Security orbs and navigable waters

[Persephone Emerald]

As I've said already higher up in this thread, we need to distinguish here between RL laws and ethics vs. SL laws and ethics.

In RL there is sometimes a legal expectation that a private citizen needs to allow a right of way through their private property.

This same expectation is not necessary in a virtual environment in which avatars can teleport.

Ethics are what we should be discussing here, not morals. Look up the definitions of these words yourselves if you're unclear as to the distinction between them.

I believe there are social expectations in SL that go beyond the formal rules, but social expectations are only enforceable through the use of tools such as ban lines and security orbs. For instance, it's not against the rules for someone to go onto personal property in SL. It is generally *expected* that one should not go into someone's house or skybox, but flying or sailing over the edge of their property is generally socially acceptable, especially if nobody is even on that property at the time. Security orbs, ban lists, and privacy settings exist to protect the property owner's perceived sense of privacy.  They are not needed to protect their property from being stolen or damaged. Their SL lawn is not going to be damaged if someone drives across it. 

If you can do something, does this mean you should do it? Or under what circumstances would it be ok to do it? Lets avoid bringing RL situations in which someone's life is in danger into this discussion, because they're not relevant.  We're in effect arguing over perceptions of liberty vs. personal space here, so lets try to stick to those issues.

 

 

 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

36 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Whilst I am all for using inclusive language where possible.

I can't think of an alternative to use that isn't either more wordy or a denial of the feelings of the person blocked traveling through what they thought likely to be traversible experiences.

If you can think of an alternative do let me know so I can advocate for using it instead.

Also I wasn't corrected for using the word someone else used "booby trap" in an example, I suggested to a couple of people objecting that trap might be more acceptible in two separate posts from , on reflection I am not sure there is a meaningful distinction between trap and booby trap they do both apply, although with the caveat that knowing the intention not always obvious and in most cases in my experience they are down to mistakes or a quick reaction to something that happened and then they forgot to revert. 

 

It's not a trap. It's not a booby trap. It's a boundary marking the edges of private property and meant to block entrance to those who are not welcome. This is not difficult, though you seem to be invested in trying to make it so.

[Aethelwine]

2 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

It's not a trap. It's not a booby trap. It's a boundary marking the edges of private property and meant to block entrance to those who are not welcome. This is not difficult, though you seem to be invested in trying to make it so.

That is a description that denies someone their experience. 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

Just now, Aethelwine said:

That is a description that denies someone their experience. 

What? OK, I'm out, too. It is indeed like talking to a wall. 😂

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

One more thing, and something for you to think about. Every single time I read one of these silly "my SL is being denied to me because you won't let me trespass" arguments, I feel the urge to go set banlines and orbs on every single one of my parcels, and I bet I'm not the only one. You are shooting yourself in the foot here, but carry on!

[Aethelwine]

23 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

As I've said already higher up in this thread, we need to distinguish here between RL laws and ethics vs. SL laws and ethics.

In RL there is sometimes a legal expectation that a private citizen needs to allow a right of way through their private property.

This same expectation is not necessary in a virtual environment in which avatars can teleport.

Ethics are what we should be discussing here, not morals. Look up the definitions of these words yourselves if you're unclear as to the distinction between them.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying at the end of your quote. But I have looked up the distinction, and I have studied ethics and moral philosophy to degree level, and frankly I am buggered if I know what that distinction really means. One comes from Greek the other from Latin.

I am with the conclusion to the article 

"Ethicists today, however, use the terms interchangeably. If they do want to differentiate morality from ethics, the onus is on the ethicist to state the definitions of both terms. Ultimately, the distinction between the two is as substantial as a line drawn in the sand."

https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-morality-and-ethics

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Rowan Amore]

44 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Does anyone here really think it is not an ethical issue.

I guess my definition of what is ethical and what is not is different.  It's unethical to enter someone's private property without consent.  It's not unethical to use the damn tools you're given to keep those who believe your ethics are in question, out.

[Rowan Amore]

19 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

That is a description that denies someone their experience. 

And you entering my private parcel without consent denies me my experiencing privacy.  

