Security orbs and navigable waters

[Coffee Pancake]

4 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

You don't enjoy SL sailing, I get that. Just please don't tell me my pastime isn't a valid use of the platform. 

I didn't say it wasn't valid, I said that if your toy needs special conditions to be practical ( like enough space to simulate the lateral movement requirements of a wind powered craft ), playing with it in places that lack that required space is not anyone else's problem.

The whole point of this thread is .. just because you can see space, doesn't mean you can assume it's open for use.

 

[Qie Niangao]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

I didn't say it wasn't valid, I said that if your toy needs special conditions to be practical ( like enough space to simulate the lateral movement requirements of a wind powered craft ), playing with it in places that lack that required space is not anyone else's problem.

The whole point of this thread is .. just because you can see space, doesn't mean you can assume it's open for use.

God knows I pay enough each month to access some of those rare parts of SL where it's possible to play with my "wonky boat simulator". But as I've said too many times in this thread already, it's hardly the fault of the people who own the land blocking more would-be sailors from affordably wide access: those landowners were sold that land with permissions that never should have been defined for Mainland. It was just a design error. A wonky Mainland simulator.

[Coffee Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

 It was just a design error. A wonky Mainland simulator.

The only part of mainland rules that needs changing is the ability for people to play landlord and rent it out.

Rented mainland land lacks technical parcel powers and depends on orbs.

 

If you're suggesting that mainland should have been designed to be more "open access" than I have to strongly disagree.

[Qie Niangao]

44 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If you're suggesting that mainland should have been designed to be more "open access" than I have to strongly disagree.

Yeah, we disagree. There's nothing limiting the ability of Estate regions to satisfy demand for restricted access, but Estates simply cannot provide the scale of Mainland for exploration. And no amount of kludgy window-dressing can reconcile exploration and restricted access—and hence these threads will keep appearing as long as there is a Second Life.

Maybe Mainland would have been one continent smaller if all restricted-access afficionados chose to own on Estates instead. I don't see a downside to that.

[Mollymews]

On 7/22/2022 at 2:34 PM, Tomas McConaught said:

The Lab has the ability to mitigate ... a similar ability to prevent crashes with banlines.

just on this part

at a recent-ish User Group meeting Linden said they have taken onboard the idea to bounce vehicles off parcel banlines (in the same way avatars are).  LInden said that they hadn't allocated resources to doing it yet, but was something that they see as a good thing to do from the user pov

[Coffee Pancake]

5 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Yeah, we disagree. There's nothing limiting the ability of Estate regions to satisfy demand for restricted access, but Estates simply cannot provide the scale of Mainland for exploration. And no amount of kludgy window-dressing can reconcile exploration and restricted access—and hence these threads will keep appearing as long as there is a Second Life.

Maybe Mainland would have been one continent smaller if all restricted-access afficionados chose to own on Estates instead. I don't see a downside to that.

There is nothing to reconcile .. "explorers" want to to roam on other people's property because buying enough of their own to entertain themselves would be expensive beyond dreams of avarice. As such they shouldn't complain when some people don't want them passing though.

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

There is nothing to reconcile .. "explorers" want to to roam on other people's property because buying enough of their own to entertain themselves would be expensive beyond dreams of avarice. As such they shouldn't complain when some people don't want them passing though.

Why shouldn't explorers complain? 

Complaining has :

• psychological value through process of venting,
• it also brings about communication that can be informative and provide useful insights (eg finding out about how to use mini-map to find protected routes)
• and finally constructive complaining to the landowner can affect a change in their rules that resolves the issue.

Continual complaining has negatives as well of course. It can create negativity, over emphasize problems, prevents dialogue and can be psychologically damaging.

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Qie Niangao]

2 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

There is nothing to reconcile .. "explorers" want to to roam on other people's property because …

There are no "explorers" in scare quotes wanting "to roam on other people's property"—what paranoia is this? 

There are irreconcilable ideas of the value of owning virtual land, and Mainland is caught in the middle.

Nobody resents scary "explorers" creepily "roaming" the SLB regions, intruding on the "privacy" of exhibitors—because they're exhibitors. That's the whole point of getting a parcel there. And many, many Mainland owners treat their parcels this way: open to the public to see the sights and play with the toys. For us, that's the whole reason to put anything on ground level of Mainland: for mutual enjoyment.

Sure, there's demand for more secluded virtual spaces. That can work in the skies of Mainland, although my own Mainland sky builds are also wide open. And from time to time I've rented land on Estate regions where seclusion is the norm. That works fine, too; I highly recommend it to those seeking that virtual world experience.

