Alwin Alcott Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: But it still refutes @Alwin Alcott's attempted argument that these griefing perpetrators are freeloaders who do not contribute to SL. Didn't your own data assert that most of the problem travellers were established accounts that had PIOF? YOU came up with the freeloaders, nobody mentioned that. It's about those TRAVELERS don't pay for the land they demand to use, even for a second. YOU make this weird twist in the discussion. Edited January 25 by Alwin Alcott 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said: But it still refutes @Alwin Alcott's attempted argument that these griefing perpetrators are freeloaders who do not contribute to No, it doesn't, his assertion was that the habitual over-entitled trespassers are FREELOADING on the property they are tresspassing on. They claim to have rights on land they DO NOT PAY FOR. 2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: Didn't your own data assert that most of the problem travellers were established accounts that had PIOF? It did indeed, but it didn't "assert" that they were paying a single penny towards the cost of MY land, and therefore asserts that they have exactly NO DAMN RIGHTS to be on MY land, let alone decide how MY land is used and by whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: they are not paying to use the land of others, in your, and others reasoning, it would be fine you buy a car, i see it on the parking lot and take it for a ride. None of this discussion mentioned griefers who actually used anything on the parcel they were trespassing on, only passing through. 3 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: YOU came up with the freeloaders, nobody else even mentioned that. You were inferring it. One may be paying for a specific property/parcel but in doing so they also support the entire infrastructure of the grid as a whole. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, Alwin Alcott said: they are not paying to use the land of others, in your, and others reasoning, it would be fine you buy a car, i see it on the parking lot and take it for a ride. Not if the owner of the parking lot shoots you for stepping onto their unmarked asphalt... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: No, it doesn't, his assertion was that the habitual over-entitled trespassers are FREELOADING on the property they are tresspassing on. They claim to have rights on land they DO NOT PAY FOR. It did indeed, but it didn't "assert" that they were paying a single penny towards the cost of MY land, and therefore asserts that they have exactly NO DAMN RIGHTS to be on MY land, let alone decide how MY land is used and by whom. See my answer to Alwyn. Your payment to SL supports the entire grid, not just your particular parcel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 7 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said: it's more likely that the very small whining minority that wants to claim access to everything they don't even contribute a dime to, know there's no chance they will convince the paying mainlanders for letting them do what they want. You have Belliseria for your travels. I'd be willing to guess that the owners of the many airports on the Mainland pay a lot more tier than you do. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said: I'd be willing to guess that the owners of the many airports on the Mainland pay a lot more tier than you do. There used to be two of those near me. One half region sized eyesore was only EVER used by two unregistered traffic bots, parked 24/7 on the taxiway. The other wasn't used by anyone at all. Both closed. "My over-entitled airborne griefer trash friends are richer than you therefore I have a right to trespass" is not and never has been a valid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 33 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said: See my answer to Alwyn. Your payment to SL supports the entire grid, not just your particular parcel. Seriously? "Communism"? From you? Everything belongs to the Soviet Airborne Griefers Socialist Republic, comrade, and you are the self appointed commissar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: "My over-entitled airborne griefer trash friends are richer than you therefore I have a right to trespass" is not and never has been a valid argument. As we've gone over before, there is no definition of "tresspassing" in Second Life. If you try to apply real-world laws you then wreck on issues of notice, intent, and airspace use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: Seriously? "Communism"? From you? Everything belongs to the Soviet Airborne Griefers Socialist Republic, comrade, and you are the self appointed commissar? Look, I do get it that you are a victim of these perpetrator types who have the audacity to try flying over your parcel. I just think the Force home feature you like is a bit very extreme but whatever, you have convinced me that everybody is out to get you and make your virtual life hell. Some of your arguments I think are weak in their justification for such an extreme but whatever, you seem to be a small minority who uses such an extreme measure and since I didn't see any 0 sec orbs on my latest travel, no need to worry that I might run into your place and become a victim of your protective scripts, so have at it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, Theresa Tennyson said: As we've gone over before, there is no definition of "tresspassing" in Second Life. If you try to apply real-world laws you then wreck on issues of notice, intent, and airspace use. You mean when you posted a link to some law site defining criminal trespass, claiming it supported your nonsense, without ACTUALLY bothering to read it, and I quoted it back at you section by section, refuting your nonsense. Then you claimed that because you live near some crop duster grade dirt landing strip, that meant pilots had a legal right to bump their landing gear wheels on peoples roofs. And I pointed out there are official Aviation Authorities who impose restrictions on overflight heights, and revoke the pilots licences of the criminals who violate those restrictions, and that LL has mandated an official overflight height of 5000m in SL That "train wreck" ? The one where you shot your own arguments down in flames like an unlicenced redneck crop duster trying to dodge the F-35's flying CAP over the White House? Hahahahaha. Another CLASSIC Fail-Argument from you there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Managing other Residents on your land You can exercise your rights as a Second Life landowner by restricting access to your property. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Managing other Residents on your land You can exercise your rights as a Second Life landowner by restricting access to your property. Yep, it's about that time. Now here's where I typically post this from the same Knowledge Base article: Script Use You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should: Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident. Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries). Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed. Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms. Now someone will post, "It says 'should', not 'must." This whole argument was taking place literally days before Linden Lab removed ban lines and set up limitations on orbs in Bellisseria. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: Yep, it's about that time. Now here's where I typically post this from the same Knowledge Base article: Script Use You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should: Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident. Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries). Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed. Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms. Typical SL waffling containing contradictory interpretations of what is allowed and then we wonder why there is so much controversy between residents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 20 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said: You mean when you posted a link to some law site defining criminal trespass, claiming it supported your nonsense, without ACTUALLY bothering to read it, and I quoted it back at you section by section, refuting your nonsense. What exactly did I claim? And a lot of your "refutations" were based on how people could see things that were invisible. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Anybody is free to ride all my SL cars on all my SL parking lots. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 58 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: should Now, if it had said MUST, then you'd have a rebuttal but...it doesn't. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said: removed ban lines and set up limitations on orbs in Bellisseria. Oops, missed that part and why many won't move to Belli. You can post all kinds of things from the knowledge base but until you can show us where it says We MUST allow a reasonable time, then your point is moot. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalificent Corvinus Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 27 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Now, if it had said MUST, then you'd have a rebuttal but...it doesn't. You know, I'm pretty sure Terry has tried this tack several times before in other threads, and lost the argument EVERY SINGLE TIME, because zero second orbs are NOT against the real rules, that apply on Mainland. Does anybody have a copy of the "Terry's tired failed arguments" checklist? We've had "unused airport spammers are richer than you", and "unlicienced crop-dusters can run their landing wheels across my roof", and "failed to read the definition of criminal trespass", and "should = must", and who could forget "touched a blade of grass with a toe". What's left on her list before she starts at the beginning again? Other than "over-entitled privacy hater and proud". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 The words ‘should’ and ‘must’ have entirely different meanings and can’t be used synonymously or interchangeably. You MUST agree to the ToS before joining not you SHOULD. LL is well aware of the meaning of words. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Persephone Emerald Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Woot! 10 pages, and it's not even the weekend! Thank you, @Gabriele Graves, for attempting to create a solution to this ongoing conflict between mainland property owners and mainland travelers. Thank you also to all those who are testing this product. Have fun in SL. 😊 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 50 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: Oops, missed that part and why many won't move to Belli. You can post all kinds of things from the knowledge base but until you can show us where it says We MUST allow a reasonable time, then your point is moot. The whole situation has been repeated so many times that I skipped my "triple-dare" line, which is: On 4/2/2019 at 6:55 PM, Theresa Tennyson said: Another aspect of reality is that if someone in authority "suggests" that you do/not do something and your reply is, "Well, you didn't say I must so who cares?" it's very likely that you'll find the same authority figure handing down a very clear rule - in no uncertain terms - that's often quite a bit more draconian than the "suggestion." 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theresa Tennyson Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 19 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said: The words ‘should’ and ‘must’ have entirely different meanings and can’t be used synonymously or interchangeably. You MUST agree to the ToS before joining not you SHOULD. LL is well aware of the meaning of words. https://www.lagressiere.com/legal-definition-of-should-understanding-the-legal-implications/ The legal definition of « should » in a contract implies an obligation or duty, but with some flexibility. It is not as stringent as « must » or « shall », but it still conveys a sense of expectation and responsibility. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 You must follow any covenant, if one is provided. You should be responsible for your own security, within the ToS. How'd I do? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan Amore Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said: it's very likely that you'll find the same authority figure handing down a very clear rule - in no uncertain terms - that's often quite a bit more draconian than the "suggestion." Yet, they haven't since 2019. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now