Security orbs and navigable waters

[Gabriele Graves]

Nobody is blaming the people who stray onto private land either.  The blame is coming from some of those who are doing the straying and then coming to complain in a self-entitled way on the forums.  If they simply said to themselves "Hey, ho that's just SL" and go on their merry way then there wouldn't be a problem.

[Aethelwine]

1 hour ago, Persephone Emerald said:

^ Here's a good distinction between ethics vs. morality. Ethics is used in business and legal settings. Morality connotes a religious or spiritual judgement. In business, it is considered unethical to steal, to create potential harm for one's customer, or to use knowledge one isn't supposed to have in making business deals. It's unethical to not support one's client in the purpose for which you were hired by them, unless you find that this purpose was unlawful. Then it would be unethical to continue to support their unlawful pursuit. 

Here's another example. A person hires a detective to spy on their wife to find out if she's cheating on him. As long as the detective uses legal means to find out if she is, he's being ethical. If he then finds out that his client is also cheating on his wife and the client wants to divorce her before she finds out, the detective is under no ethical obligation to tell the wife, in fact doing so would be unethical toward his client. If he finds out his client is planning to murder his wife on the other hand, then I think he would be ethically obligated to cease working for his client and to report his findings to the police. Ethics are a tricky subject, full of issues of law and professional accountability.

Morality on the other hand often boils down to what feels like the right thing to do based on our own personal beliefs and upbringing. This is a very fuzzy, subjective subject. It's at the root of the abortion debate, because it's so subjective. What is "wrong" for one religious belief may be "right" for another, not to mention what seems "right" or "wrong" for each individual person.  Different arguments can be used to argue one way or another, but it's still going to be a subjective judgement call.

When I use Ethics\Morality my reference points are Aristotle, Kant,  Schopenhauer, Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir etc. Not Lawyers or Priests!

When Kant wrote his "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" one of the most important works on Ethics, he isn't writing about personal beliefs and upbringing ! he is creating a groundwork for the study of ethics. 

I have quoted Britannica discussion on the topic that comes to the same conclusion, as I have.

Wikipedia's page on Ethics starts with "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch." So far as I can see the words Ethics and Morality have the same meaning and the same for the people famous for writing on the topics.

You have a very different understanding that comes from somewhere else and I am not saying you are wrong to use the words in a different way, but please understand. I am using the words in the way I am for a good reason, to be clear about what I mean using the conceptual framework that I work with.

[Persephone Emerald]

6 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

When I use Ethics\Morality my reference points are Aristotle, Kant,  Schopenhauer, Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir etc. Not Lawyers or Priests!

When Kant wrote his "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" one of the most important works on Ethics, he isn't writing about personal beliefs and upbringing ! he is creating a groundwork for the study of ethics. 

I have quoted Britannica discussion on the topic that comes to the same conclusion, as I have.

Wikipedia's page on Ethics starts with "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch." So far as I can see the words Ethics and Morality have the same meaning and the same for the people famous for writing on the topics.

You have a very different understanding that comes from somewhere else and I am not saying you are wrong to use the words in a different way, but please understand. I am using the words in the way I am for a good reason, to be clear about what I mean using the conceptual framework that I work with.

I think more people in modern society are familiar with ethics as based in business and law, rather than with philosophical debates. Philosophical debates are fine as a basis for discussions of ethics and morality, but using their terms seems to be confusing people who haven't studied philosophy. It's like we're trying to talk to each other in 2 very different dialects of what is essentially the same language, so we end up talking past each other instead of with each other.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Persephone Emerald

[Aethelwine]

23 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Nobody is blaming the people who stray onto private land either.  The blame is coming from some of those who are doing the straying and then coming to complain in a self-entitled way on the forums.  If they simply said to themselves "Hey, ho that's just SL" and go on their merry way then there wouldn't be a problem.

The first post is about a landowner finding their land blocked by their neighbours actions. They spoke with their neighbour and they corrected the issue making the obstruction phantom (3rd post). At the other end of the route I spoke with the landowner there and they made a correction to their privacy settings. They told me they had set them temporarily.

All this reaction comes from the fourth post with someone asserting that if the land owner can do it then that is all there is to it. Something out of context to the thread. 

Maybe you are thinking about another thread? and may be that is why the discussion seems so strange?

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Aethelwine]

5 minutes ago, Persephone Emerald said:

I think more people in modern society are familiar with ethics as based in business and law, rather than with philosophical debates. Philosophical debates are fine as a basis for discussions of ethics and morality, but using their terms seems to be confusing people who haven't studied philosophy. It's like we're trying to talk to each other in 2 very different dialects of what is essentially the same language, so we end up talking past each other instead of with each other.

