SL should have object decay

[Kathlen Onyx]

So now you have a bunch of land with nothing on it scattered all over the mainland because if someone is paying for land they can't just take it away from them.

[Sammy Huntsman]

33 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

On the other hand, why should a person continue to affect a platform and the users of a platform that they're not using anymore? It's akin to saying "I don't want it anymore but no one else can have it".

How are people affecting the platform? You sure are snooty and think there should be some strict dictatorial standards on lands. Very akin to HOAs IRL. Why is that? 

[Paul Hexem]

20 minutes ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

How are people affecting the platform?

Look up the top 3 reasons people cite when they say they'll never buy mainland.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Paul Hexem said:

Look up the top 3 reasons people cite when they say they'll never buy mainland.

Okay still, but should that mean we punish paying customers cause you don't like how their parcel looks? 

[Rowan Amore]

To be fair though, a lot of ugly is newer.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

5 hours ago, Carolyn Zapedzki said:

I am just visiting there now, no lag at all for me either.

I would hate to see them disappear too, I like a touch of nostalgia. 

I'm there now too, lots of interesting stuff 😁

Land prices are outrageous though.

Edited June 13 by BilliJo Aldrin
added a line

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 hour ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I'm there now too, lots of interesting stuff 😁

Land prices are outrageous though.

I don't know, I just enjoy preserving history of SL. To show how far we have come. 

[Paul Hexem]

2 hours ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

paying customers

This keeps getting repeated despite several examples and situations where it's not true, and the fact that the parcels have been abandoned for decades seems to imply said examples are correct.

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Look up the top 3 reasons people cite when they say they'll never buy mainland.

This is your thread. If you want to make an argument for it then links help out a lot. No one is going looking for that information.

30 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said:

This keeps getting repeated despite several examples and situations where it's not true, and the fact that the parcels have been abandoned for decades seems to imply said examples are correct.

Did they pay for it at one time such as in "lifetime memberships" That would be the only reason I know of where land has been abandoned and the objects remain.  As far as the lifetime memberships, well they could be dead.  Hard to notify SL after that happens!

[BilliJo Aldrin]

4 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

On the other hand, why should a person continue to affect a platform and the users of a platform that they're not using anymore? It's akin to saying "I don't want it anymore but no one else can have it".

if they are paying for the property, they are contributing to the economy even if they never log in. Its still theirs. 

Im starting to wonder if you even own land.

Edited June 13 by BilliJo Aldrin
spelling

[BilliJo Aldrin]

3 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Look up the top 3 reasons people cite when they say they'll never buy mainland.

reason number 1: they have no say over what their neighbors do with their property 😂

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

if they are paying for the property, they are contributing to the economy even if they never log in. Its still theirs. 

Im starting to wonder if you even own land.

The discussion is getting confused here because we're talking both those who don't come around but still pay every month. We are also discussing those who latched onto a lifetime membership who never pay anything anymore. In both cases the issue is that they have seemingly abandoned their mainland parcel and left it i a state that is questionable and detracting from the general look of the area. In the real world they have zoning laws to protect against that which will result in a property being bulldozed. 

Having a parcel bulldozed if the owner has abandoned it and doesn't do anything on upkeep, is quite normal and should be a norm for virtual as it is in R/L.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

4 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Perhaps, but I'd argue that it's no worse than the selfish entitlement of wanting to hold back a platform you don't even use anymore.

That's a garbage argument, if I ever heard one.

 

"Oh I'm shocked and outraged that a 4096 parcel on a region on a different continent to my parcel, has a 10 yr old build, and it's owner hasn't logged in in 18 months, they are HOLDIING ME BACK! Ban them Daddy Linden, BAN THEM!"

 

Yeah sorry, the answer is still "Oh Hell No, your idea is not needed, by anyone, ever".

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

That's a garbage argument, if I ever heard one.