But as I keep saying, it's far too late to enforce such a distinction on Mainland. So I don't characterize seclusion-seeking Mainland owners as the kind of creepy misanthropes who'd demand their SLB exhibit be accessible by invitation only. Rather, they're just using what they were sold. The mistake was ever selling Mainland with those permissions, like designing event regions in a maze with some booby-trapped exhibits.

[Qie Niangao]

12 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The only part of mainland rules that needs changing is the ability for people to play landlord and rent it out.

Rented mainland land lacks technical parcel powers and depends on orbs.

This is a complete tangent, but I'm curious. Leaving aside any question of whether Mainland should support whitelist banlines, given that it does, I'm not seeing the problem with mainland rentals. It's easy and now very common to rent Mainland parcels owned by per-tenancy groups that grant nearly all parcel-level permissions to the tenant (no need for orbs, although rentals without dedicated group land need landlord-owned scripts for all kinds of stuff), so I'm wondering what's missing. There's llManageEstateAccess but that's a pretty big hammer—do Estates commonly permit tenants to use this level of access restriction?

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

Why shouldn't explorers complain? 

Complaining has :

• psychological value through process of venting,
• it also brings about communication that can be informative and provide useful insights (eg finding out about how to use mini-map to find protected routes)
• and finally constructive complaining to the landowner can affect a change in their rules that resolves the issue.

Continual complaining has negatives as well of course. It can create negativity, over emphasize problems, prevents dialogue and can be psychologically damaging.

 

Complaining also provides a much-needed "reality check" when one's complaints are derided, dismissed, ignored, etc.

A big source of drama on these Forums is those who seek to complain without end, in hopes they get someone, anyone to agree with them, get the last word, etc. These complaint types aren't seeking dialog, and as for psychological damage, well..

[Theresa Tennyson]

19 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

It is not a sail boat and it does not need to tack, it is a collection of scripted prims

 

 

4 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

There is nothing to reconcile .. "explorers" want to to roam on other people's property

It's not property, it's data on someone else's server.

[Gabriele Graves]

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

And from time to time I've rented land on Estate regions where seclusion is the norm.

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

So I don't characterize seclusion-seeking Mainland owners as the kind of creepy misanthropes who'd demand their SLB exhibit be accessible by invitation only.

Not everyone who puts up ban-lines or uses an orb is looking for seclusion either.  It seems that this mis-characterisation is also very prevalent but is just as false.

Why is it inconceivable that some people might want to get their land using their Premium membership, not have to deal with estate landlords, someone who wants the visual continuity of mainland at ground level and wants to see and use the public roads and waterways themselves but still not want random visitors?  These people exist and why should they, even conceptually, have to be forced into skyboxes or forced to deal with an estate just because some other people have different notions of how mainland should be?

Edited July 27, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Qie Niangao]

37 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Not everyone who puts up ban-lines or uses an orb is looking for seclusion either.  It seems that this mis-characterisation is also very prevalent but is just as false.

Why is it inconceivable that some people might want to get their land using their Premium membership, not have to deal with estate landlords, someone who wants the visual continuity of mainland at ground level and wants to see and use the public roads and waterways themselves but still not want random visitors?  These people exist and why should they, even conceptually, have to be forced into skyboxes or forced to deal with an estate just because some other people have different notions of how mainland should be?

That "still not want random visitors" is seclusion. There's nothing wrong with it, except that it constrains everybody's ability to explore Mainland. If Mainland had never supported that, nobody would feel deprived. Instead they'd go to Mainland to explore freely, and to Estates if they don't want random visitors.

Nobody feels deprived because they can't exclude random visitors from their SLB exhibits. That makes SLB a nice, safe place to explore. That's what Mainland should have been from the very beginning, but now it's far too late for that and it's simply unworkable to try to combine these "different notions of how Mainland should be". That's why these threads keep recurring with never a satisfactory resolution. There cannot be a satisfactory solution, that's the point.

[Tonya Souther]

16 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The whole point of this thread is .. just because you can see space, doesn't mean you can assume it's open for use.

If you're going to close off your space, use something visible from a distance so people can avoid it.

Neither zero-second orbs nor ban lines are visible from a distance.

[Theresa Tennyson]

16 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

 

If you're suggesting that mainland should have been designed to be more "open access" than I have to strongly disagree.

