Revoke the use of Security Orbs in Mainland

[Aethelwine]

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote: 

I don't think the KB has the same force of law as the TOS, the CS and other LL Official documents, but still here we have the phrase. "provide adequate warning."  So how much time is "adequate?"

---

is pretty interesting when stuff gets written by a Linden which this article was. What does it imply and stuff like that

+

.......

+

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

i think this one (by origin) has more to do with building out our neighbour (either manual or script) in a way that can be seen as harrassing. From mainland wars I think

 

---

Maybe they mean above 800m where they say in the same article individual bans don't work?

[wherorangi]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

like tie it to Avatar Complexity. If over some limit then can pay X amount to enter the rest of the sim. Or change outfit to under the free limit. Or go home

---

I quite like this. 

It would be even better if the script could say something like: "To stay on this parcel for one hour, please pay L$63,

and here's the breakdown of what each item you're wearing contributes to that cost

...."

---

i could go with this

personal confession: I am a total bling monkey (:

i have never seen any jewellery and attachments that i never liked. I am a walking jeweller store (:

about a zillion ACI pretty much all the time

i do try to be reasonable sometimes but somehow stuff just wants to attach to me, all by itself seems like

+

if I went to a fair or event and the doorkeeper goes: Hi welcome to our high fashion event. That be like 100,000L please for your own private viewing, unmolested by all them riffraff lagging you with their grandma outfits

then I probably choke a bit and do the whole: but I am fabulous dahlinks !!! and you should accept my deigning to come to your now obvious 2nd-class event, and let me in for free. To help raise the tone of the place

but yanno (:

 

 

[wherorangi]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

wherorangi wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote: 

I don't think the KB has the same force of law as the TOS, the CS and other LL Official documents, but still here we have the phrase. "provide adequate warning."  So how much time is "adequate?"

---

is pretty interesting when stuff gets written by a Linden which this article was. What does it imply and stuff like that

+

.......

+

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

i think this one (by origin) has more to do with building out our neighbour (either manual or script) in a way that can be seen as harrassing. From mainland wars I think

 

---

Maybe they mean above 800m where they say in the same article individual bans don't work?

---

maybe yes now. The individual parcel ban thingy at any height is a relative recent thing

am pretty sure tho that the no-scripts limit is still 70m above terrain

[Darrius Gothly]

(This post is based on old knowledge and may in fact be outdated but .. when has being totally wrong ever stopped me?)

There is also the option to download, configure and install your own copy of OpenGrid software. With that properly configured, you can create your own private Sim that is 1KM x 1KM per Sim and allows you to fly, explore and navigate absolutely anywhere you want .. banline and security orb free. You have total control of the entire sim, owe no money to anyone else and do not have to tolerate noisy neighbors or obnoxious builds of any sort.

It is without limitation "Your Imagination, Your World".

The silence can be a bit deafening sometimes. And the sparse landscape is rather boring after a few minutes. But hey .. there are no limits whatsoever to what you can do! (That's gotta be a big plus, right?)

[Alwin Alcott]

ánd 45000 prims a sim... thats a large plane..

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up?

---

Linden knows. For all anyone can assume, the same reason banlines still only work until 768m - no-one thought to change it after the build height was increased to 4096m. This junk isn't tied together, and expecting well-thought-out decisions has been unreasonable since the get-go. Making guesses on behaviour tied to shoddy coding is not smart or productive (and definitely not correct).

I'm glad the conversation's moved past this - and discussion of rights - since those weren't words that I used and the reframing was silly. What matters is what users can be reasonably confident of getting away with, and in this case, that includes security orbs but does not include airplanes. Just how it is until enforcement changes.

I am happy to argue things should be different, but at this point in the dev-cycle it doesn't seem prudent to diminish the capabilities of landowners with 'should', 'maybe you could try' and 'take into consideration'. Landowners are the only thing propping up the massive moneysuck that is Mainland and it will reduce when it becomes cost-effective to do so. Think everyone would agree that having it (even if broken, limited, unruly) is way better than not having it.

In addition, sounds like baby-sitting. Conflict is fine, disruption is okay - laying down demands over other peoples' land is not. No-one gets to force anyone to do things their way except the Lab.

[Aethelwine]

Ban lines only work up to about 70m not 770... The reason for that would seem to be to allow air traffic.. I don't see how that setting can be seen in any other way.

The conundrum would seem to be that for parcels to be rented and protected from griefers there needs to be a way to instant eject them. With that functionality comes the ability to make instant eject orbs.

