Aethelwine

Drake1 Nightfire wrote: Basically what all the anti-orb people in this thread are say is, you want to dictate to me what i do with my land. My land.. That i pay for. I have my orb set to 30 seconds and it only goes 40 meters up. I STILL get between 5-10 offline messages that someone has been ejected daily. Often it's two people at the same time. So tell me, why should i open my land up to strangers to bump pixels on? They show up when i'm there too. Just walk on the land and into my house while i'm sitting there building, watching a movie or chatting with a friend.They hop on the furniture and start going through poses before the orb kicks them. Then i get the IM caling me names. But it's MY fault you can't enjoy SL, right? Yes, anti-orb people want to restrict orbs using 10 second or less timers, or in the case of this thread, 30 seconds. No need for you to complain and get dramatic about it since you already have those settings. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should. Just like if someone moved next to you and made their parcel a home for their 30 alt bot accounts, you would not be too happy. Or if they put up group entry only and the view you paid for is now spoilt by flashing yellow lines on one side, or they put up some other form of offensve build. Or they made their land a sandbox. Particles from their emitters spill across your land, or someone wearing a "defence hud" is wandering around inside your private orb protected space, because they can and they know it will irritate you. Living on mainland is about living as part of a community, it requires respect for your neighbours for it to work properly. Otherwise the investment, which could be in the 100s of thousands of Linden dollars is devalued by a factor of ten because of the anti-social jerk that moved in next door. The suggestions made about orbs and banlines on this and other threads, do indeed restrict options for landowners, but the benefits to themselves and others far outweigh what is lost. Not least because it goes some way to protecting landowners own investments in the land.

Christhiana wrote: Ok, let's have a look at this from the landowners perspective..... I have a small parcel at a corner of two intersecting linden waterways in the heterocera lower delta. I have a security orb installed but have it set to passive and I even have object entry turned on. So everyone with a vehicle can fly over and sail through my land. All to often when I am building, one of them so called 'explorers' comes racing through the builds on my parcel in a speedboat that's too big and fast to be controlled on the narrow waterways of the lower delta. Sometimes they just park their boat in the middle of whatever I'm building try to start a conversation and then leave the boat in the middle of my build and teleport away again. I have had the same happen with flying vehicles in my skybox. I've logged onto second life many a times only to find another helicopter stuck in my skybox. Personally I can live with this and don't see it as a reason to set my orb to eject people or disable object entry for my parcel. But I can imagine a landowner can get really fed up with this and decide to lock anyone out of their parcel. Eventually I will be putting a shop on my piece of land and you can bet I'll disable object entry then. I don't want to log onto SL only to find that a boat is stuck in half of my vendors for the past few hours. Let alone open myself up to a griefer attack! The lower delta is one of the most difficult places to explore. The protected waterways are often at angles, there are lots of banlines, it is very easy to lose your boat on a sim crossing. Often when you do, if your passenger is still on the boat they will see you still at the helm, whilst you see your self in the corner of a sim underwater or flying through the air. If they stay on the boat then it gives the person that was doing the steering time to see if they can recover their avatar, perhaps doing one or two relogs and then getting a teleport from the passenger to get back. If the person is sailing or flying alone, then getting back to find their vehicle is often almost impossible it could anywhere several sims in any direction from where you last saw it. For the land owner, setting object return at 5 minutes is the best setting, for the most part it will tidy up litter from their land, clear up griefer garbage. One exception to that is if they have group entry on (ie banlines) the vehicle will often get stuck between the two parcels. in that case the banlines have created the problem for the landowner.

