Aethelwine

It is people that use less than 10 second warning orbs that are a tiny minority. As are those that set up their Ban lines in such a way that they disrupt navigation. I can list the latter class of people on one hand. The SIM below Fudo being one of the worst examples. Tiny minorities that affect the land values and investments of all the linked land owners.

Land values say otherwise. People don't pay tens of L$ a m^2 for land without access to transport routes

Amethyst Jetaime wrote: It may seem simple to you but not to me. Your vision of that part of SL is a community of people that are free to travel the mainland by foot or vehicle without meeting obstrucitons like security. Other people's SL vision does not match yours. Some people want privacy at home for themselves and friends only. That doesn't make them anit social. Denying someone their vision by saying to move to a private estate, when they pay for premium membership is wrong. It is your vision and your SL. Difficulties instituting zoning may not be as difficult or distruptive as you say. They might develop special software and scripting calls for the mainland servers that would be used for the open zones, thus not disturbing the rest of SL. They've already demonstrated time again that No that is a poor characterisation of my vision. Infact I am quite open to enhanced security for land owners, more tools for hiding, for protecting designated areas are fine by me. The problems on mainland are specificaly the aggressive orbs that disrupt vehicles with no warning or justifiable reason (ie that cover a whole parcel and aren't just around builds), and the low level banlines set up on waterways next to protected waterways in such a way they become traps for vehicles. Both ot those are anti-social, it fits the definition perfectly. They disrupt the enjoyment of mainland for the majority of paying land owners who are paying a premium to use those waterways and to go exploring. What I want is to relook at the way the system works so Mainland can better achieve what people as a whole want. Land owners and explorers alike. If the balance can be better achieved than now. Mainland will draw in and sustain ongoing interest and investment. The way money is spent and the way people make use of their orbs both indicate doing this would be something only a tiny minority might object to.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: Aethelwine wrote The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers. For LL, ignoring the issue and calling it a resident to resident dispute seems to be what they are going with. What is best for the explorers and what is best for the land owners has been laid out in this and many other threads already. These are at odds, obviously. What's best for SL? I honestly don't know. But it would need to work at every altitude and be applicable whether you owned 512sqm or 4 contiguous mainland sims. Right now, barring any other compelling reason, I tend to side with the Golden Rule; whoever pays the gold makes the rules. The current system of banlines works differently at different heights, so I don't see why any solution cannot also involve a similar formula. It is far from obvious the interests of explorers and land owners are at odds. As the survey indicates, as land prices indicate the interests of land owners and those of explorers are the same. The money that goes in to mainland is largely from people wanting to make use of the public access routes, the number of people using instant death orbs a tiny minority, mainland land owners are by a big majority explorers. As you and Emerald say who pays wins,,,, except that leads to the opposite conclusion to the one you are drawing.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: Theresa Tennyson wrote: Amethyst Jetaime wrote: Don't get me wrong. As a sailor myself, I agree it would be better for people not to use ban lines and security orbs unless it is absolutely needed to prevent griefers or harassment. However I defend the right of any land owner to use them because they pay for the land, not vehicle owners, and have the right (privilege, ability, whatever) to use them under the TOS. What part of the TOS allows a landowner to teleport someone without warning? What part of the TOS prevents a landowner for teleporting someone without warning? I don't think the TOS really matters, nor does whether the person payig for the land has paid because they can use an orb or not. The issue of interest is what set of rules, would work best for Linden Lab, for Second life, for owners and for explorers. Whilst some land owners on mainland appear to want to unseat and teleport vehicle users home without warning that pass over their parcel, they are a tiny minority (the Wiki article references a survey that establishes that - some time ago admittedly but I don't see any reason to think that situation has changed). The landowners use of the tools at their disposal in this way doesn't add as much if anything to their experience as it detracts from the majority that don't want their journeys disrupted by aggressive orbs. That really is quite simple. The difficulty lies in whether it is actually practicable in any way to effectively change the system for the collective benefit without also having other negative side effects. nerfing the script routines that orbs use might also prevent group roles being designated on group owned land with the ability to kick people causing problems. I am not a scripter, but I see that issue, the practical issue of whether a better system is possible as the barrier to resolving this. Not whether someone has paid or not, or what is or isn't currently in the TOS - I just don't see how those points have any relevance.

