1 second Orb timing, is it necessary

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

There is no such rule on mainland.  The rule applies to Belliseria only.

I was gonna say that rule applies to Bellisaria. Not to the actual mainland continent. I don't know how people seem to think that rules on Bellisaria seem to apply to the mainland. 

[Codex Alpha]

11 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

I formerly owned a couple of airports, a preserve in the snow lane where I held holiday events for the entire grid, and a few other things that I did mostly in hopes of positively contributing to the community. I finally discontinued all of that because I got tired of the way that some people feel like they should have a right to plop themselves down in the middle of the community and make themselves a disruption by teleporting home anyone who dares to set a virtual toe across the borderline. It’s kinda like if I bought my home in real life and setup a surface to air missile battery to shoot down any plane that dares to overfly my property. I’ve not yet heard any such a person even attempt to justify why that is a positive contribution to the grid as a whole. But it sure does inhibit exploration and, as a result, use of the places I spent a lot of money in for people to enjoy.

Well said.

Yep, and that's why I and others have tried to address this and bring it to LL's attention so that it could be considered again, and always promoting that a solution can be found that suits both parties.

Instead, the response from other SL'ers is that harsh draconian measures are needed - because apparently SL is rampant with harassment and ill-doers - and will even go so far as to attempt to portray that I'm one of them - simply because of a position I hold.

11 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

LL has said in the past that it wants the grid to be a social, welcoming environment. And the current interest in the metaverse is a huge opportunity for LL to capitalize because Second Life is basically the most developed metaverse around. But doing that means a certain degree of caretaking and cultivation of community.

Yep, and this and other issues like this, and some of the behaviour and anti-social attitudes that SL has seemed to become more about as time has gone on, is contributing to people first not coming back - and may discourage new users from joining.

I'm hoping that those who participate most on the forums are not representative of the majority of SL'ers out there, but they are certainly the loudest, so it's impossible to tell if they represent the opinions of the majority here.

11 minutes ago, Female Winslet said:

At this point, LL has a rule requiring adequate warning for security orbs. The last I heard, it was refusing to enforce that rule. LL has seen the benefits that came from enforcing that type of rule in terms of building community. And it should have a major, major incentive to want to cultivate community right now when the multiverse is such a big thing. Why in the world would you want to build in where newbies come in, wander around, and greeting by a hostile blue popular and then get bounced out? Talk about a good reason to not login again  

If LL’s desire to have community is limited to words not backed by any action, then I don’t see why I should be paying them for the privilege of trying to combat their own apathy as I strive to contribute to the community they claim to want. So I quit paying the several hundred dollars that I was paying LL every month in an effort to contribute. People have indeed been discussing this since at least when I made my first account (July 2006) and LL needs to address and solve the problem. 

Yep, my account is due up pretty soon, and I'm making a decision about it soon. I've commented before in other topics, how it seems I'm paying more, but for less service and access - and so it's increasingly becoming harder to warrant the Premium sub each year unless real value is added.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by Codex Alpha

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Codex Alpha said:

Yep, and that's why I and others have tried to address this and bring it to LL's attention so that it could be considered again, and always promoting that a solution can be found that suits both parties.

Instead, the response from other SL'ers is that harsh draconian measures are needed - because apparently SL is rampant with harassment and ill-doers - and will even go so far as to attempt to portray that I'm one of them - simply because of a position I hold

I don't think any of us has said that. I think we just want our privacy and if we want to set the orb how we want. That is our choice.  So how is it draconian? You are expecting, no wait demanding that people follow some arbitrary rule that doesn't exist. As it is called common courtesy and not a rule. You are basically stating that people need to give you ample amount of time to get off,  and not send you home. No, they don't need to be accomodating at all for you, on their own land. How many times do people have to repeat themselves? 

[Solar Legion]

Ah yes, now we are at the hyperbolic accusation segment of this age old "debate" ...

[Bagnu]

Personally, i WANT people to visit our Island. Why spend time and money building something, if no one can see it?

Edited May 31, 2022 by Bagnu

[Codex Alpha]

5 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I don't think any of us has said that. I think we just want our privacy and if we want to set the orb how we want. That is our choice.  So how is it draconian? You are expecting, no wait demanding that people follow some arbitrary rule that doesn't exist. As it is called common courtesy and not a rule. You are basically stating that people need to give you ample amount of time to get off,  and not send you home. No, they don't need to be accomodating at all for you, on their own land. How many times do people have to repeat themselves? 

I'm very confused by you. You agree with me several times in the post - and that it would be reasonable to accommodate explorers - whilst maintaining the integrity of private land owners.. but you seem to just want to fight instead...

You said previously below:

On 5/30/2022 at 8:19 AM, Sammy Huntsman said:

I thought it had to be 15 seconds maximum, before it kicked you out. Especially for people who are flying on mainland and accidentally hit one of them. 

 

On 5/30/2022 at 8:43 AM, Sammy Huntsman said:

But still I know lots of people fly planes on mainland and I would think it would be nice to give us fair warning and time to exit. But that is only my opinion. 

