Jump to content
Slee Mayo

Security Orb Creators and Owners

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

2) Last time I checked, the subject at hand was waterways, airspace and the like. So a more apt analogy to RL might be:

A RL plane flew over my house! I am so pissed! It's my land and I have the right to stop global air commerce from overflying my house!

If the RL plane was attempting to fly in a no-fly zone (generally land owned by the government), then they do have the right to stop air travel over their 'parcel'. So, in SL you could consider orb-protected parcels to be no-fly zones. That would make your SL flying more realistic - a bonus. Perhaps to enhance the realism, some of the parcel owners might enable damage on their land and install missile launchers. Then you could have a more exciting flight as you try to dodge the missiles. It's a win-win. 😉

If LL had wanted to allow flights over privately owned parcels, they could have put the appropriate restrictions on property rights into the region's covenant. Mainland, for better or worse, was left wide open for people to do as they want as along as it's within the TOS. The only place in which you have the right to fly (or boat) is on your own land. You might want to check out Sansar. You can get an experience for free - it's open land (no crossings) equivalent to 256 SL regions. I don't think LL's got vehicles going yet, but someday ...

 

Edited by Parhelion Palou
spelling
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Parhelion Palou said:

You might want to check out Sansar.

Lol. Sansar is one place where privacy is NO PROBLEM !

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

1) it’s called an analogy.

So is what I provided in response. The difference being that you tried to equate people flying by in SL to people barging into your RL house expecting dinner. I tried to compare people flying by in SL to people flying by in RL. You don't have to accept that my analogy is more accurate. If you think someone flying by is akin to someone barging in to your house for dinner, more power to you.

Quote

2) Airspace doesn’t belong to me, just the ground and mineral rights. Fly wherever you like but don’t park your car or start drilling in my yard. 

Actually, airspace does belong to you. That is one of the basics of property that you learn in the first year of law school The idea going back to antiquity is that you own the land, therefore you own the sky above all the way to heaven and the ground below all the way to hell. That's actually how it was phrased (except they used the Latin phrase cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, which means the same thing). 

This obviously became a problem when the aviation industry was developed because it meant that aircraft were trespassing over whomever's land they happened to pass over. Imagine Delta Airlines flying overhead at 37000 feet and owing damages for trespass to everyone whose place they happened to fly over.  It would (1) be impossible to control that with that degree of precision, (2) telling Delta Airlines to restrict themselves to flying over public roads would not help, and (3) it would kill the aviation industry. So how did this get dealt with? A change in law to allow overflight like this without it being considered trespassing.

28 minutes ago, Parhelion Palou said:

If the RL plane was attempting to fly in a no-fly zone (generally land owned by the government), then they do have the right to stop air travel over their 'parcel'. So, in SL you could consider orb-protected parcels to be no-fly zones. That would make your SL flying more realistic - a bonus. Perhaps to enhance the realism, some of the parcel owners might enable damage on their land and install missile launchers. Then you could have a more exciting flight as you try to dodge the missiles. It's a win-win. 😉

I wasn't aware that every single private property owner was comparable to a government. But apart from that, I love this idea! But I think it has to be fair. I want my plane to be armed with bombs, cruise missiles and all the usual stuff. What could possibly go wrong? 🙂

28 minutes ago, Parhelion Palou said:

If LL had wanted to allow flights over privately owned parcels, they could have put the appropriate restrictions on property rights into the region's covenant. Mainland, for better or worse, was left wide open for people to do as they want as along as it's within the TOS. 

Or maybe they could have put in some hard coded limitations to allow flights overhead? Oh, wait. They did that. The ban lines used to go all the way up to the building limit at 4096m. Now they only go around 200m above ground level.

That TOS gives them the ability to make rules and regulations too, so maybe they could make some rules and regulations to address the problem? They did that too. 

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

You can find that documented here: https://community.secondlife.com/knowledgebase/english/managing-your-parcel-r49/#Section__6_10 and here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Land_With_Restricted_Access#Linden_official_position

About this time is when people who want to believe in the kind, benevolent, totally unselfish rule that they get to do whatever they want no matter what start talking about the vagueness of some of this policy language. And yes, there is some vagueness. But plainly these little or no warning security orbs do violate LL policy. And plainly, land ownership doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like no matter how it affects anybody else. That much is obvious. 

 

Edited by Female Winslet
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

And plainly, land ownership doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like no matter how it affects anybody else.

