Good mainland neighbors

[Pussycat Catnap]

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Luc was drawing an analogy - not absurd at all, just the logical extension of your stance.

Its a bad neighbor to ever encroach over other's land - no matter the height.

A good neighbor not only pro-actively self polices their own builds, but also works to avoid being at a height in the sky someone else within normal camera view already occupies.

---

No, it was reductio ad absurdam, pure and simple.

Yes, and I think I made that point earlier that being a good neighbour is not about a technical encroaching vs. not encroaching,

---

You made the rant, but not the point.

The problem is that you're just flat out wrong. Both wrong in the ToS, and wrong in the general culture of SL. In both there is no form of legitimate encroachment. This is why you are alone in your position on this thread.

You are right about reasonable separation between sky builds though - that is part of the general culture of SL.

[Pauline Darkfury]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

You made the rant, but not the point.

The problem is that you're just flat out wrong. Both wrong in the ToS, and wrong in the general culture of SL. In both there is no form of legitimate encroachment. This is why you are alone in your position on this thread.

You are right about reasonable separation between sky builds though - that is part of the general culture of SL

.

---

I see plenty of cases where there are people encroaching on other residents land at high altitude without any drama or issues, primarily for scenic spheres.  As long as they are far away from the other person's build, there is usually little to no issue unless the other person is bloody-minded, a control freak, or the encroaching person has failed to spot something about their neighbour's use of the land.  My neighbour with the small parcel legitimately encroaches on my land, he doesn't have explicit permission to do so, but I've looked at what's there and decided that it's ok and causes zero issue.

Some of my tenants have scenic prims which encroach a little outside their parcel (normally over my land), without any issues.  I actively manage the use of the sky to try to ensure that there's reasonable separation, and any tenant that queries someone else's encroachment will be reminded that it works both ways and they can have a scenic that extends a little beyond their skybox too, as long as the prims are counted on the correct parcel.  I'm no stranger to this issue, I make administrative judgement calls on it on a daily basis.

Additionally, there are large quantities of legitimate encroachment where people connect to or bridge across LDPW roads and other Linden builds (that's permitted in a LDPW FAQ somewhere, but I'm really not all that interested in searching it out).  There are large quantities of legitimate encroachment of that type in Bay City, Nova Albion, Kama City, and in some private estates where there's a similar type of city development or roads.  It's not all that unusual for Linden-owned prims to encroach a little on resident-owned land in these situations as well.

In pure technical terms, encroachment is black and white.  In terms of whether it's actually an issue, there are many shades of grey and it's an entirely situational matter.  Is the OP's neighbour technically wrong to object to the encroachment?  No, not at all.  Is the OP's neighbour a "good neighbour"?  Nope, not based on the description here of how they handled the matter.  Is the OP's neighbour a "bad neighbour"?  Yes, they are, if the assertion is true that their response to an issue was to dump visual blight.  Did the OP have the right to encroach?  Nope, they didn't.  Was the OP a "bad neighbour"?  Nope, not based on the information here.

[Luc Starsider]

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

No, it was reductio ad absurdam, pure and simple.

---

 

I did respond to that claim above, so I'll refer you to that reply. Perhaps you did not see it. I also added some to it after initially posting it. The gist of it is that while my example is of a different scale than the OP's issue, perhaps absurd in that way, the prinsiple is still the same in both cases, and not at all absurd. If you scale my example down, and the OP's up, eventually you end up with the same situation, actually. Why, then, would one be ok but not the other?

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

Yes, and I think I made that point earlier that being a good neighbour is not about a technical encroaching vs. not encroaching, there's far more to it than that and part of it is trying to keep a reasonable separation between skyboxes (at least 100m to get out of shout range, but ideally 200m or more if the sky is sufficiently uncrowded), as well as other important things such as not allowing the land to fill up with random junk from 3rd parties.