 

On 5/30/2022 at 9:08 AM, Sammy Huntsman said:

It is kinda ironic eh. But no I think in most cases people aren't going into someone elses house and looking around. they are exploring mainland when bam they hit that orb and get sent back home and their plane or boat gets lost on mainland. 

Maybe you forgot what we were discussing here.

[Orwar]

   Wow, there's actually people who think that the mainland shouldn't be accessible for exploration, who think that anyone who steps off of their own private land should be free game to be assaulted by 0-second orbs that send them home before they know what hit them?

   Yikes.

   We're not 'entitled' to be on any land we don't personally own and pay for? Well darn, there's a capitalistic dystopia I hope never to see in any world. 

   0 second orbs should never be okay on mainland; they should be considered nothing short of griefing. If you don't want explorers, drivers, or pilots to pass through your own virtual property, don't buy property that's part of the greater online world - go hide your sociophobic butt in a private region. 

   Imagine if LL were like some of you suggest they should be; "Welcome to Second Life - it's entirely free, and your creative and social options are near limitless, except we don't owe you anything so you won't actually get to log in before you've bought or rented some land, because it's not our responsibility to create an attractive virtual environment that people might want to be a part of and spend money in so that we have a viable business model". 

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I'm very confused by you. You agree with me several times in the post - and that it would be reasonable to accommodate explorers - whilst maintaining the integrity of private land owners.. but you seem to just want to fight instead...

You said previously below:

I said and I quote that I myself give 30 seconds. I didn't agree with you, I was just telling you how I set my orb. I am also under the ideology, that everyone isn't as accommodating as me, and understand that they will be a bit harsher or a bit more lenient than me. But I never said I agreed with you. I actually think the exact opposite of you, I think if someone else chooses to make it as short or as long as they want on their property.  That is entirely their choice, and you must respect their choice.  

[Jules Catlyn]

There are actually orbs nowadays that allow for people to exactly set the boundaries of their parcel, including altitude. So it is possible to protect your land how you want without interfering with people traveling past or even over your parcel. That's how far SL technology has progressed. So there are solutions that would benefit those who want to travel and explore and people who want to protect their land.

[LunaRavencroft]

10 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Wow, there's actually people who think that the mainland shouldn't be accessible for exploration, who think that anyone who steps off of their own private land should be free game to be assaulted by 0-second orbs that send them home before they know what hit them?

   Yikes.

   We're not 'entitled' to be on any land we don't personally own and pay for? Well darn, there's a capitalistic dystopia I hope never to see in any world. 

   0 second orbs should never be okay on mainland; they should be considered nothing short of griefing. If you don't want explorers, drivers, or pilots to pass through your own virtual property, don't buy property that's part of the greater online world - go hide your sociophobic butt in a private region. 

   Imagine if LL were like some of you suggest they should be; "Welcome to Second Life - it's entirely free, and your creative and social options are near limitless, except we don't owe you anything so you won't actually get to log in before you've bought or rented some land, because it's not our responsibility to create an attractive virtual environment that people might want to be a part of and spend money in so that we have a viable business model". 

Lol 

Not how that works.

I live on a parcel that happens to be "part of the greater online world" not because I want random intruders, I do not. I live on said parcel, because it's cheap.

A parcel, that, for the third and last time....
1. Has ZERO roads around it.
2. Has ZERO airports around it.
3. Has ZERO waterways around it.
4. Has a literal mountain/wall behind it.

But hey, if you expect me to pay MORE to be on a private estate parcel, just because you're a little bit upset, are you going to pay for that? Not likely.

Edited May 31, 2022 by LunaRavencroft

[Bagnu]

1 minute ago, Jules Catlyn said:

There are actually orbs nowadays that allow for people to exactly set the boundaries of their parcel, including altitude. So it is possible to protect your land how you want without interfering with people traveling past or even over your parcel. That's how far SL technology has progressed. So there are solutions that would benefit those who want to travel and explore and people who want to protect their land.

Yes, thank you. Like my orbs on our Island (which are only there to show who has visited)!!!

[Orwar]

2 minutes ago, LunaRavencroft said:

But hey, if you expect me to pay to be on a private estate parcel, just because you're a little bit upset, are you going to pay for that? Not likely.

   Perhaps then, it's you who aren't entitled to that level of privacy, for not coughing up the dough to get your own little corner of the grid? 

[Codex Alpha]

[Gabriele Graves]

11 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Personally, i WANT people to visit our Island. Why spend time and money building something, if no one can see it?

I believe what is being discussed here pertains mainly to mainland and on mainland you can see builds just fine by using your camming ability.  There is no need to actually be on anyone's land if they don't want you there.  "I don't want anyone to see my build" is a fallacy and not the point of putting up an orb.

[LunaRavencroft]

1 minute ago, Orwar said:

   Perhaps then, it's you who aren't entitled to that level of privacy, for not coughing up the dough to get your own little corner of the grid? 

OR.... 

