Jump to content
Slee Mayo

Security Orb Creators and Owners

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, AyelaNewLife said:

(This is more of a rant at this general sentiment than Selene's post specifically, so I've de-quoted her. I've heard people pull this sort of line countless times, and it's wrong each time.)

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.

As a fellow guest of the Linden Lab hotel, my opinion on how those rules should change is worth no less than yours. If those rules are changed then it won't just affect me and my hotel room, that change will affect your room too, and your permission or agreement is irrelevant because you do not own 'your' room. More importantly, you agreed to the current and any future regulations when you took up the room. Your only options would be to abide by the new rules, or vacate the room. If the latter, then there's always the luxury villas owned by the same hotel owner that have a more relaxed set of rules for a higher price?

So you think other people (NOT HOTEL EMPLOYEES) should be able to have access to your hotel room whenever they please.

And yet they still have do not disturb signs and the maids aren't supposed to be going into the rooms that have those signs on. They are also supposed to knock first and if the room is occupied they can not enter until invited in or they must g back later when the room is not occupied. They CAN NOT enter whenever they damn well please. Only the hotel management has that authority. SL residents are not the managers. LL is.

Not only do visitors have to abide by LL's rules, they also have to abide by mine, because I pay for being able to have my own rules.

 

Edited by Selene Gregoire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Those rules are defined by the platform service provider and constrained by Covenant and Estate/Region settings.

Covenants can be written by the estate owner. It's very simple to do it from the About Land window. I've written one or two myself for my homestead.

Share this post


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

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.

You do know this is a forum populated by other than americans? What may be "dog whistles" in your country aren't necessarily elsewhere so perhaps before accusing someone of "dogwhistling" you might want to bear that in mind.

Here having a sense of entitlement merely means someone demanding something they don't actually have any right to. In fact the term dogwhistling is actually something most here regard as a perjorative term in its own right as its usually used by people trying to shut down perfectly legitimate discussions that they don't want to happen. If you like the term dogwhistle is in itself a dogwhistle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

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

oh i should try harder.. never get visitors

Share this post


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

You do know this is a forum populated by other than americans? What may be "dog whistles" in your country aren't necessarily elsewhere so perhaps before accusing someone of "dogwhistling" you might want to bear that in mind.

Well, like you, Kanry, I'm not in fact American: I am Canadian. But I am reasonably well informed about the rest of the world, to the extent at least that I am aware of how these terms are used elsewhere. I'm pretty sure that the land of Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson provides similar examples. In fact, my example of "expert" was directly derived from Michael Gove's infamous use of that term. ("I think we've all had quite enough of experts," or something like that.)

5 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

Here having a sense of entitlement merely means someone demanding something they don't actually have any right to. In fact the term dogwhistling is actually something most here regard as a perjorative term in its own right as its usually used by people trying to shut down perfectly legitimate discussions that they don't want to happen. If you like the term dogwhistle is in itself a dogwhistle

Excellent point! You're absolutely right. Although the implication that it is used to "shut down" arguments is, well, a bit of a dog whistle too.

See? It's as I said: the words we choose are important, aren't they!

Share this post


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

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.

What damage? How am I damaging SL by not letting people have access to my personal space in SL? The one place where I should be able to relax and "let my hair down" in SL, that I am paying for to have that personal space. People think they should be allowed unfettered access to it? That is messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

What damage? How am I damaging SL by not letting people have access to my personal space in SL? The one place where I should be able to relax and "let my hair down" in SL, that I am paying for to have that personal space. People think they should be allowed unfettered access to it? That is messed up.

I have nowhere argued that anyone should have access to your personal space, Selene.

What I am suggesting is that things like ban lines or poorly deployed and set security orbs make Second Life a less attractive and usable space for a reasonably sizable portion of their inhabitants. How sizable? I have no idea, but this is a sufficiently contentious subject whenever it arises that I'd suggest that it's not negligible.

The point I making is about the product. It has nothing to do with your "rights" or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that, in the case of Bellisseria certainly, and potentially eventually the mainland as a whole, LL has made a business decision based upon what they think makes their platform more attractive and appealing to a broader range of potential users. As Solar notes, their decision on Bellisseria may be based upon a faulty analysis: again, I have no idea. But the whole discussion of "rights" -- yours as a "property owner," and mine as a vehicle user -- entirely misrepresents what is actually going on here, and what is at stake. Rights have no bearing on the argument: what LL thinks will make SL "work better" does.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra

Share this post


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

I have nowhere argued that anyone should have access to your personal space, Selene.

