SL should have object decay

[Ramen Jedburgh]

18 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Unless you hit their security orb

Well, that's another issue entirely.  As are ban lines.  I kind of wish instead of ban lines it just showed an empty parcel you could pass though, and no one in or outside interacted.

 

Basically, instancing like MMOs use a lot.

Edited June 17 by Ramen Jedburgh

[Arielle Popstar]

3 hours ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

When I was out of SL mostly for 10 years, I still had land that I have owned since 2003 that I continued to pay for. 

Though I think object decay or an increasing transparency would be a good idea for older builds where the owner is awol, I realize it would never be considered because absentee owners are worth too much to the SL's economic health. They are the perfect resident by never logging in, never using resources, likely never complaining, never needing support, just quietly paying the land fees until the next month.

The Lab likely wishes we were all like that! That is probably the only reason why the Lindens would never consider the idea.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 hour ago, Ramen Jedburgh said:

I kind of wish instead

I just wish privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants would lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in, instead of demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass, but that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses.

 

[Codex Alpha]

7 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I just wish privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants would lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in, instead of demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass, but that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses.

 

This phrase contains several logical fallacies and negative language:

1. Name Calling: "Privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants" is a derogatory term used to insult and belittle the opposing side. This type of language is not constructive and does not contribute to a respectful discussion.
2. Strawman Argument: The phrase "demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass" is a misrepresentation of the opposing side's argument. It is likely that they are not advocating for criminal trespass but rather for a different perspective on the issue.
3. Appeal to Consequences: The phrase "that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses" is an appeal to consequences. It implies that the opposing side's argument is invalid because they have lost in previous discussions, rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself.
4. Ad Hominem Attack: The phrase "your side always loses" is an ad hominem attack, as it targets the person or group rather than addressing the argument itself.
5. False Dichotomy: The phrase "lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in" presents a false dichotomy by implying that there are only two options: either avoid certain areas or engage in criminal trespass. This ignores the possibility of finding alternative solutions or compromises.
6. Emotional Appeal: The use of strong language and negative terms like "privacy hating" and "criminal trespass" is an emotional appeal, aiming to evoke a negative response rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

Overall, this phrase is more focused on insulting and belittling the opposing side rather than engaging in a constructive and respectful discussion.

- Perplexity AI  LOL

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

This phrase contains several logical fallacies and negative language:

1. Name Calling: "Privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants" is a derogatory term used to insult and belittle the opposing side. This type of language is not constructive and does not contribute to a respectful discussion.
2. Strawman Argument: The phrase "demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass" is a misrepresentation of the opposing side's argument. It is likely that they are not advocating for criminal trespass but rather for a different perspective on the issue.
3. Appeal to Consequences: The phrase "that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses" is an appeal to consequences. It implies that the opposing side's argument is invalid because they have lost in previous discussions, rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself.
4. Ad Hominem Attack: The phrase "your side always loses" is an ad hominem attack, as it targets the person or group rather than addressing the argument itself.
5. False Dichotomy: The phrase "lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in" presents a false dichotomy by implying that there are only two options: either avoid certain areas or engage in criminal trespass. This ignores the possibility of finding alternative solutions or compromises.
6. Emotional Appeal: The use of strong language and negative terms like "privacy hating" and "criminal trespass" is an emotional appeal, aiming to evoke a negative response rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

Overall, this phrase is more focused on insulting and belittling the opposing side rather than engaging in a constructive and respectful discussion.

- Perplexity AI  LOL

Good job! Now, just provide a good argument yourself! 🙂

 

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

This phrase contains several logical fallacies and negative language:

1. Name Calling: "Privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants" is a derogatory term used to insult and belittle the opposing side. This type of language is not constructive and does not contribute to a respectful discussion.
2. Strawman Argument: The phrase "demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass" is a misrepresentation of the opposing side's argument. It is likely that they are not advocating for criminal trespass but rather for a different perspective on the issue.
3. Appeal to Consequences: The phrase "that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses" is an appeal to consequences. It implies that the opposing side's argument is invalid because they have lost in previous discussions, rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself.
4. Ad Hominem Attack: The phrase "your side always loses" is an ad hominem attack, as it targets the person or group rather than addressing the argument itself.
5. False Dichotomy: The phrase "lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in" presents a false dichotomy by implying that there are only two options: either avoid certain areas or engage in criminal trespass. This ignores the possibility of finding alternative solutions or compromises.
6. Emotional Appeal: The use of strong language and negative terms like "privacy hating" and "criminal trespass" is an emotional appeal, aiming to evoke a negative response rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

Overall, this phrase is more focused on insulting and belittling the opposing side rather than engaging in a constructive and respectful discussion.

- Perplexity AI  LOL

If the poster didn't have all those to fall back on, there would no argument at all and silence would reign in many threads! The SL forums would whither and die.

[Ramen Jedburgh]

16 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I just wish privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants would lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in, instead of demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass, but that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses.

 

Unless you are using a special HUD, you don't always know when ban lines are until you are right on top of them.