Phil Deakins wrote: I don't know why some people want to argue about the word 'right' in this context. A definition of the word (found by searching Google on the word 'rights') is 'a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something". When you pay tier to LL for a piece of land, you have a moral or legal entitlement to be on that land (unless LL says differently, by banning you, for instance); i.e. you have a right to be on it. You also have a moral or legal entitlement to prevent other users from being on or over the land, because that ability comes with the land; i.e. you have a right to do that. So 'right' is a correct word to describe those entitlements. I pay tier for some land (mainland), so I have the right to prevent other users from being on or over it. Users who want to fly over my land have no right whatsoever to do so. I don't follow your argument at all. You quote a definition that includes a moral right and then go on to seemingly ignore it. Rights are not just a matter of law. I have a Right to dignity, equal treatment, freedom from torture independent of the country and the judicial framework I find myself in. I may not be able to enforce the rights I claim but that does not mean I don't have them or can;t assert them. I don't know how property rights work in the USA, but in the UK where you are from as well, Property Rights are limited. There is in fact a duty of care for a land owner in the UK over how they treat trespassers. Trespass in the UK is not a criminal act, it falls under the civil law system. If it wasn't for people exercising their right of trespass, there would not be the freedoms we have today to enjoy our countryside. Do you know this song? Inspired by the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in the 1930s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_trespass_of_Kinder_Scout

Freya Mokusei wrote: I agree with all of this, except not knowing when vehicles were introduced - it was likely before private islands (but probably not landownership in general). Your example is a fine one to have set, but it's not a universal experience and there's no reason to assume that all vehicle users follow it. As a point of interest flying vehicles precede both private estates and land ownership. Land ownership as I understand it began with version 1.2 released December 22 2003, before that in November 2003 there was Zoe Airfield.  References: http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Abbotts_Aerodrome http://secondlife.wikia.com/wiki/Version_1.2.0

Ban lines only work up to about 70m not 770... The reason for that would seem to be to allow air traffic.. I don't see how that setting can be seen in any other way. The conundrum would seem to be that for parcels to be rented and protected from griefers there needs to be a way to instant eject them. With that functionality comes the ability to make instant eject orbs. If there is a way to accommodate privacy and a freedom to explore it is worth debating and implementing because it would revitalise mainland. As it is the areas sought after people are prepared to pay for are those with the best transport routes. Land values show what people want and are the key to the future success of mainland

wherorangi wrote: Perrie Juran wrote: I don't think the KB has the same force of law as the TOS, the CS and other LL Official documents, but still here we have the phrase. "provide adequate warning." So how much time is "adequate?" is pretty interesting when stuff gets written by a Linden which this article was. What does it imply and stuff like that + ....... + "Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms" i think this one (by origin) has more to do with building out our neighbour (either manual or script) in a way that can be seen as harrassing. From mainland wars I think Maybe they mean above 800m where they say in the same article individual bans don't work?

The article is written by Anaimfinity, the head of Second Life Geography project. And yes the citation is strange, which is why I mentioned it and didn't just pretend it wasn't there. But Perrie has already quoted the knowledge base and it says the same thing. "You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should: Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident."

