SL should have object decay

[Qie Niangao]

20 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

"I don't understand when normal people object to my requests to be allowed to subject them to Art-Griefing, where II fubar their graphics settings in the name of my attempts at bad art!"

 

Visual Griefing in the name of "Art" is still griefing, and people who do it should be banned, NOT pandered to with over-powered anti-features.

 

 

Yeah, well, stay off my lawn then.

[Rowan Amore]

14 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

Yeah, well, stay off my lawn then.

Honestly, that's all I'm asking.  I have a nice stone wall around my parcel with some guard mushrooms instead of a gate.  People can walk down the sidewalk, drive down the road and even wander partially into my parcel  because there's a generous easement between the sidewalk and my wall.  The easement is public land.   What I don't understand is why someone would think it's ok or even expected that they should have access to my personal space.  Cam in all you want.  Walk around the perimeter.  Park your butt right in front of my mushrooms.  But yeah, stay off MY lawn.

I also mentioned having a 15 second orb which allows people to fly over my tiny parcel with no problem.  They do it almost every day when I'm at home.  I have no problem with that. 

[Lexxi Gynoid]

On 6/11/2024 at 1:06 PM, Paul Hexem said:

Nailed it.

That's not correct.

It's also not really relevant to the definition of "abandoned".

Your inability to understand the word "abandoned" makes your idea unable to be implemented..

[Lexxi Gynoid]

On 6/11/2024 at 1:11 PM, Paul Hexem said:

There's a lot of grandfathered land from founder accounts and the like that haven't been touched in years that nobody is paying for.

Also, there are people that willing to pay for things they never use, for whatever reason. Those parcels are no less abandoned. A quick look at last login dates confirms it pretty easily.

You are wrong and confused.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

1 minute ago, Rowan Amore said:

I have no problem with that. 

I USED to have no problem with that, until that thread 25 months ago, when I got sick and tired of Codex saying he has more rights to my land than I do, and Qie saying that the lsl script commands for getting rid of trash should be nefed to comply with vehicle vagrant over-entitlement, and that as a Mainlander, I was obviously TOO STUPID to notice that when I punt kicked some trash off MY lawn, they a) didn't get kicked for 15 seconds and B) didn't go away.

 

Put simply, @Codex Alpha and @Qie Niangao convinced me during that 37 page thread, that tollerance was no longer an option, and that I should install a Slaughter & Carnage Inc "Destroy ALL Enemies" Zero Second Punt-N-Ban-The-Trash Securi-Max Orb.

 

[Cristiano Midnight]

39 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The initial OP said "decay" which says to me a build or object that loses definition and substance over time to a point it is overgrown by vegetation. In Virtual i see the best way at present is for it to become increasingly transparent until one sees the original grass underneath. Another solution could be that the build or object textures are increasingly replaces by a vegetative one but not sure if that is workable. 

In any case the OP never said to return initially until others were trying to argue that it is what was meant. I never understood the OP to mean "return". But whatever, more of us now understand what he did mean so lets quit harping on what others thought was meant and go with what he did say in his opening post.

We have to take the entirety of what he said into account. In games with object decay, the build eventually has to be replaced. It doesn't magically become invisible. You have to repair or replace the build in most cases. If the goal was to just make things invisible, he should have just said that. Object decay also has a specific meaning when it comes to games.

[Codex Alpha]

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

What I don't understand is why someone would think it's ok or even expected that they should have access to my personal space.  Cam in all you want.  Walk around the perimeter.  Park your butt right in front of my mushrooms.  But yeah, stay off MY lawn.

Not one person has made the 'demand' to have access to your personal space.

The weird thing is, how you don't want people to access your place (I don't call flying through or over accessing your personal space) yet you're okay with them camming in.

I think camming in by anyone is a bit more aggressive and perhaps 'creepy' and more of an invasion of space and close to 'criminal' or at least 'deviant' trespassing if they do that lol.

Edited June 18 by Codex Alpha

[Codex Alpha]

8 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I USED to have no problem with that, until that thread 25 months ago, when I got sick and tired of Codex saying he has more rights to my land than I do, and Qie saying that the lsl script commands for getting rid of trash should be nefed to comply with vehicle vagrant over-entitlement, and that as a Mainlander, I was obviously TOO STUPID to notice that when I punt kicked some trash off MY lawn, they a) didn't get kicked for 15 seconds and B) didn't go away.