 

And you definitely don't know when some 10 seconds security orb nonsense is going to happen.

 

Most of the time, parcels are empty anyway, generally speaking, no one is there it invade anyone's privacy, they are often just passing through.  This is especially bad with people who own water throughway properly then block it off with some BS fake land.

 

Often when a vehicle contacts ban lines, the whole thing basically gets jacked up and you can't back up and go around or anything.  You have to exit, which often means the vehicle is returned, which is a pain.

 

I also wonder how many people have ban lines on by mistake because of I remember right, checking "group access" creates ban lines EVEN IF you also have public access on.

 

Ban lines in general are just incredibly annoying. 

[Codex Alpha]

1 minute ago, Ramen Jedburgh said:

Unless you are using a special HUD, you don't always know when ban lines are until you are right on top of them.

 

And you definitely don't know when some 10 seconds security orb nonsense is going to happen.

 

Most of the time, parcels are empty anyway, generally speaking, no one is there it invade anyone's privacy, they are often just passing through.  This is especially bad with people who own water throughway properly then block it off with some BS fake land.

 

Often when a vehicle contacts ban lines, the whole thing basically gets jacked up and you can't back up and go around or anything.  You have to exit, which often means the vehicle is returned, which is a pain.

 

I also wonder how many people have ban lines on by mistake because of I remember right, checking "group access" creates ban lines EVEN IF you also have public access on.

 

Ban lines in general are just incredibly annoying. 

Don't argue that here, it's off topic, seek out a topic that I posted? Not sure, about security orbs

[Rowan Amore]

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Good job! Now, just provide a good argument yourself! 🙂

 

There isn't one so...

[Zalificent Corvinus]

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

"Privacy hating over-entitled vehicle vagrants" is a derogatory term used to insult and belittle the opposing side. This type of language is not constructive and does not contribute to a respectful discussion.

There is NO "respectful discussion", THEY think they have more rights on land I pay for than I do, they are wrong..

They think they have a right to trespass, they are still wrong.

 

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

The phrase "demanding the right to engage in criminal trespass" is a misrepresentation of the opposing side's argument. It is likely that they are not advocating for criminal trespass but rather for a different perspective on the issue.

The only "perspective they are arguing for is that they begiven the "right" to trespass where they are unwanted, unneeded, uninvited, unauthorised, and unwelcome. They demand this "right" despite knowing land owners don't want them on the land, that's intent to commit ToS violating harassment, and criminal trespass.

 

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

The phrase "that fights a different 50 threads, where your side always loses" is an appeal to consequences. It implies that the opposing side's argument is invalid because they have lost in previous discussions, rather than addressing the merits of the argument itself.

There arguments HAVE NO MERIT, as the only argument they have is "Because I want to invade your privacy", and they DO lose every single argument, that's EVER been held on these forums. THAT is why Banlines and orbs still exist, and why they STILL get punted and banned as they deserve.

 

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

The phrase "your side always loses" is an ad hominem attack, as it targets the person or group rather than addressing the argument itself.

They don't have an argument to address other than "because I want to trespass" and their side DOES always lose. Get over it.

 

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

The phrase "lean to steer AROUND parcels they are unwelcome in" presents a false dichotomy by implying that there are only two options: either avoid certain areas or engage in criminal trespass. This ignores the possibility of finding alternative solutions or compromises.

Here is the compromise. YOU don't trespass in my parcel, MY orb won't punt kick and ban you. Amount of time you spend considering NOT trespassing, ZERO seconds, amount of time my orb spends considering NOT punt kicking your over-entitled trespasser ass, ZERO seconds.

I believe this to be what YOU once referred to as "a fair and reasonable compromise".

 

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

The use of strong language and negative terms like "privacy hating" and "criminal trespass" is an emotional appeal, aiming to evoke a negative response rather than engaging in a rational discussion.

No, those are accurate descriptions. Criminal trespass is what they commit, when they trespass with ill intent on land they know they are unwelcome on, and privacy-hating is why they do it.

 

47 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

rather than engaging in a constructive and respectful discussion.

Respectful discussion goes like this.

Me. "you're not welcome in my SL home, stay out"

Them. "OK sorry, we won't do it again"

 

34 minutes ago, Ramen Jedburgh said:

Most of the time, parcels are empty anyway, generally speaking, no one is there it invade anyone's privacy, they are often just passing through.

Typical privacy-hater garbage. "It's ok to break to peoples homes if they are out!". WRONG, Criminal trespass doesn't depend on the owner being home.

 

34 minutes ago, Ramen Jedburgh said:

This is especially bad with people who own water throughway properly then block it off with some BS fake land.

If it's privately owned water, it's not "a throughway" it's privately owned water, and your use of it if any is conditional on the owners whim, get over it.

 

 

Edited June 17 by Zalificent Corvinus

[Zalificent Corvinus]

50 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ad Hominem Attack: The phrase "your side always loses" is an ad hominem attack, as it targets the person or group rather than addressing the argument itself.

Side Note.

