Low Skyboxes Ruining Skyline

[Rhiannon Wildmist]

At my main store site in Koschuta, there are four skyboxes at platforms which are clearly in view if you just glance up above the roof areas...these must be as low as 300 or 400 metres and spoil the skyline and make it all ugly. I have put in ARs but nothing is done. Surely skyboxes should be at say, a minimum of 1000m, there is no need for them to be this low. Why have a lovely SL sky for it to be spoiled by this? Is there any ruling on it? Can anything be done?

 

[Ruby Reynaud]

Hi Rhiannan,

I would be very interesed in the answer to your question too! I don't think there is anything that can be done, as long as it is on mainlaind. That is one of the joys of mainland (put anything up that you want at any altitude on your land ) and one of the downfalls of mainland (having to stare at everything that your neighbors put up on their land ). Still, I  love mainland and have a couple of plots on 2 continents. I also use Phoenix and use the 'derender ' option all the time! It's turned a so-so view from one of my plots into a stellar one )

[Treasure Ballinger]

Those kinds of rules don't exist on Mainland. Most estates have rules like that but usually not 1000 meters mor like above 350or so. If you are on mainland open "About Land" and click "Covenant". That will tell you all you need to know. There isn't one!

[Peewee Musytari]

Phoenix derender is your friend

[Pussycat Catnap]

This is sadly not a ToS violation.

So its become a very popular way to get neighbors to move so you can buy their land...

- and if you can prove they did it for that reason you can AR it. But otherwise you're out of luck unless you can find some other violation. Most people are violating a rule somewhere, so just start going over those people with a fine tooth comb until you find something.

THAT IS... assuming talking fails.

Some people will intentionally put objects in places that are hostile to neighbors because its 'their land and they can' and not be polite when approached, even if approached in the most friendly manner. Because its their land... and they think that means they not only can be rude, but are required to be rude...

But many others will try to work with those around them to build a better community for all. Suggestion is to move around SL until you land on a sim with mostly people like that, and where the one or two rude ones can be mostly ignored.

 

 

[Polenth Yue]

I'm missing something, because to see a skybox that high (300-400m, as per the original post), I have to stand under them and cam straight up. I can't see them wandering around on the ground or looking out the windows of buildings with a few floors. It'd only be a problem if the ground-up build reached 300-400 meters, but a building that tall could be an issue for neighbours in itself.

So I'm left wondering if either the shop building is really tall, or the skyboxes are a lot lower than the heights given.

[Hugsy Penguin]

I really hate seeing junk hanging in the sky.  I've passed on buying land because of the surrounding ugly.  Sometimes I do wish something would be done about this kind of stuff.

The problem with making something like this a TOS violation is that a Linden has to decide what's too ugly and has to go and what's pretty enough to stay.  That wouldn't be a good situation.  I know some things are obviously just ugly, but other things are borderline.  There won't be consistent enforcement and people will push the boundaries.

[Hugsy Penguin]

I went to the region and if I'm looking at it right, ground level is about 100 meters and skyboxes are at about 200 meters.

[Phil Deakins]

I agree with Polenth. Skyboxes at 300m or 400m are perfectly fine. They've always been placed that low - above the clouds. They are also not usually "junk", as someone suggested they were. I don't see any problem here.

 

[Emma Geraln]

I try not to put them below 1000m because I think it's antisocial but there is nothing you can do apart from ask the owner if they would be willing to move up. In some parts of the mainland finding clear sky is hell.

[Hugsy Penguin]

‘Junk’ is an assessment of aesthetics.  When I see random cubes, spheres, cut torii, and other random bits, I’ll generally call that junk.  A “skybox” (using that term loosely) so poorly done it’s obvious the creator just doesn’t care might be called junk too.

Something that looks like the creator cares and put a little effort into (even if they’re not a master builder) is not something I’d call junk.  The line is gray and not very well defined (hence the problem with making ugly a TOS violation).

On covenant free mainland, I do NOT support any rules being added governing building heights/altitudes.

[Torley Linden]

I remember the day when the max. supported build height was 768m, before we extended it to 4,096m.

I do wish we had more selective view controls, e.g., for the times you want to crank your draw distance WAY UP but don't want it obscured with skyboxes, which aren't necessarily aesthetically pleasing from the outside — I'm guilty of making a few giant black spheres and black cubes out of megaprims in my time.

But as has been noted, unless there's some violation of the Community Standards/Terms of Service — like a skybox that's severely encroaching on your parcel — then it's allowed... keeping in mind there's always the human element that you can get to know your neighbors and offer suggestions, especially if they're unaware of how bad it looks from a distance.

Good suggestions here, tho.

[Wildcat Furse]

Torley, beside the aesthetic aspects, low skyboxes cause problems for aviators in second life too, most pilots stay just below or just above the clouds and then get confronted with whatever is built up there. How hard you try to stick to whatever flightroute, the buildings can change daily ...., is it therefore an idea to create a 'no built zone' between certain altitudes? *meows*

[Phil Deakins]

Good thinking, Wildcat. We haven't had a good "discussion" on that for ages and it could spark some "life" into this place

On the other hand, I'm in favour of a no-build band for that purpose, so, unless someone posts that structures and objects outside of a narrow band should be disallowed, or that security devices should not be allowed in the sky, then I don't see many sparks here.