[Aethelwine]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I guess my definition of what is ethical and what is not is different.  It's unethical to enter someone's private property without consent.  It's not unethical to use the damn tools you're given to keep those who believe your ethics are in question, out.

I don't think your answer surprising, or different from my own.

What about answering the question in my example though?

[Rowan Amore]

Just now, Aethelwine said:

I don't think your answer surprising, or different from my own.

What about answering the question in my example though?

I do not think it is unethical to deny access to my private parcel wherever it may be.  Period.  Morals and ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.   It's simply a matter of being nice or not being nice.  

[Rowan Amore]

23 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

One more thing, and something for you to think about. Every single time I read one of these silly "my SL is being denied to me because you won't let me trespass" arguments, I feel the urge to go set banlines and orbs on every single one of my parcels, and I bet I'm not the only one. You are shooting yourself in the foot here, but carry on!

My 60 second orb is going down in increments as we speak.  50...40...30...😁

[Gabriele Graves]

There is much ducking and weaving in this discussion and yet strangely it's all about morals and ethics.  Hmmm, interesting.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Aethelwine]

2 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

I do not think it is unethical to deny access to my private parcel wherever it may be.  Period.  Morals and ethics have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.   It's simply a matter of being nice or not being nice.  

Nice describes an ethical value.

[Aethelwine]

3 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

There is much ducking and weaving in this thread and yet strangely it's all about morals and ethics.  Hmmm, interesting.

I am using the language most familiar to me, to try to communicate accurately and in a measured way.

It does seem to be failing, but the words I am using have the meanings I am giving to them.  

The objections to what I say seem to come from misunderstanding rather than anything I have said. I am all for people having rights to use zero second orbs to protect their private spaces. 

The points I am making are simply those I have expressed, not those that seem to be being given to me.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Rowan Amore]

 

Just now, Aethelwine said:

Nice describes an ethical value.

Look up obtuse because that's the only explanation I can see to the repeated non-responses.  Oh well.  

Niceness and kindness are virtues not ethical values.

Ethics is a philosophy and virtues are what you actually mean.   Those differ greatly from person to person.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

I am using the language most familiar to me, to try to communicate accurately and in a measured way.

It does seem to be failing, but the words I am using have the meanings I am giving to them.  

If it seems to be failing, then perhaps, just perhaps you might be mistaken about some of those meanings.

[Aethelwine]

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

 

Look up obtuse because that's the only explanation I can see to the repeated non-responses.  Oh well.  

Niceness and kindness are virtues not ethical values.

Ethics is a philosophy and virtues are what you actually mean.   Those differ greatly from person to person.

I am totally lost on what you are saying. 

First definition I see:

Virtue

behaviour showing high moral standards.

 

Why keep trying to make distinctions they are all the same thing

 

Also why not answer my example I gave on the previous page it directly relates to the situation in the thread?

 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Rowan Amore]

Ethics and morals are not the same thing and neither is the same as a virtue.  In fact, something can be moral yet unethical at the same times.   For example...A moral action can also be unethical. An attorney who tells the court that his client is guilty may be acting out of a moral desire for justice to be served, but this is deeply unethical because it violates attorney-client privilege.

You want me to be kind and let you have passage through my private property.  No, I'm not a kind person so I won't let you.  That doesn't mean I'm not a moral and ethical person in general.  It just means I'm not being nice.  Guess what?  People aren't always nice.  That's life, RL and SL.  

There is no ethical or moral code of conduct (other than the ToS) in SL.  If there were, 90% of the adult regions wouldn't be allowed.

[Persephone Emerald]

31 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Ethics and morals are not the same thing and neither is the same as a virtue.  In fact, something can be moral yet unethical at the same times.   For example...A moral action can also be unethical. An attorney who tells the court that his client is guilty may be acting out of a moral desire for justice to be served, but this is deeply unethical because it violates attorney-client privilege.

^ Here's a good distinction between ethics vs. morality. Ethics is used in business and legal settings. Morality connotes a religious or spiritual judgement. In business, it is considered unethical to steal, to create potential harm for one's customer, or to use knowledge one isn't supposed to have in making business deals. It's unethical to not support one's client in the purpose for which you were hired by them, unless you find that this purpose was unlawful. Then it would be unethical to continue to support their unlawful pursuit. 

