Security orbs and navigable waters

[Gabriele Graves]

45 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

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.

Again with the loaded language, a person doesn't necessarily need to "keep secrets" just because they don't want random people showing up.

We have a new user problem because of many things. Ban-lines and orbs aren't likely to be biggest issue with that.  It's not like there is a dearth of accessible places.  One of the biggest complaints isn't that aren't accessible places to go, it's that there aren't enough people at those places.

[Gabriele Graves]

37 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

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.

So, let me paraphrase.  Due to the good will and generosity of some people, a sense of entitlement has grown that this benevolence should be expected always and so all people should have to do likewise because of that.

This is what some of us has been saying from the start and that is exactly the issue.

[Tonya Souther]

3 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

So, let me paraphrase.  Due to the good will and generosity of some people, a sense of entitlement has grown that this benevolence should be expected always and so all people should have to do likewise because of that.

This is what some of us has been saying from the start and that is exactly the issue.

You speak of loaded language, and yet you talk about "entitlement"...

And the expectation that people will be good neighbors is what holds society together.

[Gabriele Graves]

10 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

You speak of loaded language, and yet you talk about "entitlement"...

Sorry but the words I paraphrased are pretty much the text book definition of entitlement as in "you feel entitled".  Substitute "expectation" if you want but it doesn't mean anything different.  What else could it reasonably be called?

10 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

And the expectation that people will be good neighbors is what holds society together.

There it is again "expectation".  Don't give me the holding society together BS.  Are we "expecting" estate owners also to give up access permissions for the good of society?  I mean noobs also try to teleport and travel on those where they don't have access and presumably then logout for good when they can't according to some.

There are societies on mainland but mainland itself is not a single society nor do all areas even have society.  Any society that exists is due to the agreement of those present only.  If a person moves in and restricts their land and that isn't what the other land owners want then clearly not all land owners agree anymore.  That's just a shame and tough luck but sometimes life is a little harsh, even a virtual one.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Aethelwine]

13 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

So, let me paraphrase.  Due to the good will and generosity of some people, a sense of entitlement has grown that this benevolence should be expected always and so all people should have to do likewise because of that.

This is what some of us has been saying from the start and that is exactly the issue.

Do you think the problem is the majority of people in SL are benevolent? Because that seems to be what you are saying whilst using loaded words.

[Gabriele Graves]

Here's a thought, maybe the people who want a society should move to a place where they *can* enforce it?

[Aethelwine]

Just now, Gabriele Graves said:

Here's a thought, maybe the people who want a society should move to a place where they *can* enforce it?

A society that is enforced is not a society I would want to be a part of.

 

[Gabriele Graves]

Just now, Aethelwine said:

Do you think the problem is the majority of people in SL are benevolent? Because that seems to be what you are saying whilst using loaded words.

No I certainly don't.  It's great that people are benevolent, I totally applaud it and think it is a wonderful gift.  I participate in it myself and my lands are open because I choose that option.

No, the issue is with the expectation that has arisen that all people have to choose that option.  They don't and it doesn't make someone a bad person, it's that simple.

[Gabriele Graves]

Just now, Aethelwine said:

A society that is enforced is not a society I would want to be a part of.

 

Then people should be free to move in but not participate.

[Aethelwine]

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

No I certainly don't.  It's great that people are benevolent, I totally applaud it and think it is a wonderful gift.  I participate in it myself and my lands are open because I choose that option.

No, the issue is with the expectation that has arisen that all people have to choose that option.  They don't and it doesn't make someone a bad person, it's that simple.

In general it doesn't make any difference but in some circumstances it does.

People don't live in isolation it takes a lot more than a security setting to make anyone a bad person, but neither are they immune to criticism simply because of saying it is something they can do. 

[Aethelwine]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Then people should be free to move in but not participate.

They are already and I have never suggested they shouldn't

[Gabriele Graves]

10 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

They are already and I have never suggested they shouldn't

I know you didn't and I didn't say you did.  There seems to be the sentiment in this topic however that all should have to participate.

11 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

People don't live in isolation it takes a lot more than a security setting to make anyone a bad person, but neither are they immune to criticism simply because of saying it is something they can do. 

Criticism is fine as long as people are fine that it might be met with indifference.  This too does not make a bad person.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Qie Niangao]

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Again with the loaded language, a person doesn't necessarily need to "keep secrets" just because they don't want random people showing up.