 

[Rhiannon Wildmist]

Thank you all for your views and I would like to thank Hugsy esp for making the visit. You really do not have to look up much at all to see these monstrosities. It is only common courtesy, I would have thought to put something up beyond skyline view and anyway, the higher you are the more private it is and lag free surely?

But I guess you will always have those who do this because "they can" and it is "their land" where as I like to be a considerate land owner and make my areas pretty with birdsong, water features etc. It isn't hard, after all, to make the area pretty for your fellow residents.

Reducing my own draw distance will not stop it being seen by my customers or visitors and there should be some ruling of a minimum height for skyboxes. Yes I have sky boxes I rent out, but these start at 1000m well out of view.

Thanks once again for your interesting views and replies

Rhiannon Wildmist

[Polenth Yue]

My issue with no-build zones is there's no discretion. In my area, the Chilbo tree reaches up to 300m, so would be banned. There's a solar system floating in the cloud layer on the next sim. That would be banned. The two really ugly builds next to me that reach 250-270m might also be banned, but I'll put up with those in order to keep the tree and the solar system.

It's fair to say that a good neighbour should try to make their lower builds look as good as they can. The mid-ranges are best for junky builds like building platforms (I say mid-ranges, because max build height is also often used for pretty public builds). But setting a fixed no-build zone will kill a lot of good stuff along with the bad.

It also wouldn't help the original poster... her ugly skybox neighbours are indeed ugly, but they're not in the 300-400m range. The ones I landed on were: 135, 193 and 200. Setting a no-build zone that low would kill many multi-story buildings and anyone putting in a weather system. The real issue isn't height, but that her neighbours haven't considered how ugly the builds look from the outside.

[Pussycat Catnap]

I'd favor a no-blight system.

Let neighbors 'vote' out builds of others below 800m - including at ground. Though perhaps a greater majority needed for ground, and people who haven't logged in for a certain while would not be considered for the number of votes needed to either pass or fail a vote.

- Do that to maybe 30% of mainland sims, people who want some anti-blight control would migrate to them. People who don't would avoid them.

 

But a blanket ban would cause too many issues.

 

[Hugsy Penguin]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

I'd favor a no-blight system.

Let neighbors 'vote' out builds of others below 800m - including at ground. Though perhaps a greater majority needed for ground, and people who haven't logged in for a certain while would not be considered for the number of votes needed to either pass or fail a vote.

---

People would vote out not just the ugly, but also builds by people they don't like regardless of how nice they were.  Small groups would buy some land and then vote out builds by anyone not in their group no matter what just to keep the region to themselves.

---

- Do that to maybe 30% of mainland sims, people who want some anti-blight control would migrate to them. People who don't would avoid them. 

---

No.  Any drastic rules like this should only be applied to newly created mainland which is then given a covenant.  Current covenant free mainland shouldn't have build restrictions added.

[Pussycat Catnap]

Structure it right.

Make voting based on 1 vote per per group per account that owns land in a system, proportionate to percentage of land owned that has at least one whole cut which is equal to or greater than 512m, but which requires at least 5 votes to be eligible for the system to 'turn on'.

- 1 vote per group per account is a messy way of saying:

Each group gets one vote.

Land owned by an individual gets one vote.

But if an account is present in more than one group on a sim of rank to have any land permissions above rezzing, only one of those groups gets any votes.

Inside of a group, voting would be among group officers or group owners - set by the group.

 

Apply the system to some test sims and see if they become points of attraction or flight. And then expand it over time but never to more than 30% of the grid -IF- it turned out to be a point of attraction.

 

 

**********************

The other opton is to start establishing standards for what is blight, and then returning builds that violate that standard on an AR basis.

A lot of people like to claim 'everyone's standards are different' but when it comes down to it 90% of the blight complaints are over the exact same kinds of things - so a majority standard already exists. Its a false claim that there would be no agreement.

There would be disagreement over the finer points and over the 'edges' - but in the core central part of what is blight, you could easily find a majority of agreement. And human judgement of the lindens responding to such ARs would help refine the 'letter' of the policy into something people could predict and comprehend.

 Initial standards could be hammered out in office hours, polls on this website, and discussions. You'd have to weed out the maniacs that claim its socialism to not have anarchy - but in the slamly voiced end of the debate, you'd find some themes.

 

*************************

Presently mainland has tyranny of the one against the entire whole of the rest of the sim and any sims within visible range. This flips that to tyranny of the majority which is also not perfect, but much better.

My suggestion might not be ideal - so lets hear a better one.

 

 

[Hugsy Penguin]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Structure it right.

---

There is no right.  I would never ever accept a rule that allowed other residents any power to dictate what I can build on the land that I pay for.  Also, when I was talking about groups, I didn't really mean a “Second Life group” that costs L$100 to create but rather just a collection of people.

 

 

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

The other opton is to start establishing standards for what is blight, and then returning builds that violate that standard on an AR basis.