 

Put simply, @Codex Alpha and @Qie Niangao convinced me during that 37 page thread, that tollerance was no longer an option, and that I should install a Slaughter & Carnage Inc "Destroy ALL Enemies" Zero Second Punt-N-Ban-The-Trash Securi-Max Orb.

 

I guess when you create a strawman out of thin air, a position I never held, an argument I never made (nor anyone else) , then it validates your continued abuse and reactions and 'insta banning' of people you've never even met inworld on this parcel you speak of.

You'd think you would be satisfied that you have banned anyone you dislike and disagree with from your private parcel - yet here you are years later railing about the strawmans you created, causing yourself all sorts of mental trauma over time.

Edited June 18 by Codex Alpha

[Cristiano Midnight]

8 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I guess when you create a strawman out of thin air, a position I never held, an argument I never made (nor anyone else) , then it validates your continued abuse and reactions and 'insta banning' of people you've never even met inworld on this parcel you speak of.

You'd think you would be satisfied that you have banned anyone you dislike and disagree with from your private parcel - yet here you are years later railing about the strawmans you created, causing yourself all sorts of mental trauma over time.

They really need to add strawman to the filters here. FFS, get a better argument.

[Codex Alpha]

2 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

They really need to add strawman to the filters here. FFS, get a better argument.

Ask that of those who keep resorting to such things when they post about most things. Believe me it gets really really old saying "No that is not my position" over and over.

Edited June 18 by Codex Alpha

[Cristiano Midnight]

1 minute ago, Codex Alpha said:

Ask that of those who keep resorting to such things when they post about most things. Believe me it gets really really old saying "No that is not my position" over and over.

That is fine to say that is not your position. I have just seen the word strawman used (mostly misused) enough in this thread that if I never see the word again it will be too freaking soon.

[Codex Alpha]

3 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

That is fine to say that is not your position. I have just seen the word strawman used (mostly misused) enough in this thread that if I never see the word again it will be too freaking soon.

Its the most popular tactic here though: Just do it and then perhaps the target will get all defensive, whereby there is blood in the water and all the sharks can come to feed. I don't know why I respond sometimes - like you have said - I must be a sucker for punishment, because nothing about that is going to change around here.

[Cristiano Midnight]

3 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Its the most popular tactic here though: Just do it and then perhaps the target will get all defensive, whereby there is blood in the water and all the sharks can come to feed. I don't know why I respond sometimes - like you have said - I must be a sucker for punishment, because nothing about that is going to change around here.

LOL I barely post here and I have felt shellshocked after 3 threads basically, two of which got closed. I don't know how you do it long term.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

2 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

I guess when you create a strawman out of thin air, a position I never held

25 Months ago, in that 37 page thread, you specifically stated that by allowing people like me, to prevent YOU from entering our private residential parcels on mainland, parcels you FRRAUDULENTLY described and STILL describe as "public access", by allowing us to keep YOU out of our homes, LL was "reducing the service you were paying for".

 

A FRAUDULENT claim that NOT being allowed to engage in criminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment of home owners, some how meant LL were cheating you of the "right to trespass" that was inherent in you being "premium" while completely disregarding the fact that many if not most of the home owners were also premium.

 

You also repeatedly said that you had NO intention of denying homeowners "privacy" but insisted that they be denied privacy for 15-30 seconds, on multiple occasions, as you also stated that you were  opposed to "insta-bans", claiming that privacy hating griefer trash should only be banned from a parcel after several offences.

 

You kept referring to Homeowners having to suffer the unwelcome presence of privacy hating griefer trash again and again and again as "a fair and reasonable compromise" despite there being NO compromise there at all, a Everything you want, the right to trespass, and NOTHING the home owners wanted, privacy.

 

You also repeatedly claimed you'd NEVER seen a justification for a Zero second Orb.

 

Luckily, I can solve that last problem for you here and now.

 

Amount of time YOU spend in consideration of the idea that you have NO right to be on MY land against MY wishes, and deciding NOT to engage in ciminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment. ZERO SECONDS.

Amount of time my orb spends in consideration of the idea that you shouldn't be punt-kicked back to your "place" and insta-banned to prevent you re-offending on my land ever again. ZERO SECONDS.

This is what I call a "fair and reasonable compromise".

Where's the compromise I hear you cry?

If I had it all my own way, instead of settling for a less than perfect outcome, after your 3rd Abuse Reported ToS Violating Harassment offence, LL would just delete your damn account as a known griefer.

