Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Prokofy Neva

Why Put Gigantic Orbs and Domes in the View?

Recommended Posts

One of the things that really torques me in SL is when people get those gigantic domes that take up nearly a sim and put them hovering just a few hundred meters above ground.

Almost to a man, the owners of these things never fail to put them at that very low level so they are very visible and dominate the whole sim.

I even wonder if there is some actual feature of these monsters that makes them undeployable above 100 meters. But that can't be! Surely like any skybox they can be rezzed anywhere in the sky, up to 4096 where a teleporter will stop working.

WHY IS THIS???

I recently saw a sim with some beautiful rentals, a beautifully designed home by a famous designer for rent, lovely land for sale -- but none of it renting or selling because of this ENORMOUS dome hovering in the sky like some huge spaceship -- and owned by a prominent SL events organizer. WHY???

The irony of this is that you can't even see OUT of these domes. I can understand if you thrill to the idea of feeling like you're on Star Trek and you look out of your dome window down on the little people below. But they don't see out! They are opaque. They contain worlds like beaches. It just doesn't make sense. 

It should be an actionable offense to place buildings in the air like that and ruin an entire sim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think so as well

is not like they are new people and dont know what they are doing. Anyone who does this is just being a idgafa

i be quite happy if a DBAMA law got passed in SL. D dont B be A a M mainland A ....

and the servers got changed to reinforce this. Like cant rez stuff at all between 128m and 256m above the terrain. Nor can any stuff encroach on this clear space 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:

 

i be quite happy if a DBAMA law got passed in SL. D dont B be A a M mainland A ....

and the servers got changed to reinforce this. Like cant rez stuff at all between 128m and 256m above the terrain. Nor can any stuff encroach on this clear space 

 

and why?

 

looks to me this gets such your land i want your airspace thread again....

the owner of mainland makes the rules.. even when he just rezzes wood prims till  5000 meters... f*ng ugly but can't change it if it doesn't really ruins the use of your neigbouring land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alwin Alcott wrote:

and why?

 

looks to me this gets such your land i want your airspace thread again....

the owner of mainland makes the rules...

one day we all going to grow up and get over ourselves about being unneighbourly

and if the viewer did get changed then what would it really matter to anyone if they couldnt build above 128m and below 256m ?

like if that had been the rule restriction since SL began then would you be now arguing that a right to do this was being denied to you ?

or is your position simply that bc you can do it now, the removal of this would be an imposition that wouldnt be right ?

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


wherorangi wrote:


Alwin Alcott wrote:

and why?

 

looks to me this gets such your land i want your airspace thread again....

the owner of mainland makes the rules...

one day we all going to grow up and get over ourselves about being unneighbourly

and if the viewer did get changed then what would it really matter to anyone if they couldnt build above 128m and below 256m ?

like if that had been the rule restriction since SL began then would you be now arguing that a right to do this was being denied to you ?

or is your position simply that bc you can do it now, the removal of this would be an imposition that wouldnt be right ?

   

thats no answer ...if ...if...if

only confirming my second line... again about your land, my sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alwin Alcott wrote:

thats no answer ...if ...if...if

only confirming my second line... again about your land, my sky

if you missed it the first time, I again point out the immaturity of this position

one day hopefully we are all going to conduct ourselves like grownups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


wherorangi wrote:

 

i be quite happy if a DBAMA law got passed in SL. D dont B be A a M mainland A ....

and the servers got changed to reinforce this. Like cant rez stuff at all between 128m and 256m above the terrain. Nor can any stuff encroach on this clear space 

 

and why?

 

looks to me this gets such your land i want your airspace thread again....

the owner of mainland makes the rules
.. even when he just rezzes wood prims till  5000 meters... f*ng ugly but can't change it if it doesn't really ruins the use of your neigbouring land.

You're exactly right.

And do you know who owns the mainland?

Linden Lab. "Landowners" are just renting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really solved, though. It's kind of the tragedy of the commons, where the "commons" is the view everybody is forced to share of the eyesore.

I think, nonetheless, there's no hope of "legislating" any resolution to these problems on existing SL Mainland. Too many folks have bought Mainland parcels with the idea that they have a sacrosanct right to squander everybody else's view, and anybody who thinks otherwise Hates Freedom.

Instead, the best we can do is shame them. Point and laugh. Ridicule them in public. This won't improve anything -- indeed, they'll just feel all the more self-righteous about their God- Linden-given rights as gun land owners -- but it's all we can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Linden Lab. "Landowners" are just renting it.


 

This isn't completely right... landowners on the mainland are not just renting it. Have a look at how LL calls it, and shows on the about land window. It;s owner, not renter.

