscaped it like a scenic park. I know I have people going through it frequently when I'm not there (and sometimes when I am) and that doesn't bother me.

Since these cues we rely on in real life aren't necessarily present in Second Life, the permission system is what tells us what we can and can't do. That's what it's there for.

 

 

[wherorangi]

shops that conduct business with the general public

the rule is: Come in please, how may we help you ? When the door is shut then there is no attendant to help you at this time. Please come back at another time. Have a nice day. Thankyou

in some shops (both physical and virtual) there is always a attendant to help, either human or machine. When so then the shop is often open for business 24/7. Come in anytime you like (we are a shop) as is convenient to you and please dont make a mess

private residence

the rule is: We dont conduct business with the public. When the door is open or closed then please knock. If nobody answers then please come back at another time. Have a nice day. Thankyou

+

how do we know if is a shop ?. There's a sign that says I am a shop

in the case of SL, there is also another sign that tells us if this land is public-owned or private-owned and who owns it. About Land.  How the parcel permissions might be set, doesnt prevent us from determining ownership and applying the rule of civilised behaviour to ourselves

 

 

[wherorangi]

---

Luxen wrote:

Well, i'm agree with you yet.

But:

Do you let your door open with no fenced in your garden... some months?

...

What will you tell at your neighbors?

->

"It's my ethical point to not lock the door"

?

---

we use locks and fences to discourage others from pinching our stuff easily. To make it more difficult for them to do this. Not to prevent access per se. A determined burglar can gain access, regardless of locks and fences, if they think the effort is worth it to them

what your point is as I understand it, is that we should lock/fence our land, so that the actions of strangers on our land, does not upset the neighbours

it removes the onus from the strangers to act in a civilised way. When left in this state for any length of time, then the onus (blame even in some peoples minds) for the strangers behaviour, is shifted onto another person

.

 

 

 

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

I certainly agree that people should use the permission system and set their land to no rez.  This saves themselves having to return things and is also the best thing for the neighborhood.

However, people are human and sometimes foget or are 'bad' landlowners.  If the land permissions are not set it still doesn't give people any excuse for squatting.  They are using resources that don't belong to them without permission and that's stealing in my book.

[Luxen]

First: I don't know this landowner and i don't know this squatter. So it's not a criticism about this landowner. I just say what i think about the squatters...

So, it's just not possible for me to let a possibility at some griefers to builds and to rez what they want on my Lands. Not possible for me, not possible to disturb my neighbors with that and not possible just for the principle too. And to not disturb my friends too...

But, yes it's true, we can forget to set something on our Land and we can do an error too... All is possible.

Also, i understand that is more complicate for others Landowners with more Lands/Sims...

[wherorangi]

it isnt that a landowner cant set their land parcel permissions (they can and often do)

the issue is the idea/thought that if the landowner doesnt, and we (the strangers) make a mess (or squat) on it then thats the landowners fault for not preventing us from making the mess (or squatting)

when this idea/thought takes hold as a behavioural attitude and is acted on then we end with, as seen now in many areas of SL land. Build off, scripts off, no object entry, group only, banlines, sec orbs, etc. The whole landmass pretty much eventually ends up in lockdown. And neighbours having arguments with their neigbours. All bc of the uncivilised attitude/behaviour of strangers

what is the expected norm in a civilised society is that we (the strangers) respect other peoples stuff and spaces. Which in practice is as simple as: Tidy/pick our stuff up before we leave  

[Aethelwine]

The comparison between rl and sl doesn't always apply though. In SL someone using my land and homes causes no problems comparable with real life and I actually like to see people on my land when I visit, I have met lots of nice people that way. The same is not true of rl. Settings by default are set for rezzing off. I shouldn't and have never set up a sign to advertise that is intentional and not an accident

[Aethelwine]

What matters is what they rezz. If they put out something offensive then they are abusing hospitality, if on the other hand they are having a picnic... then that is great

[Luxen]

I will test perhaps.