 

"Oh I'm shocked and outraged that a 4096 parcel on a region on a different continent to my parcel, has a 10 yr old build, and it's owner hasn't logged in in 18 months, they are HOLDIING ME BACK! Ban them Daddy Linden, BAN THEM!"

 

Yeah sorry, the answer is still "Oh Hell No, your idea is not needed, by anyone, ever".

Not asking for banning. That's you fave solution.

Answer here is to require some upkeep on the parcel and maybe even beautify the place for the betterment of the neighborhood and not let it devolve into a slum.

[Zalificent Corvinus]

18 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

In both cases the issue is that they have seemingly abandoned their mainland parcel and left it i a state that is questionable and detracting from the general look of the area. In the real world they have zoning laws to protect against that which will result in a property being bulldozed. 

Oh look, more dis-informational Anti-Property-Owner BS.

 

I've NEVER heard of anywhere that interprets "zoning laws" as "If you are away from the property for a few years, your toxic over-entitled neighbours are allowed to burn your house down and bulldoze the ruins".

That's NOT what "zoning laws" are, what they are is "You can't build a toxic waste processing plant in this residential only area".

 

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Answer here is to require some upkeep on the parcel and maybe even beautify the place for the betterment of the neighborhood and not let it devolve into a slum.

Define "beautify", some people think those concrete slab and corrugated metal STFU Hub things "look nice", II think they are deranged imbeciles, but they LIKE STFU Hubs.

 

So who gets to decide that a STFU Hub is making the region a "slum", or that it's "beautifying".?

Parcels don't NEED "upkeep" realistically, you do the build, you set the parcel settings to prevent random nomadic over-entitlement trash from littering the place, and it's done.

 

What you are suggesting is not "Zoning Laws", what you are suggesting is that garbage legislation that racist bigots used to STEAL land from Native Americans. If they don't "improve it" according to YOUR biased definition, you claim you have a right to steal it.

 

[Roxy Couturier]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Not asking for banning. That's you fave solution.

Answer here is to require some upkeep on the parcel and maybe even beautify the place for the betterment of the neighborhood and not let it devolve into a slum.

And whose aesthetic of 'beauty' is going to be used?

A dark, garbage strewn alley? Lollypop trees and rainbow roads? Murder hotel? Abandoned insane asylum? Emo-dark goth club done in (dark) red and black.. on black?

I had a friend that owned a mainland parcel for years. About 11 of those years she stayed out of SL completely. She still paid her tier though. I and others used that build. Even though it never changed and couldn't be added to. Just because the owner isn't around doesn't mean no one is using the property.

Again, if it ain't abandoned, it's being paid for. Period.

(oh and the 'improved' build next door was someone that built a multi-tiered rental with fugly bubble islands every 50M. What an improvement!!)

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

I've NEVER heard of anywhere that interprets "zoning laws" as "If you are away from the property for a few years, your toxic over-entitled neighbours are allowed to burn your house down and bulldoze the ruins".

That's NOT what "zoning laws" are, what they are is "You can't build a toxic waste processing plant in this residential only area".

Then I guess you don't live where I do. The grass getting too long on the front lawn is reason enough to get the township on one's back with the threat the town public works dept. will do it for an exorbitant rate that will be added to the annual taxes. The place gets run down in other ways will incur the same threat up to and including bulldozing.

There are other stipulations that prevent certain build and these are regulated and policed by the zoning and planning department. Much like the Lab does with that Bellserea place?

Quote

What you are suggesting is not "Zoning Laws", what you are suggesting is that garbage legislation that racist bigots used to STEAL land from Native Americans. If they don't "improve it" according to YOUR biased definition, you claim you have a right to steal it.

They can keep the bulldozed parcel. I at least don't want to steal it. I have more virtual land already then I know what to do with. By all means though, keep grasping.

[Arielle Popstar]

13 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

And whose aesthetic of 'beauty' is going to be used?

How about a committee? 

Quote

I had a friend that owned a mainland parcel for years. About 11 of those years she stayed out of SL completely. She still paid her tier though. I and others used that build. Even though it never changed and couldn't be added to. Just because the owner isn't around doesn't mean no one is using the property.