The landowership for mainland is the same as landownership in rl. You pay taxes for the use of it, and it's both even transferable to family when you die in rl. If nobody claims it , or stops paying taxes, it will fall back to the state or in this case LL

You only really rent when there's another resident between you and LL, the landlord is owning it in the way as above, the renter only uses it for a certain fee, not the same as tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


Theresa Tennyson wrote:

Linden Lab. "Landowners" are just renting it.

 

This isn't completely right... landowners on the mainland are not just renting it. Have a look at how LL calls it, and shows on the about land window. It;s owner, not renter.


They're lying to you to make you feel better about paying for a piece of imaginary terrain on someone else's computer.

When they're telling you the truth they say things like this:

You acknowledge that Virtual Land is a limited license right and is not a real property right or actual real estate, and it is not redeemable for any sum of money from Linden Lab. You acknowledge that the use of the words "Buy," "Sell" and similar terms carry the same meaning of referring to the transfer of the Virtual Land License as they do with respect to the Linden Dollar License. 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. Linden Lab makes no guarantee as to the nature of the features of the Service that will be accessible through the use of Virtual Land, or the availability or supply of Virtual Land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Prokofy Neva wrote:

One of the things that really torques me in SL is when people get those gigantic domes that take up nearly a sim and put them hovering just a few hundred meters above ground.

________________________________________________________________________________

 

Yes, it isnt the very best view.

My comment:

I wish there was a way LL could make it so we could click and derender those, as we do with the neighbor walls in smaller parcels.

But since these are huge mesh objects, I never was able to derender them. I guess thats because the root of the "prim" is way inside the center of the full sim parcel...

Is there a way to derender those and I never find it?

Or I am right hoping LL would fix that in the future?

___________________________________________________________________________________

Adding an extra comment as about the replies of the people in this post...

For many years already, I do pay to LL my real dollars every month and getting from them some of their Mainland parcels. And then I set them for rent. Yes, it says there that I buy the land and it calls me owner.

But I dont feel like that. All I know and how it looks to my eyes, is that I just pay rent - or fees as LL calls them - to LL for some services they provide and then I re-rent those services to some others and I keep a small commission for my efforts. Thats all how I feel and see all of that all these years. I never felt an owner and tbh, I really never wanted to be one! The less we own the more happy we are, a wise man said ...

:)

Keep observing, wondering and asking!

It makes our world better!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Prokofy Neva wrote:

 

I recently saw a sim with some beautiful rentals, a beautifully designed home by a famous designer for rent, lovely land for sale -- but none of it renting or selling because of this ENORMOUS dome hovering in the sky like some huge spaceship -- and owned by a prominent SL events organizer. WHY???

I re-read this and realized I might have been making unwarranted assumptions, first that it's a Mainland sim, and second that the hovering dome fits entirely on the dome-owner's parcel. That's only my own experience with these things occasionally cropping up on neighbouring sims; there are other possibilities.

If instead it's not on Mainland, then the estate manager is an idiot for not arranging for that dome to move up well out of view of the rentals and other parcels.

Or, if the dome is so large as to encroach on anybody else's land, there's a ready solution: the owner of land on which it encroaches can just return it.

This all leaves the valid question: Why does anybody who's had an account more than a month put these dumb things out so near the ground? I mean, if they're trying to crap-up the neighbourhood, there are more effective ways, and if they're not trying, their meds need adjusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they do it?  Because they just don't care.  I just derender anything I don't like at my one of homes we have on the Blake Sea.

If it's a land company, maybe they've stacked a bunch of then on top of each other and they started that low to be able to stack as many as they can.  Still the same answer though.  They just don't care because their profits are more important than you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they do it?  Because they just don't care.  I just derender anything I don't like at my one of homes we have on the Blake Sea.

If it's a land company, maybe they've stacked a bunch of then on top of each other and they started that low to be able to stack as many as they can.  Still the same answer though.  They just don't care because their profits are more important than you are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the neighbour who puts up a 100m wall with a palm tree texture on it? That's always nice to look at instead of a blue sky.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Alwin Alcott wrote:


wherorangi wrote:

 

if you missed it the first time, I again point out the immaturity of this position

one day hopefully we are all going to conduct ourselves like grownups

there is no difference in both our points... only opposite, your's is as legitime as mine.. has nothing to do with grow up.

For my point there is enough practical use of the heights  to see its allowed to build, and use orbs or whatever.

For your's there's no real practical proof there can't be build, use orbs or whatever..

