Proposal - a covenant for mainland

[Gabriele Graves]

5 hours ago, SarahThe Wanderer said:

There's one rule i want to be forced in mainland, No skybox under 1500 m , because this is unacceptable, no matter how you try to reason it:

they can't even see outside thier skybox, so why have it on the ground!! not because you can, but because you're a 🤬

 

Is it a skybox though if it's on the ground?  What actually defines a skybox?  The name of the main object?  It's altitude?  The style?  Maybe it's just a ready-made resort or just a building, or is it an a collection of walls and a fake sky.  Unfortunately you cannot disallow this without disallowing lots of other things people build.  Each Mole/Linden would have to be called to each circumstance and make a decision and that's unworkable.  You cannot make rules up for this kind of thing without severely curtailing the ability of people to build whatever they want.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Sammy Huntsman]

7 hours ago, xDancingStarx said:

The argument is often that mainland is for people who don't want any restrictions, and people who do want restrictions should get a Linden home. This is reiterated like an ideology. Like there were only black and white. The truth is that there are many people on mainland who love creativity and at the same time care about what mainland looks like. This isn't about anyone wanting to play style nazi and forbid anything that doesn't meet high standards. It's about pure minimums. And of course there would be the demand for a continent where people don't slap 4 large 2D walls around their parcel to shut themselves off of the connected land that they intentionally went to, shutting themselves off not only in the way of placing a pretty wall around their parcel, but on a meta level where their walls make them non existent in a community sense, like a skybox on the ground. Of course Linden has no interest in such a continent, even if it were possible to define common ground rules, which would be hard enough, because they can't make any money out of it.

But this one is very black white, if you don't like it find somewhere that has more rules and more restrictions. To how each person decorates. Having minimum requirements, is still very limiting on freedom of expression. Which Mainland is for. That  being said, I feel like you would be hindering people. 

[Gabriele Graves]

3 hours ago, xDancingStarx said:

I'm not sure if this is the "general you" thing again, but you're responding apparently to me, and with no word I have advocated for forcing anything on "all of mainland's residents". I wrote, and I quote: "Of course Linden has no interest in such a continent". By which I obviously didn't mean all of mainland, and I should have specified, not an existing continent. Obviously I don't have any numbers, as you don't have any numbers. Which doesn't matter anyway, as, as stated, it would be too expensive for LL to maintain a stricter covenant without getting anything in return. I doubt people are willing to pay more for land than they're paying currently.

No, this wasn't the general you.  It was a response to the claims you were making in your last post about what people "want".  I took your last post to mean that you think that the mainland masses wanted mainland to be transformed into such a continent as if it were a given and it's not.

[Sammy Huntsman]

3 hours ago, xDancingStarx said:

As you can see in this thread, "creativity" seems to justify everything.

Because Creativity does justify everything. I don't think you understand here. Why do you feel a need to stifle one's creativity? Just cause you don't like how the mainland looks right now? Why the need to add hefty regulations, that even LL wouldn't be able to enforce well? I mean we are talking about 100s of regions here. I think the way the mainland is now, a free for all is fine. 

[Gabriele Graves]

Talking generally now.

We may not like other people's builds, they may not like ours.  Mainland isn't supposed to be a place were one viewpoint defeats all others.  If we go down this path mainland is changed forever and some of the great things about mainland that some clearly don't understand the value of, don't value or don't understand how they will be destroyed by these changes, will be lost forever.  Some of us fundamentally disagree with going down this path.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[animats]

Hold on. I'm not proposing enforcing a theme on mainland. What I proposed is just this:
 

Quote

What to use from the Bellessaria covenant? The rules aimed at de-cluttering land:

• The privacy wall rule: "Privacy walls or fences should fit the theme and extend no more than 4m above ground level".
• The skybox rule: "Skyboxes ... only allowed above 2000m to keep the skies clear of physical/visual obstructions and casting ground shadows."
• The security orb rules: "Minimum of 15 seconds". "Cannot include 400m to 2000m." "Does not add people to parcel ban list automatically."
• The map ad rule: "Using prims or objects on parcels meant as advertisements on the world map is prohibited."

Ban lines would still be allowed.

"Fit the theme", from the Bellessaria convenant, is struck out. I'm not proposing mandatory themes for mainland.

To make this clearer, these rules would prohibit this:

 

Privacy wall. A giant wooden wall, viewed from someone's rear deck. What's inside the wall? A vacant lot. South Satori.

 

Skybox stack. Casts a long shadow. These monsters can devalue land for hundreds of meters. Corsica.

 

Ejected by zero-warning security orb. No message, just instant ejection. North Sansara.

 

Floating FOR RENT sign in map view. Could be considered a violation of SL ad policy, because floating signs aren't allowed. There's been talk at Creator User Group of having map overlays for this sort of thing. There's already a FOR SALE overlay, so why not a FOR RENT overlay? Especially with LL taking over CasperVend, which runs most of the rent boxes. Zindra.

That should clarify things.

[Gabriele Graves]

Did you read what I posted earlier animats?  You cannot make a blanket rule against these kinds of builds without having to enforce a theme to tell people what they are allowed to build.  It also means no more sandboxes.  It's not simple or as black/white you and a few others paint.

