1 second Orb timing, is it necessary

[Scylla Rhiadra]

17 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

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

Arielle is right. I've never met ANYONE who believes they should have unfettered access to anyone's land.

This isn't a "Property is theft" thing. This is almost always about reconciling the rights of those whose passage through public land is hindered or even made impossible by orbs and ban lines, with those who seek privacy. No one has asked for the "right" to barge into someone else's home uninvited.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

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.

The land baron who owns it might feel differently about not being able to offer land access controls to their customers however and still feel cheated.

[Gabriele Graves]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Arielle is right. I've never met ANYONE who believes they should have unfettered access to anyone's land.

Hang on a sec.  Love didn't say "unfettered access" he just said "access" and there has been at least one poster who has posted saying that they should have the ability to cross over or through someone's land even if that person doesn't want to give that access.  This is exactly what the complaint about "over-eager" orbs is all about.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Personally, I'd like to see the rules that have been set for Belli applied to the mainland.

BUT that's me. I get that this doesn't provide enough privacy for some. And while I have next to zero sympathy for people who want total control over their own land merely because they own it, I think it's important to acknowledge that there are people who have very good reasons for wanting to keep people out. I don't get it, myself, but then again, that's just me.

I really don't understand why some form of more advanced zoning on the mainland couldn't solve this to most people's satisfaction. Indeed, good zoning rules could also be used to ensure that that giant full-bright monstrosity of a club doesn't go up in the midst of areas that are primarily residential.

Zoning is no different, really, than a content ratings system. In fact, it's an extension of the same principle. Have areas where tight privacy controls are available, and others where they are not. Areas that are residential, and areas that are commercial. Etc. It would mean that one could choose where to live on the basis one's preferences: everyone gets well-served.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The land baron who owns it might feel differently about not being able to offer land access controls to their customers however and still feel cheated.

Question is does it devalue the property if he did and even then, he/she can still offer it with the stipulation to not block or hinder passage. One of the tenants across the channel from where I took that picture was remarking how these 0 sec orbs and ban lines had affected the sense of community in the area and had resulted in a negative impact on the rental rates.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Hang on a sec.  Love didn't say "unfettered access" he just said "access" but there has been at least one poster who has posted saying that they should have the ability to cross over or through someone's land even if that person doesn't want to give that access.  This is exactly what the complaint about "over-eager" orbs is all about.

Ok. Maybe. Although Love seemed to be drawing the portrait of an "extreme" case.

There is, what, 5000m of airspace above every parcel. It wouldn't be possible to create a strip of airspace, as per Belli, that is public access? Or that at the least has a long enough delay that one could travel through it in a moderately fast vehicle?

I get (even though I personally don't want) the need to restrict access at ground level. But if there were clearly delineated corridors in the air above, there'd still be plenty of room for private skyboxes, AND passage for flying vehicles.

[Love Zhaoying]

16 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

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.

I SAID they're a minority!! 
(Queue the Carly Simon song!)

 

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Question is does it devalue the property if he did and even then, he/she can still offer it with the stipulation to not block or hinder passage. One of the tenants across the channel from where I took that picture was remarking how these 0 sec orbs and ban lines had affected the sense of community in the area and had resulted in a negative impact on the rental rates.

That's a very interesting question with a can of worms attached really.  How far do you go with the devaluing land aspect?  It is mainland we are talking about.  People value different things differently.  There are far more things built on the land that some would argue devalue the land as well.  I would speculate that if we were to travel down the road on changing whatever devalues land, mainland as we know it would not exist just another managed space.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Hang on a sec.  Love didn't say "unfettered access" he just said "access" and there has been at least one poster who has posted saying that they should have the ability to cross over or through someone's land even if that person doesn't want to give that access.  This is exactly what the complaint about "over-eager" orbs is all about.

You got it!

 

[Gabriele Graves]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There is, what, 5000m of airspace above every parcel. It wouldn't be possible to create a strip of airspace, as per Belli, that is public access? Or that at the least has a long enough delay that one could travel through it in a moderately fast vehicle?

I get (even though I personally don't want) the need to restrict access at ground level. But if there were clearly delineated corridors in the air above, there'd still be plenty of room for private skyboxes, AND passage for flying vehicles.

Sure, it could be done.  However, it still wouldn't be popular.  It is still asking some to give up the complete control they bought and flying enthusiasts don't want to fly at 5000m because there is nothing to look at.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Sure, it could be done.  However, it still wouldn't be popular.  It is still asking some to give up complete control they bought and flying enthusiast don't want to fly at 5000m because there is nothing to look at.

At some point, in any civil society, compromises have to be introduced to ensure that one set of rights doesn't trump another. One could produce hundreds of examples from RL.

I think that insisting on complete and absolute rights over land, regardless of need, is wrong. And I think, similarly, insisting on the right to fly low enough to look into someone else's property, is wrong.

Communities are created by finding creative ways to reconcile different needs, desires, and "rights." It's not insurmountable: we've been doing it in RL since the Code of Hammurabi at least.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
Weird typo

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I SAID they're a minority!! 
(Queue the Carly Simon song!)