If there is a way to accommodate privacy and a freedom to explore it is worth debating and implementing because it would revitalise mainland. As it is the areas sought after people are prepared to pay for are those with the best transport routes. Land values show what people want and are the key to the future success of mainland

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Then why did they write the parcel access code so that turning off public access only worked up to a certain height when it would have been simpler to just have it go all the way up?

---

Linden knows. For all anyone can assume,

the same reason banlines

still

only work until 768m

- no-one

thought

to change it after the build height was increased to 4096m. This junk isn't tied together, and expecting well-thought-out decisions has been unreasonable since the get-go. 

Making guesses on behaviour tied to shoddy coding is not smart or productive (and definitely not correct).

I'm glad the conversation's moved past this -

and discussion of rights - since those weren't words that I used

and the reframing was silly. What matters is

what users can be reasonably confident of getting away with

, and in this case, that includes security orbs but does not include airplanes. Just how it is until enforcement changes.

---

Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years, and you used the word "rights" in several of your first posts in this thread.

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Ban lines only work up to about 70m not 770...

---

 

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years,

---

Hmmm.   Something is amiss here.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Ban lines only work up to about 70m not 770...

---

 

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

 

Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years,

---

Hmmm.   Something is amiss here.

---

There are two types of ban-lines - implicit/"yellow" ones, which stop all avatars and end at a certain, limited height above the ground patch, and explicit/"red" ones, which stop avatars on the parcel ban list and originally went up to 768 meters (the old build limit) and now go up to 4096 meters.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

you used the word "rights" in several of your first posts in this thread.

---

I did find one instance of this, sorry. I was trying to use privileges and abilities for reasons I think I've made clear, that instance was an error.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years

---

Well, then okay. I don't know if this correction changes the amount of inconsistency present within our platform, nor its suitability for deriving law from code. You seem to have skipped any substantive reply, so I'll try one more time.

My point and perspective was: Until enforcement changes, these are the terms Mainlanders live under. It's not reasonable to demand others accomodate your use of the platform at a cost to themselves. Users expecting a predictable/reliable flying (or other land-requiring activity) experience should be prepared to spend money in order to maintain that experience (e.g. a tax or tier), just as landowners do.

Hope that's clear.

 

[Phil Deakins]

I don't know why some people want to argue about the word 'right' in this context. A definition of the word (found by searching Google on the word 'rights') is 'a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something".

When you pay tier to LL for a piece of land, you have a moral or legal entitlement to be on that land (unless LL says differently, by banning you, for instance); i.e. you have a right to be on it. You also have a moral or legal entitlement to prevent other users from being on or over the land, because that ability comes with the land; i.e. you have a right to do that. So 'right' is a correct word to describe those entitlements.

I pay tier for some land (mainland), so I have the right to prevent other users from being on or over it. Users who want to fly over my land have no right whatsoever to do so.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't know why some people want to argue about the word 'right' in this context. A definition of the word (found by searching Google on the word 'rights') is '

a moral or legal entitlement to have or do

something".

---

I don't have much productive on this, only off-topic opinion. It's a tiring subject, more expectation for our service provider to do something for them. Have been trying not to press this into the thread, but I'll give ya one post on it in the hopes of explaining my choice of words further.

What most people believe to be rights are actually conditional or imaginary, I don't find them a practical way to relate to the world - virtual or real. You only have them until authority decides for you, that you don't. This makes them unfit for purpose.

Like many things, George Carlin

.

 I'd say (using the above opinion) that  you have some ability to exert some influence the land you own, but you don't have rights over it. Much like how the land always, immutably, belongs to Linden Lab - you can't claim squatters rights if they choose to evict you, and you have no recourse to funds invested in maintaining your fleeting access to their land simulation.

That's why the word gets messy.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

you used the word "rights" in several of your first posts in this thread.

---

I did find one instance of this, sorry. I was trying to use

privileges

 and

abilities

for reasons I think I've made clear, that instance was an error. I've no interest in word games - no-one gets any

rights

from Linden Lab, I didn't claim otherwise.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years

---

Well, then okay. I don't know if this correction changes my point, but I doubt it.

My point and perspective was:

Until enforcement changes, these are the terms Mainlanders live under. It's not reasonable to demand others accomodate your use of the platform at a cost to themselves. Users expecting a predictable/reliable flying (or other land-requiring activity) experience should be prepared to spend money in order to maintain that experience (e.g. a tax or tier), just as landowners do.

Hope that's clear.

 

---

I used to live on a private island but I moved to the Mainland (using a Premium account) largely because I wanted the opportunity to travel long distances with various vehicles. In other words, I'm paying for the privilege of travel, including to and between areas specifically designed and provided for vehicle users by Linden Lab which I do not own but which my tier goes to pay for.