It's not an Ad Hominem, if I stated that somebody always loses an argument because they had an IIQ score comparable to an EU shoe size number, THAT would be an Ad Hominem, simply stating that the side that always loses, always loses, is NOT an Ad Hominem.

 

If you are going to play the Worthless Liberal Arts Academia Debate society Made-Up Victories card, you should at least take the time to ACTUALLY learn what the made up terminology actually is supposed to mean.

 

And you constantly harp on about the "importance" of clear understanding of the meaning of words.

Laughable.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

18 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Side Note

Still waiting for a pic of your place to determine if it is even worth trespassing on!

Edited June 17 by Arielle Popstar

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Still waiting for a pic pf your place to determine if it is even worth trespassing on!

Thee are pics of my place on these forums already, if you missed them, tough luck.

And you can't trespass, you'd find your self facing a 5km high wall of banline. Tough luck again.

 

[Rick Nightingale]

1 hour ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

If it's privately owned water, it's not "a throughway" it's privately owned water, and your use of it if any is conditional on the owners whim, get over it.

As much as I like SL sailing, and hate getting stuck by built-on private water, ban lines projecting out from the shoreline and boot-yer-ass-back-home orbs... that is absolute correct. It's privately owned water just the as the sky above them is privately owned sky.

The only correct argument is with LL: why doesn't LL provide more protected, navigable zones off the shore, past where private parcels can be owned? Or a free fly altitude where ToS states anyone may pass, but not be able to move above or below into private parcels and have no avatar visibility even when passing through that parcel? (I've occasionally laid awake at night thinking what I would do if I could redesign SL, 😁)

The owners in some places (at least used to) allow passage because they were all sailors. Nice of them but not in any way to be expected of them (unless in the rental terms or something). When I owned a mainland plot next to navigable water (one side navigable, another protected beach - lucky me!) I had a functional, rising bridgeway that would open automatically if anyone came sailing into my area, to allow passage from one side to the other.

--------------------------------------

Back to the Object Decay... only way I would ever possibly agree to that is if it was strongly opt-IN, not in any way opt-out. No problem if people want that happening to them. [Ponders writing a programmed decay system...]

Edited June 17 by Rick Nightingale

[Roxy Couturier]

6 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

I made the discussion here, instead of as a feature request, because I actually agree that it wouldn't work in SL without being heavily modified. Theoretically the discussion would have been on the modifications.

The modifications needed would be exactly why this nightmare fuel will never see the light of day.

This makes a TON of unnecessary work for the Lab. Not only in coding, but in admin of the oversight needed.

Additionally, it breaches LL's own rules regarding account disclosure. It's none of anyone's business of when a land owner last logged on. Nor is the business of anyone to know how any land is paid for.

This 'system' would allow stalkers to harass their victims more easily.

Oh and the 'it adds to the server load' is utter nonsense. Old prim builds will have smaller textures, almost immediate rezzing to anyones viewer. They're certainly less lag inducing than a lot of mesh builds.

Any scripts (which cause the most server stress) only spin up on demand. Since they aren't being used they don't drag on the server.

Finally, DERENDER (something already available) solves the problem you're having with 'old builds'. Again, this is the feature you should be asking for in the SL viewer.

 

[Coffee Pancake]

The reason no one has opted in by scripting something is ..

 

~~ No one wants that ~~

[Luna Bliss]

5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The reason no one has opted in by scripting something is ..

 

~~ No one wants that ~~

Well...one person is pretending they do...does that count?

[Roxy Couturier]

5 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

we need a ban on breedables 😂

I thought you were a breedable..

 

ohhhh.. i see..

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The reason no one has opted in by scripting something is ..

 

~~ No one wants that ~~

The irony is, LL is an EXPERT as doing things noone wants!

[Love Zhaoying]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well...one person is pretending they do...does that count?

When you look at their entire argument..maybe?

I still don't see why the options aren't sufficient to 1) move to another parcel, 2) derender, 3) stop whining already for the sake of everything that's holy!

I think I had a different option #3, and even an option #4, but it's buried somewhere probably in page 14 or so.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

I thought you were a breedable..

 

ohhhh.. i see..

I have so many inappropriate responses.

Good job!

[lovestofu]

Ban lines should not be allowed for waterfront or roadside parcels on mainland.

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

11 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well...one person is pretending they do...does that count?

When you look at their entire argument..maybe?

I still don't see why the options aren't sufficient to 1) move to another parcel, 2) derender, 3) stop whining already for the sake of everything that's holy!

I think I had a different option #3, and even an option #4, but it's buried somewhere probably in page 14 or so.

I'm basing my opinion on the OP's comments about private property going back over 10 years or more, which seem very contradictory to these new concerns.

[Rowan Amore]

19 minutes ago, lovestofu said:

Ban lines should not be allowed for waterfront or roadside parcels on mainland.

I have road on 2 sides.  My orb works just fine and extends higher than 50m.  Of course, ban lines just bounce you off.  My orb shoots you to the corner of the region.  Good times!  😁

[Arielle Popstar]

46 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think I had a different option #3, and even an option #4, but it's buried somewhere probably in page 14 or so.

Where they made of straw by chance and got blown away? 🌬️