The Editors Notes on that page give some useful advice: " Note from editors While creating articles for Second Life Geography project, we had to travel large distances and teleport many times. People all over the world use Second Life, so there are many different points of view. Some residents are like tohse guys from movies that point the shootgun to you and shout Get out of my property!, while others are very friendly and say Feel welcome here and enjoy your stay. Talking about unwanted visitors, more then 90% are residents without any bad intention and only 1% might be persons that like to make trouble. If you want to block access on your parcel, please take in consideration the follows: If you decide to use ban lines, please think about building a fence or a wall on the ground. This way, people will see and avoid to enter your parcel. This system is very effective. No vehicle will hit your ban lines and no vehilce will get desintegrated. For airplanes that might smash into ban lines, think about building something in air, close to the maximum altitude of a ban line, in corners of your parcel. This way, airplanes and helicopters will see the obstacle and avoid your land. If you decide to use an entity orb, please think that the time between the moment when an avatar enters your parcel and the moment that avatar will be ejected must be significant. An amount of time higher then 10 seconds will let the missfortuned traveler to run out of your land. Think aboutt the time needed to fly away from that parcel. Also, try to avoid teleporting avatars home. Think about sending them to a public parcel (like Protected Land: parks, waterways, a road or a parcel of Abandoned Land), close to you, so they can continue their trip. If you use an entity orb that protects a skybox, think about a notice, something visible from an airplane. A blinking prim is a good device. People will see and avoid this. Think that an avatar doesn't know when it entered your parcel and what way to fly away from it. So, if your parcel is very big (so it is needed more then 15 sconds to get accross), teleporting to a nearby parcel of protected land or abandoned land is a good solution. If your parcel includes water, think about using something visible, like a buoy (device used to mark shallow waters and water obstacles). A sailor will see this and try to avoid your land. Think about restricting visibility (see above) as a better solution. Even with the most advanced security restrictions, somebody can still spy your property, using camera controls. If you own land on a sim that has no contact to other sims, please consider to block teleport entry to your sim or to divert teleport entry to a place surrounded by ban lines or to a skybox without access to land. This way, the unwanted visitor will have time to find another destination. If you own land on a private sim and don't want to be visited, one good solution is to fix teleport entry to a neutral parcel, like the rental box or channels/mountains used to separate parcels. This way random teleporters will land there and not into your home. Other moderate solutions are using obstacles and doors that operate only for therir owners, combined with restricted visibility (see above). Think how you should feel to be the other person. If you are the land owner, think about how would you feel to smash your vehicle and to be ejected from that parcel. If you are a traveler, think how would you feel if somebody unwanted enters your parcel and disturbs you." I particularly like the idea of using markers like walls to show where banlines are. It is so infuriating when someone digs out water next to a linden waterway and puts banlines up so the only way to navigate them safely is by following the parcel boundaries indicated on the minimap of an alternative viewer. A few inconsiderate land owners spoil the whole waterway for their neighbours and other explorers. When a neighbour did that next to me, I put a wall up to mark their banline and it made it much easier to avoid.

The wiki goes a little further: "The property right cannot be disputed, however a too fast teleporting from a parcel can be considered an abuse" citing Resolved Questions in Abuse and Griefing , I am not sure why they include that citation. I would take that to mean that an orb set (to cover full parcel height and not just around a skybox?) such that it doesn't give sufficient time for a vehicle to pass through the parcel is Abuse Reportable. I have never tried to do that, but I can't really see any other reasonable interpretation of those words. If they did enforce that based on reports, it would strike the right balance between privacy and the freedoms they talk about for people to explore mainland in vehicles.

Did you try raising an incident to see if they would increase it to 40?

I only ever paid any attention to the range and never wondered even for a fleeting second what the other columns were for. Interesting to be directed to the page that says even if the graphic only seems to be showing anything going on in some of the columns.

A new version was released a few days after this thread started. http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Release_Notes/Second_Life_Project_OculusRift/4.1.0.317313

It sounds, to my uneducated mind, like the sort of symptoms that might be fixed by a clean install.

ChinRey wrote: Aethelwine wrote: So that suggests that to me at least that there is a strong sense of community on SL, and a desire to allow people the freedom to explore. Oh yes, there is that too fortunately, it's not all dark. But as you say, the selfish - or maybe it's more about the thoughtless actually - spoil it for others. It isn't actually hard for landowners to set up their land with good security and minimum disruption to others, and - to see it from the other poitn of view - it shouldn't be hard for travellers to understand that they can't just barge in everywhere and act as if they owned the place. Most of those problems are unnecessary. There shouldn't really be a need for this discussion at all but there is of course. In most cases a polite message to the owner of the parcel sorts the problems out, because the settings affect others they don't see the impact until some one tells them about it. Alot of the time the owners are apologetic and tell me how much they hate banlines themselves. If I am in a rush I just send them an open seas project info card (if anyone is interested they can pick one up from my Parcel in Fudo and Snug Harbor (SH5 Meg Island).