Vehicles are an integral part of Second Life and specific vehicle code is part of the scripting language. Linden Lab gave sailboats and aircraft to Premium members as gifts. Actually I believe vehicles have been in Second Life longer than landownership has been. A person whose primary concern is having a private piece of land has more options on a private island than on Mainland, and a person whose primary concern is operating a vehicle has fewer options on a private island than on Mainland.

Note that I'm not saying that vehicle use is my right, simply that I'm already doing what you're saying I should do in order to expect a predictable/reliable flying experience in the part of the world that I'm paying for as a Mainland owning Premium member.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Vehicles are an integral part of Second Life and specific vehicle code is part of the scripting language. Linden Lab gave sailboats and aircraft to Premium members as gifts. Actually I believe vehicles have been in Second Life longer than landownership has been. A person whose primary concern is having a private piece of land has

more

options on a private island than on Mainland, and a person whose primary concern is operating a vehicle has

fewer

options on a private island than on Mainland.

---

I agree with all of this, except not knowing when vehicles were introduced - it was likely before private islands (but probably not landownership in general). Your example is a fine one to have set, but it's not a universal experience and there's no reason to assume that all vehicle users follow it.

We're not in an ideal state where purpose and function was well-defined from the outset, and it never has been. I don't see how to untangle this mess but would say it would require active guidance from the service operator (the population would need 'sorting'), which hasn't ever been likely.

I don't know that Premium membership guarantees anything in relation to freedom of travel, either as a right or anything else. It makes sense that it could, since free membership came afterward. Service operator has always been very reluctant to differ access/abilities between levels of user (with some modern exceptions) and I think that hasn't helped the confusion.

Thanks for the fuller reply, I like your perspective. Myself, I moved out of Mainland when I realised that Premium membership didn't provide any increased support - back in '07. Been preferring to support users/the economy instead, by living on private islands. Not throwing shade, just explaining my reasons.

[Qie Niangao]

For me, the problem comes with the "property rights" construction, presumably deriving from my inalienable, god-given "right" to shoo young whippersnappers off my lawn.

That and the immersive verisimilitude to Real Life, where if anyone rings my doorbell while I'm not at home, my Ring Video Drone attachment swoops down, vaporizes their car, and hurls them to the address on their driver's license. Doesn't everybody's?

[Darrius Gothly]

---

Qie Niangao wrote:

For me, the problem comes with the "

property

rights" construction, presumably deriving from my inalienable, god-given "right" to shoo young whippersnappers off my lawn.

That and the immersive verisimilitude to Real Life, where if anyone rings my doorbell while I'm not at home, my Ring Video Drone attachment swoops down, vaporizes their car, and hurls them to the address on their driver's license. Doesn't everybody's?

---

I recommend you get the upgrade. It now sweeps up any remaining ashes too ...

[Aethelwine]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I agree with all of this, except not knowing when vehicles were introduced - it was likely before private islands (but probably not landownership in general). Your example is a fine one to have set, but it's not a universal experience and there's no reason to assume that all vehicle users follow it.

---

As a point of interest flying vehicles precede both private estates and land ownership.

Land ownership as I understand it began with version 1.2 released December 22 2003, before that in November 2003 there was Zoe Airfield.



References:

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Abbotts_Aerodrome

http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Version_1.2.0

[Aethelwine]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't know why some people want to argue about the word 'right' in this context. A definition of the word (found by searching Google on the word 'rights') is '

a moral or legal entitlement to have or do

something".

When you pay tier to LL for a piece of land, you have

a moral or legal entitlement

to be on that land (unless LL says differently, by banning you, for instance); i.e. you have a

right

to be on it. You also have

a moral or legal entitlement

to prevent other users from being on or over the land, because that ability comes with the land; i.e. you have a

right

to do that. So '

right

' is a correct word to describe those entitlements.

I pay tier for some land (mainland), so I have the

right

to prevent other users from being on or over it. Users who want to fly over my land have no

right

whatsoever to do so.

---

I don't follow your argument at all. You quote a definition that includes a moral right and then go on to seemingly ignore it. Rights are not just a matter of law. I have a Right to dignity, equal treatment, freedom from torture independent of the country and the judicial framework I find myself in. I may not be able to enforce the rights I claim but that does not mean I don't have them or can;t assert them.

I don't know how property rights work in the USA, but in the UK where you are from as well, Property Rights are limited. There is in fact a duty of care for a land owner in the UK over how they treat trespassers. Trespass in the UK is not a criminal act, it falls under the civil law system.

If it wasn't for people exercising their right of trespass, there would not be the freedoms we have today to enjoy our countryside.

Do you know this song?

