1 second Orb timing, is it necessary

[Gabriele Graves]

I think though the proposal still operates under a couple of misconceptions.

1. That is it the build they want to hide rather than their own presence.

I would be willing to bet that most people who use zero-second orbs don't care that others can cam around their build, they don't actually want to hide it that much.  They would more want to hide their own presence completely while they are on their land which means no mini-map dot, not radar ability, etc.  This is not even being explored in this discussion but is a very important aspect of privacy.

2. That they would be happy with others being on/passing through through their space if everything was hidden from others.

The second point is the most important of all.  I am certain that the vast majority of people who don't want others on their land would not be satisfied by any measures that meant others could in any possible be on/pass through their land even if it appeared to be empty.  It's territorial and has nothing to do with whether others can see their build.  They simply do not want those accounts to have any presence on the land that they bought.
If that were untrue the forums at least as many complainants that LL should restrict others ability to cam into land their if they are banned.  I cannot even remember reading any topic such as this here in the past.  I think this indicates that people don't care as much about that.

So you cannot get around that aspect of restricting access with such a feature because to those people it would still be seen as giving access to the land they bought (even if empty) and they don't want that at all and would not be very happy with those things being taken away and substituted for a phasing-type feature.
 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The second point is the most important of all.  I am certain that the vast majority of people who don't want others on their land would not be satisfied by any measures that meant others could in any possible be on/pass through their land even if it appeared to be empty. 

Is anti-orb!

[Love Zhaoying]

Almost seems like a side-effect would be to allow non-member (not opted-in) avatars to wander through the area as "ghosts". A setting to show them transparently would be fun!

[Gabriele Graves]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Almost seems like a side-effect would be to allow non-member (not opted-in) avatars to wander through the area as "ghosts". A setting to show them transparently would be fun!

It certainly sounds like fun and I do like the idea but when people want to block their land, avatars wandering through in any fashion, even as ghosts, would not be acceptable to them.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves
Hit return too early

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

It certainly sounds like fun and I do like the idea but when people want to block their even the avatars wandering through in any fashion would not be acceptable to them.

Is exactly why I said "anti-orb"! 
(Please excuse superfluous lions, trying to get back into the habit!)

[Silent Mistwalker]

Will humans ever learn not to fix what isn't broken? 

[Sammy Huntsman]

On 6/2/2022 at 5:13 PM, Love Zhaoying said:

(Copied from "Make Us Laugh" thread, but written for this thread. Re-posted due to no font choices on editing.)

If 0-Second Orbs Are Outlawed, Only Criminals Will Have Them!

(A short Play by Love Zhaoying)

Scene: Mainland shop.  Only the shopkeeper is present. A tough-looking avatar enters, and speaks with a stereotypical "Mafia" accent. (Presumably, this is a "Bronx" accent, combined with an Italian-American accent. No offense is intended to either New Yorkers, or to those Americans of Italian descent.)

Shopkeeper: "H'lo, let me know if you need any help. Everything has a Demo version!"

Tough Guy: "T'anks! I see you have an Orb..."

Shopkeeper: "Yes, we're quite proud of it."

TG: "Well, it would be a shame, should something happen to your nice Orb.  Those aren't legal anymore, you know."

Shopkeeper, visibly beginning to sweat: "I don't want any trouble..that Orb was Grandfathered to us!"

TG: "You know, should the authorities find out about this nice Orb,  it could be..difficult for you!"

Shopkeeper:  "What do you mean? I didn't do anything!"

TG: "There are some nice swimming animations available. I'd hate to see you at the bottom of the Blake Sea, swimming with the prim fishies, if you know what I mean!" (Tough Guy cracks his knuckles menacingly.)

Shopkeeper, shaking in fear: "No, no, no! I'll do anything - tell me what I can do!"

Tough Guy: "Well, me and my company, we like to offer what we call an Insurance policy. So long as you pay up, and on time, the authorities never need to know about your little Orb problem."

Shopkeeper: "Is that all? If I pay you, then you'll leave me alone?"

