Security orbs and navigable waters

[xDancingStarx]

12 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

These discussions always come back to there being some kind of entitlement to access that just doesn't exist.

I feel more like these discussions come back to the social aspects of living together in this world and what people contribute to make this world work, or not. Stating that this boils down to the claim of there being a legal entitlement is a misrepresentation as nobody doubts that ban lines etc are legal. It's about the mindset of people who buy land at publicly exposed spots.

Should you have to give up all of your privacy because of that? Probably not. Should you have given it a thought beforehand? Probably. (An unresolvable issue at this time)

Then there are those of the category "this is my land and nobody dare to set a foot on it!" even if they weren't to lose out on anything. There is a certain mindset around some people in SL which must be about compensating for something they're lacking IRL (in this case land ownership and control of their own land.) I've once been standing on my own (mostly empty) land on a newbie alt and got yelled at by a total stranger wtf I was doing on someone else's land. This is just not a healthy mindset. Yeah those people are contributing money to SL, but SL wouldn't die if they had to move to private estates or change their attitude.

 

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

16 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

Then there are those of the category "this is my land and nobody dare to set a foot on it!" even if they weren't to lose out on anything. There is a certain mindset around some people in SL which must be about compensating for something they're lacking IRL (in this case land ownership and control of their own land.) I've once been standing on my own (mostly empty) land on a newbie alt and got yelled at by a total stranger wtf I was doing on someone else's land. This is just not a healthy mindset. Yeah those people are contributing money to SL, but SL wouldn't die if they had to move to private estates or change their attitude.

This is the kind of attitude @Katherine Heartsongis talking about. Because someone prefers not to have strangers zooming cross their property and crashing into their living room, you diagnose them as "compensating for something they're lacking IRL" and implying they should just leave Mainland if they don't "change their attitude". 

This is why people use orbs and ban lines. 

[xDancingStarx]

3 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

This is the kind of attitude @Katherine Heartsongis talking about. Because someone prefers not to have strangers zooming cross their property and crashing into their living room, you diagnose them as "compensating for something they're lacking IRL" and implying they should just leave Mainland if they don't "change their attitude". 

No, you didn't read my post. I explicitly said that privacy is a valid concern. But let me write it again for you: "Should you have to give up all of your privacy because of that? Probably not. "

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Coffee Pancake]

So what happens if we remove the vehicle from the argument.

We live next door to each other and I routinely walk though your yard to get somewhere else, I could go round, or take another route, but no. I refuse.

You put up a fence and I "politely" ask you to take it down and then just jump it and carry on doing my thing.

You put up ban lines. I scream about it on the forums.

You put out an orb. I scream about it on the forums.

What if I put up something really annoying but still within the ToS .. like a giant skyscraper.

What if it's not just me, what if there is an entire community of people walking though your yard.

At what point does the ground being blue or green make any difference.

Which one of us is the bad actor.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Coffee Pancake

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It's been my genuine experience interacting with SL vehicle community that there is always the implicit threat .. and here we are, in a thread ranting on the forums to garner mob support for an entitled angry demand that water be navigable, just because it's there.

I don't see that in this thread despite yours and Belinda's attempt to dismiss it as such. 

 

[xDancingStarx]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

We live next door to each other and I routinely walk though your yard to get somewhere else, I could go round, or take another route, but no. I refuse.

Would I be inside of the house making out with someone? That'd be a valid privacy concern, as stated.

Would I care otherwise? No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't feel hurt. But I've been criticizing the mindset of people who would feel hurt even in this case when they would not be losing out on anything, who act just because it's "their" land.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, xDancingStarx said:

Would I be inside of the house making out with someone? That'd be a valid privacy concern, as stated.

Would I care otherwise? No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't feel hurt. But I've been criticizing the mindset of people who would feel hurt even in this case when they would not be losing out on anything, who act just because it's "their" land.

I should cam and see if you're up to anything before I barge though .. how is this better?

[xDancingStarx]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

I should cam and see if you're up to anything before I barge though .. how is this better?

This is what I had written:

"Should you have to give up all of your privacy because of that? Probably not. Should you have given it a thought beforehand? Probably. (An unresolvable issue at this time)"

You're asking me how to solve this specific situation even though I had clearly stated that this is an unresolvable issue at this time (to me)

 

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Coffee Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

I don't see that in this thread despite yours and Belinda's attempt to dismiss it as such. 

Then clearly, you're only seeing what you want to.

1 minute ago, xDancingStarx said:

This is what I had written:

"Should you have to give up all of your privacy because of that? Probably not. Should you have given it a thought beforehand? Probably. (An unresolvable issue at this time)"

You're asking me how to solve this specific situation even though I had clearly stated that this is an unresolvable issue at this time (to me)

There is a clear solution. In my example, I am in the wrong. I shouldn't have the expectation that myself (and friends) can just cut though your yard, nor should I be going to lengths to extract that incorrect entitlement.