[diamond Marchant]

2 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

That might well be what they are doing .. but I fundamentally disagree with the thinking it is the right thing for the good of the platform.

I am hoping they are doing some kind of dynamic load balancing, as happens with web servers.

[diamond Marchant]

3 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Some of us fundamentally disagree with going down this path.

It's academic. The Lindens/Moles have no interest in going down this path (where this means "changing mainland rules").

Lindens seem to modify covenants only when THEIR aesthetic is offended, for example, no slanty roofs on Newbrooke Linden Homes.

(btw I find the notion that Newbrookes are "shipping container homes" to be suspect, as such homes are based on assemblages of containers. Newbrookes appear much more similar to Eichlers as they have exposed beams and rooms of different sizes. Many Eichlers have slanty roofs.)

Edited October 5, 2022 by diamond Marchant

[Gabriele Graves]

1 minute ago, diamond Marchant said:

It's academic. The Lindens/Moles have no interest in going down this path (where this means "changing mainland rules").

I totally agree but that's never stopped us all before

[Qie Niangao]

 

1 hour ago, Gabriele Graves said:

6 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

Mainland orbs, however, are aggressively newbie-hostile, and low altitude skyboxes are uniformly eyesores (as well as casting more shadows as they approach practical draw depth, for the increasing number of us who run with shadows all the time).

This is just an opinion that not everybody shares with you so why should this view prevail?

May as well. Apparently there's no counter argument—other than the support of good ol' Chuckles:

Anyway, to which part is there active disagreement? The orbs? Yeah, but who ever actually moved out of Belli because they couldn't set their precious orb aggressively enough to satisfactorily terrorize a stray newbie? Fine, let 'em move to a combat estate and orb each other to their hearts' content. They weren't needed for Belli to succeed and they won't help Mainland thrive.

Or is it the skyboxes? When have we ever heard from defenders of low-hanging skyboxes? and what on earth could that defense be?

[Gabriele Graves]

18 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Anyway, to which part is there active disagreement? The orbs? Yeah, but who ever actually moved out of Belli because they couldn't set their precious orb aggressively enough to satisfactorily terrorize a stray newbie? Fine, let 'em move to a combat estate and orb each other to their hearts' content. They weren't needed for Belli to succeed and they won't help Mainland thrive.

Or is it the skyboxes? When have we ever heard from defenders of low-hanging skyboxes? and what on earth could that defense be?

I think I have expressed why adequately enough in this topic if one were to read my posts more carefully and try to understand.  I don't feel like repeating it all again.  I will say this however, it isn't that anyone of those things are necessarily incredibly valuable and worth having to be preserved in of themselves but it's what effect the rules/covenant would have on mainland to be effective to make the rules understandable and guide the efforts of enforcement.  You cannot laser scalpel this away, it's more like wielding a bloody mallet.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves
Removed part of my response becuase it's possible I misunderstood what Qie said

[diamond Marchant]

13 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Yeah, but who ever actually moved out of Belli because they couldn't set their precious orb aggressively enough to satisfactorily terrorize a stray newbie?

About orbs in Belli, those most concerned would be aviators. Fortunately, due to the abundance of protected waters, aviation in Belli is mostly without orb-worry. The only area that might be potentially problematic is the Logs, however, I can report "no worries" if you find the right route. The photos below show such a path across the Logs. Any orbs I have encountered have been within-covenant, hence, harmless.

[Aethelwine]

15 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

What does that have to do with controlling what people can build?

It has nothing to do with controlling what people can build.

If I had any interest in controlling what people build then I would have said so.

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

It has nothing to do with controlling what people can build.

If I had any interest in controlling what people build then I would have said so.

Perhaps I misunderstood you but that seemed to be exactly what you did say in response to my post here:
 

 

[Aethelwine]

10 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

As a related detour, there are people who think that truck stops, gas pumps and auto-workshops are every bit as much of an eyesore as other clutter on mainland.  I speak only from personal conversations I've had of course but even in RL not many people want to live right by a highway with those kinds of things around and by the same token don't want to see them around them in SL either.

That's the problem with a covenant, whose vision is the correct one for that area?

I put forward that to resolve this mainland would have to be completely redone with zoning at least in mind.

Well I know Prok complains about GTFO hubs, and I am sure they are not alone in doing that. Their proliferation also indicates how a lot of people like them so much they want their own too. You said there would be some obvious metric if there was a desire for a more restrictive covenant on mainland. You haven't expressed what metric you are expecting to see. The first metric I can think of would be proliferation of GTFO indicating people that want to not just travel but also play their trading game whilst doing it. Another metric might be the survey done admittedly some time ago about security settings on mainland... where if I recall correctly the number of parcels with orbs or banlines was under 5%. It certainly seems low and probably lower now... But what metric are you thinking of if not these? You said it should be obvious... but it isn't obvious if you don't explain what test you are applying and expecting to see.

 

[Aethelwine]

14 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

Perhaps I misunderstood you but that seemed to be exactly what you did say in response to my post here:
 

 

Well my point above this addresses the point I was making to you perhaps more clearly.