ChinRey wrote: Aethelwine wrote: I would think that functionality to protect your home, within its walls or precisely defined areas would be a selling point. No it isn't because so many people in SL couldn't care less about others. Second Life has a very strong culture of distrust and selfishness. It's I, Me, Mine and Nothing Else Matters. That is the essence of the problem and there's no techonological solution to it because any such feature is worthless if people can't be bothered to actually use it. I travel quite extensively on the waterways, there are few I haven't travelled and that isn't my experince at all. The number of long term problem parcels I could probably list on one or two hands. Owners in Brazos, in Pierce and in Gama being the ones that immediately spring to mind. It goes up alot more now with orbs restricting the airways, but since i don't fly that much. I can't really comment on that except to cite the information from the wiki.... On the wiki it says "5 to 10% use entity orbs to restrict access. From these, the majority use a higher eject time (over 10 seconds). Only a few are very aggresive and are set for less then 5 seconds. Also, only a few teleport people to another parcel. " So that suggests that to me at least that there is a strong sense of community on SL, and a desire to allow people the freedom to explore. The selfish are a small minority that spoil it for others. Also at least for sailing things seem to be improving recently, the route from the East River community to Bay City is much easier now, and there is also a route up around the East of the Nautilus continent, making it possible to circumnavigate by going through Corsica in the North.

I was imagining a security system when the orb rezzed some sort of scripted prim or series of scripted prims that you could position as you wanted to define the area precisely where the zero timed action could occur. I would think that functionality to protect your home, within its walls or precisely defined areas would be a selling point. A bit like the way we limit some free roaming fish.

Phil Deakins wrote: Slee Mayo wrote: For security orb creators: Why not add a feature to check the agent that enters the parcel to see if they're sitting, if they're sitting, assume they're exploring the grid via a vehicle, give them at least 30-60 seconds to pass through the parcel. The 'sitting' part of your post has been adequately dealt with, so I'll only address the part concerning the amount of time allowed. As a security device creator (they are not all orbs ), I couldn't do that. Creators don't set the time allowed. The user does that, and creators can't impose a lower limit, such as you suggest. It's entirely up to the owner how much time s/he wants to allow people to move on. 30 seconds isn't bad but 60 seconds is a long time, and there's no need for it. When you see the message, you are supposed to move on as quickly as you can, and 30 seconds is plenty of time to do it. You are not supposed to have a look around for a while before moving on Why owners don't want you to look around is their business, and not the business of security device creators. You could set a minimum time of say 10 or 15 seconds though, but I can see there are cases where 0 seconds is appropriate, for example inside a skybox. Would it be possible to only allow a zero second timer where people are defining the area that was scanned more precisely such that it would be only used for a sky box situation? and have a menu given limit of say 10 seconds on sim wide scanning? You could market it as "neighbour friendly" or sell it as a bonus for making it easier and safer to use.

Phil Deakins wrote: Orbs weren't restricted at all. Not as such. It's just that there's a maximum scan distance of 96m, so an individual object couldn't scan further than that, and still can't. More recently an LSL function to get the names and distances of all avatars in the sim was introduced, and so security orbs started to use that instead of scanning. In effect all avatars in the sim are 'scanned'. Each one is dealt with according to whether or not it is within a certain range or over the owner's land. When they were introduced, I don't know, but it's not all that long ago. I remember when I ran a sim a few years ago and we got repeatedly griefed the security system I was using required me to set up loads of sensors around the sim to prevent new accounts. The system I used may not have been a state of the art modern system, I just went with the one that had good reviews and it wasn't cheap. But setting up security then across the full height of a sim I remember being very complicated. It took me hours to set up and a lot of reading and head scratching and testing. So I can understand why that LSL function would be a good idea, the sad side effect is that it also creates some of the problems those using aircraft complain about now.

