Aethelwine

A society that is enforced is not a society I would want to be a part of.

Do you think the problem is the majority of people in SL are benevolent? Because that seems to be what you are saying whilst using loaded words.

The irony is explorers wouldn't be straying on to parcels along rivers (apart from region crossing lag) if it wasn't for the vast majority of landowners along such routes having either no security at all or clearly marking where they do with walls or with buoys. The "sense of "entitlement" you talk about, is learnt from the experience of travelling, it is a learned expectation based on experience. The "explorers" include the majority of landowners and their friends along the same routes making the most of their investment and the premium they have paid for their land. I know you intended it as hyperbole but If no explorer ever entered other peoples land there would never have been an East River Community, no Campbell Coast, no Chelsea Hotel, no River walk etc etc. Mainland would lose much of its meaning.

Why shouldn't explorers complain? Complaining has : psychological value through process of venting, it also brings about communication that can be informative and provide useful insights (eg finding out about how to use mini-map to find protected routes) and finally constructive complaining to the landowner can affect a change in their rules that resolves the issue. Continual complaining has negatives as well of course. It can create negativity, over emphasize problems, prevents dialogue and can be psychologically damaging.

There is an SL provided wind, but it is mostly just used for animating flags as it changes randomly from region to region. Sail boats in SL use an emulated wind created by scripts that give physical motion to the boats and Sails. The main systems in use are derived from Tako, bwind, Zephi or WWC. Most recently Lalia has created a new GLW wind system released at the recent Expo. They provide a framework for the way the wind works, that the boat scripts translate in to motion and effects on the Sails.

A couple of the other owners along the route have been offering to buy up my parcels to extend their control of it. If you can leave off selling until later today I can give you their names so you can see if you can get a deal with them.

The area in question has land values about a fifth of what you would get with protected open water access. The difference between 40,000L$ and 200,000L$ considerable, it reflects the risk but is also a lot higher than you would otherwise pay.

You still seem to be missing the context of this thread. Let me bring you back to an earlier post: This directly relates to the situation outlined by Tonya in the OP. imagine a waterway maintained by 10 private landlords. They each own water parcels that allows access through them. Some of them have paid considerably more than the going rate for the parcel based upon the collective understanding that there is a shared incentive to keep the waterway open. That is why the land is higher value than it would otherwise be. Now imagine one of the parcels is now up for grabs. The question to consider is what should you do? A) Should you buy the land for well over the normal asking price and then block the channel? B) Should you buy the land at whatever cost is showing and block the channel? C) Suppose you spot it is available for free, you guess maybe they are inexpertly trying to transfer it to an alt but you can seize this opportunity and grab it and then put up your banlines. Surely none of those options are things anyone should do. They can do it of course, but the issue isn't whether they can, the issue is should they? Even if you answer they shouldn't to just one of them, then the point is made. There is more to what someone should do than a consideration of what they can do.

Your suspicions fortunately entirely wrong. The route the thread is about is entirely through private parcels about 10 of them and has been open for 5 years or more. There are other routes on mainland through private parcels like at Argybargy and Phenywheny. Those going through there regularly are not on any ban lists as a result, the majority of landowners on protected waterway understand the benefits of allowing access.

I am not sure if Neve\Coldlogic still support Isis but if you search their marketplace page for Isis there is lots to choose from (744 demos).

Full bright Flexi hair, tail and accessories, rainbow pawticles, lots of bling and glow and circling people going through my old sinewave dances. SL used to be so much fun !!

I tried to do that on a survey methods course, but I got caught out. The tutors seem to think surveys are better completed by other people pffft

I am still hopeful there will be a connection higher up later at Atanua that is not so dependent on the goodwill of landlords to be reliably navigable in all boats. Stromberg is great but Atanua would be great with sparkles and a cherry on top.

I think it is sufficiently clear I am speaking for myself. My very first words "For me" seem more than adequate to convey that. Where I say But Sailors at the end it is merely me expressing my view they should be free to have their dialogue, that they should be open to challenge but that it should essentially be respectful if it is to be constructive.

