Security orbs and navigable waters

[Aethelwine]

46 minutes ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Sorry Flower, I have to disagree with that. I would never assume that any parcel next to a protected waterway was open access - i would instead simply pay attention to the mini map and sail straight down the protected channel.  There's no need to be deviating from the LL protected area in this instance.

In the context I would look at that parcel and actually assume because mostly empty apart from docking it was a likely candidate to have rezz enabled and enough free prims available to resit on my boat to correct a region crossing region error. 

51 minutes ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Secondly, assuming that the area was open being correct 99% of the time I think is also rather overstating it.  If that was the case, then sailors would rarely hit one of these banlines, and therefore have little to complain about.  The fact that you hear sailors (and drivers too) constantly complain about banlines indicates that they are in fact widely used throughout SL - therefore logically it makes more sense to assume that any non-protected parcel is a no-go zone.

Sailors do rarely hit ban lines like this, because they aren't all that common. That is why people relax when they see a parcel lay out like the one shown. And why they complain when they hit them. Human nature. 

The area like this I know best I can give an example...The Linden Village down to Sea of Fables, no banlines at all the last time I travelled that route. From Sea of Fables to Mare Secundus, there is one banline that has been there forever in Pierce. From Mare Secundus to Bay of Space Pigs, maybe two or three at any one time which makes it extra worthwhile checking before plotting a route. Bay of Space pigs up to L-shaped lake and beyond to Heterocera no banlines again last time I travelled there.

 

1 hour ago, Eowyn Southmoor said:

Assuming that buoys/markers are utilized in the same way as RL - leads to RL sailors in SL taking routes which lead them into peoples parcels and again, encountering the aforementioned banlines/orbs.

I've been sailing in SL for 7 years now, and yet I still don't know the first thing about RL sailing or anything else to do with it, and that includes marker buoys.  Diamonds eastbound/westbound example shown above might make perfect sense for a RL sailor, but for the many people who only sail in SL, it might as well be gibberish. 

To call something like this a booby-trap makes it sound like the parcel owner has deliberately set their land up in such a way as to trap or harass sailors, when i think nothing could be further from the truth. More than likely, they slapped down one buoy to show where the edge of their parcel was, and decided that was good enough, and that most people would simply use the LL channel.  To me, this is a case where sailors are applying RL ideology to SL - and that doesn't always work.

Oh, and of course Gabriele clearly types faster than me and beat me to it 

I agree with you about the meaning of the buoys, I do look up the meanings before placing mine but I wouldn't expect the same from others. And I wouldn't remember that when seeing one ahead of me. I do however think it ironic if the bouys are actually directing traffic into the ban lines. 

Not sure if Booby-Trap has been used, but I would say to call it a trap fair. Like I said to Gabrielle using trap is not meant to indicate any intention on behalf of the owner, in just the same way an overhanging branch on a bridleway is a "trap".

 

[Gabriele Graves]

25 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

But when travelling through Corsica waterways, around the Atoll or the edge of Satori when you encounter a situation like the one above don't you sigh a moment of relief that you can look around a bit and not focus so much on the protected passage?

I tend to go slow and cam around a lot anyway.  Perhaps it is more of an issue more for those wanting a "through the eyes" experience only.  It is pleasant when others generously allow access but I don't take it for granted.  I always cam ahead for any restrictions and it is rare that I don't see them in time.  Usually only when I am not paying attention.

In the scenario shown above, I would have simply stuck to the protected channel and cammed around.  There isn't much water space on those private parcels before you get to the coastline anyway.

So I guess my answer is that no, it wouldn't something I would sigh either way over personally.

25 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

It seems to me that is human nature. I hear it from others when travelling with them, something I can relate to. 

It seems to me to be more human nature to take generosity for granted and then expect even more generosity from others as a given.

25 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

I hope I am not coming across as crying about anything, on the scale of things these issues are relatively minor. I comment on them purely because I have an interest in them, nothing more.

I'll be honest, you do come across that way to me on this topic.  Invoking morals and religion didn't help.

25 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

And just to be clear when I use the word trap I am not saying the trap has been set intentionally. Like an overhanging branch on a bridleway, traps aren't always set up with the intention to snare someone. 

I would disagree, the word "trap" would indicate to me that there was a deliberate action to "trap" someone.  That's why I use what I consider to be the better and more accurate term of "restriction".