---

 

I'd like to point out that in my initial reply, I specifically pointed out that the issue at hand is one among several that makes up being a good neighbour. I make no arguments agains this, in fact I agree. I also agree that we should try to keep our builds in the sky away from neighbouring builds to the extent we can.

This, however, is not the point I'm making.

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

Some encroachment is a problem, other encroachment is really not a big deal, and some encroachment is even legitimate.  The OP in this thread described a situation which sounded like a neighbour responding to non-malicious encroachment by dumping a visual-griefing cube adjacent to the OP's build, not against ToS but on the information given by the OP makes that person a bad neighbour to me.  The OP isn't the perfect neighbour, their scenic sphere really was too large, and would have probably been better to open a dialogue with the neighbour beforehand, but out of the OP and the person who apparently negotiated by dropping visual blight, I'd much rather have the OP as a neighbour, as they sound willing to negotiate and compromise over things.  Now that the OP's neighbour has chased away someone who apparently was willing to negotiate and compromise over the shared boundary, they frankly deserve to get a neighbour who doesn't encroach or break ToS but is equally non-cooperative and drops a bunch of ugly right beside them.  Of course, in saying that, we don't have all of the details and have only heard one side of the story, but that's how it appears to me from the information given.

---

 

The problem here is that whether encroachment is a problem or not is too subjective to be a measurement. What is ok with one person may not be ok with another. People have different perceptions of things like this, and will always have different perceptions. If by problem you mean whether a structure is close to someone else's structure while on their land, keep in mind that some people use their airspace for activities without necessarily keeping structures in that space. The OP of another thread - also a poster in this thread - used the airspace for skydiving which was/would be problematic with encroaching prims in the air. For these reasons whether it is a problem or not can not be used as a measure of whether encroachment is acceptable or not.

When you say that "some encroachment is even legitimate", I wonder in which circumstances that is? I can only think it would be if it was agreed between all affected neighbours that a build could span the properties. If you have other cases where it would be legitimate, I would like to hear them. The technical aspect of encroachment is not relevant at all in this discussion. Technically, it is only possible to say if encroachment is happening, not if it is a problem.

We also really don't know why the OP's neighbour reacted the way he did, as you yourself say. We only know part of one side of it. What we do know is that the OP deliberately rezzed a structure he knew was bigger than the property he own. We don't know if he asked the neighbour if it was ok or not, but I assume he didn't. This is more of a problem than what the intent of it was. By doing it, he basically helped himself to something that was not his - to property he do not own, and that, in my book, is a problem. He may have been willing to negotiate, but only after the fact. Does that make it OK? Was he really in a position to negotiate? We also do not know the details of the negotiations.

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

Encroachment is common, it's the specific details about it that make it a problem vs. not a problem, and some is even entirely legitimate.  For some bloody-minded people, 0.01m of encroachment is an issue even when it's nowhere near any of their content, for others a more pragmatic approach is taken.  One of my neighbours has a scenic sphere which encroaches on my land but is not visible from terrain level and well away from my own content, he doesn't have permission for it, but his sphere is not getting returned by my actions.  If the same neighbour dropped something large and encroaching at terrain level, or beside an existing skybox, they would get 24 hours to remove it (less if it actually entered a build), and then it would be removed for them

---

 

How someone choose to react over this, is entirely a personal matter, and not part of my argument. You react in your way, and that is right for you. Someone else react in their way, and that is right for them. A person might have reasons for reacting in a certain way that is only known to them, but that is how it is. It is not really something we can base a conclusion on.

All of this is overlooking the fact that encroachment is against the TOS like you said yourself, which really make the whole discussion moot.

- Luc -

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

In pure technical terms, encroachment is black and white.  In terms of whether it's actually an issue, there are many shades of grey and it's an entirely situational matter.  Is the OP's neighbour technically wrong to object to the encroachment?  No, not at all.  Is the OP's neighbour a "good neighbour"?  Nope, not based on the description here of how they handled the matter.  Is the OP's neighbour a "bad neighbour"?  Yes, they are, if the assertion is true that their response to an issue was to dump visual blight.  Did the OP have the right to encroach?  Nope, they didn't.  Was the OP a "bad neighbour"?  Nope, not based on the information here.