---

I bought mature (before there was adult) covenant free mainland for a reason – I don't want build restrictions (beyond the obvious stuff in the TOS). I knew very well that I may end up being next to ugly. That's why, when I was so new the grid I hadn't even heard the term "griefer" (mid-2005), I bought land who's north side faced what's now called Mare Secundus.  I was good to see north and didn't have to care about what people did east, west, and south (and I've seen plenty of junk east, west, and south).

I don't want more rules added that potentially limit what I may want to build. Make those rules on newly created mainland.

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

You'd have to weed out the maniacs that claim its socialism to not have anarchy

---

No one's asking for anarchy.  There already is a TOS.

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

Presently mainland has tyranny of the one against the entire whole of the rest of the sim and any sims within visible range. This flips that to tyranny of the majority which is also not perfect, but much better.

---

I disagree.

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

My suggestion might not be ideal - so lets hear a better one.

---

On covenant free mainland:

 

• Enforce the TOS.
• An absentee land owner is someone who owns land, pays their bills, but never logs in or maintains their land.  Sometimes junk gets left behind by others on their land.  I wouldn't mind LL cleaning up the junk.
• Otherwise, leave people alone.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

Polenth Yue wrote:

My issue with no-build zones is there's no discretion. In my area, the Chilbo tree reaches up to 300m, so would be banned. There's a solar system floating in the cloud layer on the next sim. That would be banned. The two really ugly builds next to me that reach 250-270m might also be banned, but I'll put up with those in order to keep the tree and the solar system.

 

It's fair to say that a good neighbour should try to make their lower builds look as good as they can. The mid-ranges are best for junky builds like building platforms (I say mid-ranges, because max build height is also often used for pretty public builds). But setting a fixed no-build zone will kill a lot of good stuff along with the bad.

 

It also wouldn't help the original poster... her ugly skybox neighbours are indeed ugly, but they're not in the 300-400m range. The ones I landed on were: 135, 193 and 200. Setting a no-build zone that low would kill many multi-story buildings and anyone putting in a weather system. The real issue isn't height, but that her neighbours haven't considered how ugly the builds look from the outside.

---

Alright, so how about a no-build zone unless the builds are grounded? Such a zone/band would only need to be below the clouds. Space above the clouds would be normal.

[Torley Linden]

---

Wildcat Furse wrote:

Torley, beside the aesthetic aspects, low skyboxes cause problems for aviators in second life too, most pilots stay just below or just above the clouds and then get confronted with whatever is built up there. How hard you try to stick to whatever flightroute, the buildings can change daily ...., is it therefore an idea to create a 'no built zone' between certain altitudes? *meows*

---

It is worth noting that for people who wonder "Why doesn't Linden Lab try an experiment for land without skyboxes?", there's Linden Homes that specify "Land cannot contain sky boxes". Beyond starter land though and tied into zoned communities (since "no skyboxes" or a similar restriction would be a type of zoning"), that's a good question for Blondin Linden.

And, if anyone knows a Resident-run private estate that explicitly restricts skyboxes for aesthetic and aviation reasons, out of my own personal curiosity (as I'm an explorer), let me know the SLurl.

[Melita Magic]

Re: Skyboxes at about 50 meters high or less.

I think that some people do this because:

They don't know how to push the skybox or whatever up past that height

They are squatting and want something easy to get to, and could care less about local aesthetics

They are afraid of heights (some people are, even in Second Life) and like to feel 'grounded' but don't want to lose the green space below

They simply like it that way

And rarely, perhaps,

They want to annoy the neighbor(s)

 

I don't like the aesthetic either, but as long as it isn't coupled with a fast or aggressive or out of range security orb that hurtles people 'home' or worse, I can't see it as automatically antisocial.

I put my own sky stuff wayyy up there and try my best not to be adjacent to anyone else's sky builds either. But you can't do much about what others do.

________

ETA: I can't resist...I don't have a SLurl for a mainland with a no skybox covenant, BUT, I'd like to invite you to visit my park Torley if you haven't. It has a whirlycopter rezzer, and if you take it past 100 m high, before you fly out of the park area, you won't hit ban lines (or - orbs last I checked) for ages - I've tried.   And not TOO much junk. With sunset setting I steered toward the sun. I did go up to 1000 meters or higher quickly.

I also put in a watermelon house some time ago, it was just in inventory when I was looking for something for that spot, but you might like that too. Long as you are out there exploring. (Park = G land in Picks)

[Thex Lecker]

---

Torley Linden wrote:

And, if anyone knows a Resident-run private estate that explicitly restricts skyboxes for aesthetic and aviation reasons, out of my own personal curiosity (as I'm an explorer), let me know the SLurl.

---

Most private estates do, in fact. Most covenants say no boxes below "N" meters. Mine, for example, allows no skybox builds below 300m, which allows a nice free flight area between 50m and 300m. Since the SL clouds are around 270m, you usually can't see skyboxes from the ground.

[Bree Giffen]

Forget skyboxes! There are homes built on the ground that are eyesores! Can we AR them for aesthetic reasons? No? Aww.