Edited July 21, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, belindacarson said:

Aethelwine I've always enjoyed reading your posts, but please don't try to bring religion into it nor trying to claim a moral high ground 🙂

 

If the landowner has secured their land using available tools, or even a zero second orb that is 100% legal, their right to do so, and perfectly moral for them to want to protect "their" SL space especially if it's their "safe space".

And if I'm honest, if somebody was bugging me about my own land settings I'd add them to the ban list on purpose and mute them for the sheer cheek of it.

To be clear what inspires me to post on threads like this, is not any sense of personal grief.

It is the sense of entitlement that comes across from those that express the opinion that because a landowner can do something that makes them right. 

So I am sorry Belinda, but I can't ignore a moral dimension to this. I don't bring it up to judge or to be superior, but because moral judgment is part of human behaviour and the way we interact with others in a civilised society. It what allows people to come together and to create community. The principle of reciprocity can even be expressed as collective self interest, if you prefer it in a less moral language.

Either way. without it Second life would not be as rich a place as it is. By coming together people can create spaces that are greater than the sum of their parts. There would be routes that simply would not and could not exist without that dynamic, including the route across the top of Nautilus that the original post to this thread was about.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Qie Niangao]

8 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Yes but it's actually not invisible because they have the frikin mini map on screen.

I know y'all think this is the greatest thing ever, but it's only marginally useful, and at best it totally destroys immersion to be looking at the minimap to figure out where to sail.* Granted, this is not the fault of people who bought coastline Mainland with the intent of blocking all intruders. They bought what they bought and got what they wanted and nothing is ever going to change that, so there's no point sugar-coating it: sailing just sucks because those landowners are going to get what they paid for.

The blame falls 100% on the Lab for ever enabling whitelist access control on Mainland at all. Plenty of other places to enjoy intruder-free shoreline at comparable economics for both landholder and Lab.

________________
*Sailing especially. It requires way more concentration than, say, casual boating, so the last thing a sailor needs is yet another obstacle.

[Theresa Tennyson]

15 hours ago, belindacarson said:

I'd say the landowners HAVE marked out their plot, using the tools provided by LL that allow them to do so.

 

9 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Yes but it's actually not invisible because they have the frikin mini map on screen.

They can see the perfectly fine channel to sail down with the parcel mini map (that if you're on a third party viewer, that's the enhanced mini map that myself and kitty created back in 2012 specifically to help people get around the private land we all have).

 

Until literally weeks ago, the tools provided by LL didn't show property lines in the mini-map. They're still not in the default viewer.

[Gabriele Graves]

I find the enhanced minimap exceedingly useful personally, especially when traveling.  Of course, being on Firestorm we have literally had it for years, presumably because it came from Catznip.  I believe Firestorm is the most popular viewer by far, has been for years and so many users have will have had access to the enhanced minimap for years as well.  It's not a new feature just because it just made it into the official viewer.

[Aethelwine]

The property lines view on the minimap is a great tool for sailing. With a bit of experience and pattern recognition it is a great way to spot likely rezz areas. 

It is not however much use for helping the person in the original post because the waterway is entirely on private parcels. 

[Rowan Amore]

7 hours ago, Aethelwine said:

it is the sense of entitlement that comes across from those that express the opinion that because a landowner can do something that makes them right. 

But they ARE entitled to use the tools allowed so they ARE right.  It's other who appear entitled to things they are not such as passage through private property which they ARE NOT.

You have it backwards.

[Aethelwine]

18 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

But they ARE entitled to use the tools allowed so they ARE right.  It's other who appear entitled to things they are not such as passage through private property which they ARE NOT.

You have it backwards.

Entitlement has 2 meanings a weak one that conveys an ability to do something and a stronger sense where they have a moral right. Landowners have an entitlement in the former sense but not the latter one. 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Rowan Amore]

2 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Inherent has 2 meanings a weak one that conveys an ability to do something and a stronger sense where they have a moral right. Landowners have an inherent right in the former sense but not the latter one. 

Which would be a moral code for SL that does not exist in regards to this issue.  Just because some people find it morally wrong, doesn't make it so.  

Moral means relating to beliefs about what is right or wrong.  You really shouldn't assume everyone has the same beliefs as you.

Rules/regulations are different.  There is a right and wrong.  Using tools given for your property is right.  Assuming someone is being immoral by using those tools is wrong.