This entire thread seems to have gone that way since the 4th post.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Aethelwine]

Language seems to create confusion sometimes.

When people talk about Trespassing for example, my immediate thoughts are about the mass trespass in the 1930s (I think) local to me that led to the opening up of public spaces. Trespass since then has been a right (limited but still a right and a valued one). Others probably have very different associations. For others it is about their space being invaded. The same word, same derivation of meaning but very different reactions.

This song is one result of the Trespass movement:

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

39 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Nobody is blaming the people who stray onto private land either.

 

3 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

It's unethical to enter someone's private property without consent.

 

[Gabriele Graves]

I could be wrong but when I read that I took it to mean "It's unethical to deliberately enter someone's property without consent.".  If @Rowan Amore didn't mean that, I am sure they will clarify.

In principle it is unethical to enter if they don't want you there and you knowingly enter anyway.  If you don't know and/or you enter by mistake, then it isn't unethical.  This doesn't seem terribly difficult to grasp to me so I have to assume that this is more in the being obtuse, semantics and point scoring category than it is a genuine interest in wanting to understand.

[Gabriele Graves]

41 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

The first post is about a landowner finding their land blocked by their neighbours actions.

I was referring to the part of the discussion that followed when @diamond Marchant posted the picture of the protected channel.

41 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

All this reaction comes from the fourth post with someone asserting that if the land owner can do it then that is all there is to it. Something out of context to the thread. 

Maybe you are thinking about another thread? and may be that is why the discussion seems so strange?

Nope, nothing I have posted in this thread was in reference to the OP or the discussion about that.

There was a gap of 4 days and then the post by @diamond Marchant.
That seemed to me to be an, albeit related, change of topic to me and everything I have posted in this topic has been in reference and only about the discussion that followed that.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Aethelwine]

16 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I was referring to the part of the discussion that followed when @diamond Marchant posted the picture of the protected channel.

Nope, nothing I have posted in this thread was in reference to the OP or the discussion about that.

There was a gap of 4 days and then the post by @diamond Marchant.
That seemed to me to be an, albeit related, change of topic to me and everything I have posted in this topic has been in reference and only about the discussion that followed that.

If you are talking about Diamond's post on the first page then that seems to me to be simply stating a few points. I don't actually see anyone reacting to that. I may be missing something but I didn't actually see anything contentious written there.

The thread went off on a wild tangent with the assertion of landowner rights being above question and then a pile on of indignation at travellers demanding rights of passage that no one at least in this thread actually had.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Aethelwine said:

If you are talking about Diamond's post on the first page then that seems to me to be simply stating a few points. I don't actually see anyone reacting to that.

Again, nope.  There is only one post as I described and only one gap in posting of 4 days.
Here:

https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/488616-security-orbs-and-navigable-waters/?do=findComment&comment=2482421

[Aethelwine]

48 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I could be wrong but when I read that I took it to mean "It's unethical to deliberately enter someone's property without consent.".  If @Rowan Amore didn't mean that, I am sure they will clarify.

In principle it is unethical to enter if they don't want you there and you knowingly enter anyway.  If you don't know and/or you enter by mistake, then it isn't unethical.  This doesn't seem terribly difficult to grasp to me so I have to assume that this is more in the being obtuse, semantics and point scoring category than it is a genuine interest in wanting to understand.

Why assume obtuseness?

Your reaction was my initial thought too, such that in response I said "I don't think your answer surprising, or different from my own." Her point doesn't seem related to anything said before and not in disagreement with anything I have said.

But it does appear from context and subsequent reactions she is asserting something different and it is intended to be in contrast or contradictory to something I have said. Which would appear to be Persephone's initial interpretation as well.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Aethelwine]

16 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Again, nope.  There is only one post as I described and only one gap in posting of 4 days.
Here:

https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/488616-security-orbs-and-navigable-waters/?do=findComment&comment=2482421

That is on page 5 of an 8 page thread !

Is it not confusing to make a comment about that in terms of "Nobody is" relating just to page 5 onwards without clarifying that is what you meant?

Especially when a significant part of that seems to be anger directed at me for using moral and ethical in the way they are used by the people that are authorities on the subject ! 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, Aethelwine said:

That is on page 5 of an 8 page thread !

Is it not confusing to make a comment about that in terms of "Nobody is" relating just to page 5 onwards without clarifying that is what you meant?

The person who to my post responded only quoted my post and Rowan's post from today.  They weren't confused.

[Gabriele Graves]

16 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Why assume obtuseness?