Tough Guy: "Yes, that's all. Just sign this here piece of paper."

Tough Guy hands the Shopkeeper an official looking document, which says, "Second Life No-Fault Teleport Home Insurance Policy".

(Scene)

This play sponsored by The Second Life No-Fault Teleport Home Insurance Company.

 

I would have added something like, we have great concrete shoes to select from. Lol 

[Sammy Huntsman]

I think the ultimate point is, that people, don't want people wandering into their homes on mainland. I mean yeah sure there are ways to make it so people could walk on the lawn of that person's property. Like only having the orb protecting about a meter outside the house and a meter above the house. So boaters and fliers could have unhindered access to the air and the seas. But a lot of people either don't really know how to set their orbs or just refuse to set them that way. I know it sucks, but that is just part of life. I for one would have the 1 meter by 1-meter perimeter set around my house, at 0 seconds. So to deter people from gaining entrance into my home. And yes you can still see inside their property, but the point is. A person's home is their castle, and when they are in it. They don't want to be bothered by random people coming in and out, due to them exploring. I think that is entirely their right to be able to have some privacy from all that. Don't you? 

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I think the ultimate point is, that people, don't want people wandering into their homes on mainland. I mean yeah sure there are ways to make it so people could walk on the lawn of that person's property. Like only having the orb protecting about a meter outside the house and a meter above the house. So boaters and fliers could have unhindered access to the air and the seas. But a lot of people either don't really know how to set their orbs or just refuse to set them that way. I know it sucks, but that is just part of life. I for one would have the 1 meter by 1-meter perimeter set around my house, at 0 seconds. So to deter people from gaining entrance into my home. And yes you can still see inside their property, but the point is. A person's home is their castle, and when they are in it. They don't want to be bothered by random people coming in and out, due to them exploring. I think that is entirely their right to be able to have some privacy from all that. Don't you? 

It would be interesting to hear if that satisfies the original poster!

[SandorWren]

16 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I think the ultimate point is, that people, don't want people wandering into their homes on mainland. I mean yeah sure there are ways to make it so people could walk on the lawn of that person's property. Like only having the orb protecting about a meter outside the house and a meter above the house. So boaters and fliers could have unhindered access to the air and the seas. But a lot of people either don't really know how to set their orbs or just refuse to set them that way. I know it sucks, but that is just part of life. I for one would have the 1 meter by 1-meter perimeter set around my house, at 0 seconds. So to deter people from gaining entrance into my home. And yes you can still see inside their property, but the point is. A person's home is their castle, and when they are in it. They don't want to be bothered by random people coming in and out, due to them exploring. I think that is entirely their right to be able to have some privacy from all that. Don't you? 

And I just thought of something. What if they don't know about the issues their orbs can create? I certainly didn't.

[Milissa Rossini]

5 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

It would be interesting to hear if that satisfies the original poster!

What I am preferring is ban line than 1 second ORB, if practical in the case for enjoying privacy. I do not like to be sent home immediately.

But what is my opinion on ORB or ban line. I would like to talk about right of way, right of light, such kind of easement attaching to the land in real life. I believe that there are certainly several rights should be entitled to the neighbour of a parcel.  However, those easements are established by the historical using of certain portion of the neighbour’s land and additional those right may also need as necessity, i.e., road to access, a window for sunlight. It is unlikely the case in SL. We still have teleport.

I always tell my friend this. Landlord is the Madness King, and Linden Lab is the do-nothing god. I do believe landowner should have absolution available control on their land, as far they do not interfere other resident enjoyment of their land. But I also believe there are existing certain social covenants between all the resident in second life. If there have no such unspoken social covenants, Second Life would already be a zhithole for nobody is willing to login.

Some rules of social covenants may be easier to observe and follow, and other maybe not, such the privacy on land. While the Landowner should have the absolute right, other residence may not agree. As there are such huge space from the hell to the heaven over the land. Why does the landowner have right to possess each inch of those space?  I believe such public right to access is much like social covenants. 