Inspired by the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in the 1930s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

Ban lines only work up to about 70m not 770... The reason for that would seem to be to allow air traffic.. I don't see how that setting can be seen in any other way.

The conundrum would seem to be that for parcels to be rented and protected from griefers there needs to be a way to instant eject them. With that functionality comes the ability to make instant eject orbs.

If there is a way to accommodate privacy and a freedom to explore it is worth debating and implementing because it would revitalise mainland. As it is the areas sought after people are prepared to pay for are those with the best transport routes. Land values show what people want and are the key to the future success of mainland

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of any land owner to use them because they pay for the land, not vehicle owners, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

I've always thought that mainland would really benefit from zoning via covenants.  LL could set the zones, commercial, residential, ban lines and orbs or not, as well as some building codes.  Then allow a land trade for people to move to a like size and location parcel in the zone of their choice.  The lab may have to do a bit of terraforming to accomplish this.  New landowners could buy land in their choice of zones too.  Then people who want absolute privacy wouldn't have to hear people claim a 'right' to use vehicles on their land and people that want or feel a right to open land could use those zones that allow it.

Of course LL would have to have some protection against griefers in open land by either disabling certain scripts commonly used by griefers or by strict and immediate response when called on by people in the area.  Or maybe there are other ways.

If there is no way to accomplish this or LL won't cooperate then they can expect this often repeated debate to continue ad nauseum, unhappy vehicle owners and landowners who are told what they should not do, as well as vast swaths of empty main land that no one wants.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

you used the word "rights" in several of your first posts in this thread.

---

I did find one instance of this, sorry. I was trying to use

privileges

 and

abilities

for reasons I think I've made clear, that instance was an error. I've no interest in word games - no-one gets any

rights

from Linden Lab, I didn't claim otherwise.

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Ban lines have gone up to 4096 meters for years

---

Well, then okay. I don't know if this correction changes my point, but I doubt it.

My point and perspective was:

Until enforcement changes, these are the terms Mainlanders live under. It's not reasonable to demand others accomodate your use of the platform at a cost to themselves. Users expecting a predictable/reliable flying (or other land-requiring activity) experience should be prepared to spend money in order to maintain that experience (e.g. a tax or tier), just as landowners do.

Hope that's clear.

 

---

I used to live on a private island but I moved to the Mainland (using a Premium account) largely because I wanted the opportunity to travel long distances with various vehicles. In other words,

I'm paying for the privilege

of travel, including to and between areas

specifically designed and provided for vehicle users by Linden Lab

which I do not own

but which my tier goes to pay for.

 

---

Sorry but the published benefits, not rights, of premium members don't mention this at all.  You do have the ability to travel on LL owned land and on land that the landowner allows. People who pay mainland tiers that don't allow it have that right under the TOS.  Period.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

I don't know why some people want to argue about the word 'right' in this context. A definition of the word (found by searching Google on the word 'rights') is '

a moral or legal entitlement to have or do

something".

When you pay tier to LL for a piece of land, you have

a moral or legal entitlement

to be on that land (unless LL says differently, by banning you, for instance); i.e. you have a

right

to be on it. You also have

a moral or legal entitlement

to prevent other users from being on or over the land, because that ability comes with the land; i.e. you have a

right

to do that. So '

right

' is a correct word to describe those entitlements.

I pay tier for some land (mainland), so I have the

right

to prevent other users from being on or over it. Users who want to fly over my land have no

right

whatsoever to do so.

---

I don't follow your argument at all. You quote a definition that includes a moral right and then go on to seemingly ignore it. Rights are not just a matter of law. I have a Right to dignity, equal treatment, freedom from torture independent of the country and the judicial framework I find myself in. I may not be able to enforce the rights I claim but that does not mean I don't have them or can;t assert them.

---

My reasoning was perfectly clear. I quoted the full definition, and the part of it that I obviously talked about was the legal entitlement. It was clear that I wasn't talking about the moral aspect, so it wasn't ignored, as such. It wasn't relevant to my point. Perhaps if you read the definition as, "A legal entitlement to have or do something" it will help you understand better.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

What part of the TOS prevents a landowner for teleporting someone without warning?

[Amethyst Jetaime]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

---

---

Don't get me wrong.  As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment.  However I defend the right of

any

land owner to use them because

they pay for the land, not vehicle owners

, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS.

---

What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning?

---

 

The TOS says nothing about any restrictions on that and LL doesn't enforce it.  However I never said that a reasonable warning shouldn't be given either.  I agree with that actually as just common courtesy.  But I don't think that 'reasonable' includes enough time for vehicles to transport across a larger parcel, unless the landowner sets it up that way.