Jump to content
Slee Mayo

Security Orb Creators and Owners

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Those rules are defined by the platform service provider and constrained by Covenant and Estate/Region settings. There's no, like, "property rights" involved here. The "rules" are merely a bunch of options designed to maximize LL's profits by encouraging "land" buyers and reducing the need to deal with governance issues.

This was starkly demonstrated when the Lab completely disabled whitelist banlines on Bellisseria and strictly limited what was permissible scripted security. Of course this is anathema to those owners who revel in "my virtual land, my god-given right to set the rules" but the new continent enjoys demand unmatched since at least 2007.

Granting less control over the fate of trespassers on their land is evidently the overwhelming preference of Premium landowners. Or at the very least, it's not a deal breaker for a huge number of them.

Obviously within the bounds that the lab sets, the landowners she is whinging about are setting rules within the limits the lab sets. Now while she is perfectly well allowed to ask the lab to change the rules I suspect the asking will be ignored as the lab knows they would get a fierce backlash from land renters if they changed the rules retrospectively. Bellerissia is a special case because there were no landowners there when those rules were imposed. I also suspect its the latter of your statements that the desire for this houseboat thing outweighed, for those that chose a home there, the lack of security. 

A retrospective land rule change however would provoke a certain amount of fury.

Note my holding uses neither ban lines nor any security if people are wondering if I am arguing from a certain position. I let people wander freely as long as they do respectfully

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Bellerissia is a special case because there were no landowners there when those rules were imposed.

In fact, no, the rules came a few weeks (?) after the first batch of homes were settled -- apparently in response to the requests of many residents who moved there. It's true, though, that this would cause a furor on old time Mainland after all these years... and anyway it's way more important on the busy and tightly-spaced Bellisseria with nearly half the space given over to community infrastructure like water, streets, etc.

(On the other hand, if all the functions that operate "security" suddenly, silently altogether quit working, I think it would go unnoticed for months by the vast majority of the folks who pride themselves on how private they keep their parcels.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

 

(On the other hand, if all the functions that operate "security" suddenly, silently altogether quit working, I think it would go unnoticed for months by the vast majority of the folks who pride themselves on how private they keep their parcels.)

doubtful, I live on a private estate with no estates or clubs and isnt searchable and been like that for 4 years at least, still get randoms tp in that no one knows every couple of days. I think people will notice pretty quickly when strangers drop in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

doubtful, I live on a private estate with no estates or clubs and isnt searchable and been like that for 4 years at least, still get randoms tp in that no one knows every couple of days. I think people will notice pretty quickly when strangers drop in

It could be due to your attitude on the forum. People come to see the bears in their cage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

It could be due to your attitude on the forum. People come to see the bears in their cage.

He's more like a slightly grumpy, mostly benign, but fierce looking badger, really. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

It could be due to your attitude on the forum. People come to see the bears in their cage.

If you look up my profile you will find nothing there that leads to anyone being able to trace my home. As to my attitude on the forums.....well when people stop feeling entitled to what others pay for and stop looking down their nose at people who don't choose to be premium then you will find my attitude much improves as those are the two subjects that tend to raise my hackles here

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

you will find nothing there that leads to anyone being able to trace my home.

They know those really good P.I. clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, KanryDrago said:

when people stop feeling entitled to what others pay for

"Entitlement" is such an interesting word, isn't it?

It has become one of those coded terms, like "illegals" or "expert" or "elites" or even, in the US, "liberal" that has come to take on quiet, additional meanings with a heavy ideological cast. In my experience, "entitlement" is usually a term employed by those who have things, and are deeply if somewhat irrationally resentful that those who don't should be granted something that they themselves don't need. Like social assistance, for instance. These words are essentially dog-whistles.