Alwin Alcott wrote: ChinRey wrote: Visitors on my land don't cost me anything, I have to pay the tier anyway. yes i agree to that totally, but my post was against some here that claim it is their right to have access to fly over. There is not. Visitors don't claim... Except that isn't true on several levels. The post you replied to was one where I was specifically talking about parcels around public access routes, not peoples rights to fly over any parcel, It is also false to say there is no right to travel across other parcels, Linden Lab have acknowledged that right in the way they have set up land permissions, in particular such that parcel restrictions only extend to about 40m in height. That right is not absolute right of course it is balanced with the use of entitiy orbs, which is discussed on the wiki where it states "a too fast teleporting from a parcel can be considered an abuse ". Ref Their discussion and suggestions on how to run parcel security interesting and balanced, balancing the rights of those to travel with those of landowners. As I understand it, once upon a time orbs were restricted to 96m range. I am curious to know if anyone remembers when that changed. Also my point about excessive security damaging land values is illustrated by the huge difference in land value between those parcels with access to waterways (and less so roads) than those without. The land values are higher in the more desirable locations, where people have more freedoms to roam and explore. Putting up those restrictions inappropriately, does damage resale value for neighbours. When someone puts banlines up around a river system and digs it out so the banlines extend across the visible water way, they spoil the access route and damage the land value of their neighbours and everyone else on that water way. On reflection the selfish person doing this may well improve their own land value using antisocial permissions because neighbours and those using the waterway have the added incentive to buy them out to restore the route and their land values. It is perverse that the current system can reward antisocial behaviour. (Edited last paragraph later so it made sense)

Luxen wrote: Anti-orb people, anti-landowners, anti-all... Please let people safe and stop to complain about all. Forget us a little and have fun on your Land. Feel free, my spaces are all open for people to enjoy. You can find them in my picks.

Pamela Galli wrote: Aethelwine wrote: 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 This is a bit unclear. I describe it thus: While there is evidence supporting both the existence and non existence of God, there is no ineluctable proof compelling either, such as 2 + 2 = 4. One cannot choose whether or not to believe in gravity or that 2 + 2 = 4 (or 2 + 2 = 5 if you are a poor mathmetician.) The only truly free choice one can make is regarding things like the existence of God, for which there is no conclusive logical or empirical proof or disproof. I know there is no proof of God, it is entirely my free choice to believe in Him. (There is however a reason believers choose belief over unbelief, which is the Holy Spirit, with holy having its usual meaning "set apart".) Sanctifying Grace.... Perhaps simpler still for me at least is that God and Religion are supernatural. If they were capable of being proved then they would be of the natural order. Teleological, Ontological and other attempts to prove the existence of God are fundamentally flawed because they would reduce God to the natural, God requires as Kierkergaard puts it that leap of faith.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Aethelwine wrote: 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. Neurochemistry doesn't have to evoke the same sort of emotional responses as poetry to be useful and desireable. The Marsh Chapel experiments and (I wish I could find the article) a similar experiment done in California much more recently showed that spiritual epiphanies, producing lifelong positive changes in attitude, could be induced by the administration of psilocybin (another hallucinogen in the case of the California experiment, I think). I've yet to read a poem that had such an effect on me. I don't think we'll reach a sufficient understanding of human intelligence to reach Ray Kurzweil's "singularity" by his predicted 2045. But, if you believe we will, that suggests we may eventuall be able to inject poetry through a needle. I'm an optimist and think that, even if that happens, many of us will still read it. ;-). I didn't mean to imply Neurochemistry was in any way flawed as a method for explaining and stimulating experiences. Just that it is a category error to think it can explain something like Freewill, which is a moral and aesthetic concept, rather than a scientific one. Science may well at some point be able to explain in the form of formulas every thing that has happened from the big bang onwards down to butterlfies fluttering their wings and the complex emotional reaction someone might experience from a smell. But that is a different category of thing to the world as described by poetry, the mysticism with which we conceive of our relationship to the world or to ideas of our place with in it. It is like asking someone to point out the University they have gone to when they are on Campus. The University isn't a thing that can be pointed out, it isn't a building. Going to University, is different to going to a train station because a university and a train station are different sorts of things.