 

[Aethelwine]

In the case described by the OP, the passage across the top of Nautilus would not be possible if the perspective that a landowner should act without regard to their neighbours was widespread. Fortunately as the case demonstrates outside the forum it is not. 

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

I was typing this comment when Rowan's reply appeared, and 100% agree. 

It doesn't matter how one arbitrarily decides to define "trap"; the word implies intent to everyone else who doesn't use your unique self-made definition. It's a negative way to refer to the actions discussed here, and it is not helpful to continue implying that landowners are lying in wait, perhaps keeping score of the number of vehicles they capture (which is pretty much the mental image that results from misusing "trap").

It's also not helping your argument to continue to use the word after being corrected, nor are the repeated references to morality. If I didn't already believe that landowners have an absolute right to use the tools LL gives us as long as they are acting in compliance with TOS, I would certainly believe it after reading the superior tone of some of your posts. It's a very twisted type of "morality" that says that the persons insisting on making use of land that they do not pay for, that does not belong to them, that they clearly are not welcome on.... are in the right. 🙄

[Aethelwine]

9 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Which would be a moral code for SL that does not exist in regards to this issue.  Just because some people find it morally wrong, doesn't make it so.  

Moral means relating to beliefs about what is right or wrong.  You really shouldn't assume everyone has the same beliefs as you.

Rules/regulations are different.  There is a right and wrong.  Using tools given for your property is right.  Assuming someone is being immoral by using those tools is wrong.

 

The principle of reciprocity is not just my perspective, it is fundamental to all moral codes religious or otherwise. It is a foundation principle for society. 

[Rowan Amore]

30 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

The principle of reciprocity is not just my perspective, it is fundamental to all moral codes religious or otherwise. It is a foundation principle for society. 

And to many, SL is not a society nor is there a set of moral codes unless I missed that in the ToS.  They live their SL within the rules set forth in the ToS which is all they need to do.   They live in their own bubble with their own friends and groups.  How one sees SL is also entirely up to them.  No one is right or wrong in their view of SL.  You're still trying to impose how you see SL onto others.  

Some people may log in and never interact with another resident, ever.  They buy a piece of land to do their thing, putting up banlines which is within their right.  They turn off all IMs.  They don't want to see or hear or have to deal with other people.  Are they wrong?  Are they not using SL the right way?  Are they immoral for doing what, by the rules, they are allowed to do?  Should they have to only buy land where it won't interfer with how you want to live your SL?   Because that's basically what you're asking for.  

If you don't see SL the same as I do, you're wrong?

 

[Katherine Heartsong]

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

The principle of reciprocity is not just my perspective, it is fundamental to all moral codes religious or otherwise. It is a foundation principle for society. 

First off, morality and ethics are two very different things, and both vary widely both in time and in cultures, and even situationally for an individual decision. What I've seen you describe in most of your postings is ethics ... which is best defined as knowing what is right to do, versus what you have a right to do. The term "right" involves your own internalized and practiced morality. Additionally, reciprocity (aka altruism) need to be balanced for an individual with some sense of "greed". No human being is or even can be 100% altruistic.

Futhermore, your statement is not universally true. While Seneca may have first made this case, it is very much dependent on social distance, and more strictly applies only to known relationships among kin and small tribal groups (see the work of Sahlin et al).

While about 95% of human beings do share the same common moral ideas regardless of cultural/ethnic differences (the other 5% being on a spectrum towards psychopathy) .. that is to say, they respond to a moral/ethical problem in the same general way, hence we can generally live well in a group setting and social society ... the sense of the OP to me has very little to do with either topic, and more about complaining that they run into obstacles on private land they have no moral or ethical right to trespass on (if we assume that land can be held privately, and in SL that is the case without question).

So, here's a very simple question for you or anyone on the thread ...

Do you have a right to trespass on private property without the owners permission? Yes or no?

If it's no, then we're done. The OP is wrong. If it's yes, I'd really like to hear your moral (not ethical) justification as to why, because we then obviously share very different concepts of what private property is and the morality of trespassing.

------

And to be clear, I don't disagree with the view ethically that blocking things like "open" waterways is a questionable practice and one I'd never do myself (I'm an avid sailor in SL and own waterfront property), but from a purely moral point of view, I'd never want to trespass on private land, or even attempt to do so, and feel anyone who does is what others have said ... being obnoxiously entitled for thinking they should be allowed to or have a moral leg to stand on.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Katherine Heartsong

[Aethelwine]

When I studied philosophy ethics and morality were the same. For example Kantian ethics are a part of moral philosophy. I am not understanding the distinction. 