If that was true then land values would be less next to waterways and roads.... but they aren't they are considerably higher value

He is not a slender chap, but neither is the Piggu avatar a muscleman. I think he looks adorable and I hope to start seeing more of him around the grid.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Wikipedia explains it better than my verbal fumbling... The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology Well Aeth, Wikipedia's explanation makes me wonder if Kierkegaard was just being fooled by his own neurochemistry. Timothy Leary's Marsh Chapel experiments with psilocybin, along with research on the effects of oxytocin and countless other experiments, suggest that love and spiritual awakenings are neurochemistry. We can't fault Kierkegaard for not knowing this, but that might color our understanding of his "understanding" of things. And this is why I am less than impressed by religion and philosophy. They both often explain things by just making stuff up. Science is a lot harder on itself. Until the language of Neurochemistry can evoke the same sort of emotional responses as poetry, it is missing out on some of the meaning. Its language and analysis incomplete. Its function and the type of information it conveys different.

Alwin Alcott wrote: Aethelwine wrote:. Linden Lab should think about changing the covenant for parcels in locations like that, but until they do the owners are entitled to do so, even if they hurt themselves and their neighbours. i can agree in that, but only if they lower the landfees, it's a bit strange to pay for the use when others use it, even for a minute. There would be no need to lower the land fees the people affected gain by seeing their land value increase. If they really need to exclude people then Linden Lab could offer an alternative location away from public route ways. Or ... they should make it possibe to raise the lines for paid acces up to 4096m ... passing allowed, after paying a little donation. I can't believe you are suggesting that, it has nothing much to do with the problem anyway. Most of the orbs and banlines that cause a problem aren't on land people want to be on, they find themselves lagged on to them after a crossing. Or because they have terraformed their land such that it looks like it is open, but then set up their orbs and banlines like a trap on it. oh and... people who tell here orbs should be off when a owner isn't there?... i don't mind people visiting when i'm at my parcel.. it's when i'm not there i lock it. I simply don't like it to log in again and find out one or other newb been playing with my objects. ...i have enough laundry, i don't need extra sheets 3 times a week... Do you delete a sofa after someone else has sat on it and replace it with a new one from the box???

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Aethelwine wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: Aethelwine wrote: An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition. Individuals only freely choose ultimate meaning if they have free will. I'm not convinced we do! And to believe in a God on your own terms just seems like a cop out to me. If I'm going to believe in a God on my own terms, I'm not going to believe in him at all (and I don't). I prefer not to set the terms, primarily because I don't know what the hell I'm doing. I'll let the evidence set the terms, which of course requires that I believe the evidence. I'm doomed. "on his own terms" was not really the right way of putting it... based on individual experience is more accurate. For Kierkergaard decisions based on evidence are scientific not religious. A religious experience is mystical, personal and requires doubt to be able to make the leap of faith to believing that is the essence of religion. Wikipedia explains it better than my verbal fumbling... The leap of faith is his conception of how an individual would believe in God or how a person would act in love. Faith is not a decision based on evidence that, say, certain beliefs about God are true or a certain person is worthy of love. No such evidence could ever be enough to completely justify the kind of total commitment involved in true religious faith or romantic love. Faith involves making that commitment anyway. Kierkegaard thought that to have faith is at the same time to have doubt. So, for example, for one to truly have faith in God, one would also have to doubt one's beliefs about God; the doubt is the rational part of a person's thought involved in weighing evidence, without which the faith would have no real substance. Someone who does not realize that Christian doctrine is inherently doubtful and that there can be no objective certainty about its truth does not have faith but is merely credulous. For example, it takes no faith to believe that a pencil or a table exists, when one is looking at it and touching it. In the same way, to believe or have faith in God is to know that one has no perceptual or any other access to God, and yet still has faith in God. Kierkegaard writes, "doubt is conquered by faith, just as it is faith which has brought doubt into the world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard#Philosophy_and_theology

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote: It is certainly true that there are lots of areas of study within philosophy and differing sides within each area, but no more so than science. But yes to bring the conversation back on topic, it is also well worth reading Wittgenstein's notion of "family resemblence" since he used the word "game" as the primary example of such a thing. Here is the text and you can find the discussion on page 19, paragraphs 65-71: http://danielwharris.com/teaching/394/WittgensteinInvestigations.pdf Here's also a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance Interesting and also the examples used of games, such as ring-a-ring-a-roses and throwing a ball against a wall and catching it are worth considering as examples of games that don't fit the narrow definitions that people wanting to argue SL is not a game would exclude as well.