Lol. I was responding to loaded language, intending that the "secrets" wording in my response would be obviously absurd. And I used "seclusion" earlier in an attempt to find the absolutely most innocuous possible term, with which you now somehow find fault. (As if "selective" were somehow preferable! )

As to whether retention is affected by Mainland disruption of new user sessions, I can only speak from my own newbie experience. Of course this was many, many years ago, but I came very close to never logging in again when I was suddenly teleported "home" to my new arrival infohub with a threatening and utterly incomprehensible message that I only much later came to learn was from some other user's scripted "security" device.

It's not that there's a shortage of accessible land, it's that a single incident of unexpected "selectivity" can make all of it irrelevant. It's extremely asymmetrical.

Again, though, I'm not saying you shouldn't exercise all the "selectivity" you were sold. It's not your mistake that dooms Mainland to be forever a battleground of incompatible use cases. But that mistake, long ago, still has consequences.

EDIT: Oh, I missed this:

Quote

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

Yet again, I acknowledge that Mainland rules are not the same as SLB's and that it's no fault of current Mainland owners, but I still lament the tragic consequences, specific to whitelist access restrictions.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Qie Niangao

[Gabriele Graves]

11 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Lol. I was responding to loaded language, intending that the "secrets" wording in my response would be obviously absurd. And I used "seclusion" earlier in an attempt to find the absolutely most innocuous possible term, with which you now somehow find fault. (As if "selective" were somehow preferable! )

I'm sorry, it wasn't obvious to me that you were being deliberately absurd about "secrets", fair enough.
I still think that seclusion is a mis-characterisation though but I didn't realise you were trying to find a better term, also fair enough.

Edited July 27, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Persephone Emerald]

11 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

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..

Yup. Some people obviously want to vent. Most of us do sometimes, which is why we have the Pet Peeves thread. Still, there's a difference between venting vs. sucking all the air out of the room with negativity and self-centeredness.

[Persephone Emerald]

Just my 2 cents.

The basis of this problem is 2 conflicting land use cases existing on mainland without adequate provisions from Linden Lab to allow both use cases to exist simultaneously. The ability for avatars to move freely over mainland and the ability of parcel owners to restrict access to their parcels are both justly expected by SL users. The desires of Premium users or Basic land renters are equally important to the desires of new or experienced users who want to explore the grid, because SL was designed to feel like a connected world - not just a bunch of isolated simulations. 

We have Linden roads and waterways, abandoned land and land that people want to be open to others. Parcels that restrict access are not clearly enough labeled as such from a distance - especially for those sailing in virtual sail boats. There should be more connected roads and water passages, so we aren't always reliant on other users to allow their parcels to be open to movement through them. In a perfect virtual world, people traveling over mainland or through waterways, would be able to move through easily.

We don't have a perfect world in SL though, anymore than we have a perfect one in RL. Some people have more than others - more land, more money, more experience, more friends, more patience, more benevolence, etc. In an imperfect world, society creates from within itself social norms to ease interactions between people. When one sneezes, they should cover their mouth rather than spread their germs all over the people around them. There is no law that says they have to do this. There are social conventions that are even less strictly followed, such as not peeing in a pool that others might swim in or not tossing one's trash on the ground. Just because everyone doesn't follow them, that doesn't make them irrelevant or stupid conventions. They exist for valid reasons intended to make it easier for people to live among each other. 

In SL we have both rules and social conventions. This discussion is about social conventions, not about rules. 

Some common conventions around SL sailing include not blocking Linden Water (which is also against the rules), marking one's parcel boundary with buoys when one has restricted access (according to the Safe Waters Foundation), and allowing enough time on security orbs to allow boats to sail though water without the owner being sent home and the boat being trapped at the parcel boundary. 

I don't think this discussion should pertain to avatars walking or flying through someone's parcel, since they would simply be bounced back if one has a restricted parcel. I don't think 0 time security orbs are necessary, but if one runs into one, then being sent home while walking or flying is not nearly as bad as being sent home while sailing a boat or flying an airplane. 

One possible fix for the latter problem would be if boats or planes could bounce back from restricted parcels rather than being stuck at the parcel boundary. I think limiting all security orbs on mainland to 10 seconds or more would also be appropriate. This is not a current rule, but it could be implemented as such.

