Gabriele Graves

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.

Here's a thought, maybe the people who want a society should move to a place where they *can* enforce it?

Sorry but the words I paraphrased are pretty much the text book definition of entitlement as in "you feel entitled". Substitute "expectation" if you want but it doesn't mean anything different. What else could it reasonably be called? There it is again "expectation". Don't give me the holding society together BS. Are we "expecting" estate owners also to give up access permissions for the good of society? I mean noobs also try to teleport and travel on those where they don't have access and presumably then logout for good when they can't according to some. There are societies on mainland but mainland itself is not a single society nor do all areas even have society. Any society that exists is due to the agreement of those present only. If a person moves in and restricts their land and that isn't what the other land owners want then clearly not all land owners agree anymore. That's just a shame and tough luck but sometimes life is a little harsh, even a virtual one.

So, let me paraphrase. Due to the good will and generosity of some people, a sense of entitlement has grown that this benevolence should be expected always and so all people should have to do likewise because of that. This is what some of us has been saying from the start and that is exactly the issue.

Again with the loaded language, a person doesn't necessarily need to "keep secrets" just because they don't want random people showing up. We have a new user problem because of many things. Ban-lines and orbs aren't likely to be biggest issue with that. It's not like there is a dearth of accessible places. One of the biggest complaints isn't that aren't accessible places to go, it's that there aren't enough people at those places.

No it isn't. It doesn't make it so just because you declare it so. Seclusion is another one of those loaded words. If someone has lots of parties, invites over all their friends and frequently socialises at their land but limits it to the people they invite then they are not secluded, they are selective. Your comparisons to SLB are irrelevant because they are not comparable.

Not everyone who puts up ban-lines or uses an orb is looking for seclusion either. It seems that this mis-characterisation is also very prevalent but is just as false. Why is it inconceivable that some people might want to get their land using their Premium membership, not have to deal with estate landlords, someone who wants the visual continuity of mainland at ground level and wants to see and use the public roads and waterways themselves but still not want random visitors? These people exist and why should they, even conceptually, have to be forced into skyboxes or forced to deal with an estate just because some other people have different notions of how mainland should be?

I'm not missing the context of anything and never was. I suggest it is the other way around.

This is hardly the fault of land owner. If you care passionately about it, open a JIRA and ask LL to make changes to make this data available to the viewer earlier. I am sure your neighbours and others appreciate you did this. However it doesn't make anyone a bad neighbour if they don't choose your approach and decide to block access over their land instead. It's this kind of polarising attitude that is a huge part of the problem. If when you say "take the heat" you mean "coming to the forum to gripe about it" anyone is free to do that but if you're suggesting that people should expect threats or abuse of any kind for blocking their land then those "giving the heat" or normalising that behaviour are the ones who are way out of line. It doesn't make someone unfriendly just because they decide to block access over their land just like it doesn't mean that someone is unfriendly because they decide to lock their gate in RL. They have their reasons. In addition, not everyone considers ban lines to be obnoxious. I would rather encounter ban lines than an orb personally. I can at least edit my boat back into accessible land and there is a good chance that it will still work OK. Sure they get to complain, anyone can complain even if it isn't justified, a fact this very topic itself proves. Nobody has to take any measures for the convenience of anyone else even if others such as yourself feel they should have to. Characterising people who don't do things the way you want as bad, unfriendly, unneighbourly etc. is just wrong. You can disagree all you like but it's still wrong. All the loaded words in these complaints make it seem way worse than it could ever possibly be. It's obvious this is the very purpose of using them. It blows it all out of proportion and makes it seem like there some substance to it all when in fact it's hardly a serious issue at all, it's minutiae. Bottom line is that there are easier places to choose to sail without any of these issues where anyone can travel for many regions on open water. If a person chooses places where there is private land and there could be restrictions, then they should expect that their sailing may not be trouble free. If they want easy then they should make the easy choice, if they want a challenge then they can choose the challenging choice. It's not rocket science and if a person chooses the challenging option, they only have themselves to blame if if it, in fact, challenging.

You're beating a dead horse. I suspect everyone is fully aware of where you are coming from. It's just that some of us at least don't share your beliefs or point of view on this topic. You are not the moral or ethical authority over anyone but yourself. In addition, please don't speak for all sailors. This sailor is not there venting with you. , 'K Thx

Clearly we see different things. Going down this path isn't productive.

The person who to my post responded only quoted my post and Rowan's post from today. They weren't confused.

