Security Orb Creators and Owners

[Solar Legion]

Sorry Winslet, any such limitations do not preclude those paying for the parcels telling you - in no uncertain terms - to pack sand and go around their parcels. 

As others have noted: Despite your interpretation of the ToS, nowhere in the bits you have quoted is any language even suggesting any hard and fast rules concerning security systems and such. 

There simply isn't. 

It is phrased as a suggestion. That is the reality. 

You can disagree with that all you like, it doesn't change much. 

Now, want to try to change it? File a JIRA entry. Bring it up at a Town Hall even. 

Stamping your feet in the forum won't help you. 

[Female Winslet]

5 hours ago, Female Winslet said:

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.

Nailed it. 

 

 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

The main issue of security orbs is that they provide no warning. And not in the sense of "I will ban you in X seconds, but ideally these scripts should be required by TOS to somehow advertise their presence, because even if you have a viewer that shows you neatly the parcel layout of the region, which parcels block entry, which have ban lines and which have noscript, you are powerless in anticipating the presence of a security orb.

And before the usual ***** stirrers reply "simply don't fly over other people's land", this is not an acceptable solution, the door swings both ways and your desire to block vehicles only extends to the land you are paying for and shouldn't be used to discourage the use of land that is intentionally left public.

[Pamela Galli]

28 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

Nailed it. 

 

 

Actually your own post that you quoted is what you nailed. You brought up “vagueness”.

[Pamela Galli]

29 minutes ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

this is not an acceptable solution,

Evidently it is to a lot of landowners, and they make the rules. 

It doesn’t matter if my RL neighbor finds it unacceptable for me to serve beets for dinner, since I didn’t invite him to eat.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Pamela Galli

[Solar Legion]

28 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

Nailed it. 

 

 

Not really. 

Stating reality is just that - like it or not. 

Thanks for playing though, please try again when you're ready to proceed from a grounded point of view. 

[Female Winslet]

22 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Thanks for playing though, please try again when you're ready to proceed from a grounded point of view. 

Well we seem to have reached a point where one side of the argument is unwilling to discuss the matter in good faith. Instead we have verbal gymnastics and efforts to belittle us like the above and others.

While I, and others on my side would like to have a discussion with you to find a resolution that works for everyone, it is readily apparent that you do not share that goal. Accordingly, I don’t see any point in continuing this thread any further. 

If you would like to setup your security orbs with zero warning and interfere with everyone else, then of course I cannot stop you. What I can do is AR it, as I have others, and let LL explain to you that you should have done what they told you that you should do. 

If it seems like it will be useful to jump in and make some progress again, I may do that. But I’m done for now. I’ll wait until someone on your side is interested in actually reaching a resolution. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Female Winslet

[Female Winslet]

Deleted accidental duplicate posting. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Female Winslet

[Pamela Galli]

8 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

What I can do is AR it, as I have others, and let LL explain to you that you should have done what they told you that you should do. 

Well if LL handles the problem, why are you bringing it to the forum in the first place?  All that “the other side” has told you is that LL makes the rules.

[Solar Legion]

Swing and a miss there, again. 

Speaking only for myself: I'm not on any "side" here. At all. 

My sole interest here is seeing the removal of your opinion/interpretation of the ToS as a factor or talking point. 

Some sections are worded as suggestions, others a bit more concretely. 

That's just how it is. 

Want a discussion? Have one. 

Please leave your interpretations at the door. 

That's directed at the general "you" by the way. 

[Kyrah Abattoir]

8 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

Evidently it is to a lot of landowners, and they make the rules. 

It doesn’t matter if my RL neighbor finds it unacceptable for me to serve beets for dinner, since I didn’t invite him to eat.

Serving beets for dinner doesn't condition the expectation that all land owners will serve beets for dinner.

[Qie Niangao]

10 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

Now, want to try to change it? File a JIRA entry. Bring it up at a Town Hall even. 

Stamping your feet in the forum won't help you. 

This may sound hopelessly futile, but I'm not sure it really is. Things have changed before, specifically on Mainland, sometimes causing great disruption (the Zindra decampment) and sometimes great relief (the banning of adfarms). And as I've muttered recently in one of these threads, now might be propitious timing for a change, with multi-level Premium coming soon, and presumably further reductions in Land pricing ahead.