What I am suggesting is that things like ban lines or poorly deployed and set security orbs make Second Life a less attractive and usable space for a reasonably sizable portion of their inhabitants. How sizable? I have no idea, but this is a sufficiently contentious subject whenever it arises that I'd suggest that it's not negligible.

The point I making is about the product. It has nothing to do with your "rights" or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that, in the case of Bellisseria certainly, and potentially eventually the mainland as a whole, LL has made a business decision based upon what they think makes their platform more attractive and appealing to a broader range of potential users. As Solar notes, their decision on Bellisseria may be based upon a faulty analysis: again, I have no idea. But the whole discussion of "rights" -- yours as a "property owner," and mine as a vehicle user -- entirely misrepresents what is actually going on here, and what is at stake. Rights have no bearing on the argument: what LL thinks will make SL "work better" does.

Vehicle users are a very small percentage of the user base compared to property "owners". That is my feeling however they are very vocal

Share this post


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

I have nowhere argued that anyone should have access to your personal space, Selene.

What I am suggesting is that things like ban lines or poorly deployed and set security orbs make Second Life a less attractive and usable space for a reasonably sizable portion of their inhabitants. How sizable? I have no idea, but this is a sufficiently contentious subject whenever it arises that I'd suggest that it's not negligible.

The point I making is about the product. It has nothing to do with your "rights" or anyone else's. I'm suggesting that, in the case of Bellisseria certainly, and potentially eventually the mainland as a whole, LL has made a business decision based upon what they think makes their platform more attractive and appealing to a broader range of potential users. As Solar notes, their decision on Bellisseria may be based upon a faulty analysis: again, I have no idea. But the whole discussion of "rights" -- yours as a "property owner," and mine as a vehicle user -- entirely misrepresents what is actually going on here, and what is at stake. Rights have no bearing on the argument: what LL thinks will make SL "work better" does.

None of which has anything to do with what I am saying. I'm NOT PREMIUM. And I have since lost any and all desire to be because of the way so many premium account holders behave and treat basics, in addition to LL making premium completely out of my reach starting August 1st.

Share this post


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

Vehicle users are a very small percentage of the user base compared to property "owners". That is my feeling however they are very vocal

Quite possibly. You admit that this is your "feeling" only, and I don't have better access to the facts here: we can only hypothesize.

BUT -- and here is where I am really pretty close to something Solar has been saying (OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!) -- what you and I think doesn't matter, because any so-called "rights" that we supposedly possess are entirely superseded by the TOS, and the fact that LL can do whatever they want with their platform. And that includes deciding to restrict your ability to employ security measures on your "land."

Now, they have probably decided that to apply the kinds of restrictions that are now in force in Bellisseria to the mainland is a poor business decision, so I think they likely won't do it.

But again, the point is that all this talk of "rights" and "property" and "ownership" is, deep down, in essence, nonsense. You subscribe, at a slightly higher rate than others, to a service. And for that money you get extra tools and, well, let's call them "entitlements," shall we? You have no "rights" -- you have only such protections available to you as a consumer, and not specifically ruled out by the TOS that you agreed to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

None of which has anything to do with what I am saying. I'm NOT PREMIUM. And I have since lost any and all desire to be because of the way so many premium account holders behave and treat basics, in addition to LL making premium completely out of my reach starting August 1st.

What I've said has nothing to do with whether or not you are Premium, Selene. Neither am I. Neither is Kanry, with whom I am also discussing this.

Share this post


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

Quite possibly. You admit that this is your "feeling" only, and I don't have better access to the facts here: we can only hypothesize.

BUT -- and here is where I am really pretty close to something Solar has been saying (OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!) -- what you and I think doesn't matter, because any so-called "rights" that we supposedly possess are entirely superseded by the TOS, and the fact that LL can do whatever they want with their platform. And that includes deciding to restrict your ability to employ security measures on your "land."

Now, they have probably decided that to apply the kinds of restrictions that are now in force in Bellisseria to the mainland is a poor business decision, so I think they likely won't do it.