Again, nope. There is only one post as I described and only one gap in posting of 4 days. Here: https://community.secondlife.com/forums/topic/488616-security-orbs-and-navigable-waters/?do=findComment&comment=2482421

I was referring to the part of the discussion that followed when @diamond Marchant posted the picture of the protected channel. Nope, nothing I have posted in this thread was in reference to the OP or the discussion about that. There was a gap of 4 days and then the post by @diamond Marchant. That seemed to me to be an, albeit related, change of topic to me and everything I have posted in this topic has been in reference and only about the discussion that followed that.

I could be wrong but when I read that I took it to mean "It's unethical to deliberately enter someone's property without consent.". If @Rowan Amore didn't mean that, I am sure they will clarify. In principle it is unethical to enter if they don't want you there and you knowingly enter anyway. If you don't know and/or you enter by mistake, then it isn't unethical. This doesn't seem terribly difficult to grasp to me so I have to assume that this is more in the being obtuse, semantics and point scoring category than it is a genuine interest in wanting to understand.

Nobody is blaming the people who stray onto private land either. The blame is coming from some of those who are doing the straying and then coming to complain in a self-entitled way on the forums. If they simply said to themselves "Hey, ho that's just SL" and go on their merry way then there wouldn't be a problem.

If it seems to be failing, then perhaps, just perhaps you might be mistaken about some of those meanings.

There is much ducking and weaving in this discussion and yet strangely it's all about morals and ethics. Hmmm, interesting.

I find the enhanced minimap exceedingly useful personally, especially when traveling. Of course, being on Firestorm we have literally had it for years, presumably because it came from Catznip. I believe Firestorm is the most popular viewer by far, has been for years and so many users have will have had access to the enhanced minimap for years as well. It's not a new feature just because it just made it into the official viewer.

I tend to go slow and cam around a lot anyway. Perhaps it is more of an issue more for those wanting a "through the eyes" experience only. It is pleasant when others generously allow access but I don't take it for granted. I always cam ahead for any restrictions and it is rare that I don't see them in time. Usually only when I am not paying attention. In the scenario shown above, I would have simply stuck to the protected channel and cammed around. There isn't much water space on those private parcels before you get to the coastline anyway. So I guess my answer is that no, it wouldn't something I would sigh either way over personally. It seems to me to be more human nature to take generosity for granted and then expect even more generosity from others as a given. I'll be honest, you do come across that way to me on this topic. Invoking morals and religion didn't help. I would disagree, the word "trap" would indicate to me that there was a deliberate action to "trap" someone. That's why I use what I consider to be the better and more accurate term of "restriction".

Except for the really earliest days I started, my avatar has always been small. I've been 1.64m as measured by script and ~1.80m as measured by prim with flat bare feet and bald head for a long time now.

My fast typing is often my undoing as no matter how many times I proof-read it I generally have to edit the snot out of it after I post it

If it is encroaching over LL protected land then it deserves an AR. There's not excuse for building that kind of thing across a public waterway but as always it's up to LL in each circumstance. Sometimes they allow things like this in some cases.

I consider myself an experienced sailor inworld, not just a person who posts here. Not just a sailor but an experienced aviator and a road vehicle user as well. In fact my forum time is minuscule compared to the time I spend inworld. I have encountered ban lines and orbs a plenty in my time for all vehicle types. I just wouldn't make the kinds of assumptions that you and some others are doing here. Do I wander from LL protected areas onto private land, sure I do. What I don't do is blame the restrictions that I encounter on anything other than I decided to go onto private land. I made that choice. If I encounter restrictions, I either move to a better spot and start again or I finish that trip where I encountered the restriction. Can mainland be problematic for vehicles, sure but it isn't the huge deal that some people make it out to be. So people really need to put their grown up pants on and just deal with it in my opinion because it is crying about nothing much.

My opinion is that morality doesn't come into this at all, it is fallacious argument and one that is used in an attempt to make people feel that they are doing something wrong about exercising the valid choices they have available to them just because they don't suit other people. My further opinion is that this is poor form and is evidence of an off-kilter sense of entitlement. I don't have any tolerance or sympathy for that point of view at all. In the scenario that was presented above, it all seems crystal clear to me. If someone decides to sail in the waters over LL protected land then they can be sure that their journey will be unimpeded until that protected land stops. If they decide to sail instead over private land, which there was no need to in this case, just because some of it is open and can be navigated today does not follow that a) it will always be the case and b) that the whole of their journey will be unimpeded. It is an error to make the assumption that water navigation over private land will be and should be unimpeded. It is that error of assumption that should be corrected. Someone is able to navigate waters over private land only at the grace of the land owner(s) of that land, it is not a moral offense for them to prevent traversal in any way. There is no obligation, moral or otherwise to allow people through. Similarly, marking their waters is entirely up to them, there is no obligation for them to have to do so. If that doesn't suite, hard cheese.