Jump to content
Slee Mayo

Security Orb Creators and Owners

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:
17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

All rights spring from the notion that life has value.

Life has no value except to the possessor

Are there items in the Universe that have no life (unless they're dead)?

And I would argue that even a rock has life.    (argue means 'debate' in the U.S., in this context)

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


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

Because Scylla wants to fly her plane and you are being mean by not letting her but thats not being entitled in the least

I want to fly my planes too but I don't want to invade other people's personal space to do it. I find ways around and if I collide. Oops. Now I have to do what everyone has to do and start again but I don't have to go all the way back home to do so. It's been that way for 16 years. 

Share this post


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

I want to fly my planes too but I don't want to invade other people's personal space to do it. I find ways around and if I collide. Oops. Now I have to do what everyone has to do and start again but I don't have to go all the way back home to do so. It's been that way for 16 years. 

I mean ideally, there wouldn't be a conflict between the two aims. Parcels existing as three-dimensional cubes rather than two-dimensional slices of land, for example, would allow the plane to fly harmlessly overhead while you'd remain completely private and undetected in your house. But that would require a pretty hefty rework of the basic building blocks of SL, so sadly no chance of that happening.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I mean ideally, there wouldn't be a conflict between the two aims. Parcels existing as three-dimensional cubes rather than two-dimensional slices of land, for example, would allow the plane to fly harmlessly overhead while you'd remain completely private and undetected in your house. But that would require a pretty hefty rework of the basic building blocks of SL, so sadly no chance of that happening.

That would be an ideal solution that pleased both sides, however like you I cannot see it happening

 

Share this post


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

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

Gosh.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Btw, Scylla, I realize you don't actually believe every word you are saying. It's just that it is sometimes hard to tell when someone is deliberately taking the opposing side in a debate (forgot the term momentarily, it'll come... later today) just to be contrary and when they are not. So, please don't take anything I have said as personal or a personal attack on you. It wasn't meant that way. It's not always easy to keep a lid on the emotional turmoil such discussions can create. I know it shows through. It's not directed at you.

It's all good, Selene. This is a discussion, and a reasonably civil if somewhat impassioned one: no one should, I hope anyway, see any of the ideas being floated here as in any way "personal." Discussions are one of the best ways, in fact, to inform oneself about issues that do seem particularly important to others, often for reasons that we might have overlooked. So, your concerns about safety, for instance, are an important part of the mix here.

That said, I am going to respectfully suggest that you are conflating two things: "property rights" with your inarguable right to be free of and safe from harassment, intimidation, threats, and so forth. Your right to the latter is an extension of RL rights into the virtual sphere -- although the devil, of course, is in the details. What, for instance, constitutes intolerable and unallowable "harassment"? Does a "threat" in virtual space represent the same kind of thing as one applied in RL? And what sorts of mechanisms do we put in place to protect people? One answer, of course, is the CS, but that is rather . . . vague.

Your ability to set access to your parcel in SL, I'm arguing, is not in itself a "right": it is a mechanism to ensure that your real rights -- your right not to be subject to stalking, harassment, and so forth -- are safeguarded. That's an important distinction, because it means that the tools that landowners have at their disposable should, at least in part, be evaluated according to how well they function as means of protecting you, rather than as "rights" in and of themselves.

And that. maybe, is a separate discussion, although we touched on it here when Blush brought up her concerns. For instance, I can fully understand why you would not someone in the space above your parcel hovering at, say, 500m. I'm less convinced that it is functionally valuable to prevent them from flying over at, say, 3000m. But, again, that's a separate discussion: I'm not sure I have a hard and fast opinion about what works and what doesn't.

Share this post


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

Ah finally she gets it, there is no right or wrong, merely what you can enforce

And here we get down to first principles, I suppose, and the point at which this interesting digression should probably end. We're not going to be coming to an agreement on this topic, I suspect, so I think we'd just better agree to disagree, and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Gosh.

He kind of makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn't he?

FORTUNATELY, he's only a fierce looking badger, and probably quite cuddly when you get to know him.

(Not that I've ever cuddled a badger.)

Share this post


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

Because Scylla wants to fly her plane and you are being mean by not letting her but thats not being entitled in the least

Well, I don't fly planes in SL -- but yes, if you prevent access to your airspace at, say, 5000m, merely because you can, I'd say that that does make you kind of mean.

It does not mean that I think you shouldn't have the ability to do so, however. Being mean is, dare I say it? an inalienable right.

As I know that you don't do this, however, I don't think you are mean.

Share this post


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

Ah finally she gets it, there is no right or wrong, merely what you can enforce

Let's say you are in kindergarten class, and all the kiddies are sitting in a circle, and hungry. The teacher only has one orange, and puts it in the center of the circle. Is it right for the big kid who had some abnormal growth spurt and was double in size to the rest of the class, to grab the orange and eat it all himself, just because he could?  Or is he right to divide it into sections and give everyone a piece?

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Let's say you are in kindergarten class, and all the kiddies are sitting in a circle, and hungry. The teacher only has one orange, and puts it in the center of the circle. Is it right for the big kid who had some abnormal growth spurt and was double in size to the rest of the class, to grab the orange and eat it all himself, just because he could?  Or is he right to divide it into sections and give everyone a piece?