Your reaction was my initial thought too, such that in response I said "I don't think your answer surprising, or different from my own." Her point doesn't seem related to anything said before and not in disagreement with anything I have said.

But it does appear from context and subsequent reactions she is asserting something different and it is intended to be in contrast or contradictory to something I have said. Which would appear to be Persephone's initial interpretation as well.

Clearly we see different things.  Going down this path isn't productive.

[Rowan Amore]

57 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I could be wrong but when I read that I took it to mean "It's unethical to deliberately enter someone's property without consent.".  If @Rowan Amore didn't mean that, I am sure they will clarify.

In principle it is unethical to enter if they don't want you there and you knowingly enter anyway.  If you don't know and/or you enter by mistake, then it isn't unethical.  This doesn't seem terribly difficult to grasp to me so I have to assume that this is more in the being obtuse, semantics and point scoring category than it is a genuine interest in wanting to understand.

Yes, that's exactly how I meant it and I'm quite sure everyone knew it.  It's what is done when someone has no other defense.  

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

first post is about a landowner finding their land blocked by their neighbours actions

They found their access to open water blocked by someone who owned the channel.  They felt they had the right to use that channel even though it was owned by someone else.  Yes, the owner was nice and opened it back up.  Great!

What is not great is assuming they are unethical or immoral (your words, not mine) if they choose not to allow people through.  

I'm not the one who brought ethics and morals into it.  They don't belong in the debate at all as I've stated before.  

If I used unethical to describe entering someone's land without permission, it was because it was the word used to describe people NOT letting people onto their parcel by others.  Not a word I'd use to describe it.  Rude comes to mind.

Clear now?

And I'm done since I see the sock puppet has arrived.

 

[Codex Alpha]

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

Language seems to create confusion sometimes.

When people talk about Trespassing for example, my immediate thoughts are about the mass trespass in the 1930s (I think) local to me that led to the opening up of public spaces. Trespass since then has been a right (limited but still a right and a valued one). Others probably have very different associations. For others it is about their space being invaded. The same word, same derivation of meaning but very different reactions

 

That's because in general, in a civilized society, trespass is reserved for any entry uninvited, and in the context of a hostile or 'armed trespass', is what is usually addressed.

Yes, entering anyone's land is technically trespass, but since we all live in a relatively open society, there is an expectation of ingress and egress from properties to people's doors, their mailboxes, to say 'Hello", without shots being automatically fired, and we also have 'reasonable force' laws that prohibit people from shooting other people dead because they dared to set foot on their driveway, or for those (like in SL) feel it is their right to 'shoot any planes flying overhead their home'.

For those who want true 'private property' and with clear and distinct lines that it is, they usually have checkpoints, locked gates, fenced areas that clearly communicate "We do not want you approaching the house".

Unfortunately in SL , as you can see people are going to act any way they want, they're not really participating in an open and relatively free society as in RL, so they're happy to set 0 second orbs, ban lines, or otherwise block other people's non-malicious enjoyment or exploration of "public lands" (not designed for 100% privacy - they have to and should pay for that).

But trying to convince some of these people to engage in an open society, they're not interested in. Yes, it's their right, and they can do what they want with the "tools that LL have provided us" and the rest of us have to put up with it.  If it becomes disruptive enough for some of us, we simply stop doing those activities in SL, our enjoyment and experience of SL gets soiled, and we simply answer by not paying our annual premium.

the only way to affect change is to vote with your wallet.

[Mollymews]

23 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

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

^^ yeah that

and also Linden have gommed your Catznip mini-map parcel boundaries idea. Is in the candidate release here: https://releasenotes.secondlife.com/viewer/6.6.2.573023.html

 

in my own travels I treat every parcel not Linden, as dangerous. I expect every parcel to orb me. I expect that is no-vehicle entry. I expect that I am banned. I expect that is no-scripts, no-rez. I expect that the parcel is damage-enabled. I expect auto-return 1

if I have a need to find a path thru private parcels (because is the only way to cross to a Linden parcel on the other end) then I will walk the route beforehand and chart a safe path, using the parcel owner's land permissions to determine this

 

Edited July 21, 2022 by Mollymews
typs

[Aethelwine]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

They found their access to open water blocked by someone who owned the channel.  They felt they had the right to use that channel even though it was owned by someone else.  Yes, the owner was nice and opened it back up.  Great!

What is not great is assuming they are unethical or immoral (your words, not mine) if they choose not to allow people through.  

I'm not the one who brought ethics and morals into it.  They don't belong in the debate at all as I've stated before.  