As it happens, it was designed to be more open access. There was no access control at all until Version 1.1, and then it only went up 15 meters. Note how the release notes say, "If you run into a piece of land that you can't enter, you can always fly over it."

https://secondlife.fandom.com/wiki/Version_1.1.0

Edited July 27, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[Love Zhaoying]

13 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

As it happens, it was designed to be more open access. There was no access control at all until Version 1.1, and then it only went up 15 meters. Note how the release notes say, "If you run into a piece of land that you can't enter, you can always fly over it."

https://secondlife.fandom.com/wiki/Version_1.1.0

Sky-boats!

[belindacarson]

2 hours ago, Tonya Souther said:

If you're going to close off your space, use something visible from a distance so people can avoid it.

Neither zero-second orbs nor ban lines are visible from a distance.

They don't have to be.

[Tonya Souther]

4 hours ago, Tonya Souther said:

Neither zero-second orbs nor ban lines are visible from a distance.

 I just tested. Ban lines dim at 12 meters distance and disappear at 20. Edited to add: The red area on the minimap (for Firestorm users, you can see it if you enable parcel boundaries on the minimap by right-clicking it, then Show->Parcel Boundaries) does not appear until the ban lines become visible, so it's only useful once you've gotten close enough to the ban line to see that, too.

And, of course, the only way you know you've tripped over a zero-second orb is when you're back home without your vehicle.

So...anyone who claims that people can see blocked parcels in time to avoid them is simply incorrect.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Tonya Souther

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, belindacarson said:

They don't have to be.

Until the company that actually owns your "land" decides that they should be.

This all reminds me a lot of the thread on a similar topic that was active when Bellisseria was just getting started.  There were plenty of, "The landowner has absolute rights so bite it," posts, including things like, "Just because the Mainland policies say security systems should give adequate warning doesn't mean they must."

All right before Belliseria was changed to disallow ban lines and mandate minimum times for security systems.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[belindacarson]

29 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Until the company that actually owns your "land" decides that they should be.

This all reminds me a lot of the thread on a similar topic that was active when Bellisseria was just getting started.  There were plenty of, "The landowner has absolute rights so bite it," posts, including things like, "Just because the Mainland policies say security systems should give adequate warning doesn't mean they must."

All right before Belliseria was changed to disallow ban lines and mandate minimum times for security systems.

but they still don't have to be on mainland, this isn't about belliseria

[Coffee Pancake]

7 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

There are no "explorers" in scare quotes wanting "to roam on other people's property"—what paranoia is this? 

If you weren't entering other people's land, there would be no conflict with ban lines or orbs.

Semantically dress it up anyway you like, but if no one was ever trying to enter other people's parcels, they would never encounter ban lines or orbs.

So yes, a tiny minority of over entitled "explorers" roaming on other people's property getting upset when the parcel owner denies them access.

 

[Qie Niangao]

12 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If you weren't entering other people's land, there would be no conflict with ban lines or orbs.

Explorers simply do not want to snoop around parcels the owners want to keep secret. Rather, we wish those owners would keep their secrets somewhere sensible, instead of right out in the open on ground level Mainland.

And people wonder why SL has a new user retention problem.

[Theresa Tennyson]

39 minutes ago, belindacarson said:

but they still don't have to be on mainland, this isn't about belliseria

 

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Until the company that actually owns your "land" decides that they should be.

Admittedly, answering a post before it's made does save time...

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

If you weren't entering other people's land, there would be no conflict with ban lines or orbs.

Semantically dress it up anyway you like, but if no one was ever trying to enter other people's parcels, they would never encounter ban lines or orbs.

So yes, a tiny minority of over entitled "explorers" roaming on other people's property getting upset when the parcel owner denies them access.

 

The irony is explorers wouldn't be straying on to parcels along rivers (apart from region crossing lag) if it wasn't for the vast majority of landowners along such routes having either no security at all or clearly marking where they do with walls or with buoys.

The "sense of "entitlement" you talk about, is learnt from the experience of travelling, it is a learned expectation based on experience. The "explorers" include the majority of landowners and their friends along the same routes making the most of their investment and the premium they have paid for their land.

I know you intended it as hyperbole but If no explorer ever entered other peoples land there would never have been an East River Community, no Campbell Coast, no Chelsea Hotel, no River walk etc etc. Mainland would lose much of its meaning.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

7 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

That "still not want random visitors" is seclusion.

No it isn't.  It doesn't make it so just because you declare it so.  Seclusion is another one of those loaded words.  If someone has lots of parties, invites over all their friends and frequently socialises at their land but limits it to the people they invite then they are not secluded, they are selective.

Your comparisons to SLB are irrelevant because they are not comparable.