Security orbs and navigable waters

[Love Zhaoying]

17 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

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

One is merely titular, the other is merely titillating?

[Theresa Tennyson]

44 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

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

I think we need to clarify some definitions ("I" in this case being the reader, of course):

What I want to do: a RIGHT.

What you want to do: ENTITLEMENT

 

[Gabriele Graves]

8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I think we need to clarify some definitions ("I" in this case being the reader, of course):

What I want to do: a RIGHT.

What you want to do: ENTITLEMENT

 

I said "entitlement", I didn't mention "rights" and no your mis-characterisation is incorrect.  However, you are "entitled" to it so I hope you enjoy it

You forgot to mention of course that the "I" and "You" in this case do not have even close to equal standing over the thing at issue.  Hmmm, how very convenient.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Love Zhaoying]

9 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I think we need to clarify some definitions ("I" in this case being the reader, of course):

What I want to do: a RIGHT.

What you want to do: ENTITLEMENT

Generally, in popular usage my understanding is that "entitlement" indicates "you have a right to a thing", "whether or not you do something to earn it". 

Whereas, perhaps the original usage was, "due to some specific circumstances" such as "we made you a Knight or Lord", here's a Title (to land, or a Title for your own bad self) which comes with some "Rights" (ownership of property, ability to levy taxes, permission to hunt on Royal lands).  But perhaps those "Titles" also came with some "responsibilities" - to your Serfs, the Village / Community, etc.

Yes? No? Maybe so?

I has teh brian, so no used teh goggle this time.

[Love Zhaoying]

On 7/26/2022 at 10:07 AM, Coffee Pancake said:

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

Now, let's not get..tacky.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I said "entitlement", I didn't mention "rights" and no your mis-characterisation is incorrect.  However, you are "entitled" to it so I hope you enjoy it

You forgot to mention of course that the "I" and "You" in this case do not have even close to equal standing over the thing at issue.  Hmmm, how very convenient.

I wasn't referring to this specific case at all; I was referring sarcastically to how most people react to any conflict like this.

However, you are of course "entitled" to control access to your "land" in Second Life. I've never said that you aren't, by the way. Here's what Linden Lab, the granter of title, says about the use of security orbs:

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

• Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
• Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
• Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

Does this grant the landowner the right to use 0-second security orbs to remove non-specific avatars?

Reference:

 

 

[Gabriele Graves]

11 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I wasn't referring to this specific case at all; I was referring sarcastically to how most people react to any conflict like this.

However, you are of course "entitled" to control access to your "land" in Second Life. I've never said that you aren't, by the way. Here's what Linden Lab, the granter of title, says about the use of security orbs:

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

• Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
• Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
• Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

Does this grant the landowner the right to use 0-second security orbs to remove non-specific avatars?

Reference:

 

 

This has all been has hashed out before and debunked.  Should != Must, it is a set of guidelines only.  Further it is not in the ToS/CS, it is on a Knowledge base article where it isn't reasonable to expect anyone to go and dig it out for something that is an actual enforceable rule.  Bad form from LL and misleading but it isn't saying what you think it is.

I suggest you try to AR a zero-second orb on mainland and see how sticky that "rule" is.

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms.

Does this grant the landowner the right to use 0-second security orbs to remove non-specific avatars?

Hard to say what "unfairly" means.

[Gabriele Graves]

8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

I wasn't referring to this specific case at all; I was referring sarcastically to how most people react to any conflict like this.

OK, fair enough but it was difficult to know that you weren't referring to the specific case in point and when applied to this specific case, falls down significantly.

[Gabriele Graves]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Hard to say what "unfairly" means.

It's doesn't even refer to an orb at that point in the article - it just says "you cannot use land ownership".  It could be referring to blocking public land with objects anchored on the land you own.

[Gabriele Graves]

Heh, we must be in one of the ever-spiraling circles of hell on this topic.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Theresa Tennyson]

5 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This has all been has hashed out before and debunked.  Should != Must, it is a set of guidelines only.  Further it is not in the ToS/CS, it is on a Knowledge base article where it isn't reasonable to expect anyone to go and dig it out for something that is an actual enforceable rule.  Bad form from LL and misleading but it isn't saying what you think it is.

 

What sort of authority do you have to make that judgement?

And, as I said right before ban lines and zero-second orbs were banned in Belliseria, "When someone in authority tells you that you should do something and you tell them, 'You didn't say must', they often end up making a regulation that says you must do something that's more draconian than what they told you that you should do in the first place."

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Heh, we must be in one of the ever-spiraling circles of hell on this topic.

If you don't use the exact same words as me, or explicitly say you agree without adding any other statements, then you MUST be disagreeing with me!

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

What sort of authority do you have to make that judgement?

It is because I can read and understand the words.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/difference-between-should-and-must/

Summary:

1. “Must” represents more of an obligation while “should” represents a probability or recommendation.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

15 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

And, as I said right before ban lines and zero-second orbs were banned in Belliseria, "When someone in authority tells you that you should do something and you tell them, 'You didn't say must', they often end up making a regulation that says you must do something that's more draconian than what they told you that you should do in the first place."

Don't take my word for it, AR a zero-second orb and see if it gets removed.