---

And yet your idea of a bad neighbor is following the ToS, and your idea of a good neighbor violates the ToS.

Encroachment may be the norm on your private estate - but on mainland is a fast route to getting in trouble with the lindens. People do not tend to take kindly to being encroached.

You're advocating for a change to a social norm, but I do not think your stance is at all withing the social norm, and it is clearly outside of the ToS.

This isn't "Pure technical terms" - that sounds like the excuse of a criminal. "You're honor I understand that shooting him was, in 'pure technical terms a black and white failure to follow the statute', but..." Buddy, you still put a hole in him...

This is just as much a "black and white" violation of the SL norms: you don't use or take away from somebody else's toybox without permission.

Where this is common, let the owners of the taken space know the ToS and where the report button is and see how long it lasts. Its only common in places where people don't know they don't have to put up with somebody using their space, or are actually on social terms with that encroacher and you're actually seeing a shared build.

- In fact you see threads rather often about "somebody put X on my land up at height Z (or ground), and they won't remove it, why doesn't LL do something?" - with the usual response being, "LLs will do something -if- you tell them its happening." and the OP coming back with "Oh! Duh."

[Polenth Yue]

There's blame on both sides here. You didn't ask before putting the sphere in place. Cube neighbour didn't ask for it to be removed - he put the cube in and waited for you to react. Communication is the most important thing when neighbours have issues, so neither side was a good neighbour in their handling of it.

But looking to place the blame means it'll escalate. Someone needs to back down and say sorry. Given that by default, someone's airspace is theirs unless they agree otherwise... cube neighbour is the one who gets to decide if the sphere stays or goes.

You could let it happen the hard way by making him AR you, but it wouldn't hurt to show you'd like to smooth things over. If I were you, I'd remove it and apologise. Just a straight and simple, "I'm sorry. I've taken the sphere down." Don't slip in any insults or "sorry, but..."

[Pauline Darkfury]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

And yet your idea of a bad neighbor is following the ToS, and your idea of a good neighbor violates the ToS.

Encroachment may be the norm on your private estate - but on mainland is a fast route to getting in trouble with the lindens. People do not tend to take kindly to being encroached.

You're advocating for a change to a social norm, but I do not think your stance is at all withing the social norm, and it is clearly outside of the ToS.

This isn't "Pure technical terms" - that sounds like the excuse of a criminal. "You're honor I understand that shooting him was, in 'pure technical terms a black and white failure to follow the statute', but..." Buddy, you still put a hole in him...

This is just as much a "black and white" violation of the SL norms: you don't use or take away from somebody else's toybox without permission.

Where this is common, let the owners of the taken space know the ToS and where the report button is and see how long it lasts. Its only common in places where people don't know they don't have to put up with somebody using their space, or are actually on social terms with that encroacher and you're actually seeing a shared build.

- In fact you see threads rather often about "somebody put X on my land up at height Z (or ground), and they won't remove it, why doesn't LL do something?" - with the usual response being, "LLs will do something -if- you tell them its happening." and the OP coming back with "Oh! Duh."

---

No, I see it as being a common thing on mainland, probably more common than on private estates.  It's extremely common in LL's city regions and next to their roads, with landowners connecting their parcels to the LL content, bridging over LL protected land, etc.  Being a good neighbour is not about some strict definition under ToS, and my definition of a good neighbour does not violate ToS.  A good neighbour would also try to negotiate and reach a happy compromise if an encroaching object owned by them was queried by an adjacent landowner (and move/remove it if no compromise could be reached).  Having an encroaching scenic sphere which is a long way away from other content does not mean that someone is not a good neighbour, that is only determined by how they handle any issues with it.  The only point where ToS would be an issue would be if there was malicious encroachment and the owner of the encroaching prims was non-responsive.  ToS really doesn't come into it unless someone objects and the object owner refuses to remove the encroachment.