 

17 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

causing yourself all sorts of trauma over time

The only one here with "trauma" seems to be YOU, constantly trying to claim rights you don't have on land you don't own, and using all kinds of inane strawman arguments to justify your inane claims.

"But... But... In the course of trespassing on 20 homes, I discovered a store from 2006 selling awful prim crap, that II wouldn't otherwise have known about, this justifies all 20 counts of criminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment!"

 

 

[Codex Alpha]

4 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

25 Months ago, in that 37 page thread, you specifically stated that by allowing people like me, to prevent YOU from entering our private residential parcels on mainland, parcels you FRRAUDULENTLY described and STILL describe as "public access", by allowing us to keep YOU out of our homes, LL was "reducing the service you were paying for".

 

A FRAUDULENT claim that NOT being allowed to engage in criminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment of home owners, some how meant LL were cheating you of the "right to trespass" that was inherent in you being "premium" while completely disregarding the fact that many if not most of the home owners were also premium.

 

You also repeatedly said that you had NO intention of denying homeowners "privacy" but insisted that they be denied privacy for 15-30 seconds, on multiple occasions, as you also stated that you were  opposed to "insta-bans", claiming that privacy hating griefer trash should only be banned from a parcel after several offences.

 

You kept referring to Homeowners having to suffer the unwelcome presence of privacy hating griefer trash again and again and again as "a fair and reasonable compromise" despite there being NO compromise there at all, a Everything you want, the right to trespass, and NOTHING the home owners wanted, privacy.

 

You also repeatedly claimed you'd NEVER seen a justification for a Zero second Orb.

 

Luckily, I can solve that last problem for you here and now.

 

Amount of time YOU spend in consideration of the idea that you have NO right to be on MY land against MY wishes, and deciding NOT to engage in ciminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment. ZERO SECONDS.

Amount of time my orb spends in consideration of the idea that you shouldn't be punt-kicked back to your "place" and insta-banned to prevent you re-offending on my land ever again. ZERO SECONDS.

This is what I call a "fair and reasonable compromise".

Where's the compromise I hear you cry?

If I had it all my own way, instead of settling for a less than perfect outcome, after your 3rd Abuse Reported ToS Violating Harassment offence, LL would just delete your damn account as a known griefer.

 

The only one here with "trauma" seems to be YOU, constantly trying to claim rights you don't have on land you don't own, and using all kinds of inane strawman arguments to justify your inane claims.

"But... But... In the course of trespassing on 20 homes, I discovered a store from 2006 selling awful prim crap, that II wouldn't otherwise have known about, this justifies all 20 counts of criminal trespass with intent to commit ToS violating harassment!"

 

 

Hahahhahahha, wow dude. Please seek therapy.

Edited June 18 by Codex Alpha

[Zalificent Corvinus]

13 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

it gets really really old saying "No that is not my position" over and over

Problem is nobody believes you because it IS your position, and is well documented by the public record of your posts going back years.

25 Months ago, a thread about "1 second orbs", 37 pages, you made a real reputation for your self with your posts, on multiple pages.

[Cristiano Midnight]

We do need a drinking game for every time the S word is used.

[Codex Alpha]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

Problem is nobody believes you because it IS your position, and is well documented by the public record of your posts going back years.

25 Months ago, a thread about "1 second orbs", 37 pages, you made a real reputation for your self with your posts, on multiple pages.

There's no way to fix that conversational mess, especially with people like  you, twisting everything anyone says into some monstrosity that suits their own bent perception.

[Cristiano Midnight]

Question - what do one second orbs do that banlines do not? I have admittedly never used either. I have encountered a few when out sailing and accidentally crossed into water that was in the open waterway but part of someone's parcel and got instantly sent back home. That did piss me off.

[Codex Alpha]

3 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

Question - what do one second orbs do that banlines do not? I have admittedly never used either. I have encountered a few when out sailing and accidentally crossed into water that was in the open waterway but part of someone's parcel and got instantly sent back home. That did piss me off.

And THAT was literally the gist of my post (albeit being land based travel), made in frustration when it happened too many times, going about my normal and expected (as an average user would expect) flying travels in mainland. It's only some individuals that turned it into some strange thing, as can easily be observed.

Edited June 18 by Codex Alpha

[Ramen Jedburgh]

I am really wondering what constitutes "Criminal TOS Breaking harassment" that happens in 30 seconds to create such a massive hatred towards having anything but a massive strict security system.