I'm reminded of adfarming specifically because I see the same arguments: MY LAND, MY RULES. I PAY THE TIER SO WHO ARE YOU TO OBJECT? THE PLATFORM SUPPORTS IT, IT'S WHAT I BOUGHT, SO THEY'RE MY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

It all could have been copied directly from the adfarmers.

It took ages, but eventually we convinced even the Libertarian Lindens that they were killing their own Mainland business by letting a handful of landowners impose egregious externalities on every other Mainland owner -- and every prospective Mainland tier payer.

The effects of adfarming were so heinous and universal that an outright ban was tenable. In contrast, the various ways landowners can make Mainland less welcoming to explorers and vehicle users are more subtle. For one thing, the "Land Role-Play" thing, including the "property rights" and privacy illusions, is a large enough market that it would be crazy for the Lab to drive it away, whereas purging a handful of adfarmers cost practically nothing.

That said, unwelcoming landowner practices do impose externalities absorbed by the platform's bottom line: some prospecitive tier-payers are lost because the Mainland is travel-hostile, and some holdings reduced. The topic keeps coming up and "get over it" is not an effective treatment no matter how often it's repeated with ever more vigorous gesticulation.

There could be incentives that steer visitor-welcoming residents towards the Mainland while making private Estates more attractive for property-rights adherents. Done right, this could be a win-win for everybody.* It wouldn't remove every last trigger-finger orb from Mainland, but over time it could substantially reduce the pain. (And, even to this day, new adfarm violations crop up and have to be reported, so an outright policy ban is no panacea either.)

_____________
*Well, almost everybody. A few folks seem intent only to aggravate the other side. Without opposition, those folks would find a world fully embracing their own position most unsatisfying.

[Solar Legion]

17 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

This may sound hopelessly futile, but I'm not sure it really is. Things have changed before, specifically on Mainland, sometimes causing great disruption (the Zindra decampment) and sometimes great relief (the banning of adfarms). And as I've muttered recently in one of these threads, now might be propitious timing for a change, with multi-level Premium coming soon, and presumably further reductions in Land pricing ahead.

I'm reminded of adfarming specifically because I see the same arguments: MY LAND, MY RULES. I PAY THE TIER SO WHO ARE YOU TO OBJECT? THE PLATFORM SUPPORTS IT, IT'S WHAT I BOUGHT, SO THEY'RE MY PROPERTY RIGHTS.

It all could have been copied directly from the adfarmers.

It took ages, but eventually we convinced even the Libertarian Lindens that they were killing their own Mainland business by letting a handful of landowners impose egregious externalities on every other Mainland owner -- and every prospective Mainland tier payer.

The effects of adfarming were so heinous and universal that an outright ban was tenable. In contrast, the various ways landowners can make Mainland less welcoming to explorers and vehicle users are more subtle. For one thing, the "Land Role-Play" thing, including the "property rights" and privacy illusions, is a large enough market that it would be crazy for the Lab to drive it away, whereas purging a handful of adfarmers cost practically nothing.

That said, unwelcoming landowner practices do impose externalities absorbed by the platform's bottom line: some prospecitive tier-payers are lost because the Mainland is travel-hostile, and some holdings reduced. The topic keeps coming up and "get over it" is not an effective treatment no matter how often it's repeated with ever more vigorous gesticulation.

There could be incentives that steer visitor-welcoming residents towards the Mainland while making private Estates more attractive for property-rights adherents. Done right, this could be a win-win for everybody.* It wouldn't remove every last trigger-finger orb from Mainland, but over time it could substantially reduce the pain. (And, even to this day, new adfarm violations crop up and have to be reported, so an outright policy ban is no panacea either.)

_____________
*Well, almost everybody. A few folks seem intent only to aggravate the other side. Without opposition, those folks would find a world fully embracing their own position most unsatisfying.

Ad Farms were objectively bad, Qie.

No warning Security Scripts? Possibly the same.

Pretty much all other complaints raised by vehicle users? No - they're subjective.

Personally? I see no reason to make Estates more "attractive" to any set of users. Let the user decide where they want to go.

Mainland does not need to be visitor-welcoming. It simply needs to exist as an option.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Solar Legion

[Blush Bravin]

26 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

making private Estates more attractive for property-rights adherents.