As for telling owners about it, you can do that if you want, but I've got far better things to do than to deliberately incite drama over something I see as relatively harmless.  As far as I can see, many people are happy to take the "live and let live" approach to it rather than getting worked up into a frenzy about a neighbour's scenic which they can't even see and can easily avoid under normal circumstances (assuming it's at 1000m or higher and not adjacent to or reasonably visible from someone else's content).  Nobody normally has enough prims to make full use of 100% of the 4096m.  I'm not advocating belligerent violation of the ToS, just stating that when someone has an encroaching scenic high in the sky, in an otherwise empty area of the sky, and is non-malicious, it's often able to exist without any real problems.  It's a situation where if you go looking for problems, you'll find them.  If you take the hard line stance that you seem to be advocating, you'll alienate your neighbours and then be less likely to get cooperation from them over other issues where you might want their assistance or cooperation.  If you tolerate it where it causes no real issue, you have a happy neighbour that gets >100% value from their land and is more likely to be cooperative over issues that do matter.

As for reporting it and seeing how long it lasts, been there, done that, the object was still there 6 months and a lot of ARs later when I managed to buy the parcel it was encroaching from and used landowner controls to return it.  The object in that case was a flying house on mainland at approx 100–150m above terrain, it encroached onto one of my parcels by about 3 or 4m and was owned by someone who had left SL (they also owned the parcel it was on).  It irritated me enough to keep putting fresh ARs in about it, but not enough to bug support about it until something was done when the ARs were entirely ignored.  My experience of LL's handling of encroachment is that they do nothing about it unless you kick and scream.  I've had similar issues with ARs being totally ignored over abandoned vehicles (not owned by any of the landowners) that encroach my land.

[Pauline Darkfury]

---

Luc Starsider wrote:

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

Some encroachment is a problem, other encroachment is really not a big deal, and some encroachment is even legitimate.  The OP in this thread described a situation which sounded like a neighbour responding to non-malicious encroachment by dumping a visual-griefing cube adjacent to the OP's build, not against ToS but on the information given by the OP makes that person a bad neighbour to me.  The OP isn't the perfect neighbour, their scenic sphere really was too large, and would have probably been better to open a dialogue with the neighbour beforehand, but out of the OP and the person who apparently negotiated by dropping visual blight, I'd much rather have the OP as a neighbour, as they sound willing to negotiate and compromise over things.  Now that the OP's neighbour has chased away someone who apparently was willing to negotiate and compromise over the shared boundary, they frankly deserve to get a neighbour who doesn't encroach or break ToS but is equally non-cooperative and drops a bunch of ugly right beside them.  Of course, in saying that, we don't have all of the details and have only heard one side of the story, but that's how it appears to me from the information given.

---

The problem here is that whether encroachment is a problem or not is too subjective to be a measurement. What is ok with one person may not be ok with another. People have different perceptions of things like this, and will always have different perceptions. If by problem you mean whether a structure is close to someone else's structure while on their land, keep in mind that some people use their airspace for activities without necessarily keeping structures in that space. The OP of another thread - also a poster in this thread - used the airspace for skydiving which was/would be problematic with encroaching prims in the air. For these reasons whether it is a problem or not can not be used as a measure of whether encroachment is acceptable or not.

When you say that "some encroachment is even legitimate", I wonder in which circumstances that is? I can only think it would be if it was agreed between all affected neighbours that a build could span the properties. If you have other cases where it would be legitimate, I would like to hear them. The technical aspect of encroachment is not relevant at all in this discussion. Technically, it is only possible to say if encroachment is happening, not if it is a problem.