If you say "nope" or otherwise indicate that my actions are not acceptable on your land, that should be more than sufficient and you shouldn't need to justify that.

[xDancingStarx]

11 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

There is a clear solution. In my example, I am in the wrong. I shouldn't have the expectation that myself (and friends) can just cut though your yard

You created an example (out of whatever reason) where it seems to be only a tiny nuisance to not cut through my yard and it would seem pretty easy to say "then just don't cut through my yard." You take the other way around and problem solved. If we reduced this problem to your example then there wouldn't be an issue in SL (and as we all know, that is not the case.) However, this topic was started off with a real inworld example of it creating a huge issue for the affected person.

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Aethelwine]

Not really sure what your example has to do with the circumstances of this thread. Coffee Pancake. 

There is no need for analogies. The situation relates to North Nautilus and the route created by about 12 different land Lords cooperating together.  A renter blocked the passage for a few days at least one neighbour spoke to them and they made their change to allow passage again.  Reopening a route with marinas along it enjoyed by those along the route for about 5 years. 

I know at least one land owner spoke to them because I did. We had a friendly discussion including an apology I had not asked for.

Do I have a sense of entitlement. Perhaps to some extent, I have spent about a thousand dollars personally buying land to keep it open. But that sense of entitlement does include the understanding they can do what they want with the land. The balance that makes that investment worthwhile is the understanding the collective land value depends upon that cooperation and for the last five years has kept it open. 

Should I feel shamed for that measured sense of entitlement? No I don't think so it is this dynamic that enriches mainland for all. The ability to look beyond our own selfish interests enriches the community and ourselves along with it. 

 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

1 hour ago, xDancingStarx said:

No, you didn't read my post. I explicitly said that privacy is a valid concern. But let me write it again for you: "Should you have to give up all of your privacy because of that? Probably not. "

I read your post. I quoted directly from it.

And there is no "probably" to it. A landowner does not have to give up their privacy or anything else, as long as they are within TOS. 

[xDancingStarx]

2 hours ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

I read your post.

Then do not misrepresent what I said. I said land owners of publicly exposed land have a valid interest in privacy. I've also said that publicly exposed land guarded with security orbs and ban lines can create an issue for people, not limited to lagging into security orbs. Your whole response was about "zooming" across parcels and privacy concerns, misrepresenting my post by implying that I don't care about those. I do. But I also acknowledge that ban lines and security orbs can create issues.

My main criticism is the mindset of people that, apart from all privacy concerns, treat their land as something holy that nobody is allowed to touch. I gave the example of being told off by a stranger who thought I was standing on someone else's land. So again, I'm differentiating between valid privacy concerns and the attitude of "my land, fu** off trespassers". And if you want to argue, you can say that the latter attitude is really cool and helpful (not about the fact that it's "legal"!) for the whole of SL, in case that's what you wanted to say.

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Coffee Pancake]

27 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

My main criticism is the mindset of people that, apart from all privacy concerns, treat their land as something holy that nobody is allowed to touch

But that's just it .. it is something nobody is allowed to touch - without permission.

The land access controls baked into the platform make it very easy to rescind that permission, and when those are not accessible (rented mainland) then security orbs have a role to bridge that gap. When you're on someone else's land they can freeze your avatar in place, eject you, send you home, and murderate you by enabling damage. The land owner has tremendous power all backed and provided by the platform owners.

You enter someone else's land with permission, or not at all. 

[Rowan Amore]

Sorry, we have a fence up around our backyard in RL.  What makes anyone think people in SL should be any different than RL?  If the so called ' navigable' water were actually navigable, it wouldn't/shouldn't be blocked.  If it's private property, no one is required to let anyone use it.  Period.  End of it.  Someone being nice and allowing others to use it might end if they sell.  25% of mainland is owned by residents.  Plenty of places you could buy up and have things your way.

 

[xDancingStarx]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

Sorry, we have a fence up around our backyard in RL.  What makes anyone think people in SL should be any different than RL? 

You really wanna compare trespassing IRL with SL? Alone the fact that people leaving trash and ruining your grass IRL makes this comparison silly.

 

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

If it's private property, no one is required to let anyone use it.  Period.  End of it. 

Wow, you've made a point here. And you stressed it really. Apart from the fact that you stated something that nobody questioned. Unless you misunderstood the words "as nobody doubts that ban lines etc are legal." Do you know what that quote means? That nobody thinks anyone is required to let anyone use their lands. Period. End of it. That doesn't change that this selfish attitude (privacy concerns excluded) doesn't contributes anything positive to SL. But yeah, why should people be different in SL than they are IRL?