With regard to your question without trespassing on private land much of what mainland offers would be off limits. All the marinas, waterways, shops and traveller centres are all on private property. So of course there are rights to go on to private property. 

I suppose the question arises whether that counts as trespass because whilst permission hasn't actively been given neither is it actively denied. Where actively denied the question seems moot. 

With regard to the OP the situation is that last time I checked a few days ago thanks to landowner cooperation and their ability to consider collective self interest and ethical dimensions the route remains open. 

 

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

And to many, SL is not a society nor is there a set of moral codes unless I missed that in the ToS.  They live their SL within the rules set forth in the ToS which is all they need to do.   They live in their own bubble with their own friends and groups.  How one sees SL is also entirely up to them.  No one is right or wrong in their view of SL.  You're still trying to impose how you see SL onto others.  

Some people may log in and never interact with another resident, ever.  They buy a piece of land to do their thing, putting up banlines which is within their right.  They turn off all IMs.  They don't want to see or hear or have to deal with other people.  Are they wrong?  Are they not using SL the right way?  Are they immoral for doing what, by the rules, they are allowed to do?  Should they have to only buy land where it won't interfer with how you want to live your SL?   Because that's basically what you're asking for.  

If you don't see SL the same as I do, you're wrong?

 

Moral language is the language of answers to questions like what someone should do. 

In the case in point paying a premium for land that derives its value from others working together to keep open only to block it,  is not just a waste of their money, but something I am not afraid to move to moral language over.

To say they shouldn't buy land that spoils their neighbours investment does not seem at all unreasonable. 

[Katherine Heartsong]

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

With regard to your question without trespassing on private land much of what mainland offers would be off limits. All the marinas, waterways, shops and traveller centres are all on private property. So of course there are rights to go on to private property.

That's clearly obfuscating and avoiding the fundamental thing I am asking, isn't it? Private property either explicitly or assumed open to the public is not what I'm asking about, and you well know it.

I'm not asking about a shopping mall, a store, a public wharf, an open park, etc. I thought I was clearly asking about a person's personal private property where permission is not explicitly or implicitly applied, as was the OP. So, with that now clarified, I'd be delighted to have you again answer the question ...

Do you have a right to trespass on private property without the owners permission? Yes or no?

If you need a RL example to be even more clear ... Do you have a right to walk onto my lawn or into my home without my permission? No funny externalities or situational ethics please, like my house is on fire and you're saving my cat, someone's having a heart attack on my porch and you're providing good Samaritan aid, etc. Just the basic simple question, please.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do, and I'll be on my way.

Is the moral dilemma now clear?

----------

And they are not the same. Morals are individual and normative, while ethics are often socially defined. One speaks to guiding principles, one speaks to rules. Closely related and often symbiotic, but not the same at all. A good example is me. I'm RPing a fully cis-female in SL and am a moral person, finding nothing wrong with this concept morally. I do know that much of Western society, and many of the men here in SL, still is stuck on the idea of binary genders, and finds the idea ethically repulsive because of social norms and conscious and unconscious conditioning and bias.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Katherine Heartsong

[Theresa Tennyson]

22 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

That's clearly obfuscating and avoiding the fundamental thing I am asking, isn't it? Private property either explicitly or assumed open to the public is not what I'm asking about, and you well know it.

 

How can you tell what is and what isn't?

[Aethelwine]

4 hours ago, Sylvia Tamalyn said:

I was typing this comment when Rowan's reply appeared, and 100% agree. 

It doesn't matter how one arbitrarily decides to define "trap"; the word implies intent to everyone else who doesn't use your unique self-made definition. It's a negative way to refer to the actions discussed here, and it is not helpful to continue implying that landowners are lying in wait, perhaps keeping score of the number of vehicles they capture (which is pretty much the mental image that results from misusing "trap").

It's also not helping your argument to continue to use the word after being corrected, nor are the repeated references to morality. If I didn't already believe that landowners have an absolute right to use the tools LL gives us as long as they are acting in compliance with TOS, I would certainly believe it after reading the superior tone of some of your posts. It's a very twisted type of "morality" that says that the persons insisting on making use of land that they do not pay for, that does not belong to them, that they clearly are not welcome on.... are in the right. 🙄

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. 