We also really don't know why the OP's neighbour reacted the way he did, as you yourself say. We only know part of one side of it. What we do know is that the OP deliberately rezzed a structure he knew was bigger than the property he own. We don't know if he asked the neighbour if it was ok or not, but I assume he didn't. This is more of a problem than what the intent of it was. By doing it, he basically helped himself to something that was not his - to property he do not own, and that, in my book, is a problem. He may have been willing to negotiate, but only after the fact. Does that make it OK? Was he really in a position to negotiate? We also do not know the details of the negotiations.

---

I'm not going to attempt to define "problem" for when encroachment is an issue vs. not an issue, as it's simply not possible to fully define, it almost always requires a judgement call on the specifics of the situation.  That's the key thing though, encroachment only makes someone a bad neighbour if it is a problem for owner of the land that's encroached upon and the owner of the encroaching object refuses to cooperate over it.  Pure technical encroachment does not determine if someone is a bad neighbour.  I stand by my assertion that someone is a bad neighbour if they refuse to tolerate any encroachment simply because it's technically encroaching.  If they object because it actually does cause a real issue for their use of the land, that does not make them a bad neighbour unless they demonstrate their objection by dumping visual blight (or similar) as a first response to it.

I already gave a number of examples of legitimate encroachment.  Bay City, Nautilus City, Kama City, Nova Albion, some cities on private estates, more or less every single LDPW road.  Those all have examples of legitimate encroachment where people connect their build to the adjacent infrastructure or bridge across the protected land (something which is permitted in a LDPW FAQ somewhere in the case of the mainland examples), and (slightly less common, but it's there) Linden-owned content encroaching on resident land.  I also consider the various high altitude scenics owned by nearby landowners that encroach on some of my mainland legitimate simply because none of them are currently causing me any problems and there's plenty of sky to find a bit that is clear.  In the case of Linden-owned objects that encroach, they remain legitimate even in the face of objections if they were present when the person bought the land in question.

---

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

Encroachment is common, it's the specific details about it that make it a problem vs. not a problem, and some is even entirely legitimate.  For some bloody-minded people, 0.01m of encroachment is an issue even when it's nowhere near any of their content, for others a more pragmatic approach is taken.  One of my neighbours has a scenic sphere which encroaches on my land but is not visible from terrain level and well away from my own content, he doesn't have permission for it, but his sphere is not getting returned by my actions.  If the same neighbour dropped something large and encroaching at terrain level, or beside an existing skybox, they would get 24 hours to remove it (less if it actually entered a build), and then it would be removed for them

---

How someone choose to react over this, is entirely a personal matter, and not part of my argument. You react in your way, and that is right for you. Someone else react in their way, and that is right for them. A person might have reasons for reacting in a certain way that is only known to them, but that is how it is. It is not really something we can base a conclusion on.

All of this is overlooking the fact that encroachment is against the TOS like you said yourself, which really make the whole discussion moot.

---

The thing is, while the ToS is written as black and white (it needs to be), that's only part of the overall picture.  Some sections of ToS can't ever be ignored or violations tolerated (e.g. criminal activity, IP rights infringement, inappropriate content under maturity policy, privacy issues, harassment, griefing, etc).  Other parts of ToS are really only there as a last resort for when common sense, tolerance, negotiation, and cooperation have failed.  Encroachment falls into the second category, the ToS really only becomes relevant if someone has crossed into being malicious about it (or if they just fail to respond or cooperate).

Mainland needs a bit of give and take, negotiation, and cooperation between neighbours, the areas which have that are much better for it.

[ArgontheDevil Ormega]

Well, encroachers sometimes simply act in error and the matter is easily dealt with.  When folks build in the air they can lose track of propety boundries really easy.  Or sometimes SL belches and things suddenly find themselves where no one expected them to be, like one time I came home to discover a dining room set in my attic!  The neighbor was putting it in and it disappeared from her house and ended up in mine.