So a special case. I think the thread is about those abandoning parcels from people who might not realize they have it or are using it as a tax write off maybe? Why do people leave some ugly build up that they themselves won't even visit for years if ever again. Is SL that desperate for landowners and tenants?

[Roxy Couturier]

23 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

How about a committee?

 

[Arielle Popstar]

Instead of a bulldozer, a nuclear bomb might be the better solution for some sims

[Zalificent Corvinus]

45 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

By all means though, keep grasping.

The only one "grasping" here is you.

 

You are trying to claim that because you live in some barbaric hellhole where self appointed street fascists can piss down their neighbour's backs and tell them it's raining, that therefore SL should abolish parcel owner's rights to decide WHO enters their parcel, and to build on their land and not have it griefed by over-entitled privacy hating habitual criminal trespassers driving bulldozers.

 

Hard NO.

49 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I have more virtual land already then I know what to do with

Maybe you should stay on it, instead of trying to bully your way onto other peoples land and tell them what they can build there.

 

37 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I think the thread is about those abandoning parcels from people who might not realize they have it or are using it as a tax write off maybe?

If it's paid for, it's not "abandoned", it's "owned", and YOU have NO right to tell the "owner" what they can use it for, or who they can allow or disallow onto that "owned" land.

Your "rights" end at the parcel boundary, outside the line you can moan and whine all you want, inside the line, you have NO rights over that parcel. NONE.

 

Simple as that.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Zalificent Corvinus said:

You are trying to claim that because you live in some barbaric hellhole where self appointed street fascists can piss down their neighbour's backs and tell them it's raining, that therefore SL should abolish parcel owner's rights to decide WHO enters their parcel, and to build on their land and not have it griefed by over-entitled privacy hating habitual criminal trespassers driving bulldozers.

This thread is about abandoned parcels, not your pet peeve of people stepping on your boundaries. Had any new privacy hating habitual criminal trespassers come over lately driving bulldozers?

Quote

Maybe you should stay on it, instead of trying to bully your way onto other peoples land and tell them what they can build there.

Mostly I do. I rarely do the tourist thing. You don't strike me as the type either which makes me wonder why you care.

Quote

If it's paid for, it's not "abandoned", it's "owned", and YOU have NO right to tell the "owner" what they can use it for, or who they can allow or disallow onto that "owned" land.

Maybe the owner would thank those for informing them they are still paying for land they might not know they owned. You ever thought of that? I've heard mention there is a significant portion of landowners who pay for land they never visit. Knowing what I know about pre authorized payment plans, I can easily understand that to be the case. Some landowners depend on those sort of renters. Makes one wonder how much smaller SL would be if it wasn't for absentee renters.

Quote

Your "rights" end at the parcel boundary, outside the line you can moan and whine all you want, inside the line, you have NO rights over that parcel. NONE.

blah, blah, blah, some do like to carry on about privacy. This thread is not about that.

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

How about a committee? 

Why do you want people to govern, what people can and cannot do with their own land that they paid for? I don't want massive LL overreach on how I do up my land or even if I am taking a break for a couple of years. Especially if I pay for land, I want to come back to it the way it was. 

[Sammy Huntsman]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

This thread is about abandoned parcels, not your pet peeve of people stepping on your boundaries. Had any new privacy hating habitual criminal trespassers come over lately driving bulldozers?

No, if you read what the OP stated, he said he wants people who haven't been on for years or decades, to basically lose the land they PAY for. How is that fair? And we don't know why they left SL for an indeterminate amount of time. 

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Sammy Huntsman said:

Why do you want people to govern, what people can and cannot do with their own land that they paid for? I don't want massive LL overreach on how I do up my land or even if I am taking a break for a couple of years. Especially if I pay for land, I want to come back to it the way it was. 

Because SecondLife is made up of a community of residents. If it stops being a community, it stops attracting new people to be a part of it.