Here's another example. A person hires a detective to spy on their wife to find out if she's cheating on him. As long as the detective uses legal means to find out if she is, he's being ethical. If he then finds out that his client is also cheating on his wife and the client wants to divorce her before she finds out, the detective is under no ethical obligation to tell the wife, in fact doing so would be unethical toward his client. If he finds out his client is planning to murder his wife on the other hand, then I think he would be ethically obligated to cease working for his client and to report his findings to the police. Ethics are a tricky subject, full of issues of law and professional accountability.

Morality on the other hand often boils down to what feels like the right thing to do based on our own personal beliefs and upbringing. This is a very fuzzy, subjective subject. It's at the root of the abortion debate, because it's so subjective. What is "wrong" for one religious belief may be "right" for another, not to mention what seems "right" or "wrong" for each individual person.  Different arguments can be used to argue one way or another, but it's still going to be a subjective judgement call.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 hours ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

Oh sweet Bastet, really? (PS. Again, avoiding answering my simple question but whatever.)

It's pretty much like RL isn't it?

A store that's shared it's LM and is listed in search, what do you think? Public or not? Is that too hard to know?

A marina that advertises public boat rezzing, public or not? A park or beach or forest hideway listed in the search with a clear description stating it's open, public or not? Dance clubs, party venues, etc, public or not?

A person's home on mainland along a road. Public? Really?

For the umpteenth time ...

Do you have a right to trespass on (OMG what's obviously) private property without the owners permission? Yes or no?

In RL, can any given lot change from a store to a private home easily?

When you're approaching a lot in-world, how do you know what it's search status is?

What does a private home look like in Second Life? What does a lot with a skybox look like from the ground?

On the "About Land" land access dialog, what's the default setting for a "private" lot? (Tip: it's "Anyone can visit.")

I can ask questions too...

 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

I suggest that going forward, all landowners who want even a minimum amount of privacy throw away their orbs and use big honking ugly banlines instead, to make it abundantly clear for those who have trouble with the concept of "private home" that access is not open to all. Those bright yellow fences will surely enhance the experience for everyone! 

[Theresa Tennyson]

Just now, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

I suggest that going forward, all landowners who want even a minimum amount of privacy throw away their orbs and use big honking ugly banlines instead, to make it abundantly clear for those who have trouble with the concept of "private home" that access is not open to all. Those bright yellow fences will surely enhance the experience for everyone! 

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Bjorn/181/153/24

Here's an interesting location. It's on the water and there are plenty of channels that a boat owner might like to go cruising through.

Have a look around. Can you clearly tell from a distance which lots are "private homes" and which are places where public wandering would be encouraged? As it happens, someone has a public art gallery with a private home right next to it. Can you tell which is which without going into them?

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Bjorn/181/153/24

Here's an interesting location. It's on the water and there are plenty of channels that a boat owner might like to go cruising through.

Have a look around. Can you clearly tell from a distance which lots are "private homes" and which are places where public wandering would be encouraged? As it happens, someone has a public art gallery with a private home right next to it. Can you tell which is which without going into them?

So, because some might find it hard to tell, that means the landowner doesn't have the right to restrict access? The traveler's rights trump those of the person who paid for the parcel?

I am never going to buy this argument, sorry. This gets brought up over and over in complaint threads in the forums, but the bottom line is, the person who owns the parcel makes the rules (subject to TOS, of course). All the rest is just noise. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Sylvia Tamalyn

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

So, because some might find it hard to tell, that means the landowner doesn't have the right to restrict access? The traveler's rights trump those of the person who paid for the parcel?

When did I say that? My whole issue here is with people saying that "it's obvious what's public and what's private."

In Second Life, it isn't.

And in RL, you probably couldn't have a private home in an area like that at all.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

When did I say that? My whole issue here is with people saying that "it's obvious what's public and what's private."

In Second Life, it isn't.

And in RL, you probably couldn't have a private home in an area like that at all.

This entire thread says that. 

Now, please excuse me, I'm off to make my private parcels blindingly obvious for others.