But then there are the occasional unfortunates who for some reason don't quite understand that we pay good tier for our land and we are somewhat jealous of our air rights.  Recently someone decided to use a sandbox next door to me to put up his house and as his bad luck would have it, his bed just happened to be on my land.  So as I stood on the roof (on my property mind you) and cammed in, the opportunity for some legal nastiness was just too good to ignore, so I dropped a nice big prim right into the middle of his bed.

The purple cube was a wonderful idea.  I will have to build one and keep it in the inventory for just such an occasion.

[Hintswen Guardian]

Did you ever ask for permission?

I asked someone if they would open up the back of their parcel if I purchased the land behind him (he had a path to the back of his parcel which had a fence at teh end, on the other side of the fence was the parcel I wanted).

He opened it up and I bought the parcel, I made my place to match his. He is now one of my best friends on SL. I sitll own a 512 next to his place (a different 512 though as he wanted to make his place bigger and traded another parcel further back for it).

[Holocluck Henly]

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

The neighbour who was legitimately but deliberately interfering with the use of the scenic sphere is a bad neighbour,

---

 

There is only one wrong person in this: the one trying to get something for nothing at the cost of their neighbors.

The legitimate owner of that space is fighting back. Their cube is on THEIR property.  Regardless of the contents in the sphere, the 512er is using their neighbor's prim resources and space as well as lagging the region with a supersize megaprim (which is against usage policy.  LL turns a blind eye to megaprims CONDITIONALLY)

 

[Pauline Darkfury]

---

Holocluck Henly wrote:

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

The neighbour who was legitimately but deliberately interfering with the use of the scenic sphere is a bad neighbour,

---

There is only one wrong person in this: the one trying to get something for nothing at the cost of their neighbors.

The legitimate owner of that space is fighting back. Their cube is on THEIR property.  Regardless of the contents in the sphere, the 512er is using their neighbor's prim resources and space as well as lagging the region with a supersize megaprim (which is against usage policy.  LL turns a blind eye to megaprims CONDITIONALLY)

---

The situation described did not have the OP using any of the neighbour's prim resource, all prims were counted on his own parcel, had they been using the neighbour's prims the neighbour could have simply returned the object.  Megaprim lag is almost entirely a myth these days, there's no evidence that even 256m megaprims cause any measurable region lag when used for scenery.

The OP did not have the right to be encroaching on the neighbour's unused airspace, that's not disputed, but the way the neighbour dealt with the issue (as described in this thread, and that's all we have to go on) made the neighbour a bad neighbour in my book.  Using deliberate visual blight as a first response to an issue makes them a bad neighbour, that's all there is to it.  A good neighbour would have started by opening a dialolgue and explaining that they were not happy with it and what their concerns were.

[ArgontheDevil Ormega]

We don't pay tier to be good neighbors.  We pay tier to enjoy our land. It would seem from one look at the sphere described by the OP that it could not be moved as it would overlap everyone around it.  So talking to the person would not make much sense, would it?  And someone who is going to put a house over a sandbox is not interesting in being any kind of neighbor.

On the other hand, my sandbox owner neighbor is a very good person and he immediately acted to remove an offending object as soon as I wrote him which makes me very happy for two reasons.  First it means I have a good neighbor.  Second, I have a sandbox next door to build on.

[Pauline Darkfury]

---

ArgontheDevil Ormega wrote:

We don't pay tier to be good neighbors.  We pay tier to enjoy our land. It would seem from one look at the sphere described by the OP that it could not be moved as it would overlap everyone around it.  So talking to the person would not make much sense, would it?  And someone who is going to put a house over a sandbox is not interesting in being any kind of neighbor.

On the other hand, my sandbox owner neighbor is a very good person and he immediately acted to remove an offending object as soon as I wrote him which makes me very happy for two reasons.  First it means I have a good neighbor.  Second, I have a sandbox next door to build on.