In the context of SL "land rights," I've seen very very few people argue that they should be allowed to sit on your virtual couch, or use your virtual sex bed, without permission. What they do feel "entitled" to is the relatively unfettered use of what are either essentially public areas -- such as infrastructure, roads and so forth -- or water and land space. They don't want to come into your house: they want to avoid being crashed by it.

You could, I suppose, make the counter argument that the truly "entitled" ones here are those who believe that paying an extra sum to Linden Lab gives them the right to infringe upon other's enjoyment of the platform by making the use of such areas more difficult. You've laid done some extra money, and, hey, that means it's your right to do anything you like with it! Even if that entails making life miserable for those who are riding their scooters, or their planes, or their boats, through areas that do not in the least bit intrude upon your "privacy" (another coded word!).

ETA: I just live to amuse Solar! I like to think that he reads my posts over his morning coffee with the same gusto that someone else might open the comics section of their newspaper!

You're welcome!

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes, because those who have responded with the view that they ought to be able to restrict users from accessing their parcels have been talking about restricting access to the Linden owned (directly) road/waterways ....

Right ... And I own the Golden Gate Bridge.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

"Entitlement" is such an interesting word, isn't it?

It has become one of those coded terms, like "illegals" or "expert" or "elites" or even, in the US, "liberal" that has come to take on quiet, additional meetings with a heavy ideological cast. In my experience, "entitlement" is usually a term employed by those who have things, and are deeply if somewhat irrationally resentful that those who don't should be granted something that they themselves don't need. Like social assistance, for instance. These words are essentially dog-whistles.

In the context of SL "land rights," I've seen very very few people argue that they should be allowed to sit on your virtual couch, or use your virtual sex bed, without permission. What they do feel "entitled" to is the relatively unfettered use of what are either essentially public areas -- such as infrastructure, roads and so forth -- or water and land space. They don't want to come into your house: they want to avoid being crashed by it.

You could, I suppose, make the counter argument that the truly "entitled" ones here are those who believe that paying an extra sum to Linden Lab gives them the right to infringe upon other's enjoyment of the platform by making the use of such areas more difficult. You've laid done some extra money, and, hey, that means it's your right to do anything you like with it! Even if that entails making life miserable for those who are riding their scooters, or their planes, or their boats, through areas that do not in the least bit intrude upon your "privacy" (another coded word!).

ETA: I just live to amuse Solar! I like to think that he reads my posts over his morning coffee with the same gusto that someone else might open the comics section of their newspaper!

You're welcome!

Where have I said anything apart they should be able to restrict entry to their land. I never claimed they should block access to public areas. Air space over your land is not a public area by definition. 

As far as I know if someones orb is configured to overlap a water or road way then you can ar it and get the Lab to do something about it which is fair enough. If a landowner sets the orb that way then it is them with the sense of entitlement.

As I have pointed out before as well people overflying your land absolutely 100% invade privacy of the landowner. It completely negates the point of the avatars on this parcel cannot be seen checkmark for a start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

You don't own 'your' house. Linden Lab does, they own everyone's house. We're not even tenants, as they have some form of residency rights protected in law; we're more like paying guests in a hotel. We are granted permission to use that room in the manner in which the hotel owner sees fit, subject to rules that can be changed at any time. Even something as simple as privacy is not something that you are entitled to, as the hotel cleaning staff all have a keycard to our room. These rules are not bespoke, they apply to each room and guest equally.

Yes. I still think that this was put best by Theresa some time ago (maybe in this thread?) when she noted of "landowner's property rights" that no one actually "owned" anything, that it was not really "property," and that there no "rights" involved here.

Those who are most vocal in their opposition to restrictions on ban lines and security orbs are taking a position that is subtly but deeply ideological: their "land," "land" that they are paying for, is theirs and theirs alone, to do with what they will, and any attempt to restrain their ability to do anything that they want on said "land" represents a violation of the "landowner's" essential and inviolable "rights" to "property."