Almost.  What the TOS (sect. 3.4) says is , "You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with the Agreements, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify the Agreements."  So, there's no explicit mention of being kind, benevolent, or unselfish.  As long as you don't violate other parts of the TOS, you may be as arbitrary and capricious as you like.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

If you think someone flying by is akin to someone barging in to your house for dinner, more power to you.

Thanks. BTW, a search of the forums will turn up the 50,000 other threads where we discuss this topic. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

So is what I provided in response. The difference being that you tried to equate people flying by in SL to people barging into your RL house expecting dinner. I tried to compare people flying by in SL to people flying by in RL. You don't have to accept that my analogy is more accurate. If you think someone flying by is akin to someone barging in to your house for dinner, more power to you.

Actually, airspace does belong to you. That is one of the basics of property that you learn in the first year of law school The idea going back to antiquity is that you own the land, therefore you own the sky above all the way to heaven and the ground below all the way to hell. That's actually how it was phrased (except they used the Latin phrase cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, which means the same thing). 

This obviously became a problem when the aviation industry was developed because it meant that aircraft were trespassing over whomever's land they happened to pass over. Imagine Delta Airlines flying overhead at 37000 feet and owing damages for trespass to everyone whose place they happened to fly over.  It would (1) be impossible to control that with that degree of precision, (2) telling Delta Airlines to restrict themselves to flying over public roads would not help, and (3) it would kill the aviation industry. So how did this get dealt with? A change in law to allow overflight like this without it being considered trespassing.

I wasn't aware that every single private property owner was comparable to a government. But apart from that, I love this idea! But I think it has to be fair. I want my plane to be armed with bombs, cruise missiles and all the usual stuff. What could possibly go wrong? 🙂

Or maybe they could have put in some hard coded limitations to allow flights overhead? Oh, wait. They did that. The ban lines used to go all the way up to the building limit at 4096m. Now they only go around 200m above ground level.

That TOS gives them the ability to make rules and regulations too, so maybe they could make some rules and regulations to address the problem? They did that too. 

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

You can find that documented here: https://community.secondlife.com/knowledgebase/english/managing-your-parcel-r49/#Section__6_10 and here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Land_With_Restricted_Access#Linden_official_position

About this time is when people who want to believe in the kind, benevolent, totally unselfish rule that they get to do whatever they want no matter what start talking about the vagueness of some of this policy language. And yes, there is some vagueness. But plainly these little or no warning security orbs do violate LL policy. And plainly, land ownership doesn't mean you get to do whatever you like no matter how it affects anybody else. That much is obvious. 

 

Using a script designed to cause them to crash/force log out of Second life is banned (ie a script that activated a graphics crasher when someone entered your parcel), would be illegal, but a zero warning tp home script only disrupts your "right" to use someone else's land, and since it says quite clearly that no one has a right to expect to use anyone else's private parcel, they are NOT illegal, and they are not banned.

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

Actually, airspace does belong to you. That is one of the basics of property that you learn in the first year of law school The idea going back to antiquity is that you own the land, therefore you own the sky above all the way to heaven and the ground below all the way to hell. That's actually how it was phrased (except they used the Latin phrase cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos, which means the same thing). 

This obviously became a problem when the aviation industry was developed because it meant that aircraft were trespassing over whomever's land they happened to pass over. Imagine Delta Airlines flying overhead at 37000 feet and owing damages for trespass to everyone whose place they happened to fly over.  It would (1) be impossible to control that with that degree of precision, (2) telling Delta Airlines to restrict themselves to flying over public roads would not help, and (3) it would kill the aviation industry. So how did this get dealt with? A change in law to allow overflight like this without it being considered trespassing.

 

Well, as you said:

1 hour ago, Female Winslet said:

Last time I checked, SL was not the same as RL

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Almost.  What the TOS (sect. 3.4) says is , "You may permit or deny other users to access your Virtual Land on terms determined by you. Any agreement you make with other users relating to use or access to your Virtual Land must be consistent with the Agreements, and no such agreement can abrogate, nullify, void or modify the Agreements."  So, there's no explicit mention of being kind, benevolent, or unselfish.  As long as you don't violate other parts of the TOS, you may be as arbitrary and capricious as you like.

Almost. The TOS (section 3.4) also says "You agree that Linden Lab has the right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Land as it sees fit and that Linden Lab shall have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right." A couple of posts earlier, I gave you some of those rules that they make. Specifically, this one: 

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

So that is a written restriction. 