Unless LL intends that article is meant to be taken as a recommendation then it contradicts their own statements that only ToS/CS, Covenants (not applicable to mainland) and land owner rules are the only rules residents must follow.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Theresa Tennyson]

15 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Don't take my word for it, AR a zero-second orb and see if it gets removed.

Unless LL intends that article is meant to be taken as a recommendation then it contradicts their own statements that only ToS/CS, Covenants (not applicable to mainland) and land owner rules are the only rules residents must follow.

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies

On Mainland, Linden Lab is the estate owner and reserves the right to do pretty much whatever they feel appropriate. Their Mainland policies are incorporated into the TOS. But by all means go right ahead, keep on saying that if a Linden tells you that you "should" do something on Mainland that it isn't really important.

[Gabriele Graves]

In the case of LL being the land owner, it is still just the ToS/CS and Covenants (again not applicable).  If these were rules then why wouldn't they put them in a covenant?  They did in Bellisseria.

However, OK let's indulge you here.  Even if those are rules, and I disagree that they are, then all a zero second orb owner would have to do is send out a message right before ejecting/tping you home.  Then they could claim, this is "adequate warning".  When things like "adequate" aren't defined properly (adequate to do what? or adequate in amount of seconds?) then how can anyone say what is or is not adequate.

I would say that if these are indeed rules, then considering that nobody seems to be able to successfully AR zero-second orbs on mainland that adequate warning is being given and they are in compliance. So "Yes" to your original question, these "rules" do allow it, one way or another.

In addition, why would the Bellisseria covenant have to spell out "no zero-second orbs" if these were enforceable "rules" and must already be obeyed on LL estates?

The entire knowledge base article only mentions mainland exactly once, when specifically referring to transferring mainland parcels.  So does this mean that these "rules" are applied to estates as well?  So no zero-second orbs on private estates without "adequate warning"?  Even by the estate owner?  Are we sure about this?

Further, why would LL have to have even specifically have banned them on Bellisseria?  Weren't they already illegal according to these "rules"?  Wasn't that enough?  Clearly not!
The orb announcement and addition of it to the covenant happened a long time after Bellisseria was up and running.  I had already had taken a home and given it up by that time.

So by mere deduction Watson, we can tell that on mainland where there isn't a covenant, the things contained in the Bellisserian covenant are not applicable.

All of this doesn't present a compelling argument for that article being anything than it seems, a set of recommendations or guidelines.

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Gabriele Graves]

38 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Mainland_policies

On Mainland, Linden Lab is the estate owner and reserves the right to do pretty much whatever they feel appropriate. Their Mainland policies are incorporated into the TOS. But by all means go right ahead, keep on saying that if a Linden tells you that you "should" do something on Mainland that it isn't really important.

Here is the topic where Patch effectively banned zero-second orbs for Bellisseria.  He doesn't mention anywhere else though, hmmm what can we deduce from this?  If 15-seconds was already the expected minimum for everywhere, I'm sure he would have mentioned that.

 

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Theresa Tennyson]

4 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

In the case of LL being the land owner, it is still just the ToS/CS and Covenants (again not applicable).  If these were rules then why wouldn't they put them in a covenant?  They did in Bellisseria.

Then why did you say, "ToS/CS, Covenants (not applicable to mainland) and land owner rules"  in your original statement if rules have to be put in a covenant?

Here's what I asked originally:

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Does this grant the landowner the right to use 0-second security orbs to remove non-specific avatars?

 

So, do you have the right? I never said that you can't use them; obviously they exist. My whole point is that landowners who keep saying that they are "entitled" to use them may be cruising for a bruising if Linden Lab thinks they're being unreasonable. And bad cruises are bad cruises.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Then why did you say, "ToS/CS, Covenants (not applicable to mainland) and land owner rules"  in your original statement if rules have to be put in a covenant?

I was referring to other land owners on mainland such as people who don't own their own parcels but rent them.  They have to follow the rules of their landlord as well.  If I had meant LL I would have said Estate Owner.

3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Here's what I asked originally:

So, do you have the right? I never said that you can't use them; obviously they exist. My whole point is that landowners who keep saying that they are "entitled" to use them may be cruising for a bruising if Linden Lab thinks they're being unreasonable. And bad cruises are bad cruises.

Alrighty then.  Glad I could clear that up for you

Edited July 28, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Theresa Tennyson]

14 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

 

Alrighty then.  Glad I could clear that up for you

Now I just have to figure out how someone can clear something up without answering a question.

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Now I just have to figure out how someone can clear something up without answering a question.

35 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

So "Yes" to your original question, these "rules" do allow it, one way or another.

Please don't leave the low hanging fruit, I'll only pick it

[Theresa Tennyson]

So, your answer is "yes" to my question as to whether you have the "right" to use a 0-second orb. If this right is violated, what's your recourse?

Edited July 28, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[Gabriele Graves]

I wouldn't have used the word "right" but it seemed to me like you were meaning "is it allowed" by what recommendations were stated in that article.  Not sure what you mean by what recourse I would have because I wouldn't have used the word "right" as it is confusing to some who use that word by itself to mean "inalienable right" such as a human right when it can in fact be a "granted right".  Of course even with human rights, the recourse you have may not exist depending on who is doing the violating and where so I would say there is no guaranteed recourse for any right at all.