You are confusing ethics with human rights

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Human rights are derived from ethics.

Not at all as different cultures have very different standards of ethics many of which contradict each other. The human race has never managed to create a universally recognised ethics nor will it ever

Share this post


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

That would be an ideal solution that pleased both sides, however like you I cannot see it happening

 

Ditto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Projecting real world rights onto virtual world spaces is role play. Feeling genuinely violated by an "intruder" in SL is being victimized one's own role play, in which we're  encouraged by the whole virtual world "land" metaphor we've all bought into.

Everyman's right is a thing in some parts of the real world. Should that be what the Lab defines its "land" product to require? Probably not; it probably wouldn't sell well enough, which is to say it probably wouldn't appeal to the role play vision of "land" that we've proven willing to pay money for.

SL, especially the Mainland, is a glorified content management system in which some customers are paying to host our little 3D web pages. There's a set of permissions those customers are willing -- even eager -- to share that they'd never consider sharing in the real world. Wordpress users are fine with letting the public see the contents of their pages -- it's usually the whole point of having a page on a public CMS. They wouldn't be so keen on giving a tour of their RL house contents to everybody who walks by.

Similarly to those web pages, on Second Life Mainland anybody can cam into anywhere and see everything*. We're willing to buy this virtual "land" stuff even though we can't really hide anything we've rezzed in our virtual "houses". Indeed, generally, we rez that stuff to show it off to neighbors, visitors, and even mere passersby. That's what we bought when we were sold virtual "land".

In some other possible world, all "land" might have been visible only by invitation. The creepy private access islands in SL are a taste of that. In a way, that would be more like our RL homes. And it never would have caught on.

A different possible world might have offered no means of preventing intrusion by other avatars at all. That's not what we bought, but the reason we have what we have is because that's what we were sold by a product team trying to match demand.

Landowners correctly assume they should be able to exercise the permissions offered with the product they bought. That doesn't invalidate discussion of what other possible "land" products might have produced a better, more profitable outcome for the Lab. Personally, I think a geographic sorting of product offerings with different landowner permissions is a massive improvement, and for all the naysaying, I think there's pretty good evidence the Lab is succeeding with that approach in Bellisseria.

We'll never know if that would have worked for all of Mainland, limiting to Estates the more intrusive forms of landowner permissions -- but I suspect it would have, and that the Lab would have made more money that way even if demand had waned for Mainland a continent or two sooner than it did.

________________
*except, with "parcel privacy", avatars and whatever they might be seated on at the moment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I am going to respectfully suggest that you are conflating two things: "property rights" with your inarguable right to be free of and safe

No, I'm not. I'm saying I have the right to be safe in a place I pay for according to the "white man's rules". That's not meant to be racist. We can either play things by the rules* or not but you can't have it both ways.

ETA: *rules of [white man's] society 

Not intended to be racist. I'm trying to get you to see it from a different perspective.

Edited by Selene Gregoire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:
14 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

Human rights are derived from ethics.

Not at all as different cultures have very different standards of ethics many of which contradict each other. The human race has never managed to create a universally recognised ethics nor will it ever

I said that what we call human rights is derived from our ethics (you said I was conflating the 2, and I'm not). I didn't say anything about the fact that different cultures have varying standards regarding what is ethical.

I would say, though, that if a particular culture thinks the bigger kid should get all of the orange just because he can, that this culture is wrong. Fairness and justice should prevail whenever possible because it demonstrates that we value all and not just one bully that can turn "might makes right" into their reality. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

No, I'm not. I'm saying I have the right to be safe in a place I pay for according to the "white man's rules". That's not meant to be racist. We can either play things by the rules or not but you can't have it both ways.

But that cuts both ways, Selene. If you are willing to apply what you call "white man's rules" in SL, with regard to what you regard as your property, you are surely being complicit in a system that has already victimized you. You can't say "I'm going to apply your rules here, but not here." You either buy in, or you protest.

Again, the issue here is surely your safety, not your "land." By making it all about your property rights, you've just effectively signed the Big TOS in the sky that accepts a Eurocentric view of the relationship of property to people.

It is surely much more consistent to argue that what is important here are the mechanisms available to keep you safe, rather than that there is some sort of innate and inalienable "right" to virtual property?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Projecting real world rights onto virtual world spaces is role play. Feeling genuinely violated by an "intruder" in SL is being victimized one's own role play, in which we're  encouraged by the whole virtual world "land" metaphor we've all bought into.

Thank you for telling me my real life rapes were nothing but role play. You insensitive grrrrrr......

Share this post


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

Not at all as different cultures have very different standards of ethics many of which contradict each other. The human race has never managed to create a universally recognised ethics nor will it ever

Well, it's never found a way to "enforce" rights to guarantee that they will be upheld 100% of the time, but there do seem to be a couple of basic principles that we do all agree on as a species at a class level. Even if it did take some horrific human rights violations and even feminism (DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUN) to make the case for one or two of them.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for the love of ...

Yet another overreaction based on what was perceived instead of what was actually said...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The really annoying thing about this conversation is that it's kept from going in-world, and buzzing Kanry's land at 150m in an F-15 (which I haven't actually bought yet) while dropping a load of Amnesty International brochures.

  • Haha 2

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...