Personally, I think this represents pretty confused thinking, because if conflates real, material property with the data and code of which "virtual property" is actually composed. If I fall asleep in your bed in RL, it is demonstrably and in really important ways a very different thing than hopping on a pose ball in your Linden home. But, property is property, right? Even when it only exists as a bundle of code and data on someone else's servers.

This is an ideology that is peculiarly Anglo-American in origin, and it's derived from the particular shape that the late 18th-century Enlightenment and liberalism took in the Anglosphere, as articulated most concretely by Adam Smith. That there is nothing inalienable about "property" rights is demonstrated, as I know that Selene has suggested elsewhere before, by the fact that non-Western cultures, and particularly indigenous American societies, have or at least had, a very different idea of land ownership. Historically, the whole notion of property rights was an essential tool in the imperialist enterprise: it provided an ideological justification for shunting indigenous peoples out of the way. Nowadays, it is employed by neoliberals as a way of securing and enforcing forms of economic privilege. Whenever I hear the term "property rights" I cringe, because it's a deeply politically-laden idea, and it works, always, in the service of privilege.

So here, really, is the thing.

You do not "own land": you are paying LL for enhanced access to a particular set of data and code in much the same way that someone who pays Adobe for a "premium" version of a software suite is granted in return more and better tools. You do not have "rights" to this -- at best, you have the provisions of consumer protection legislation to ensure that you are getting fair return -- what was promised to you -- for your extra outlay of cash.

What makes this different from a "premium" version of Creative Suite or whatever is that your enhanced tools and access can potentially screw up other people's access to code and data that may not even be part of what you are paying for. In other words, there is some danger that your (*cringe*) "property rights" are actually damaging the software/platform as a whole by making it less usable to everyone else.

We can talk about "the public good," as Kyrah does -- or we can think about this in terms of the damage that you may be inflicting upon LL's product as a whole. And it's the latter that is what is dictating LL's approach to ban lines and security orbs in Bellisseria. They are trying to make their product more usable, and hence more attractive. And, if there are any actual "owners" of anything in this equation, it isn't you: it's Linden Labs.

 

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Typos! Oops!
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Where have I said anything apart they should be able to restrict entry to their land. I never claimed they should block access to public areas. Air space over your land is not a public area by definition. 

As far as I know if someones orb is configured to overlap a water or road way then you can ar it and get the Lab to do something about it which is fair enough. If a landowner sets the orb that way then it is them with the sense of entitlement.

As I have pointed out before as well people overflying your land absolutely 100% invade privacy of the landowner. It completely negates the point of the avatars on this parcel cannot be seen checkmark for a start

Oh, well, you do, as you have noted, allow public access to your "property." Mostly, I was commenting upon your use of the term "entitlement," which is, as I say, a kind of reactionary dog whistle.

It's interesting (see my subsequent post, above) that those who are most excitable about their so-called "property rights" make their argument, at least by analogy if not explicitly, by referencing RL property rights. I can't come into your RL house, so why should I be permitted to do so in SL?

But when it comes to the RL analogy over things like air space . . . well, we'll conveniently ignore the fact that in RL you do not "own" that. Equally, in RL, if you put something on your property that in some way impedes the use of the public infrastructure, well, you'd be told not to. But, again, that RL analogy is inconvenient, so we'll pretend that it isn't there. There's a certain inconsistency in the whole idea of "property rights" and, indeed, "property," as it is often employed in these argument, wouldn't you agree?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

You do not "own land": you are paying LL for enhanced access to a particular set of data and code 

 

Absolutely wrong

You do not "own land" yes I agree.

After that you go totally wrong

You are paying LL for sole access to a particular set of data and code where you can decide exactly who can access it and what they can do there.

The fact that someone who pays the lab nothing for the access to that land but feels they should be able to degrade the experience of the one that does pay for sole access is undoubtedly the entitled one

There is nothing stopping you fliers from renting land and creating air corridors you can fly through. However you don't want to do that instead you want to take away what others pay for.