Oooohh, you were meaning the OTHER minority. Who knew.😏

[Gabriele Graves]

I think all this serves to highlight the fragility of mainland.  It is a unique thing and you either love it or hate it.  However trying to change it is likely to ruin it rather than save it in my opinion.  I believe this is why LL make very few changes and instead offer alternative places where these activities can be done with better results.

Edited June 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

At some point, in any civil society, compromises have to be introduced to ensure that one set of rights doesn't trump another. One could produce hundreds of examples from RL.

I think that insisting on complete and absolute rights over land, regardless of need, is wrong. And I think, similarly, insisting on the right to fly low enough to look into someone else's property, is wrong.

Communities are created by finding creative ways to reconcile different needs, desires, and "rights." It's not insurmountable: we've been doing it in RL since the Code of Hammurabi at least.

You could look at it that way and that is certainly your right to a point of view but it was sold the way it was sold.  For some things it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

[Luna Bliss]

lol was looking for a funny GET OFF MY LAND meme and found this from the UK:

"FARMERS have been asked to stop shouting “get off my land” and instead use friendly language if they see trespassers in their fields.

Advice in the new Rural Code says they should ask people if they are lost, then help them “get back on track”."

https://ustimetoday.com/farmers-are-told-to-stop-shouting-get-off-my-land-and-instead-use-friendly-language-if-they-see-trespassers-in-their-fields/

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

At some point, in any civil society, compromises have to be introduced to ensure that one set of rights doesn't trump another. One could produce hundreds of examples from RL.

I thought I would respond to this bit separately.  I think any reasoning that mainland is a civil society is flawed.  It is the wild west for the most part as far as SL is concerned.  It should be treated that way.  If you can tame a bit of it, all the power to you, if not and decide it isn't for you, that is OK too.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You could look at it that way and that is certainly your right to a point of view but it was sold the way it was sold.  For some things it is hard to put the genie back in the bottle.

It wouldn't be the first time LL has changed the rules mid stride and not likely to be the last. A level of consistency across the platform could be considered a plus especially for the newer people.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It wouldn't be the first time LL has changed the rules mid stride and not likely to be the last. A level of consistency across the platform could be considered a plus especially for the newer people.

The rules over mainland has achieved and maintained a level of stability for a good number of years now though.  I'm not saying they (LL) couldn't change things but that maybe the fragility I mentioned would mean upsetting an apple cart of good for no good reason.  The status quo is easier to maintain.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The rules over mainland has achieved and maintained a level of stability for a good number of years now though.  I'm not saying they (LL) couldn't change things but that maybe the fragility I mentioned would mean upsetting an apple cart of good for no good reason.  The status quo is easier to maintain.

Well from how I have been seeing it in the forums is that they have achieved that level of stability by ignoring any calls for improvements, resulting in it seeming to have the reputation of being the slum of SecondLife. There are darn good reasons for making some changes to revamp it but supposing that since it will not result in them making any extra money, they can just leave it alone as long as the landbarons keeps paying.

[Rowan Amore]

44 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Have areas where tight privacy controls are available, and others where they are not. Areas that are residential, and areas that are commercial. Etc. It would mean that one could choose where to live on the basis one's preferences: everyone gets well-served.

You've just described Mainland and Belli.  One for people who want tight control if needed and commercial, mainland.  Those who like residential with limits, Belli.

Again, a very small percentage of mainland is actually owned by residents making the  0 sec orbs more than likely, an anomaly.  So you get booted and sent home.  Annoying, yes but so are a lot of things in SL.  

[Gabriele Graves]

26 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well from how I have been seeing it in the forums is that they have achieved that level of stability by ignoring any calls for improvements

Nobody can agree on what is or is not an improvement as far as I can tell.  Forums is also a microcosm and not relevant as a sample size.

26 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

resulting in it seeming to have the reputation of being the slum of SecondLife.

I prefer the term cauldron of creativity

26 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

There are darn good reasons for making some changes to revamp it but supposing that since it will not result in them making any extra money, they can just leave it alone as long as the landbarons keeps paying.

Again, this only depends on your point of view.  It could be argued that this approach has worked and keeps working for LL and their customers because people still care about mainland after all this time and the rules around access have not changed since access controls were added.  If LL decide that this is no longer of benefit to those customers or themselves, we may well see some change and it may make the residents who like it the way it is unhappy too.  This discussion is about what people want though and there are diametrically opposed views about what people want.
 

Edited June 6, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Again, a very small percentage of mainland is actually owned by residents making the  0 sec orbs more than likely, an anomaly.

But what would a Sunday night on the forum be without an argument over basically nothing?

[Gabriele Graves]

It's Monday afternoon on a public holiday where I am

Edited June 6, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Rowan Amore]

13 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

But what would a Sunday night on the forum be without an argument over basically nothing?

Monday morning.

[SandorWren]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

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.

Why is "My land, My Rules" ultra extremist? Isn't that  the same as "take your shoes off when you come inside"? And what's wrong with privacy? I'm sure you it would feel a bit "creepy" to you if I wandered through your home uninvited.