Bogus! I don't want to pay money to a third party. I want to pay directly to Linden Lab. It's ludicrous to insist that people who want the privacy of their land respected should be forced onto a private estate.

Right of way on mainland should be more easily seen so that pilots can be better informed when traveling. And pilots should not object to having to fly around private areas instead of insisting they have a right of way to cross private areas.

26 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

That said, unwelcoming landowner practices do impose externalities absorbed by the platform's bottom line: some prospecitive tier-payers are lost because the Mainland is travel-hostile, and some holdings reduced. The topic keeps coming up and "get over it" is not an effective treatment no matter how often it's repeated with ever more vigorous gesticulation.

If the Lab decided to reduce the land owners right to privacy they likely would see a larger revolt with the number of premium accounts dwindling. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by Blush Bravin

[Ethan Paslong]

2 minutes ago, Blush Bravin said:

 It's ludicrous to insist that people who want the privacy of their land respected should be forced

even when all waters would get protected.. the lands around that and able to sink a bit to have a own dock, would keep getting the same s****t .. there always will be sailors wanting to be just on thát part of the water that's not public

[Pamela Galli]

44 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

It took ages, but eventually we convinced even the Libertarian Lindens that they were killing their own Mainland business by letting a handful of landowners impose egregious externalities on every other Mainland owner -- and every prospective Mainland tier payer.

So do the same about ban lines or whatever problem you see with TOS. All anyone has done here is to repeat what the TOS says. If you want things changed, file a JIRA. 

[mikka Luik]

10 hours ago, Female Winslet said:

Well we seem to have reached a point where one side of the argument is unwilling to discuss the matter in good faith. Instead we have verbal gymnastics and efforts to belittle us like the above and others.

While I, and others on my side would like to have a discussion with you to find a resolution that works for everyone, it is readily apparent that you do not share that goal. Accordingly, I don’t see any point in continuing this thread any further. 

If you would like to setup your security orbs with zero warning and interfere with everyone else, then of course I cannot stop you. What I can do is AR it, as I have others, and let LL explain to you that you should have done what they told you that you should do. 

If it seems like it will be useful to jump in and make some progress again, I may do that. But I’m done for now. I’ll wait until someone on your side is interested in actually reaching a resolution. 

Well now. I am an avid mainland traveller (GTFO, Grid Drives and oh the horror -  just wandering around for fun via road and water - any flight I take is over a large open body such as the Blake). I make a point of trying to avoid what looks like any one elses space out of politeness. Accidents do happen but hey it is the joy of it. Picking a route via the extensive road network and keeping an eye on parcel boundaries - all part of the fun. Frustrating at times but so what? Any sec device that shouts at me outside of a parcel - noted, muted and ignored.

However, as a landowner I do sometimes restrict access. Usually a 2 km high block as that is the airspace I use over my land to experiment in. And no there is no warning - being nowhere near a road or Linden waterway, tough luck. Then again I am not that agressive - scans roughly once a minute and does not use that ancient sensor nonsense anyway. I mean, who does

So - which side am I on Female Winslet?

(Oh those auto cannons from earlier - now that I would consider an AR on simply for being unsporting. When I fire up my Parcel Missile System they are ground based and give plenty of approach warning to the targets)

 

[Qie Niangao]

55 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

So do the same about ban lines or whatever problem you see with TOS. All anyone has done here is to repeat what the TOS says. If you want things changed, file a JIRA. 

It's in the works, as I understand it. I'm disappointed it cannot be discussed openly in these forums, but that seems to be hopeless. We had similar problems with adfarms, now that I think about it, but ultimately enough of us at enough office hours eventually got the point across. This will probably need a different approach, but the forums clearly aren't working.

1 hour ago, Blush Bravin said:

Bogus! I don't want to pay money to a third party. I want to pay directly to Linden Lab. It's ludicrous to insist that people who want the privacy of their land respected should be forced onto a private estate.

That's why I insisted absolutely nothing of the sort. Rather, I said that an incentive could encourage folks to prefer that location -- and explicitly recognized that it would never be a complete solution. But if, say, 50% effective it would reduce the pain to a point that these constant threads would not keep arising. (I've sketched elsewhere how this could benefit everybody and inconvenience nobody, but I've now officially given up on the forums for this topic. See above.)