Everyone in mainland look up our sky. What do you see?  Let's imagine. If our sky height between 200m-2000m is clean and accessible by everyone, will that Second Life feel totally different?

Linden Lab is totally guilty on the sea blockage. They create such situation and do not make remedy by place more water sim for sailing. I am still not sure what will do they for this problem. They claim the new Linden Home land mass connecting to 3 mainlands with water ways. But the sea paths on those mainlands are all blocked. Maybe they have long term plan to reconnect all the sea path between mainlands.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Milissa Rossini

[Milissa Rossini]

5 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I think the ultimate point is, that people, don't want people wandering into their homes on mainland. I mean yeah sure there are ways to make it so people could walk on the lawn of that person's property. Like only having the orb protecting about a meter outside the house and a meter above the house. So boaters and fliers could have unhindered access to the air and the seas. But a lot of people either don't really know how to set their orbs or just refuse to set them that way. I know it sucks, but that is just part of life. I for one would have the 1 meter by 1-meter perimeter set around my house, at 0 seconds. So to deter people from gaining entrance into my home. And yes you can still see inside their property, but the point is. A person's home is their castle, and when they are in it. They don't want to be bothered by random people coming in and out, due to them exploring. I think that is entirely their right to be able to have some privacy from all that. Don't you? 

ORB's boundbox is not easy to set it rightly.  and not every ORB support too.   I would rather to suggest LL creating a new function to a phantom prim for blocking anyone go inside without permission/group permission. This would be much easy understand and handle.  Put our house within this prim. Privacy can be secured.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Milissa Rossini

[Qie Niangao]

10 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I think though the proposal still operates under a couple of misconceptions.

1. That is it the build they want to hide rather than their own presence.

I would be willing to bet that most people who use zero-second orbs don't care that others can cam around their build, they don't actually want to hide it that much.  They would more want to hide their own presence completely while they are on their land which means no mini-map dot, not radar ability, etc.  This is not even being explored in this discussion but is a very important aspect of privacy.

2. That they would be happy with others being on/passing through through their space if everything was hidden from others.

The second point is the most important of all.  I am certain that the vast majority of people who don't want others on their land would not be satisfied by any measures that meant others could in any possible be on/pass through their land even if it appeared to be empty.  It's territorial and has nothing to do with whether others can see their build.  They simply do not want those accounts to have any presence on the land that they bought.
If that were untrue the forums at least as many complainants that LL should restrict others ability to cam into land their if they are banned.  I cannot even remember reading any topic such as this here in the past.  I think this indicates that people don't care as much about that.

So you cannot get around that aspect of restricting access with such a feature because to those people it would still be seen as giving access to the land they bought (even if empty) and they don't want that at all and would not be very happy with those things being taken away and substituted for a phasing-type feature.

After several pages of very bizarre reactions to my posts about the futility of seeking meaningful privacy on Mainland, I eventually realized—as enumerated in the part I highlighted in purple above—the essence of actual privacy, missing from both parcel permissions and scripted "security" devices, is beside the point: Folks will part with their beloved orbs when the Lab pries them from their cold, dead hands.

It appears to be much more valued to deny others access than to protect any semblance of privacy. Reactions to the "phasing" suggestion makes this starkly evident.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

53 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

After several pages of very bizarre reactions to my posts about the futility of seeking meaningful privacy on Mainland, I eventually realized—as enumerated in the part I highlighted in purple above—the essence of actual privacy, missing from both parcel permissions and scripted "security" devices, is beside the point: Folks will part with their beloved orbs when the Lab pries them from their cold, dead hands.

It appears to be much more valued to deny others access than to protect any semblance of privacy. Reactions to the "phasing" suggestion makes this starkly evident.

Yeah.

I don't mean to suggest that the technology is entirely unimportant but, like the whole ultra-extremist "My Land, My Rules" phenomenon (to which this is definitely connected), the "privacy" thing is more a social and cultural problem than a tech one.