I pay for my land so I have total control of who is allowed there and what they can do. The fact I choose mostly to leave it open as long as people are respectful is neither here nor there

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Oh, well, you do, as you have noted, allow public access to your "property." Mostly, I was commenting upon your use of the term "entitlement," which is, as I say, a kind of reactionary dog whistle.

It's interesting (see my subsequent post, above) that those who are most excitable about their so-called "property rights" make their argument, at least by analogy if not explicitly, by referencing RL property rights. I can't come into your RL house, so why should I be permitted to do so in SL?

But when it comes to the RL analogy over things like air space . . . well, we'll conveniently ignore the fact that in RL you do not "own" that. Equally, in RL, if you put something on your property that in some way impedes the use of the public infrastructure, well, you'd be told not to. But, again, that RL analogy is inconvenient, so we'll pretend that it isn't there. There's a certain inconsistency in the whole idea of "property rights" and, indeed, "property," as it is often employed in these argument, wouldn't you agree?

No where I have I referenced rl arguments, I suggest you change your diatribe that someone that does that. As I said in my previous post

"I pay for my land so I have total control of who is allowed there and what they can do. The fact I choose mostly to leave it open as long as people are respectful is neither here nor there"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KanryDrago said:

No where I have I referenced rl arguments, I suggest you change your diatribe that someone that does that.

And I have not specifically accused you of doing so. In fact, I note that you do open up your land. And I ask whether you might not agree that there is an inconsistency in the use of this analogy.

I would note, however, that you keep using loaded terms such as "land" and "owner." Granted, we all do that as a sort of shorthand, and because, in our less critically-reflective moments, we like to pretend that this virtual world is just "like" RL in important ways. But my point is that the uncritical use of words like this implies certain highly doubtful things about what it is that you actually "own," and the kinds of "rights" that you supposedly have.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And I have not specifically accused you of doing so. In fact, I note that you do open up your land. And I ask whether you might not agree that there is an inconsistency in the use of this analogy.

I would note, however, that you keep using loaded terms such as "land" and "owner." Granted, we all do that as a sort of shorthand, and because, in our less critically-reflective moments, we like to pretend that this virtual world is just "like" RL in important ways. But my point is that the uncritical use of words like this implies certain highly doubtful things about what it is that you actually "own," and the kinds of "rights" that you supposedly have.

I stated succinctly what I bought "Sole access to my land with the ability to say who could be on it and what they could do there"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KanryDrago said:

I stated succinctly what I bought "Sole access to my land with the ability to say who could be on it and what they could do there"

That's certainly one of the things you've said, yes.

But you didn't "buy" it.

And you do not have absolute and unfettered "rights" over what you do with it.

Read your TOS!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point blank: If you're not paying for it, you have no say.

That is the beginning and end of any "argument" that can be made.

The only ones with any say on the matter outside of the user footing the bill? Linden Lab.

That's it.

You can argue until the cows come home and it won't change a thing on that ... Funnily enough, few users bat an eyelash when others are told to simply move on if confronted by a ban or such from a commercial venue - Mainland (and similar) or not - yet will complain if a similar stance is used elsewhere.

So which is it, hmm?

See above for the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Point blank: If you're not paying for it, you have no say.

That is the beginning and end of any "argument" that can be made.

The only ones with any say on the matter outside of the user footing the bill? Linden Lab.

That's it.

You've said not a single thing here with which I would disagree, Solar.

I am not arguing otherwise: I am merely examining critically some of the underlying assumptions that mark the language and arguments of a particular kind of "landowner."

In the final analysis, if changes are made to the kinds of (*cough*) "rights" that landowners have, it will have absolutely nothing to do with "rights," or "land" -- it will be a purely business decision based upon LL's analysis of what is best for their platform. As, in fact, has been the case with Bellisseria, no?

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Edited for clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That's certainly one of the things you've said, yes.

But you didn't "buy" it.