 

Esp cially that it apparently happens/happened constantly?

Edited June 18 by Ramen Jedburgh

[Love Zhaoying]

45 minutes ago, Lexxi Gynoid said:

On 6/11/2024 at 1:06 PM, Paul Hexem said:

Nailed it.

That's not correct.

It's also not really relevant to the definition of "abandoned".

Your inability to understand the word "abandoned" makes your idea unable to be implemented..

 

44 minutes ago, Lexxi Gynoid said:

On 6/11/2024 at 1:11 PM, Paul Hexem said:

There's a lot of grandfathered land from founder accounts and the like that haven't been touched in years that nobody is paying for.

Also, there are people that willing to pay for things they never use, for whatever reason. Those parcels are no less abandoned. A quick look at last login dates confirms it pretty easily.

You are wrong and confused.

I agree 100%. In Second Life, "Abandoned" means you "gave up" your land - you "gave it back to LL", and you "no longer have ownership".   Those parcels which are "actually abandoned" by the definition used in Second Life SHOULD (so far as I know) be empty of objects (unless LL's setting for those parcels allows objects to be rezzed / left there).  When you "abandon land", all your objects are returned.

Hopefully I got SOME of that right.

 

[Codex Alpha]

14 minutes ago, Ramen Jedburgh said:

I am really wondering what constitutes "Criminal TOS Breaking harassment" that happens in 30 seconds to create such a massive hatred towards having anything but a massive strict security system.

 

Esp cially that it apparently happens/happened constantly?

It's just an accusation that Zal levels at his target (may not be me personally, I've never been to his parcel) but he sure likes to rage at me as if its personal.

27 minutes ago, Cristiano Midnight said:

LOL I barely post here and I have felt shellshocked after 3 threads basically, two of which got closed. I don't know how you do it long term.

  

Sometimes I just don't want to stand for it. Overall though, since nothing ever gets solved - ultimately I'm the idiot for wasting my time on it (and other topics) , and it can have negative consequences on my outlook of SL as a result.

Edited June 18 by Codex Alpha

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Ramen Jedburgh said:

I am really wondering what constitutes "Criminal TOS Breaking harassment" that happens in 30 seconds to create such a massive hatred towards having anything but a massive strict security system.

 

Esp cially that it apparently happens/happened constantly?

It doesn't really matter, so long as the security system isn't against the covenant of the land, you can do what you want with security systems on your land. 🙂

We've had lots of threads about this in the past, with a focus on "Zero-Second Orbs". ("At least give some warning!")

 

Edited June 18 by Love Zhaoying

[Rowan Amore]

44 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

Not one person has made that 'demand'. Of course there will be some users who will create this as a strawman, and use it against someone else.

The weird thing is, how you don't want people to access your place (I don't call flying through or over accessing your personal space) yet you're okay with them camming in.

I think camming in by anyone is a bit more aggressive and perhaps 'creepy' and more of an invasion of space and close to 'criminal' or at least 'deviant' trespassing if they do that lol.

You kind of did when you said...

1 hour ago, Codex Alpha said:

That's why we have people using and justifying extreme measures to get that 'privacy' while simultaneously trying to exist on public-access mainland areas, or calling for measures such as the OP to derender neighbours and their alleged 'ugly builds'... because they don't want to pay what they should, to get the result they want.

When the answer for these people is to purchase an actual 'private' region, and I also suggested to LL in the past to move to such regions (similar to Sansar worlds), where they are not a member of a contiguous experience, but a world that only 'spins up' with a visitor.

LL allows quite a lot, actually - more in some places where the TOS is probably being encroached on, or people's actions on 'public access' mainlands may hamper the enjoyment of the average user.

I'm kind of got one foot in this topic, and another topic on Zero Orbs, but they're kind of related, and the solutions could apply to both.

To have the individual parcel not even rendered, depending on the settings of the user, or specific parcel 'renter' - so no ban lines needed, no interrupting security orbs.. for all intents and purposes the parcel does not exist to the outside world.

You call people out for having security on their PRIVATE land by saying we're trying to exist on PUBLIC-ACCESS.  As if my lawn is public access simple because it's on mainland.  Kind of demanding that it be made public.  

People can cam in all they want  but they won't see me.  Why would that bother me?  I have parcel privacy turned ON.  They might know I'm there but that's it.

Edited June 18 by Rowan Amore