If I used unethical to describe entering someone's land without permission, it was because it was the word used to describe people NOT letting people onto their parcel by others.  Not a word I'd use to describe it.  Rude comes to mind.

Clear now?

And I'm done since I see the sock puppet has arrived.

 

For me ethics\morality is the way with live our lives we do things we ought to do and sometimes what we shouldn't. We make moral\ethical judgments all the time. We do so on the basis of the principles we live our lives by. I have explained one of my principles is the principle of reciprocity, it is far from unusual. It does have an application in the situation as described in that we should treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. If someone transgresses that principle by using your waterway but denying you access to theirs then they aren't reciprocating. I will make a moral judgment. I am not going to go waving pitchforks around about it, but if asked for my opinion I will give it. If I am bored I will follow a forum thread and contribute. I am not saying they are thieves or murderers or breaking any of Linden Labs laws, I am saying they are breaking the moral principle of reciprocity. That it is something they shouldn't do. 

I really don't get why you react so strongly to that. You can't deny me my principles, just as I can't yours. Nor can I deny your reaction. I don't want to upset anyone. I just don't get the extreme reaction.

People should and are free to express themselves. You or Sylvia might not like people describing a situation where a parcel is set up in a way that looks like it might even be open for rezzing, that has security measures on it a trap. No one is saying that it is done intentionally, that someone is sat there logging the people snared on it and laughing at them. They are simply using the words available to them to describe the situation as they see it. Saying you don't like it is one thing but the reaction goes beyond that into worrying because it denying people their self expression, denies them their reality. But you are of course entitled to your opinion.

Maybe it has something to do with me using the language of ethics and morality differently to you? But I can't think of any other way to explain what I am saying. Without people giving value statements there is no shoulds or shouldn'ts to be said.

Of course, a sailor caught up in a banline should shrug it off, tut to themselves brush themselves down and go find another rezz zone. The landowner has every right to set their security as they wish. No one ever denies this, or at least not for long.

But sailors have a right to vent as well, To look at the problems discuss them even say some stupid things. People have a right to point out mistakes give the other perspective. That dialogue is healthy and promotes understanding, it might even come to some conclusions and suggestions, but much of this thread seems like a confusing mess of people putting words into other peoples mouths, tilting at windmills and over reacting and now accusing me of sockpuppeting. That isn't healthy.

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

You're beating a dead horse.  I suspect everyone is fully aware of where you are coming from.  It's just that some of us at least don't share your beliefs or point of view on this topic.  You are not the moral or ethical authority over anyone but yourself.

In addition, please don't speak for all sailors.  This sailor is not there venting with you. , 'K Thx

[Aethelwine]

9 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

You're beating a dead horse.  I suspect everyone is fully aware of where you are coming from.  It's just that some of us at least don't share your beliefs or point of view on this topic.  You are not the moral or ethical authority over anyone but yourself.

In addition, please don't speak for all sailors.  This sailor is not there venting with you. , 'K Thx

I think it is sufficiently clear I am speaking for myself. My very first words "For me" seem more than adequate to convey that. 

Where I say But Sailors at the end it is merely me expressing my view they should be free to have their dialogue, that they should be open to challenge but that it should essentially be respectful if it is to be constructive.

Edited July 22, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Sylvia Tamalyn]

*don't post the dead horse gif* *don't post the dead horse gif* *don't post the dead horse gif*

[Tomas McConaught]

The problem, I think, is that different people see different things in this game, and what is really needed is for people to try to work together for everyone to enjoy.

As a sailor, I don't like people who seem to delight in griefing those of us to sail - hiding behind the excuse of "It's my land and blank you for running into it", even if that is the result of an SL lag or something similar.  I don't hit banlines intentionally, and being bombarded with trespassing notices for traveling through open waters is ridiculous, particularly since many of the developments in which that happens require the open waters as part of the terms of renting there.

As a landowner and/or renter at different times, I don't like people tp'ing into my house or telling me that it actually is theirs or any of the rest of what happens.

The Lab has the ability to mitigate some of this by changing what orbs do - there is no reason to tp someone home, for example, just off the protected property - and a similar ability to prevent crashes with banlines.  There also should just be more protected waters around the edges of continents so flyers can fly and sailors can sail.  Some may disagree, but there is something to be said, as well, for banlines to be bi-directional - if others can't sail in, you shouldn't be able to sail out - putting people on equal footing.

That does not mean people should be harassed - they shouldn't - but people should not be told they cannot discuss this subject either - LL's policies are subject to change, and user perspectives are how the company can know to change them.

[Rowan Amore]

Did you say don't... It wasn't clear to me.  Me has troubles with them words, ya know.