 

Same as the building Prokofy is refering to, if you don't want to see it... derender...or lower your drawdistance,  if it's on your land, forbid it. Solved....

it has everything to do with behaving like grownups who share the same space. Grownups are considerate of those within the view of their property

being considerate doesnt mean that the neighbour gets to dictate what the property owner can and cant do. What the grownup property owner does is take into  consideration what negative effect their actions might have on their neighbours

and where there are alternatives for the property owner to achieve what it is they want without negatively affecting their  neighbours then they go with the alternative

+

about derender

some comment

the estate owner of the mainland (LL) doesnt consider permablocking (derender) of inworld objects as a desirable control mechansim on their estate. Mainland being a shared environment and specifically provided for this purpose

object permablocking is a function of TPVs. and LL have always resisted putting this as a persistent function into the standard LL viewer

in the standard viewer is possible to derender a object while its selected, and is included as a aid for builders. Temp hiding a object in front of another object so to get a view of the object behind

TPVs then extended this function to permablocking. And their users turned it into a social control function

+

also a while ago now a idea was proposed by a mainland user for a new viewer function, as a parcel setting. The setting would enable a parcel owner to permablock every inworld object not on their parcel from the view. Not only for the owner but also any visitors to the parcel

a LL engineer did have a look into this from a tech pov at the time and quick tests suggested that it was doable, and the engineer commented publicly about this at the time. However the idea never went anywhere after

and I guess that was bc once the social implications of this were evaluated, for the SL shared environment model as a whole, and particularly I think as it would relate to mainland

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if we are "only renters". Since when does "only being a renter" mean you have to live with eyesores and crazy in the view? It doesn't. Linden Lab advertised this land as "own virtual land" during the period when I bought most of it. But it doesn't matter if it isn't any real "ownership," just like ownership of land in real life isn't so real when bears or forest fires come.

The ugliness of a giant dome is a problem of what long ago I dubbed "FY heedonism" -- the idea that I can do WTF I want on my land and the hell with everyone else. Real life doesn't work that way but many Linden policies based on the theology of the "Autonomous Zone" have caused this pernicious philosophy to proliferate in SL. All LL had to do was disseminate more vigorous enforcement of their Community Rule No. 2 (which has language like "not affect the enjoyment of others' Second Life") and we'd have long ago been done here.

This indeed is a tragedy of the commons but more than that, the tragedy of aggressive online narcissism.

The notion that you should "derender" everything you don't like, in my view, belongs to the mentality of the "The Commissar Vanishes" where Stalin airbrushed his enemies out of photos.

You diminish any hope of have any shared rules of the commons in a shared space if you make the view subject to everyone's de-render whim.

And as we all know, de-render is a very relative concept. It is not a function of the standard SL viewer which I prefer due to the propensity of TPVs not only to scrape your data but have opt-out rather than opt-in functions.

You have to KEEP doing derender when you log in. If you change viewers, especially. Something like a giant dome spanning an entire sim can be hard to derender. And why should everyone else be inflicted with de-rendering chores? Move the damn thing up in the sky above 500 meters and none of this will be necessary. It costs you nothing to move out of the view.

If you step out of the way when you land at a busy shopping sim to prevent avatar pile-ups - a common courtesy and even demand in SL -- you can move your eyesore up past 500 meters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Mainland. And the owner is a famous person who is very wealthy in SL terms. No doubt they do it to inflict their persona on the view, in fact. It's not about being a noobie.

As for your belief that if it encroaches on any small parcel around it, it can be returned, you're wrong. Giant builds stretching across a sim cannot be returned even from your own land. I've proved this again and again when griefers have inflicted sim-wide boards or builds crossing many parcels -- the Lindens have to return it globally from their "island menu" not accessible to Mainland "owners" renting from Governor Linden.

And it may not even technically encroach. The point is that it is blots out the view and is completely unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Qie Niangao wrote:

Not really solved, though. It's kind of the tragedy of the commons, where the "commons" is the view everybody is forced to share of the eyesore.

I think, nonetheless, there's no hope of "legislating" any resolution to these problems on existing SL Mainland. Too many folks have bought Mainland parcels with the idea that they have a sacrosanct right to squander everybody else's view, and anybody who thinks otherwise Hates Freedom.

Instead, the best we can do is shame them. Point and laugh. Ridicule them in public. This won't improve anything -- indeed, they'll just feel all the more self-righteous about their
God-
Linden-given rights as
gun
land owners -- but it's all we can do.

Seriously?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got any better ideas for improving the situation? Or any better outcome from such threads?

(or maybe you're objecting to my snark analogy to Scalia's murderous distortion of the Second Amendment in DC v Heller?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough. I do still think the "my pixels, my rules" partisans would feel right at home at an alt-right rally and piñata-burning, but yeah: 'tis no help to those plagued by Gigantic Orbs and Domes.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...