Gabriele Graves

I wouldn't have used the word "right" but it seemed to me like you were meaning "is it allowed" by what recommendations were stated in that article. Not sure what you mean by what recourse I would have because I wouldn't have used the word "right" as it is confusing to some who use that word by itself to mean "inalienable right" such as a human right when it can in fact be a "granted right". Of course even with human rights, the recourse you have may not exist depending on who is doing the violating and where so I would say there is no guaranteed recourse for any right at all.

Please don't leave the low hanging fruit, I'll only pick it

I was referring to other land owners on mainland such as people who don't own their own parcels but rent them. They have to follow the rules of their landlord as well. If I had meant LL I would have said Estate Owner. Alrighty then. Glad I could clear that up for you

Here is the topic where Patch effectively banned zero-second orbs for Bellisseria. He doesn't mention anywhere else though, hmmm what can we deduce from this? If 15-seconds was already the expected minimum for everywhere, I'm sure he would have mentioned that.

In the case of LL being the land owner, it is still just the ToS/CS and Covenants (again not applicable). If these were rules then why wouldn't they put them in a covenant? They did in Bellisseria. However, OK let's indulge you here. Even if those are rules, and I disagree that they are, then all a zero second orb owner would have to do is send out a message right before ejecting/tping you home. Then they could claim, this is "adequate warning". When things like "adequate" aren't defined properly (adequate to do what? or adequate in amount of seconds?) then how can anyone say what is or is not adequate. I would say that if these are indeed rules, then considering that nobody seems to be able to successfully AR zero-second orbs on mainland that adequate warning is being given and they are in compliance. So "Yes" to your original question, these "rules" do allow it, one way or another. In addition, why would the Bellisseria covenant have to spell out "no zero-second orbs" if these were enforceable "rules" and must already be obeyed on LL estates? The entire knowledge base article only mentions mainland exactly once, when specifically referring to transferring mainland parcels. So does this mean that these "rules" are applied to estates as well? So no zero-second orbs on private estates without "adequate warning"? Even by the estate owner? Are we sure about this? Further, why would LL have to have even specifically have banned them on Bellisseria? Weren't they already illegal according to these "rules"? Wasn't that enough? Clearly not! The orb announcement and addition of it to the covenant happened a long time after Bellisseria was up and running. I had already had taken a home and given it up by that time. So by mere deduction Watson, we can tell that on mainland where there isn't a covenant, the things contained in the Bellisserian covenant are not applicable. All of this doesn't present a compelling argument for that article being anything than it seems, a set of recommendations or guidelines.

Don't take my word for it, AR a zero-second orb and see if it gets removed. Unless LL intends that article is meant to be taken as a recommendation then it contradicts their own statements that only ToS/CS, Covenants (not applicable to mainland) and land owner rules are the only rules residents must follow.

http://www.differencebetween.net/language/grammar-language/difference-between-should-and-must/ Summary: “Must” represents more of an obligation while “should” represents a probability or recommendation.

It is because I can read and understand the words.

Heh, we must be in one of the ever-spiraling circles of hell on this topic.

It's doesn't even refer to an orb at that point in the article - it just says "you cannot use land ownership". It could be referring to blocking public land with objects anchored on the land you own.

OK, fair enough but it was difficult to know that you weren't referring to the specific case in point and when applied to this specific case, falls down significantly.

This has all been has hashed out before and debunked. Should != Must, it is a set of guidelines only. Further it is not in the ToS/CS, it is on a Knowledge base article where it isn't reasonable to expect anyone to go and dig it out for something that is an actual enforceable rule. Bad form from LL and misleading but it isn't saying what you think it is. I suggest you try to AR a zero-second orb on mainland and see how sticky that "rule" is.

I said "entitlement", I didn't mention "rights" and no your mis-characterisation is incorrect. However, you are "entitled" to it so I hope you enjoy it You forgot to mention of course that the "I" and "You" in this case do not have even close to equal standing over the thing at issue. Hmmm, how very convenient.

Isn't there a difference between paid-for entitlements and entitlements people make up?

You're right, I don't really have much idea about gaming but it doesn't seem like I fit the description of a gamer at all. I would have thought if there were things that would have any chance of appealing that I would have discovered them even accidentally by now because surely their marketing is better than LL's right? and I found my way here. Perhaps the problem is discovering them then. I'll admit that I maybe I don't know how to discover them. I suspect that it is extremely difficult to discover what combination of games would scratch the same itch that has grown from SL without buying and playing many things that have no interest to me. Perhaps but when what you see isn't grabbing your interest and you cannot find any movie you like the idea of watching, what would you do? I don't disagree with any of this at all. That is not what I said or meant at all, far from it. If I came across as fatalistic in any way then it was unintentional. I was just being realistic about the likely outcome re: moving to another platform, game, virtual world, whatever. In all likelihood I wouldn't be involved online in any 3D environments unless I stumbled across something in the future that gives me that same feeling that I get from SL. It just doesn't seem likely and that would be totally fine. It wouldn't be a calamity for me and I do believe that some things only work for a particular time and duration, especially the happenstance things in life. Yes I will find new interests and entertainments for sure, no worries there at all. What I really meant is that I would spend that SL time on my RL interests and pursuits instead. I'm not the kind of person to leave holes in my life. I expect my partner would find a use for the computer even I'm not using it much even if just for spare parts or perhaps I would give it to a relative/friend who's kid is into gaming. It isn't a big deal for me. However, when I read all that back it does seem like a funeral speech and it really isn't meant as such. I hope we aren't at the SL funeral stage just yet or even nearly but I guess we won't know until it is upon us. The TLDR version is really, "if SL shuts, I'll most likely spend more time and money in RL and not seek out another SL replacement. Life will go on, nobody dies because of it but unfortunately no-one will be able to have anybody's stuffs either, including their own. The End."