Pamela Galli wrote: Aethelwine wrote: An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. Not necessarily. The individual freely chooses ultimate meaning, but is not necessarily himself the source. Kierkegaard was the first Existentialist, and chose to believe in the God of the Bible. He believed in God on his own terms though, certainly not based on those of the Church or tradition.

The last time I hit a banline at slow speed my boat bounced right up the side and across the top of it. I wish it did that everytime! Maybe a clever scripter could make a vehicle detect banlines and do that reliably? People using fast eject orbs and banlines at ground level around waterways and roads are devaluing their own property and those of their neighbours on the same route. Linden Lab should think about changing the covenant for parcels in locations like that, but until they do the owners are entitled to do so, even if they hurt themselves and their neighbours.

Perrie Juran wrote: (Not directed specifically to you Phil, just tagged out of convenience). Ever since Th3Unkn0wn necro'd and then deserted this thread I've been following the discussion. And I do wonder what the point of all this is, and especially why some folks are so insistent that SL is not a game. I do not consider SL a game though I acknowledge that there are some people who all they do is play games in SL. To me personally Second Life is simply a Virtual World. I log in and via my Avatar I interact with and have relationships with other individuals via their Avatars in the Second Life world. To me that is not a game. There doesn't need to be a point beyond the enjoyment of the dialectics of the debate. Whether that can be said to be a game or not is of course moot. But I would think the enjoyment of the discourse would make it a form of play.

Ilithios Liebknecht wrote: If philosophy was the same, we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies. One would be proven to be the most "logical." This simply isn't the case. Oh but this is very much the case with philosophy as much as it is with science. In philosophy, as with science, progress is constantly being made, older theories being discarded in favor of better ones. While, just like in science, there are often debates, people who follow philosophy don't hold all that wide a spectrum of beliefs. The problem truly arises when people use the term "philosophy" to mean something it does not mean. For example, you say "we wouldn't have people holding such a wide spectrum of different philosophies.' but this sentence makes no sense. There is no such thing as a philosophy. You would not say people hold a wide spectrum of sciences would you? No, because people don't have their own science just like people don't have their own philosophy. Science and philosophy are areas of study and their associated methods, not belief systems in and of themselves. People do, of course, say things like that, and in that case they are just using the word "philosophy" as a synonym for "belief" but that is no more related to the discipline of philosophy than a "bank" where you keep your money is related to the "bank" of a river. People are often unaware of the advances of philosophy because they are not well reported on, but they most certainly do exist and just because people are unaware of them and therefore believe ludicrous things anyway does not mean that philosophy is more loose; it means people aren't using it. You are both talking about Philosophy as if there is some common conception of it. But even a cursory knowledge of Philosophy reveals its subject areas remain debates with a multitude of sides and differing opinions. Even concepts of truth are debated and the words used by Philosophers often only apply within the context of that particular authors conceptions. For example, Noumenon in Kant is a different usage to Plato. An Existentialist view would hold that it is the individual that is the source of meaning, not culture or tradition. Perhaps when someone says SL is a game and someone else says it is not, there is in fact no actual disagreement, because they are both describing their own experiences not arguing that the other person is wrong, just that they have a different experience and relationship with the meaning they derive from the words game and play and the way they use Secondlife.