But again, the point is that all this talk of "rights" and "property" and "ownership" is, deep down, in essence, nonsense. You subscribe, at a slightly higher rate than others, to a service. And for that money you get extra tools and, well, let's call them "entitlements," shall we? You have no "rights" -- you have only such protections available to you as a consumer, and not specifically ruled out by the TOS that you agreed to.

Yes and the Lab is a company and they like me paying for those rights, if those rights change in ways you suggest I will walk away from my land as I suspect a lot of others would because we are no longer getting what we got the land for in the first place. I suspect if the lab even suggested changing it in the way you suggest the forum ruckus would dwarf any of those we have seen of late

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

What I've said has nothing to do with whether or not you are Premium, Selene. Neither am I. Neither is Kanry, with whom I am also discussing this.

You are completely missing what I am saying. 

Do you think I want strange men dropping into my sky box UNINVITED with a huge *****ing movie cmaera on thier shoulder while running an obvious humping animation after I have been repeatedly raped in real life? That happened just the other day. And it was not the first time some guy I've never met or seen before dropped into my skybox with the security ON. AND i DID PANIC TRYING TO GET TO THE SYSTEM TO EJECT/BAN THEM.

Stop trying to take away what little feeling of safety I have left.

NOt saying you personally, Syclla. 

Edited by Selene Gregoire

Share this post


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

Yes and the Lab is a company and they like me paying for those rights, if those rights change in ways you suggest I will walk away from my land as I suspect a lot of others would because we are no longer getting what we got the land for in the first place. I suspect if the lab even suggested changing it in the way you suggest the forum ruckus would dwarf any of those we have seen of late

 

Yep, quite possibly -- maybe even probably -- so. Which is, as I say, why they likely won't do it.

Again, though. You don't have "rights."

You have certain tools and enhanced abilities to do things with a particular parcel of data and code. Whenever you talk about your "rights" you are conflating your use of this platform with the very real, legally-enforceable, set of rules that apply in RL. Those don't apply here. Only the TOS does. Real rights can't be arbitrarily removed by the state -- that's why they are called rights. Your access to this platform can be removed at anytime, quite arbitrarily, by LL.

Share this post


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

Yep, quite possibly -- maybe even probably -- so. Which is, as I say, why they likely won't do it.

Again, though. You don't have "rights."

You have certain tools and enhanced abilities to do things with a particular parcel of data and code. Whenever you talk about your "rights" you are conflating your use of this platform with the very real, legally-enforceable, set of rules that apply in RL. Those don't apply here. Only the TOS does. Real rights can't be arbitrarily removed by the state -- that's why they are called rights. Your access to this platform can be removed at anytime, quite arbitrarily, by LL.

sigh once again pedantry everyone knows what is meant by rights . That which is granted by the governing body

No one anywhere in reality has more than one right....the right to die. States can and do at whim remove other so called human rights whenever they please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently I don't have any right to even a minute feeling of safety in SL. I should get busy cancelling all of my accounts since LL can't/won't provide any means of being safe because we don't "own" anything in SL.

Share this post


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

You are completely missing what I am saying. 

Do you think I want strange men dropping into my sky box UNINVITED with a huge *****ing movie cmaera on thier shoulder while running an obvious humping animation after I have been repeatedly raped in real life? That happened just the other day. And it was not the first time some guy I've never met or seen before dropped into my skybox with the security ON.

Stop trying to take away what little feeling of safety I have left.

NOt saying you personally, Syclla. 

Absolutely, Selene. Safety is important here, and is one of the reasons why there are entirely justifiable uses of security controls in SL. Blush, you'll remember, made a similar argument, and it too was a valid argument to my mind.

No one here, least of all me, is (that I've seen) arguing that you should not, as a landowner or renter, have access to ways to restrict access to your property. I think that discussion about the kinds of security that should be available are useful: what works? What doesn't really? What represents "overkill"? What is insufficient to ensure the protection of users, or the functionality of their "land"?

What I have been arguing here, throughout, is not that you or anyone else should necessarily have fewer security tools available to you. It's that the language that is being used -- "property," "owner," "rights" -- is misleading and inapplicable, and that it comes bundled with a whole set of ideological assumptions about the relationship between people and land that derive mostly from 17th- and 18th-century European liberal thought. You deserve to be safe here, and if LL wants you do continue as a customer, they'd do well to ensure that are. But neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here has a "right" to, for instance, either deploy ban lines, or demand that they go down. The only "right" that applies there is LL's, as proprietor.