For me ethics\morality is the way with live our lives we do things we ought to do and sometimes what we shouldn't. We make moral\ethical judgments all the time. We do so on the basis of the principles we live our lives by. I have explained one of my principles is the principle of reciprocity, it is far from unusual. It does have an application in the situation as described in that we should treat others as we would want to be treated ourselves. If someone transgresses that principle by using your waterway but denying you access to theirs then they aren't reciprocating. I will make a moral judgment. I am not going to go waving pitchforks around about it, but if asked for my opinion I will give it. If I am bored I will follow a forum thread and contribute. I am not saying they are thieves or murderers or breaking any of Linden Labs laws, I am saying they are breaking the moral principle of reciprocity. That it is something they shouldn't do. I really don't get why you react so strongly to that. You can't deny me my principles, just as I can't yours. Nor can I deny your reaction. I don't want to upset anyone. I just don't get the extreme reaction. People should and are free to express themselves. You or Sylvia might not like people describing a situation where a parcel is set up in a way that looks like it might even be open for rezzing, that has security measures on it a trap. No one is saying that it is done intentionally, that someone is sat there logging the people snared on it and laughing at them. They are simply using the words available to them to describe the situation as they see it. Saying you don't like it is one thing but the reaction goes beyond that into worrying because it denying people their self expression, denies them their reality. But you are of course entitled to your opinion. Maybe it has something to do with me using the language of ethics and morality differently to you? But I can't think of any other way to explain what I am saying. Without people giving value statements there is no shoulds or shouldn'ts to be said. Of course, a sailor caught up in a banline should shrug it off, tut to themselves brush themselves down and go find another rezz zone. The landowner has every right to set their security as they wish. No one ever denies this, or at least not for long. But sailors have a right to vent as well, To look at the problems discuss them even say some stupid things. People have a right to point out mistakes give the other perspective. That dialogue is healthy and promotes understanding, it might even come to some conclusions and suggestions, but much of this thread seems like a confusing mess of people putting words into other peoples mouths, tilting at windmills and over reacting and now accusing me of sockpuppeting. That isn't healthy.

That is on page 5 of an 8 page thread ! Is it not confusing to make a comment about that in terms of "Nobody is" relating just to page 5 onwards without clarifying that is what you meant? Especially when a significant part of that seems to be anger directed at me for using moral and ethical in the way they are used by the people that are authorities on the subject !

Why assume obtuseness? Your reaction was my initial thought too, such that in response I said "I don't think your answer surprising, or different from my own." Her point doesn't seem related to anything said before and not in disagreement with anything I have said. But it does appear from context and subsequent reactions she is asserting something different and it is intended to be in contrast or contradictory to something I have said. Which would appear to be Persephone's initial interpretation as well.

If you are talking about Diamond's post on the first page then that seems to me to be simply stating a few points. I don't actually see anyone reacting to that. I may be missing something but I didn't actually see anything contentious written there. The thread went off on a wild tangent with the assertion of landowner rights being above question and then a pile on of indignation at travellers demanding rights of passage that no one at least in this thread actually had.

Language seems to create confusion sometimes. When people talk about Trespassing for example, my immediate thoughts are about the mass trespass in the 1930s (I think) local to me that led to the opening up of public spaces. Trespass since then has been a right (limited but still a right and a valued one). Others probably have very different associations. For others it is about their space being invaded. The same word, same derivation of meaning but very different reactions. This song is one result of the Trespass movement:

This entire thread seems to have gone that way since the 4th post.

The first post is about a landowner finding their land blocked by their neighbours actions. They spoke with their neighbour and they corrected the issue making the obstruction phantom (3rd post). At the other end of the route I spoke with the landowner there and they made a correction to their privacy settings. They told me they had set them temporarily. All this reaction comes from the fourth post with someone asserting that if the land owner can do it then that is all there is to it. Something out of context to the thread. Maybe you are thinking about another thread? and may be that is why the discussion seems so strange?

When I use Ethics\Morality my reference points are Aristotle, Kant, Schopenhauer, Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir etc. Not Lawyers or Priests! When Kant wrote his "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" one of the most important works on Ethics, he isn't writing about personal beliefs and upbringing ! he is creating a groundwork for the study of ethics. I have quoted Britannica discussion on the topic that comes to the same conclusion, as I have. Wikipedia's page on Ethics starts with "Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch." So far as I can see the words Ethics and Morality have the same meaning and the same for the people famous for writing on the topics. You have a very different understanding that comes from somewhere else and I am not saying you are wrong to use the words in a different way, but please understand. I am using the words in the way I am for a good reason, to be clear about what I mean using the conceptual framework that I work with.

I am totally lost on what you are saying. First definition I see: Virtue behaviour showing high moral standards. Why keep trying to make distinctions they are all the same thing Also why not answer my example I gave on the previous page it directly relates to the situation in the thread?

I am using the language most familiar to me, to try to communicate accurately and in a measured way. It does seem to be failing, but the words I am using have the meanings I am giving to them. The objections to what I say seem to come from misunderstanding rather than anything I have said. I am all for people having rights to use zero second orbs to protect their private spaces. The points I am making are simply those I have expressed, not those that seem to be being given to me.

Nice describes an ethical value.