I truly do feel for Tonya in making a mistake buying her parcel thinking access was assured and discovering it isn't. I have done that myself and it is annoying. I was annoyed with myself. I definitely grew wiser after my mistake and checked everything from that point on. I have owned many different types of land in many parts of the mainland over the years and those earlier times, I definitely bought some lemons. That said, I only had myself to blame, it is simple enough to check even though it is simple enough to forget to check. Tonya has had a lot of luck having the goodwill of the land owner in her case, no doubt about it. Nobody though, nobody has bought the expectation of anything with regards to a non-public parcel on mainland unless they have bought the actual parcel concerned. Not one close by, the actual parcel. If the expectation was valid then a resident in Tonya's situation could simply AR the owner of the land at issue or open a ticket to explain to LL about their expectations, get LL to change the parcel and possibly punish the land owner. Everyone in this conversation knows that they would get no traction doing that and so fundamentally no matter what anyone says here, everyone really knows the expectation is bogus.

I'm not a gamer in any sense of the word, never have been and have never really seen the appeal. I don't even play LL games in SL, just not interested. I stumbled into SL by accident really. What grabbed me initially was the open world aspect. Yes, I fell for the branding of it being a "Second Life" as well but it really seemed from my naive perspective to deliver that. Even back in 2007 SL was so flexible there was examples of almost everything a person could conceive of, even if it was done poorly. I didn't care, I had nothing to compare it to. Now it does many things far better than it ever did back then. Not all improvements came from SL itself though. When I started my computer was a potato, I barely got 5fps, now unless I am at a heavily loaded region, I generally get at least 30fps and in a lot of cases 60+. Obviously I have better hardware now which copes way better than it did before and I can honestly say that the performance I enjoy is as good as I need it to be. It took a high end PC with a good graphics card and world-class speed internet to achieve but it is there finally for me. If SL goes, I''ll not be forced to a game or metadvertverse however technically impressive. I just don't think I would find the same appeal and nothing I can see comes close to the essence of SL. I would already have a presence at that something else if there was anything that remotely interested me. So most likely, that would be it for me and virtual worlds.

Social conventions are not nearly as universal or absolute as people seem to think. Not everyone identifies with any particular community or society as such and individually minded people will pick and choose what if any social conventions they agree with and want to live by. Allowing peeing in a pool is up to the pool owner of course. If the pool belongs to the person who wants to pee in it and it's for their use only, should a social convention really stand in their way? No of course not. Should they worry about what the community thinks about them doing so along with appropriate tutting or pearl clutching? Not unless they want to. If a group of people who are into pool peeing should buy a pool for their group to engage in their kink, should they have to worry about social convention? Again, no. That said, if a person wants to participate with a community, they should observe their conventions. Should they want that, it would be strange if they didn't. I don't consider just owning land in the same area as a community on mainland as automatically being part of that community or wanting to participate however and there are many reasons for selecting that particular place.

The problem is that nobody, not LL or anyone else is going to make a "better" SL for all the important aspects of SL, partially because nobody can agree on what is important. They would make something different. LL did that and it failed with the current user base, so they pivoted and said it wasn't aimed at SL users but very few users materialised. Would you rather have lost SL as well? Why do you stay instead of going to a technically better place? I would guess because SL gives you something that you cannot find anywhere else. It does that for a lot of people (still) in a lot of different ways and therein lies it's fragility and it's indefinable qualities. If LL cannot reasonably find a way to upgrade SL incrementally and still preserve the fundamentals that keep people here as well as attracting new users, then the only recourse is to keep it going for as long as feasible and then abandon it. It would be incredibly sad but that may indeed be the inevitable outcome. All things have their time.

I'm torn on this one. On one hand I like the idea of changing things to improve performance and user experience and don't mind if that breaks some things to get that done. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to have to completely start again content-wise. Incrementally being moved along is bearable simply because not everything is gone all at once and we have had this previously in many forms, script changes, lighting differences, body/head changes, clothing, etc. Logging in one day to find you no longer have any inventory, that your land and builds are gone and you are now sporting the latest incarnation of a default avatar would simply be unacceptable to me. Just a thought: If LL had decided to "upgrade" SL by rapidly ripping out, modernising and replacing wholesale parts of it to turn it into Sansar which in turn meant starting again from scratch content-wise instead of what they did and should SL-Sansar have sunk as the actual Sansar did then there would be no original SL left today either. I am grateful they took the approach they did personally. I still very much hope there is still a lot of scope to improve a lot of SL incrementally with a good amount of content preservation along the way. I think that LL need to be more proactive on deciding what level of hardware they consider to be the minimum requirements taking performance and the difficulty of supporting aging of hardware into account, document those requirements properly and keep them up-to-date.

The same thing has happened at Nautilus City, much of the land is now in the hands of large scale rental companies.

I'm sorry, it wasn't obvious to me that you were being deliberately absurd about "secrets", fair enough. I still think that seclusion is a mis-characterisation though but I didn't realise you were trying to find a better term, also fair enough.

I know you didn't and I didn't say you did. There seems to be the sentiment in this topic however that all should have to participate. Criticism is fine as long as people are fine that it might be met with indifference. This too does not make a bad person.

Then people should be free to move in but not participate.

No I certainly don't. It's great that people are benevolent, I totally applaud it and think it is a wonderful gift. I participate in it myself and my lands are open because I choose that option. No, the issue is with the expectation that has arisen that all people have to choose that option. They don't and it doesn't make someone a bad person, it's that simple.