---

There's every reason to talk to the person.  Although the OP didn't have any rights to have the sphere there, the neighbour's action was the sort of thing to severely damage any future cooperation.  On this occasion, the neighbour had rights on their side, but later on the boot could easily be on the other foot.  If your neighbour communicated with you solely by dumping visual blight when something was bugging them, would you be more inclined to help them if they later needed your assistance, or more inclined not to bother?

You sound like you're both normally a good neighbour and have a good neighbour, if there's an issue you talk to each other and work it out.  Even although the OP really only had once choice, to remove the scenic sphere, if that was what the neighbour wanted, a little diplomacy goes a long way with these things, paving the way for future cooperation.

When I manage to catch up with my neighbours, I always try to emphasise the willingness to communicate and cooperate about boundary issues or even random things to help them out.  Want some help rezzing your house/trees/etc?  Sure, happy to help you get it right.  Need some space to temporarily rez something? Sure, use a spare corner of my land if I've got the prims free.  Tree encroaching a little onto my land?  Yeah well, no big deal as long as it's phantom and not blocking something, might need to talk about it again in the future, but go ahead and let it encroach a couple of m for now as long as the prims are counted on your land.  Want me to make some small changes to my land that won't hurt me but will benefit you?  Sure, let's figure out what will work for both of us.

[Hugsy Penguin]

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

The situation described did not have the OP using any of the neighbour's prim resource, all prims were counted on his own parcel, had they been using the neighbour's prims the neighbour could have simply returned the object.  Megaprim lag is almost entirely a myth these days, there's no evidence that even 256m megaprims cause any measurable region lag when used for scenery.

The OP did not have the right to be encroaching on the neighbour's unused airspace, that's not disputed,

---

I agree with all of that completely.

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

but the way the neighbour dealt with the issue (as described in this thread, and that's all we have to go on) made the neighbour a bad neighbour in my book.  Using deliberate visual blight as a first response to an issue makes them a bad neighbour, that's all there is to it.  A good neighbour would have started by opening a dialolgue and explaining that they were not happy with it and what their concerns were.

---

 

I agree that it would have been nicer if the neighbor had said something first.  But, because the OP displayed an such a degree of ignorance and sense of entitlement, I don't blame the neighbor for getting ticked off and doing what they did.  I think the OP is lucky all they saw was ugly purple cubes.

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

ETA. If you'd like other people to add what irks them about a neighbor one small thing that irks me is when I have one or two things in the sky, and later, out of all the possible choices, someone else puts their own (usually enormous) blingy blangy object RIGHT next to mine in the sky. (Really - both have one object in the sky and they pick the

same

height mine is on? Sigh)

---

LOL. I had that same thing happen but in my case it was doubly odd since my skybox is slightly hideous. It looks sort of like a flying brick lunchbox—I was fooling around with shapes and textures and just left it that way. I hardly ever visit it but for some reason I clicked up there and found a very pretty Cape Cod about 50m above me on a neighboring parcel. I thought, "Why on earth would you want to have to look at MY place?"

[Luc Starsider]

All refreshed after a long easter holiday, I need to take up a couple of points here.

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

I'm not going to attempt to define "problem" for when encroachment is an issue vs. not an issue, as it's simply not possible to fully define, it almost always requires a judgement call on the specifics of the situation.

  That's the key thing though, encroachment only makes someone a bad neighbour if it is a problem for owner of the land that's encroached upon and the owner of the encroaching object refuses to cooperate over it.  Pure technical encroachment does not determine if someone is a bad neighbour.  I stand by my assertion that someone is a bad neighbour if they refuse to tolerate any encroachment simply because it's technically encroaching.  If they object because it actually does cause a real issue for their use of the land, that does not make them a bad neighbour unless they demonstrate their objection by dumping visual blight (or similar) as a first response to it.

---

This leads me back to my previous statement. What constitutes a problem is too subjective to be used as an argument - everybody is going to have their own view on what a problem actually is. As for the rest of the paragraph. We simply don't know how the neighbour would react to the OP's prims encroaching a little on the property, or to being contacted beforehand in this particular case. Thus, we can't say whether he (or she?) is a bad neighbour according you your view on it.