 

Perhaps, it's YOU, whom aren't entitled to go wherever YOU decide, just because YOU want to.

Perhaps, it's YOU, that should not intrude into other people's homes uninvited.

Perhaps, then, YOU would not be causing them to need security orbs.

[Codex Alpha]

4 minutes ago, LunaRavencroft said:

OR.... 

 

Perhaps, it's YOU, whom aren't entitled to go wherever YOU decide, just because YOU want to.

Perhaps, it's YOU, that should not intrude into other people's homes uninvited.

Perhaps, then, YOU would not be causing them to need security orbs.

This is why it's good to read the OP and the following posts, as NO ONE is advocating for such a thing.

[LunaRavencroft]

Just now, Codex Alpha said:

This is why it's good to read the OP and the following posts, as NO ONE is advocating for such a thing.

I said good day.

[Sammy Huntsman]

19 minutes ago, Orwar said:

We're not 'entitled' to be on any land we don't personally own and pay for? Well darn, there's a capitalistic dystopia I hope never to see in any world. 

No its just called we have a right to privacy and if you intrude on that privacy. We can do anything in our power to get you out. That being said, it is not a dystopia and there are tonnes of other places that are open access. Why do you think that you have full access to any piece of land on Mainland anyways? 

[Gabriele Graves]

25 minutes ago, Orwar said:

   Wow, there's actually people who think that the mainland shouldn't be accessible for exploration, who think that anyone who steps off of their own private land should be free game to be assaulted by 0-second orbs that send them home before they know what hit them?

   Yikes.

   We're not 'entitled' to be on any land we don't personally own and pay for? Well darn, there's a capitalistic dystopia I hope never to see in any world. 

   0 second orbs should never be okay on mainland; they should be considered nothing short of griefing. If you don't want explorers, drivers, or pilots to pass through your own virtual property, don't buy property that's part of the greater online world - go hide your sociophobic butt in a private region. 

   Imagine if LL were like some of you suggest they should be; "Welcome to Second Life - it's entirely free, and your creative and social options are near limitless, except we don't owe you anything so you won't actually get to log in before you've bought or rented some land, because it's not our responsibility to create an attractive virtual environment that people might want to be a part of and spend money in so that we have a viable business model". 

Perhaps then LL should not sell private land nor charge residents for it.  They could then make it available to everyone under their own terms.  It cannot be sold as private land and then treated as public.

[Solar Legion]

Ah yes, even more expected hyperbole from the Vehicular enthusiast and "Exploration" advocates ...

[Orwar]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

No its just called we have a right to privacy and if you intrude on that privacy. We can do anything in our power to get you out. That being said, it is not a dystopia and there are tonnes of other places that are open access.

   I haven't seen anyone advocating permitting people to squat in your home, all anyone has been asking for is the common courtesy for a head's up and the opportunity to get off of your land by their own accord before they're thrown out. 

5 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Why do you think that you have full access to any piece of land on Mainland anyways? 

 Because it's Mainland, and again, not 'full access', simply the right to pass by without getting griefed by aggressive no-warning 'oh you're out of your vehicle and knocked way off course without any warning whatsoever, quite possibly causing your viewer to seize up and force you to relog in the process'. 

[Love Zhaoying]

40 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Yep, my account is due up pretty soon, and I'm making a decision about it soon.

"Can we have your stuff?", is the standard jokey question to ask people who public state they are leaving. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Orwar said:

   I haven't seen anyone advocating permitting people to squat in your home, all anyone has been asking for is the common courtesy for a head's up and the opportunity to get off of your land by their own accord before they're thrown out. 

 Because it's Mainland, and again, not 'full access', simply the right to pass by without getting griefed by aggressive no-warning 'oh you're out of your vehicle and knocked way off course without any warning whatsoever, quite possibly causing your viewer to seize up and force you to relog in the process'. 

Well for your information and I hope this doesn't get Codex excited. I still don't agree with you. I am very accommodating. Only about 30 meters around my house and above my house are 0 second orbed. You are free to boat and fly planes within the waters and in airspace of my land. Heck, you can be like those annoying kids and walk on some of my grass. Just at a certain point, you will get booted home instantly. No questions asked. 

[Paul Hexem]

14 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

,LL redo the design of seemingly public passingways and make it LL owned.

A buffer between roads/waterways and private parcels would 100% help with this issue. 

4 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

The public roads on Mainland are Linden Owned and not the point of contention - leave them out.

3 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

I don't really care on the specifics there.

53 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

I have seen no "reasonable" posts from anyone pushing for the ability to pass through a parcel they pay nothing on.

Nothing like willfully ignoring reasonable counter points, then claiming there are no reasonable counter points. That's pretty funny.

[Love Zhaoying]

38 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I'm very confused by you. You agree with me several times in the post - and that it would be reasonable to accommodate explorers - whilst maintaining the integrity of private land owners.. but you seem to just want to fight instead...

So, there's 2 options:

1) Agree with you, then we must stop replying, otherwise..

2) We must be fighting with you if we don't simply agree then stop replying altogether. 

Got it!