In my original post the one immediately before the one of yours that you reply to, I say I don't agree with everything Animats said. One of the things I don't agree with would be restricting screens to 4m height. I use screens to a limited extent myself.. I have some alpha bamboo screens I use on a couple of parcels, one to break up the concrete bunker next to me that extends up 30 or 40m right up to boundary line of my parcel. In another case I use them around the edges of a dance area to hide in a relatively tasteful way my surroundings. Which include full bright prim modernist structure full of glass and bdsm pictures and not on Zindra.... but behind closed door... just clearly visible in expansive glass covered front of the building. I probably could report it, I don't think the owner has been online in 10 years anyway but my palm tree screen sufficient.

I like to think people will get that by building in keeping with their neighbours their land and enjoyment of their parcel will be improved, but I am not in favour of Governance taking on a fashion police role. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

Just now, Aethelwine said:

You said there would be some obvious metric if there was a desire for a more restrictive covenant on mainland. You haven't expressed what metric you are expecting to see.

This is what I said:

"If there really was a generally much more desire for additional rules then it would be quantifiable and easily shown here as evidence."

What I meant by this is:

a) It would be quantifiable - not necessarily easily but it would have to be possible.  I don't have a clue what it would actually be but if it wasn't possible then all claims about it being desired are baseless.
b) If it can be quantified then it can be presented easily as evidence that is convincing.

[Aethelwine]

2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

This is what I said:

"If there really was a generally much more desire for additional rules then it would be quantifiable and easily shown here as evidence."

What I meant by this is:

a) It would be quantifiable - not necessarily easily but it would have to be possible.  I don't have a clue what it would actually be but if it wasn't possible then all claims about it being desired are baseless.
b) If it can be quantified then it can be presented easily as evidence that is convincing.

A proposition that doesn't appear to have a solution, doesn't seem to be a very good one. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Gabriele Graves]

Just now, Aethelwine said:

A proposition that doesn't appear to have a solution, doesn't seem to be a very good one. 

I agree but then we should be careful of baseless claims being bandied around.

[Sammy Huntsman]

6 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I agree but then we should be careful of baseless claims being bandied around.

I think that imposing regulations on the Mainland will not fix the solution. It would actually make a lot of people leave or buy their own regions, which means they would have unimpeded access to do what they wanted. We need a real solution to fix the mainland, and not some hefty regulations. 

[Aethelwine]

Just now, Gabriele Graves said:

I agree but then we should be careful of baseless claims being bandied around.

Indeed, but there have been a number of problems raised on the thread and there are more about the way mainland works. Perhaps to say it is broken goes too far.... but there are a number of perversities to the way mainland works that are limiting.

Discussing potential solutions the pluses and the minuses worthwhile. If that includes changing the covenant then, balancing reactions is obviously important. It is however possible the Terms of Service are explicit that the mainland covenant can change if Linden Lab wants it to, it even mentions the possibility of rezoning land, that in itself is not the barrier. The barrier is the scale of reaction does the positive outweigh the negatives? The answer to that will depend on the change being implemented.... in some cases reaction will be over all negative... but perhaps there are changes that will be over all positive too.  

[Gabriele Graves]

3 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

I think that imposing regulations on the Mainland will not fix the solution. It would actually make a lot of people leave or buy their own regions, which means they would have unimpeded access to do what they wanted. We need a real solution to fix the mainland, and not some hefty regulations. 

To be able to fix mainland:

a) We have to decide that it is in fact broken and not just functioning as intended.
b) How it is broken.

I don't see there ever being a consensus on either on those.  The only thing that people seem to agree on is that LL should do a better job of enforcing the TOS/CS there.

Edited October 5, 2022 by Gabriele Graves

[Sammy Huntsman]

Just now, Gabriele Graves said:

To be able to fix mainland:

a) We have to decide that it is in fact broken and not just functioning as intended.
b) How it is broken.

I don't see there ever being a consensus on either on those.  The only thing that people seem to agree on is that LL should do a better job of enforcing the TOS/CS there.

Well I mean good point, but I mean its better to have this kinda discussion. Instead of making a suggestion, that is imposing regulations on a continent that is very much unregulated. 

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Indeed, but there have been a number of problems raised on the thread and there are more about the way mainland works. Perhaps to say it is broken goes too far.... but there are a number of perversities to the way mainland works that are limiting.

Again, these are subject to opinion.

2 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

Discussing potential solutions the pluses and the minuses worthwhile. If that includes changing the covenant then, balancing reactions is obviously important. It is however possible the Terms of Service are explicit that the mainland covenant can change if Linden Lab wants it to, it even mentions the possibility of rezoning land, that in itself is not the barrier. The barrier is the scale of reaction does the positive outweigh the negatives? The answer to that will depend on the change being implemented.... in some cases reaction will be over all negative... but perhaps there are changes that will be over all positive too.  

There is no mainland covenant so LL can certainly add one if they wish but it will change the product dramatically to do so.  If after all this time they haven't added one then perhaps there is a reason.