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

Ad Farms were objectively bad, Qie.

No warning Security Scripts? Possibly the same.

Pretty much all other complaints raised by vehicle users? No - they're subjective.

Personally? I see no reason to make Estates more "attractive" to any set of users. Let the user decide where they want to go.

Mainland does not need to be visitor-welcoming. It simply needs to exist as an option.

So I did say that the Land Role Play thing was more subtle than adfarming. That said, I think they're both about objective externalities: what does a behavior cost those who are not directly party to the transactions involved? In the case of adfarming, yeah, it was real clear: folks weren't buying Mainland because their purchase could be rendered worthless by one idiot owning one 16 sq.m. microparcel. In retrospect, that seems an obvious case that should have been easy to make -- but it took a long time. In this case it's different because Land role-play generates genuine value* the Lab wouldn't want to lose. But still that value comes with a cost: it is harder to use the Mainland's continent-scale travel networks because of parcels with access restrictions, scripted or otherwise. That does cause objective, theoretically measurable harm to the Lab's revenue from the Mainland (and vehicle sales commissions, and new Premium sign-ups, and etc, etc).

That negative effect is smaller than the positive effect of the Land Role-Play appeal, so it would be crazy (as I said) to discourage the latter by banning... well, anything, really. But if one can instead encourage the opposite, everybody wins -- except those who are bound and determined that those with opposing interests continue to suffer as much as always.

_______________
*That's in contrast to the totally bogus "advertising" industry that never generated any revenue to flow-through to the Lab.

[Blush Bravin]

4 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

This will probably need a different approach, but the forums clearly aren't working. 

Totally agree. That's why we have JIRA. 

5 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

That's why I insisted absolutely nothing of the sort. Rather, I said that an incentive could encourage folks to prefer that location -- and explicitly recognized that it would never be a complete solution.

Then I will change my wording to it being ludicrous to even suggest such a thing. Mainland belongs to whoever wants to live there and no one should even suggest that anyone who wants their privacy respected move to an estate as a solution for those who deem their right to enter a private area more important than that of the land owner.

[Pamela Galli]

27 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

It's in the works, as I understand it. I'm disappointed it cannot be discussed openly in these forums, but that seems to be hopeless

It is being discussed in this thread but there is really not much to say other than “this is what the TOS says, file a JIRA to change TOS.” However, Female Winslet says when she ARs people who have security she doesn’t like, LL takes care of the problem and admonishes the landowner. 

[Solar Legion]

There is no "land role play" going on where parcel owners wanting a bit more "privacy" are concerned. 

By thinking along those lines you are -indeed - trying to present the subjective as objective. 

No incentives of any sort should be offered or used to weight a user's decision in either direction. Yes yes, Estates can add a further Land Impact bonus if the owner is willing to pay extra, I am aware. 

That's beside the point. 

Here's the bottom line: If you're not paying for it, you do not get to decide what access permissions or other security options a user has on their parcel. 

Linden Lab does. 

[Qie Niangao]

7 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Linden Lab does. 

Exactly.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

How about this, I am enabling damage and setting up a missile platform and blowing away any plane that comes on my parcel.. Sound fair? 

[BlackBlade Smit]

12 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

Linden Lab does. 

That's 100% accurate. And people have a right to petition LL to take measures to prevent the issue from continuing by restricting certain "security" options that have been shown to be overkill as well as abused in many situations in order to purposefully hinder access to things like airports. Yes, that happens. People buy land right next to an airport JUST because said airport pissed them off and they had a few extra m2 to fill in their tier level, so they get the land and erect ban lines with the sole purpose of interrupting air traffic to and from the airport. There are many other scenarios where this is a serious issue.

[Ethan Paslong]

25 minutes ago, BlackBlade Smit said:

 the sole purpose of interrupting air traffic to and from the airport.

buy a harrier ...solved

the everlasting claim at airports... we are allowed to fly low over your home, even dump our re rezable planes on your roof or garden.. and if you don't like it, we still do it... oh there are banlines... we hate our neighbours and suddenly it's a serious issue where LL needs to come comfort the poor airport people because the neighbours are so bad.
Buy the surrounding land yourself when it's available, you have the same opportunity to buy as any other. And if you need space for your hobby.. take it.

Edited April 2, 2019 by Ethan Paslong