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Aethelwine]

37 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

That's clearly obfuscating and avoiding the fundamental thing I am asking, isn't it? Private property either explicitly or assumed open to the public is not what I'm asking about, and you well know it.

I'm not asking about a shopping mall, a store, a public wharf, an open park, etc. I thought I was clearly asking about a person's personal private property where permission is not explicitly or implicitly applied, as was the OP. So, with that now clarified, I'd be delighted to have you again answer the question ...

Do you have a right to trespass on private property without the owners permission? Yes or no?

If you need a RL example to be even more clear ... Do you have a right to walk onto my lawn or into my home without my permission? No funny externalities or situational ethics please, like my house is on fire and you're saving my cat, someone's having a heart attack on my porch and you're providing good Samaritan aid, etc. Just the basic simple question, please.

A simple "yes" or "no" will do, and I'll be on my way.

Is the moral dilemma now clear?

----------

And they are not the same. Morals are individual and normative, while ethics are often socially defined. One speaks to guiding principles, one speaks to rules. Closely related and often symbiotic, but not the same at all. A good example is me. I'm RPing a fully cis-female in SL and am a moral person, finding nothing wrong with this concept morally. I do know that much of Western society, and many of the men here in SL, still is stuck on the idea of binary genders, and finds the idea ethically repulsive because of social norms and conscious and unconscious conditioning and bias.

No not actually clear and for the reasons already given. 

How do you know if permission is given or not? 

If I can trespass then they have allowed it. If I can't then they haven't.

[Katherine Heartsong]

10 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

How can you tell what is and what isn't?

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?

[Katherine Heartsong]

16 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

No not actually clear and for the reasons already given. 

How do you know if permission is given or not? 

If I can trespass then they have allowed it. If I can't then they haven't.

How do you know anything? Geez.

I apply RL common sense and my morals.

The whole POINT of this thread is why people put up ban lines and "OMG that's horrible, stop it!"

You, hun, are the reason we need ban lines. If you lack that much common sense or feel that entitled, you deserve to be booted back to your home for trespassing.

I'm done. It's like talking to a wall.

---------

If it's not clear by now, you're not welcome on my land. Please do not trespass. Okay? Or do I need ban lines?

PS. And nice avoidance, once again. A yes or no would have sufficed, but I know you know what the answer is, you just won't say "no" out loud.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Katherine Heartsong

[Aethelwine]

A better illustrative example is to go back to the situation outlined by the OP.

imagine a waterway maintained by 10 private landlords. They each own water parcels that allows access through them.

Some of them have paid considerably more than the going rate for the parcel based upon the collective understanding that there is a shared incentive to keep the waterway open. That is why the land is higher value than it would otherwise be.

Now imagine one of the parcels is now up for grabs.

The Moral\Ethical decision facing you now it is available, what should you do?

A) Should you buy the land for well over the normal asking price and then block the channel?

B) Should you buy the land at whatever cost is showing and block the channel?

C) Suppose you spot it is available for free, you guess maybe they are inexpertly trying to transfer it to an alt but you can seize this opportunity and grab it and then put up your banlines.   

Surely none of those options are things anyone should do. They can do it of course, but the issue isn't whether they can, the issue is should they?

Even if you answer they shouldn't to just one of them, then my point is made. That there is an ethical dimension to this. Not just a matter of whether someone can or cannot.

Does anyone here really think it is not an ethical issue. If they can do it then they can that is all there is to it.

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Aethelwine]

20 minutes ago, Katherine Heartsong said:

How do you know anything? Geez.

I apply RL rules and my morals.

The whole POINT of this thread is why people put up ban lines and "OMG that's horrible, stop it!"

You, hun, are the reason we need ban lines. If you lack that much common sense or feel that entitled, you deserve to be booted back to your home for trespassing.

I'm done. It's like talking to a wall.

I am sorry I am not being awkward I just genuinely don't see what you are trying to get at. 

Perhaps I see more from your response to Theresa, but I have never listed my land and I consider it public access. I think two Marinas I am involved with are listed on a LGBT Pride website external to SL, but that is about it.  (edited to add and a gallery on the galleries website). I have about 10 or so public spaces and never considered listing them anywhere.

So maybe that explains why I am struggling with the distinction and point you are making?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine