Security orbs and navigable waters

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, xDancingStarx said:

letting people pass as long as it doesn't hurt you

No, its about respecting other people's right to do as they please with land they purchased.  Plain and simple.  

Nothing can actually 'hurt' you in SL so that's an invalid reason and could be applied to griefers as well.

[xDancingStarx]

13 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

No, its about respecting other people's right to do as they please with land they purchased.  Plain and simple.  

We had gotten past that point and agreed it's about the question why people should be "nice" while they aren't obliged to be 

 

13 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Nothing can actually 'hurt' you in SL so that's an invalid reason and could be applied to griefers as well.

Oh things can hurt you in SL, believe me. I think it was crystal clear that I did not mean "physically hurt", but apparently it's just about "arguing" by now.

Edited July 12, 2022 by xDancingStarx

[Rowan Amore]

Sock puppet X.  Took me a minute but figured it out.  Carry on.

[xDancingStarx]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Sock puppet X. 

I did expect nothing less

[Tonya Souther]

On 7/11/2022 at 6:55 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

How to get smashed by a ban line or a 0 second orb - try and drive your whatever on someone else's land. That's it. That's the only way.

All the talk of "protected" and "public access" is a smoke screen to hide that they are in fact, drivin though someone else's yard and that person may or may not be sympathetic. take your chances. good luck. ymmv. 

I'd love not to drive through someone else's yard. Sadly, there's no good way to know you're about to do that.

[Tonya Souther]

On 7/11/2022 at 8:45 PM, Coffee Pancake said:

These discussions always come back to there being some kind of entitlement to access that just doesn't exist. If someone buys land and blocks your route, well that's their choice to make and they don't deserve to be bullied, harassed or cajoled into complying with your interests.

It's called being neighborly and cooperative. I'm not demanding a doggone thing. I'm asking people to be considerate to other users of Second Life.

23 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

You know what routinely happened when someone managed to glitch a plane into the building? They would vent their frustration by trying to fly around inside and running over shoppers. I got threats, grif attempts, demands that I delete my store and/or myself.

Then report them for harassment.

But if I'm flying my Twin Otter 150 meters over a corner of your land, am I harassing you?

21 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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

I agree this one's not reasonable. Even if I'm on the plane in a speedboat at 20 knots, things are happening too fast for me to go casually camming around. OTOH, I'm not going to drive my speedboat into your living room, deliberately. (I make no promises about region crossings......)

17 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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

And how am I supposed to know I'm about to do that?

16 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

You know what's really selfish.

Demanding that other people contribute to your SL.

Again, I'm not demanding a doggone thing. I'm asking people to be considerate. (And once the landowner I mentioned in the original message and I came to an agreement, I quit thinking about returning his being inconsiderate.)

A little consideration for others goes a long, long way.

15 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

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.

A 60 second orb isn't problematic at all. It takes me far less than 60 seconds to get across even an entire sim. If it's a 0-second orb, though, then you may well find my Twin Otter in your living room. If you do, delete it or return it; it shouldn't be there.

15 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

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.

It's called "being a good neighbor". Good neighbors, in turn, do not abuse the kindness of their neighbors.

I've been on Second Life for 11 years. This is the first time I've owned waterfront property. How am I supposed to *know* that people block what appear to be open waterways and check that the access I think is there really is?

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

"Consideration" should go both ways. Those with vehicles want landowners to be "considerate" and allow them to freely drive/fly/boat across their parcel, but if a landowner *for whatever reason or no reason at all* prefers they not do that, I'm not seeing consideration for that landowner's wishes. Instead, I'm seeing scolding (or worse) for them not being "neighborly" or not "promoting community" or whatever argument is being made to justify the desire to trespass.

This being the case, don't be surprised when landowners who prefer their land not be used as a public thoroughfare push back against such entitled attitudes. Implying that someone who doesn't want you using their land is not "being a good neighbor" is exactly what I'm talking about. The better approach would be to admit your mistake in assuming, rather than be outraged about "how am I supposed to know?" 

[Persephone Emerald]

This whole problem of private property vs. public access wouldn't be a problem if LL had planned out public access roads and waterways better. Originally they didn't want people teleporting everywhere. They wanted mainland to feel like a real place with active communities. The teleport hubs were a disaster though, so they had to move to private teleportation everywhere, which in turn led to many people staying isolated on their islands or in their skyboxes.

Now they're figured out how to do private land use vs. public access use right. In Bellisseria we have plenty of roads and waterways that are wide enough to drive, sail, or fly over. Home owners are allowed to ban trouble makers and to have 15 second security orbs. If someone wants more privacy than this, they have the option of mainland or private islands.

Linden lab is also starting to fix the disconnected mainland roads and add public beaches with roads (at least one so far) leading into the interior road system. They're extending waterways around Bellisseria and making waterway connections to mainland. As they continue to do this, I think they'll realize it's encouraging people to buy Premium accounts and land. All the parcels that were set for auction along the new Route 8D road from the public beach landing at Chiffre through Arguilleries have now been bought. Some are being developed and some are being flipped, but it's all land that's being paid for by users, rather than sitting idle and abandoned.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Tonya Souther]

43 minutes ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

"Consideration" should go both ways. Those with vehicles want landowners to be "considerate" and allow them to freely drive/fly/boat across their parcel, but if a landowner *for whatever reason or no reason at all* prefers they not do that, I'm not seeing consideration for that landowner's wishes. Instead, I'm seeing scolding (or worse) for them not being "neighborly" or not "promoting community" or whatever argument is being made to justify the desire to trespass.

If someone doesn't want me to trespass, I will honor their wishes - but if they're going to tell me they don't want me there by pitching me out of my aircraft and having me back home while it flies on without me, then I'm not going to consider that a friendly warning.

I'm not trying to snoop. Really, I'm not. It's all I can handle to fly the airplane and talk to ATC and figure out where my next turn is going to be and do I need to start my descent yet? and reconfigure the aircraft so that descent is nice and smooth instead of a plunge into the water and oh crap there's a hill right in front of me so turn now!. I don't have time to cam in on people in their homes.

And despite your snark about "be[ing] outraged about "how am I supposed to know?"", I have no *way* of knowing that the landowner prefers not to have me there except to find myself in the water or back at my home. You can rest assured that if I find myself in that position, after I find a rez zone and go back and rez out another copy of my airplane and take off and complete the GTFO! trip I'm working on, you can bet I'll avoid that bit of airspace in the future, as well as noting it a hazard to air navigation in things like the Shergood Aviation GPS database...but, sadly, that is far from complete.

There are plenty of landowners who have no problem with people flying over or boating through. There are plenty who do. I wish the former was the norm, instead of the latter.

And no, despite folks here's snark, it's not a sense of entitlement. I do have difficulty understanding why a landowner would not want people sailing through their waterway - especially when they're not there, and therefore not doing anything that needs privacy - or flying through their airspace, but I do recognize that that is their right. I just wish they'd exercise that right in a way that's not destructive.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 hour ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

"Consideration" should go both ways. Those with vehicles want landowners to be "considerate" and allow them to freely drive/fly/boat across their parcel, but if a landowner *for whatever reason or no reason at all* prefers they not do that, I'm not seeing consideration for that landowner's wishes. Instead, I'm seeing scolding (or worse) for them not being "neighborly" or not "promoting community" or whatever argument is being made to justify the desire to trespass.

This being the case, don't be surprised when landowners who prefer their land not be used as a public thoroughfare push back against such entitled attitudes. Implying that someone who doesn't want you using their land is not "being a good neighbor" is exactly what I'm talking about. The better approach would be to admit your mistake in assuming, rather than be outraged about "how am I supposed to know?" 

I do however think that waterways to a certain degree, and certain distance, be public and open access. That and Air be the same way. But that is my opinion. I also think if you want strong security, and want 0-second orbs. That one has to set it up where it only covers a meter around and above your immediate home. But that is my whole ideology. That isn't really entitlement. But what is, is expecting people to have full and open access to their parcels.

[Coffee Pancake]

49 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

If someone doesn't want me to trespass, I will honor their wishes - but if they're going to tell me they don't want me there by pitching me out of my aircraft and having me back home while it flies on without me, then I'm not going to consider that a friendly warning.

If they are renting mainland, they do not have parcel powers to put up ban lines.

A security orb is the only option.

 

49 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

And despite your snark about "be[ing] outraged about "how am I supposed to know?"", I have no *way* of knowing that the landowner prefers not to have me there except to find myself in the water or back at my home.

Because you are entering with the assumption that you will be able to just pass though .. If you didn't have that assumption, you might not be so willing to fly over private land. Most people leave access restrictions off and it's blind dumb luck that became the norm.

 

 

 

 

[Tonya Souther]

2 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Because you are entering with the assumption that you will be able to just pass though .. If you didn't have that assumption, you might not be so willing to fly over private land. Most people leave access restrictions off and it's blind dumb luck that became the norm.

How am I supposed to know it's private land?

Edit to add: And in RL, I can fly pretty much anywhere I want except for places that that are restricted by government edict - and those places are clearly marked on aviation charts. On the water in RL, the story is much the same.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Tonya Souther

[belindacarson]

1 hour ago, Tonya Souther said:

If someone doesn't want me to trespass, I will honor their wishes - but if they're going to tell me they don't want me there by pitching me out of my aircraft and having me back home while it flies on without me, then I'm not going to consider that a friendly warning.

I'm not trying to snoop. Really, I'm not. It's all I can handle to fly the airplane and talk to ATC and figure out where my next turn is going to be and do I need to start my descent yet? and reconfigure the aircraft so that descent is nice and smooth instead of a plunge into the water and oh crap there's a hill right in front of me so turn now!. I don't have time to cam in on people in their homes.

And despite your snark about "be[ing] outraged about "how am I supposed to know?"", I have no *way* of knowing that the landowner prefers not to have me there except to find myself in the water or back at my home. You can rest assured that if I find myself in that position, after I find a rez zone and go back and rez out another copy of my airplane and take off and complete the GTFO! trip I'm working on, you can bet I'll avoid that bit of airspace in the future, as well as noting it a hazard to air navigation in things like the Shergood Aviation GPS database...but, sadly, that is far from complete.

There are plenty of landowners who have no problem with people flying over or boating through. There are plenty who do. I wish the former was the norm, instead of the latter.

And no, despite folks here's snark, it's not a sense of entitlement. I do have difficulty understanding why a landowner would not want people sailing through their waterway - especially when they're not there, and therefore not doing anything that needs privacy - or flying through their airspace, but I do recognize that that is their right. I just wish they'd exercise that right in a way that's not destructive.

somebody's got a major case of the "entitled to do .........." syndrome oO

[Tonya Souther]

1 minute ago, belindacarson said:

somebody's got a major case of the "entitled to do .........." syndrome oO

It would be nice if you read what I wrote...I said I don't feel entitled to anything.

[belindacarson]

2 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

It would be nice if you read what I wrote...I said I don't feel entitled to anything.

you certainly give the impression that you do

[Tonya Souther]

2 minutes ago, belindacarson said:

you certainly give the impression that you do

I can't help what you read into my words, but I guarantee that I'm not putting any hidden meanings in there...just what I actually say.

[belindacarson]

4 minutes ago, Tonya Souther said:

I can't help what you read into my words, but I guarantee that I'm not putting any hidden meanings in there...just what I actually say.

Perhaps this might help you to understand: it's at a linden welcome island, I've attached the slurl for you to peruse in person: http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Social Island 10/113/106/45

 

Read the 2nd one and the 4th one, and you'll see, despite feeling that you have an entitlement, you actually don't.  This clarifies it clearly ^^

[Tonya Souther]

5 minutes ago, belindacarson said:

Read the 2nd one and the 4th one, and you'll see, despite feeling that you have an entitlement, you actually don't.  This clarifies it clearly ^^

Please stop putting words into my mouth and feelings into my mind, thank you!

I never said that it was not a landowner's right to prohibit entry into his property.

Not once.

I never said that I am entitled to use anyone else's property.

Not once.

Until you demonstrate that you actually read what I have to say and consider it, not what you *think* I'm saying, I see no reason to engage with you further.

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

1 hour ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I do however think that waterways to a certain degree, and certain distance, be public and open access. That and Air be the same way. But that is my opinion. I also think if you want strong security, and want 0-second orbs. That one has to set it up where it only covers a meter around and above your immediate home. But that is my whole ideology. That isn't really entitlement. But what is, is expecting people to have full and open access to their parcels.

And that is certainly fine for your own parcels. It's when people insist that others leave their parcels open, even in part, that it becomes an issue. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

And that is certainly fine for your own parcels. It's when people insist that others leave their parcels open, even in part, that it becomes an issue. 

But I mean the whole thing is people are trying to maintain privacy in their house. And maybe part of their backyard. But I mean do people really need their orbs set to the max 4000-meter height limit? I am not saying you are not allowed. But there does have to be some give and take here. 

[Rowan Amore]

2 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I do however think that waterways to a certain degree, and certain distance, be public and open access.

This should be taken up with LL then.  They make water parcels available to buy.  Thinking there is access to open water when in fact there is not Protected access is not the fault of the person buying the parcel.  They can block that access if they so choose.

It all comes down to...talk to LL.  They are the ONLY ones who can make an access point protected.  

Edited July 13, 2022 by Rowan Amore

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

This should be taken up with LL then.  They make water parcels available to buy.  Thinking there is access to open water when in fact there is not Protected access is not the fault of the person buying the parcel.  They can block that access if they so choose.

It all comes down to...talk to LL.  They are the ONLY ones who can make an access point protected.  

This is why I said to a certain degree. I understand that there are water parcels. But if say a piece of land happens to be parallel to the water. I think that should be open waterways. However, if you have a house or something on the water. Then people need to go around. 

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

This is why I said to a certain degree. I understand that there are water parcels. But if say a piece of land happens to be parallel to the water. I think that should be open waterways. However, if you have a house or something on the water. Then people need to go around. 

That's the issue.  Sometimes you can't go around.  People buy a parcel on the water thinking it's open to the sea through a channel.  What they have purchased, in reality, is a parcel on a land locked lake.  That one channel giving access to open water is actually a water parcel.  Someone puts up a floating island with a house effectively blocking that access.  They are well within their rights to do so.  They have access to open water but anyone live around that landlocked lake is s*** out of luck.

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

That's the issue.  Sometimes you can't go around.  People buy a parcel on the water thinking it's open to the sea through a channel.  What they have purchased, in reality, is a parcel on a land locked lake.  That one channel giving access to open water is actually a water parcel.  Someone puts up a floating island with a house effectively blocking that access.  They are well within their rights to do so.  They have access to open water but anyone live around that landlocked lake is s*** out of luck.

Okay, that part I didn't know.  However, now I will revise what I say. So basically if it is not within a landlocked lake, and is on the main stretch of the mainland. Then I think that there should be some give and take for boaters. If the person doesn't have a house on the water. 

[Tonya Souther]

14 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

People buy a parcel on the water thinking it's open to the sea through a channel.  What they have purchased, in reality, is a parcel on a land locked lake.  That one channel giving access to open water is actually a water parcel.  Someone puts up a floating island with a house effectively blocking that access.  They are well within their rights to do so.  They have access to open water but anyone live around that landlocked lake is s*** out of luck.

OK, so let me throw this at you: the parcel with the channel is named "[region] Channel (M) - 15 Minutes Traverse Time". What would you think upon seeing that? And yet that was the channel that was blocked and that produced this whole thread.