It would be interesting to see the correlation between these attitudes and certain ideological perspectives, particularly perhaps as these relate to national cultures. The ghost of Adam Smith looms larger over the US than over any other nation I can think of.

[Arielle Popstar]

19 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

It would be interesting to see the correlation between these attitudes and certain ideological perspectives, particularly perhaps as these relate to national cultures. The ghost of Adam Smith looms larger over the US than over any other nation I can think of.

Think I already pointed out a few pages back how it seemed that it was the ones who are anti land ownership in r/l that are the most defensive of 0 second Orbs. 

[Rowan Amore]

13 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Think I already pointed out a few pages back how it seemed that it was the ones who are anti land ownership in r/l that are the most defensive of 0 second Orbs. 

Nope, not me.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

Nope, not me.

Didn't say it was. There is more people then just you in this thread

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

Didn't say it was. There is more people then just you in this thread

It's certainly counterintuitive, and wouldn't apply to me. I can see one person who might fit both criteria?

[Love Zhaoying]

20 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Think I already pointed out a few pages back how it seemed that it was the ones who are anti land ownership in r/l that are the most defensive of 0 second Orbs. 

Solution: 0 second orbs which keep everyone off all land! 

[Gabriele Graves]

I just want to clarify something in case it didn't come across in my recent posts.

I'm not anti-land in either world.  I'm not anti-orb, even zero-second ones.  I'm not pro-zero-second orb either.  I choose to open my lands but I support the land owner being able to make their own decisions about land access in absolute terms.

The main issue I have with a phase approach is that it seems like selling-not-selling the land.  That parcel is either owned by someone or it is not, it cannot be both ways with clever use of technology if said technology maintains the illusion of one space.

Mainland residents have been sold land on the premise that their parcel has been bought by them and their control over access rights is secured by this.  I think many would see that to change this now would be to renege on that sale.

Notice how Linden Homes are not a buy/sell deal, they are truly just a rental so there isn't as much issue with changing the rules there.  Once you allow people to buy/sell land, they expect the terms it was sold under to stay pretty much the same or they start to feel cheated.

[Love Zhaoying]

The vocal minority who wants access to all land is vocal. And a minority.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Milissa Rossini said:

Linden Lab is totally guilty on the sea blockage. They create such situation and do not make remedy by place more water sim for sailing. I am still not sure what will do they for this problem. They claim the new Linden Home land mass connecting to 3 mainlands with water ways. But the sea paths on those mainlands are all blocked. Maybe they have long term plan to reconnect all the sea path between mainlands.

Yes on the sea blockage or channels that lead to it like this situation I have when I leave my place by sailboat and head to opens waters and run into a ban line that will either freeze or toss me and the boat to another sim without warning. Even if the accessible channel was marked off by buoys it would at least give the ability to navigate it reasonably safely with a smaller boat. 

 

[Arielle Popstar]

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

The vocal minority who wants access to all land is vocal. And a minority.

Show me one, just one post in this thread where someone has asked for for access to all land. This is only about the 0 second Orbs. To claim it is anything else is gaslighting the minority.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Arielle Popstar
spelling

[Arielle Popstar]

19 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Mainland residents have been sold land on the premise that their parcel has been bought by them and their control over access rights is secured by this.  I think many would see that to change this now would be to renege on that sale.

Notice how Linden Homes are not a buy/sell deal, they are truly just a rental so there isn't as much issue with changing the rules there.  Once you allow people to buy/sell land, they expect the terms it was sold under to stay pretty much the same or they start to feel cheated.

For most it is still just a rental as it is the land baron who arguably has "bought" the land with never a ending mortgage payment but then rents it out to tenants. So your point doesn't quite wash.

[Gabriele Graves]

When I travel through mainland, especially by water, I have my mini-map on-screen at a reasonably large size with land boundaries showing.  This easily show where the public land begins/ends.  If it gets tricky I can zoom it closer to make sure I navigate well.  This seems to work well for me.

I agree with the sentiment however that LL bears the responsibility of selling land near public access routes without enough buffers.  It is a bit mystifying as to why they couldn't foresee issues.