Lower banline height on mainland?

[Aethelwine]

On 11/12/2019 at 1:34 AM, Cherry75 said:

This extreme dislike of ban lines & "aggressive" security orbs has a bit of a socialist flavor to it, IMHO.

You make that sound like a negative. The fact of the matter is that thanks to socialists many of us enjoy rights to roam in real life and the creation of many of the public parks we now take for granted.

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

The fact of the matter is that thanks to socialists many of us enjoy rights to roam in real life and the creation of many of the public parks we now take for granted.

I'm sure "socialist" governments helped preserve (and in cases, restore) freedom to roam, the basic right has existed since ancient times, long before anybody dreamt up "capitalism" or "socialism" (or the Magna Carta, for that matter). The point is that even the most rabid anti-socialist must accept that "Everyman's right" is inherent to the human condition, at least for those of us with Northern European roots.

Incidentally, one way the right is constrained in modern time is to preserve specific natural and tribal land features, such as the recent closing of Uluru to climbers.

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

you can get reported if you use the covenant settings from belliseria  before ejecting,

You can get reported for wearing mismatched socks, but nobody at the Lab is going to take action on it.

The Adult content rules were all set up to try to improve the "predictability of experience" in SL -- that was the big catch-phrase the Lindens used back then, and it's really the way those rules have always been interpreted.

A particularly confusing part of the guidance was an apparently "belt and suspenders" list of all the ways one could satisfy the requirement of mature content not being in open view, including solid walls, scripted security, and the parcel privacy setting. Those couldn't really have been intended to all be needed simultaneously -- no skybox can be protected by the parcel privacy setting -- but at the time there was widespread concern that we could all be hauled off for endangering minors who could see pornographic content on land we owned, so it was best to err toward extreme seclusion. I don't know of a single case where landowners were actually held liable, though.

[Pussycat Catnap]

14 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

you can get reported if you use the covenant settings from belliseria  before ejecting,

?

That's not clear... as in... I'm not sure what you're saying there so not sure what to respond with.

Are you saying the Bellisseria covenant violates the SL ToS?

Or did I seriously misread that?

 

[Mollymews]

16 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

 I argue for a new continent without banlines

i am supportive of this.  Basically a Belli-like continent with the same use conditions, just without the provided homes. Lots of people would like these I think

edit ps.  I wouldn't get one myself but I think that things don't all have to be only one way. Different ways gives us choices which is always a good thing I think 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Mollymews

[Alwin Alcott]

7 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Or did I seriously misread that?

 

yes   the Belliseria covenant about adult rated items is less strict as the normal mainland, because B has limited privacy settings.

[Theresa Tennyson]

6 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

yes   the Belliseria covenant about adult rated items is less strict as the normal mainland, because B has limited privacy settings.

Show us where. The Belliseria covenant references the standard "adult comment" FAQ.

[Qie Niangao]

6 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

14 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

Or did I seriously misread that?

yes   the Belliseria covenant about adult rated items is less strict as the normal mainland, because B has limited privacy settings.

Oh hmm... now I realize I misunderstood it, too, but I'm still not sure what was meant. As with most residential Estate regions, Belliseria disallows whitelist banlines and hair-trigger "security" scripts (which might be considered privacy related, I suppose) but that doesn't really seem relevant to whatever this is actually about. So I, too, am stumped.