I am pretty sure, though, that the neighbourly thing to do in the OP's case, would have been to contact the owners of the surrounding parcels and checked if it was OK to rez a huge sphere before actually doing it.

 

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

I already gave a number of examples of legitimate encroachment.  Bay City, Nautilus City, Kama City, Nova Albion, some cities on private estates, more or less every single LDPW road.  Those all have examples of legitimate encroachment where people connect their build to the adjacent infrastructure or bridge across the protected land (something which is permitted in a LDPW FAQ somewhere in the case of the mainland examples), and (slightly less common, but it's there) Linden-owned content encroaching on resident land.  I also consider the various high altitude scenics owned by nearby landowners that encroach on some of my mainland legitimate simply because none of them are currently causing me any problems and there's plenty of sky to find a bit that is clear.  In the case of Linden-owned objects that encroach, they remain legitimate even in the face of objections if they were present when the person bought the land in question.

---

 

If the LDPW FAQ specifically states that spanning Linden owned land - encroaching it - is allowed, then I agree; then it is legitimate. I assume the faq does not say anything regarding resident owned land and encroaching on it. Thus, unless it is agreed on between every affected neighbour, encroaching would not be legitimate regardless of altitude. It may be accepted, tolerated, and perhaps not a bother to anybody, but it would still not be legitimate.

I have a vague memory of having seen something about filing a ticket against Linden owned property on someones land, but I can not find it back atm. It probably is a slow process, but even encroachment caused by the LDPW is possible to try to sort out, I imagine.

 

 

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

The thing is, while the ToS is written as black and white (it needs to be), that's only part of the overall picture. 

Some sections of ToS can't ever be ignored or violations tolerated (e.g. criminal activity, IP rights infringement, inappropriate content under maturity policy, privacy issues, harassment, griefing, etc).  Other parts of ToS are really only there as a last resort for when common sense, tolerance, negotiation, and cooperation have failed. 

Encroachment falls into the second category, the ToS really only becomes relevant if someone has crossed into being malicious about it (or if they just fail to respond or cooperate).

Mainland needs a bit of give and take, negotiation, and cooperation between neighbours, the areas which have that are much better for it.

---

Could you provide a link to where the information is posted that describe what parts are not to be ignored and what parts are to be taken lightly? I'm very interested in knowing this.

- Luc -

 

[Pussycat Catnap]

 

---

Luc Starsider wrote:

---

Pauline Darkfury wrote:

The thing is, while the ToS is written as black and white (it needs to be), that's only part of the overall picture. 

Some sections of ToS can't ever be ignored or violations tolerated (e.g. criminal activity, IP rights infringement, inappropriate content under maturity policy, privacy issues, harassment, griefing, etc).  Other parts of ToS are really only there as a last resort for when common sense, tolerance, negotiation, and cooperation have failed. 

Encroachment falls into the second category, the ToS really only becomes relevant if someone has crossed into being malicious about it (or if they just fail to respond or cooperate).

Mainland needs a bit of give and take, negotiation, and cooperation between neighbours, the areas which have that are much better for it.

---

Could you provide a link to where the information is posted that describe what parts are not to be ignored and what parts are to be taken lightly? I'm very interested in knowing this.

- Luc -

 

---

 

It appears to just be that person's personal preference.

Really the issue's not worth debating when there's only one voice on the other side and so support for their position in any of the rules.

 

[Luc Starsider]

 

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

It appears to just be that person's personal preference.

Really the issue's not worth debating when there's only one voice on the other side and so support for their position in any of the rules.

 

---

 

Perhaps, but I sure would like to read the information if it is out there. I'd think that kind of information had come up from time to time, and I'd know about it, but who knows - I might not have been paying attention at the time.

- Luc -

[Clarissa Lowell]

"Good fences make good neighbors." - Robert Frost, Mending Wall