2 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Using a script designed to cause them to crash/force log out of Second life is banned (ie a script that activated a graphics crasher when someone entered your parcel), would be illegal, but a zero warning tp home script only disrupts your "right" to use someone else's land, and since it says quite clearly that no one has a right to expect to use anyone else's private parcel, they are NOT illegal, and they are not banned.

Can you explain how a zero warning script complies with this rule when the first bullet point says such scripts should "[p]rovide adequate warning to the undesired Resident?" No warning at all would seem to violate that restriction. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Female Winslet is right.

You guys are blinded by your love for each other....   :)

The bottom line is what Linden Lab says.  The TOS gives landowners the right to deny or allow access to their own land, as long as they don't do something that violates the TOS (like shooting down aircraft).  It's pretty black and white.  If you own the land, you make the rules.  You don't have to publish them anywhere, or apply them consistently, or explain them. I don't like it all the time either, because I think it's nasty to badger people who are flying 1000m above your land.  The TOS does favor the landowner, though.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

Almost. The TOS (section 3.4) also says "You agree that Linden Lab has the right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Land as it sees fit and that Linden Lab shall have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right." A couple of posts earlier, I gave you some of those rules that they make. Specifically, this one: 

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

So that is a written restriction. 

Can you explain how a zero warning script complies with this rule when the first bullet point says such scripts should "[p]rovide adequate warning to the undesired Resident?" No warning at all would seem to violate that restriction. 

It warns you that you are being sent home when you see that black tp screen :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF_GO5Pnpk0

What if the TP instead of sending you home, sent you someplace else, like a lag inducing safe  hub full of noobs and bots.

That might be considered  interfering with your use of SL though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

 

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

So that is a written restriction. 

Can you explain how a zero warning script complies with this rule when the first bullet point says such scripts should "[p]rovide adequate warning to the undesired Resident?" No warning at all would seem to violate that restriction. 

 

They don't use absolutes in their wording.  Key words highlighted:

image.png.16cea360d73457214a876afc79d89bef.png
 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BlackBlade Smit said:

Well, I can see that point, but I'd counter that aircraft and watercraft don't inhibit any level of enjoyment whereas 0 second security orbs do. 

Just want to say thank you BlackBlade for contacting me inworld and inviting me to tour your mainland sim.

I thought you did an excellent job, combining natural areas with your futuristic city.

I wish more people could have such a coherent vision and bring it to fruition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

Thanks. BTW, a search of the forums will turn up the 50,000 other threads where we discuss this topic. 

Which only shows what a blatant problem this is. Rather than shelling up and demanding your can tell pilots and such "stuff it, my land" we could actually try and come to some level of agreement or solution.

 

10 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

The bottom line is what Linden Lab says.  The TOS gives landowners the right to deny or allow access to their own land, as long as they don't do something that violates the TOS (like shooting down aircraft).  It's pretty black and white.  If you own the land, you make the rules.  You don't have to publish them anywhere, or apply them consistently, or explain them. I don't like it all the time either, because I think it's nasty to badger people who are flying 1000m above your land.  The TOS does favor the landowner, though.

Except, that it doesn't give "landowners the right to deny or allow access to their own land, as long as they don't do something that violates the TOS (like shooting down aircraft)." as is so worded by Female Winslet here:

15 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

Almost. The TOS (section 3.4) also says "You agree that Linden Lab has the right to manage, regulate, control, modify and/or eliminate such Virtual Land as it sees fit and that Linden Lab shall have no liability to you based on its exercise of such right." A couple of posts earlier, I gave you some of those rules that they make. Specifically, this one: 

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
  • Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
  • Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

So that is a written restriction. 

Can you explain how a zero warning script complies with this rule when the first bullet point says such scripts should "[p]rovide adequate warning to the undesired Resident?" No warning at all would seem to violate that restriction. 


 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care for zero warning security orbs either.  I find them annoying and pointlessly unfriendly.  The rules about warning have enough ambiguity that you could make an argument either way, though.

9 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

  • Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident. 

To my way of thinking, zero is not "adequate", but "should" is not "must" either.  It's not an airtight rule.  It's a statement in a Knowledge Base article that is in looser, less legalistic language than the TOS.  Frankly, I think the best guidance is in the common sense language of the LL TOS (sect. 6): " Exercise common sense and your best judgment in your interactions with others "

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

 LL TOS (sect. 6): " Exercise common sense and your best judgment in your interactions with others "

If only common sense was as common as it's name suggests. lol

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Just want to say thank you BlackBlade for contacting me inworld and inviting me to tour your mainland sim.