Share this post


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

sigh once again pedantry everyone knows what is meant by rights . That which is granted by the governing body

No one anywhere in reality has more than one right....the right to die. States can and do at whim remove other so called human rights whenever they please. 

Not pedantry, Kanry, but an important distinction. Rights are not the gift of the state; they are things we possess innately as humans.

Rights, including human rights, can of course be violated by the state -- and not infrequently are. That's why we have organizations like Amnesty International.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I do exactly what my pistol training instructor (ex army sergeant) taught us to do. Whatever it takes. And if that means not allowing anyone access to my personal space then that is what it takes. 

As for the words being used, just what words exactly should we be using?

Edited by Selene Gregoire

Share this post


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

The only "right" that applies there is LL's, as proprietor.

While true this is totally misleading. The lab has limitations as to what it can do based on it not wanting to go out of business

You could equally say the Canadian government could pass a law saying all Canadian citizens must have a sex change. In theory yes they can. In practise if they did so they wouldn't be the canadian government for long I suspect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have wholly missed the point that it is the only language that applies at present as well as missing that no one whatsoever - outside of those paying for the parcels and Linden Lab in the case of non Islands - has any say whatsoever on what security measures are deployed.

We - as users - can "discuss" which methods we personally find acceptable all day long and guess what? At the end of the day said discussion is meaningless on its face and potentially damaging should it give Linden Lab the wrong impression (as it already has with their latest project).

Share this post


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

I do exactly what my pistol training instructor (ex army sergeant) taught us to do. Whatever it takes. And if that means not allowing anyone access to my personal space then that is what it takes. 

Then that is what you do, Selene. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't.

I'm not even arguing that someone who sets their orb to a 0 seconds warning merely because they are dogmatic about their "property ownership rights" should not have the ability to do so, or that someone who lures people onto their property with a welcoming land description only because they enjoy watching chased off by hornets should not have that ability either. I think I would argue, though, that such people are probably pretty unpleasant.

Share this post


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

Then that is what you do, Selene. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't.

I'm not even arguing that someone who sets their orb to a 0 seconds warning merely because they are dogmatic about their "property ownership rights" should not have the ability to do so, or that someone who lures people onto their property with a welcoming land description only because they enjoy watching chased off by hornets should not have that ability either. I think I would argue, though, that such people are probably pretty unpleasant.

I'm not one of them yet I get lumped in with them all the time simply because I need a space to feel safe in where others can't go. 

You know the real reason I quit SL for almost 5 years?

The people.

They haven't gotten better. If anything, they've gotten worse.

I'm here for the love of building, not the people, since I am unacceptable, as I am, to most.

Share this post


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

You have wholly missed the point that it is the only language that applies at present as well as missing that no one whatsoever - outside of those paying for the parcels and Linden Lab in the case of non Islands - has any say whatsoever on what security measures are deployed.

We - as users - can "discuss" which methods we personally find acceptable all day long and guess what? At the end of the day said discussion is meaningless on its face and potentially damaging should it give Linden Lab the wrong impression (as it already has with their latest project). 

Sure.

But, as you note, we have seen LL reverse itself twice within the past few months on announced policy changes (group slots, and the Tilia TOS) because they perceived -- correctly, or incorrectly I don't know -- that not to do so would be a poor business decision. And that was almost certainly prompted by the discussion here and elsewhere.

Did we "give LL the wrong impression"? Maybe! I have no idea! I don't think you really know either, tbh. But we are not "dictating" anything by discussing here. And it's LL's right to be wrong, so to speak, in how they read what we say. I'm not going to be quiet merely because you're afraid that LL might actually be listening.

Discussers gotta discuss, Solar, Sorry! Look away if it bugs you!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Not pedantry, Kanry, but an important distinction. Rights are not the gift of the state; they are things we possess innately as humans.

Rights, including human rights, can of course be violated by the state -- and not infrequently are. That's why we have organizations like Amnesty International.

 

Its not a right if you cant enforce it simple as that. You can talk about human rights all you like but in reality they are merely a fiction to make people like you feel warm and fuzzy

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...