Phil Deakins wrote: Nalytha wrote: Pamela said she doesn't say she plays for a living. I've seen multiple SL documentaries where sellers explain how great it is that they can make money playing a video game. It's obviously, to some degree, subjective. Oh, there is no doubt that you are not alone is your error. We know that. Many people call SL a game. It's because it looks like a game, and many of them came from actual games that look like SL. It's not a difficult mistake for many people to make, but that's what it is - a mistake. Also, some sellers are having fun when they sell stuff (make money). I made a lot of money for years from SL and it was fun. Perhaps the sellers you refer to mistakenly think of having fun as playing a game. A bit like the way playing cards looks like a game such that people commonly talk about playing cards.... but they are of course wrong because playing cards are just the building blocks for games like Canasta, Bezique, Bridge, Solitaire and Poker? At what point though does common usage determine meaning? Is the usage in that kind of context now so common that by extension the usage of play and game extends not just to Cards but also to things like Lego, Meccano and virtual worlds like SimCity, or Secondlife?

Luxen wrote: Because if you explain at someone what is Pac-mac and your answer is it's a game : it's enough for him to understand. But to explain at someone that Secondlife is just a game: It's not enough to understand all the complexity that can be a virtual world as Secondlife. So the word "Game" is just too restrictive and Secondlife cannot be considered as just a "Game" for this reason. If it was the question of this Topic. Pac-man is more than just a game, it is an exhibit in the Museum of Modern Art and has been at the Smithsonian Art Gallery as part of an exhibition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_in_the_Museum_of_Modern_Art https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Video_Games A game, but also on some level Art.

Before writing those two bodies off I would do some work on your shape. Those issues should be easily resolved since you can see where the proportions are off. A tool like this: https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Vitruvian-Man/3990909 or this https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Shape-Tools/1835986 can help alot. Making your shape proportionate is not hard.

Es posible que haya bloqueado a sí mismo . Suena tonto , pero he hecho lo mismo . Alternativamente, usted puede simplemente estar en una zona con secuencias de comandos deshabilitadas. Para obtener asistencia adicional , es probable encontrar más respuesta en la sección de habla española del foro. Estoy usando Google Traductor. https://community.secondlife.com/t5/Foro-en-espa%C3%B1ol/bd-p/SpanishForum

I would think contacting support would be the way to go.. https://support.secondlife.com/create-case/

What matters is what they rezz. If they put out something offensive then they are abusing hospitality, if on the other hand they are having a picnic... then that is great

The comparison between rl and sl doesn't always apply though. In SL someone using my land and homes causes no problems comparable with real life and I actually like to see people on my land when I visit, I have met lots of nice people that way. The same is not true of rl. Settings by default are set for rezzing off. I shouldn't and have never set up a sign to advertise that is intentional and not an accident

I think I would wear one of ChinRey's jelly baby outfits, so it looks like I have really made an effort.

My tier doesn't go up if some one squats my land. The only thing that could be said to be taken from me is the few seconds it takes to return them. People can set the permissions on their parcels however they want they can have their ban lines and they can have free rezz and no auto return. That is their right. But both are anti-social because of the impacts on their neighbours

You hopefully won't need to know, but learning how to ban people, explain how to mute people are basic security functions I would expect you to need. How that works will depend on how the land is set up, and what rights you have, whether you will need to use an orb to do it or whether you can do it directly. You need to discuss that with the owner. Also changing the radio, setting music streams for Djs I would have thought would be required or useful.

Maybe retexture this, with the texture removed from the shoulder pieces, https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/fuayu-Margo6color-Reis-Stuff-Chest-verOPEN-ME/9173573 and add some flexi prims, like from this kit to create the effect of the flowing back here... https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Passion4Fashion-Flexi-skirts-gowns-kit-I/3830531 Not sure it will work great, but it is maybe worth a try if your heart is set on it.

I save my outfit every time I get changed, and try to remember to save adjustments to my shape for the next outfit with save as, so i can easily go back if I prefer the previous look. With an inventory over 130,000 and no issues I have noticed to having such a large inventory a few additional shortcuts in my inventory makes no difference at all. It is a useful feature and i am surprised that not everyone uses it.

Or for an alternative view they are providing a service to the community by using up the prims on land that has been left free rezz without auto return limiting the possibilities for griefing from the parcel.