I don't sail much, but I fly around Bellisseria and mainland. I hate it when I hit someone's radio stream request and their security orb warning at the same time. If they don't allow at least 10 seconds to move out of their parcel, it's not unusual for me to be sent back home. I'm not trying to invade their parcel. I'm just trying to fly around the area and I've hit the corner of their parcel accidentally.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Gabriele Graves]

Social conventions are not nearly as universal or absolute as people seem to think.  Not everyone identifies with any particular community or society as such and individually minded people will pick and choose what if any social conventions they agree with and want to live by.

Allowing peeing in a pool is up to the pool owner of course.  If the pool belongs to the person who wants to pee in it and it's for their use only, should a social convention really stand in their way?  No of course not.  Should they worry about what the community thinks about them doing so along with appropriate tutting or pearl clutching?  Not unless they want to.
If a group of people who are into pool peeing should buy a pool for their group to engage in their kink, should they have to worry about social convention?  Again, no.

That said, if a person wants to participate with a community, they should observe their conventions.  Should they want that, it would be strange if they didn't.  I don't consider just owning land in the same area as a community on mainland as automatically being part of that community or wanting to participate however and there are many reasons for selecting that particular place.

[belindacarson]

10 hours ago, Tonya Souther said:

You speak of loaded language, and yet you talk about "entitlement"...

And the expectation that people will be good neighbors is what holds society together.

I disagree, the only person on this thread on about entitlement is you.

[Aethelwine]

59 minutes ago, belindacarson said:

I disagree, the only person on this thread on about entitlement is you.

Tonya has been going on about not feeling entitled since page two of the thread because of being accused of that by others. She obviously doesn't like the word because the way it is used is not neutral, the implication that the entitlement is unreasonable comes through loud and clear.

That said from their perspective having paid a high premium for land with access to the Blake sea restricted only by a parcel labelled as traverse time 15 minutes and open to traffic. Until the time it was temporarily restricted. I think it fair to say they have paid for that expectation and that it would remain so, under that owner at least especially as they are a major land owner\flipper renter in the area. 

The land market in that area is not that unusual, rental and land values take in to account expectations and are sold at a premium.  You might think that unwise and a risk but then renting land comes with the risk the land lord will go bust and run off with rent you paid. We take calculated risks all the time with land sales in SL, because that is how the system works.

If Tonya has an entitlement then it is very similar form of entitlement to that of a private renter having paid a month or so's rent and then finding their rental has no access and been repossessed. The entitlement might be built on sand but neither is it an entirely unreasonable expectation either.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

I truly do feel for Tonya in making a mistake buying her parcel thinking access was assured and discovering it isn't.  I have done that myself and it is annoying.  I was annoyed with myself.  I definitely grew wiser after my mistake and checked everything from that point on.  I have owned many different types of land in many parts of the mainland over the years and those earlier times, I definitely bought some lemons.  That said, I only had myself to blame, it is simple enough to check even though it is simple enough to forget to check.

Tonya has had a lot of luck having the goodwill of the land owner in her case, no doubt about it.

Nobody though, nobody has bought the expectation of anything with regards to a non-public parcel on mainland unless they have bought the actual parcel concerned.  Not one close by, the actual parcel.

If the expectation was valid then a resident in Tonya's situation could simply AR the owner of the land at issue or open a ticket to explain to LL about their expectations, get LL to change the parcel and possibly punish the land owner.  Everyone in this conversation knows that they would get no traction doing that and so fundamentally no matter what anyone says here, everyone really knows the expectation is bogus.

[Love Zhaoying]

If y'all had to boat, walk, or drive everywhere instead of your fancy "flying" and "teleporting", maybe there'd be more understanding. Whippersnappers!

[Coffee Pancake]

14 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

If y'all had to boat, walk, or drive everywhere instead of your fancy "flying" and "teleporting", maybe there'd be more understanding. Whippersnappers!

We had that .. and certain well known people built unescapable malls around telehubs. A few ban-lines and security orbs are nothing next to the scale of deliberate and malicious inconvenience we had to deal with back then.

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 hours ago, belindacarson said:

I disagree, the only person on this thread on about entitlement is you.

Are you saying that you aren't entitled to control access to your land?

Edited July 28, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[Gabriele Graves]

Isn't there a difference between paid-for entitlements and entitlements people make up?

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

We had that .. and certain well known people built unescapable malls around telehubs. A few ban-lines and security orbs are nothing next to the scale of deliberate and malicious inconvenience we had to deal with back then.

Ooh! Inescapable malls = Zombie movies!