 

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

Plenty of places you could buy up and have things your way.

I'm not sure what this has to do with trespassing. Probably nothing.

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Coffee Pancake]

14 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

That doesn't change that this selfish attitude (privacy concerns excluded) doesn't contributes anything positive to SL. 

You know what's really selfish.

Demanding that other people contribute to your SL.

[xDancingStarx]

17 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

You know what's really selfish.

Demanding that other people contribute to your SL.

Funny how you're trying to turn this into "demanding" and "your SL". I haven't demanded shi*. Earleir in this thread I have stated that I keep my lands open even though I hit a ban wall 50m apart. Yet I haven't "demanded" this from anyone. However. I'm criticizing that certain "my holy land" attitude, looking at the whole of SL. Not "my" SL.

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Rowan Amore]

36 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

You really wanna compare trespassing IRL with SL? Alone the fact that people leaving trash and ruining your grass IRL makes this comparison silly.

Where did I say anything about  trampled grass or trash?  I don't want anyone in MY yard,  period, that I haven't invited.  Why is that such a difficult concept for some people to grasp?

And I'll have a repeat what @Coffee Pancakesaid, selfish is thinking your version of what's right, even though it has no basis in actual fact, is the be all end all.  

The fact is, I do have a wall up around my parcel.  I also have a 60 second orb set up.  If I were near the water, I'd do the same.  My orb only works on MY land.  If my land includes water you ASSUME is navigable, not my problem.  Not all water.that APPEARS navigable is nor does it need to be set for YOUR convenience.

2 hours ago, xDancingStarx said:

My main criticism is the mindset of people that, apart from all privacy concerns, treat their land as something holy that nobody is allowed to touch.

To some people, it is and they are allowed to feel that way.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Rowan Amore

[xDancingStarx]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Where did k say anything about  trampled grass or trash? 

You didn't, that's the point. I was showing that you cannot easily compare land IRL with land in SL as you implied.

 

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I don't want anyone in MY yard,  period

You're entitled to that, fully! And that's a valid opinion. It's the opinion that I criticize (edit: apart from privacy concerns, because I know, someone is already eagerly waiting to falsely bring this into play a fourth time), but a valid opinion

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, xDancingStarx said:

You didn't, that's the point. I was showing that you cannot easily compare land IRL with land in SL as you implied.

 

You're entitled to that, fully! And that's a valid opinion. It's the opinion that I criticize, but a valid opinion

You missed the point then.  People don't just dump all RL at the log in screen.  To many people, their SL home is just as as much a haven, if not more so, than their RL home. So, yes, the comparison can be valid.

Just because someone lives near the water doesn't mean they have to feel pressured into allowing anyone through .  As I already mentioned, there are A LOT of water parcels for sale/rent.  Someone unaware buys something nearby thinking all that water, that channel out to the sea is open when in fact, it is not.  Do we fault the person who legitimately purchased that water parcel for blocking access with a floating island and a house or the person who didn't pay attention to see if there was ACTUALLY access to the sea?  

By your thinking, that person who purchased the water parcel should be nice and just let people through.  Why?  That's what I'd like to know.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

9 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

By your thinking, that person who purchased the water parcel should be nice and just let people through.  Why?  That's what I'd like to know.

Apparently because it's "selfish" to not want to pay for a parcel for everyone else to use as they please? 

Seems simple enough to me that the owner of the parcel makes the rules, and if one doesn't like their rules, they can go elsewhere, buy a parcel, and open it up to the entire grid.

I'm not getting what there is to debate about it, either. 

[xDancingStarx]

14 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

By your thinking, that person who purchased the water parcel should be nice and just let people through.  Why?  That's what I'd like to know.

Why should people be nice? Boils down to that question, doesn't it? Would be cool if people were nice, helping making SL better, but you can't demand it from people. I suppose this sums up this discussion

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, xDancingStarx said:

Why should people be nice? Boils down to that question, doesn't it? Would be cool if people were nice, helping making SL better, but you can't demand it from people. I suppose this sums up this discussion

Or, others could be nice and not bother them about accessing their land for their own convenience.  Works both ways.  Yep, sums up the discussion. 🙂

[xDancingStarx]

8 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

Apparently because it's "selfish" to not want to pay for a parcel for everyone else to use as they please? 

Trespassing vs "parcel to use as they please" is a slight misrepresentation of what this was about. Nobody said it'd be nice of you to let people camp in your garden to "use as they please", but it was about letting people pass as long as it doesn't hurt you. Another good try, though.