I thought you did an excellent job, combining natural areas with your futuristic city.

I wish more people could have such a coherent vision and bring it to fruition.

No problem! Any time. I'd extend the same invitation to others, honestly. We get on without Security orbs or ban lines. A 4 hour auto return so people have plenty of time to enjoy the area around and within us. :) I've have the motorcycles lodged full rev in my scenery before, but I usually hear it immediately when I log in and deal with it. NBD. I'd even say it's satisfying. I also tend to look at surrounding abandoned land and owned (but basically abandoned lol) land and contact other people who've lost various noisy objects to let them know it's there. In other words, I put in a little effort to try and be a good neighbor. Because I think we can be better in SL. RL is full of "I can so I will" types, why not try and be better here, is my stance. So I think that, as has been done in the past with access lines, they should do something to nerf security orbs usage. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, BlackBlade Smit said:

 

 

Except, that it doesn't give "landowners the right to deny or allow access to their own land, as long as they don't do something that violates the TOS (like shooting down aircraft)." as is so worded by Female Winslet here:


 

What if your land was life enabled and you used an anti-aircraft gun to shoot at the planes flying over?

I once told my demon friend that he should enroll his life-enabled land in that gold hunt game they used to have.

Then we could sit at the top of his castle and snipe at people as they walked toward the gold hoard.

He said no because he was afraid it might be considered griefing.

Share this post


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

What if your land was life enabled and you used an anti-aircraft gun to shoot at the planes flying over?

I once told my demon friend that he should enroll his life-enabled land in that gold hunt game they used to have.

Then we could sit at the top of his castle and snipe at people as they walked toward the gold hoard.

He said no because he was afraid it might be considered griefing.

LOL the combatant in me relishes the challenge. LOL But I think there could be an argument to be make there for /inviting/ people in just to shoot them without even letting them know the danger of being shot home is there.  For me, tping in just to get tp'd home before it loads almost always crashes me.

Share this post


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

Generally, such scripts should:

The TOS says "should", which means it's a suggestion. If they wanted to make it a requirement they should've used "shall".

Oops, LittleMe and Rolig already got this. Sorry about that.

Edited by Parhelion Palou
Reading too fast
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look it's very simple, as stated earlier: If you're not paying for it (in the case of user "owned" or rented parcels), you really do not have a say. 

Beginning and end of the story here. "Discuss" just how "unfair" that is all you want, no one is required to let you pass through or over their parcel. 

Oh and before you go getting all bent out of shape over this, I'm simply stating reality here. 

My personal opinion on the matter happens to be that so long as all you're doing is passing by or using spaces other users have set aside for use by the general user base... You're perfectly fine. 

You're NOT fine if you're demanding any level of access to a parcel someone else pays for, no matter your reason. You're not fine if you want to restrict what options other users have concerning access to parcels they pay for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Look it's very simple, as stated earlier: If you're not paying for it (in the case of user "owned" or rented parcels), you really do not have a say. 

Beginning and end of the story here. "Discuss" just how "unfair" that is all you want, no one is required to let you pass through or over their parcel. 

Oh and before you go getting all bent out of shape over this, I'm simply stating reality here. 

My personal opinion on the matter happens to be that so long as all you're doing is passing by or using spaces other users have set aside for use by the general user base... You're perfectly fine. 

You're NOT fine if you're demanding any level of access to a parcel someone else pays for, no matter your reason. You're not fine if you want to restrict what options other users have concerning access to parcels they pay for.

I think you forgot to mention that all of this is subject to TOS and other rules set by LL, which place a number of limitations on the abilities you outlined above. 

 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

I think you forgot to mention that all of this is subject to TOS and other rules set by LL, which place a number of limitations on the abilities you outlined above. 

 

The limitations you mention are not rules but suggestions, recommendations if you will. If it were actually breaking TOS you could just file an AR and consequences would be doled out, but it's not. 

So the only way to get this situation sorted is appealing to the good will of those who own the land, unless Linden Lab amends the current TOS to make the suggestions actual rules with consequences.

Perhaps filing a JIRA is in order because currently you really don't have a leg to stand on. I seriously doubt that you'll get the desired results even with a JIRA, but it is truly your only recourse short of reaching some kind of consensus where both parties have their needs met. I don't see it happening at this point not with the current line in the sand being drawn by those on both sides of the conversation.

Edited by Blush Bravin
  • Like 3

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...