And you do not have absolute and unfettered "rights" over what you do with it.

Read your TOS!

Obviously I have to obey TOS I thought that was so blindingly obvious that it didnt need stating. Nowhere in TOS does it however say that I have to accomodate your wish to use my land for your own purposes.

There is no difference between any of the following pairs of statements

I am a child avatar and I shouldnt be allowed to be banned from you land because of it

I dont want child avatars on my land

 

I am a bloodlines player and I shouldnt be able to be banned from your land because I offer a bite to people

I dont like blood lines players they annoy me

 

I am a flier I should be able to fly over your land

I don't like people flying over my parcel as they can cam in on me when inside my boundaries

 

Most people including you would support the first two pairs. I don't see the third as in anyway different . You obviously do because its something you want to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KanryDrago said:

Obviously I have to obey TOS I thought that was so blindingly obvious that it didnt need stating. Nowhere in TOS does it however say that I have to accomodate your wish to use my land for your own purposes.

I have not, in fact, suggested that you do.

I have suggested that those who use this kind of language -- "land," and "owner" and "property" and "rights" -- should reflect upon the implications, and accuracy, of those words.

And I've suggested that a more liberal application of so-called "rights" doesn't represent much of a real infringement of your own enjoyment of your land.

That's pretty much it, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The new continent is a very specific community building/replacement project and quite frankly I am not convinced whatsoever that the changes made there have any bearing at all to its popularity.

It's the new shiny, larger plot/building replacement for the existing Linden Homes - many users expressed in the past that the size of the plots (512) on the old Homes as well as the builds simply were not enough to have them bother with Premium or with grabbing a Linden Home.

Yes, you have a number of vehicle enthusiasts that have decided to move there or go Premium to make use of it - they're vocal but honestly being vocal does not make one the majority.

Point blank: This notion that the newer restrictions are what is bringing in more users ... is simply unable to be proven.

Edited to add: You're nit-picking over the meaning and use of a set of words. That is all.

Edited by Solar Legion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Solar Legion said:

Point blank: This notion that the newer restrictions are what is bringing in more users ... is simply unable to be proven.

That's completely possible. In which case, possibly LL has made a business decision based upon a faulty reading of the data. It wouldn't be the first time.

I was not, myself, making this argument, of course. But I'm sure others were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have not, in fact, suggested that you do.

I have suggested that those who use this kind of language -- "land," and "owner" and "property" and "rights" -- should reflect upon the implications, and accuracy, of those words.

And I've suggested that a more liberal application of so-called "rights" doesn't represent much of a real infringement of your own enjoyment of your land.

 

People dont use water tight legal language, yes most people understand when they say they own land that in fact they are renting off the labs and most people reading it understand what they mean. Its just deflection by pedantry and has no actual bearing on the merit or otherwise of the argument

As to "not much of a real infringement of your own enjoyment of your land" this is how you feel about the subject. Sorry but you have no right to try and tell other people how they should feel about it. Your opinion of infringement and how much it is impinging carries no more weight that anyone elses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KanryDrago said:

People dont use water tight legal language, yes most people understand when they say they own land that in fact they are renting off the labs and most people reading it understand what they mean. Its just deflection by pedantry and has no actual bearing on the merit or otherwise of the argument

Well, sure. I said as much above too: we all use these terms as shorthand.

But language does matter. As in other forms of dog-whistle, the connotations of particular terms bears weight. If I call a group of people seeking asylum "refugees," I am implying some very different things about them than if I call them "illegals," for instance. Similarly, if we all use the term "property" to refer to the bundle of code and data for which you have paid enhanced access, we are implying, if we are uncritical, all sorts of analogies to RL that are simply incorrect.

3 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Sorry but you have no right to try and tell other people how they should feel about it. Your opinion of infringement and how much it is impinging carries no more weight that anyone elses.

To repeat for maybe the third time: I have nowhere said that it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...