Hyperplexed

Since there is no other adequate category specifically about shapes, and because shapes can be in some context considered animation (or more accurately, bone manipulation), I'm posting this thread in here. Apologies if not the right place. So my question is simple... Can shapes have a "copyright"? It is just a bunch of values, that can even be exported and re-imported as an XML file, which not only makes it easy to recreate whichever shape you want, with full perms, as long as you own it, but I see really no point in even having a shape that is no-mod. But I digress... The reason for this post, is not because I want to "steal" someone else's shape and then sell it as a standalone product. It is because I want to have a HUD slider deformer, that will work best with some specific body settings. So, in an effort to make life easier for those users that have very little knowledge or don't pay much attention to detail, my goal was to provide some shape templates, using the head settings of some very well known head brand, to have them as a starting point... Goal is just to have the same body proportions, for each specific head the user might use, to make their life simpler, because more often than not, I see some ppl using shapes that make the body or the head look weird. Pretty innocuous right? Out of politeness, I decided to contact a specific well-known head brand, and color me shocked, when contacting a "CSR", and explaining the situation, telling me that I would have to at least change a single digit on each one of the slider on their shapes, in order to do that. And just as a reminder, the body settings would always be different, and my own, so, it would not be the same shape either. And my product would not be the shape either... So does that mean they own that specific slider value??? I could care less if ppl re-use those shapes, because that will not be in any way, the product (just as the shape that comes with said head brand, was, to quote the CSR, a "starting point"). This also opens the question further, because the appearance XML, exports not only the shape sliders, but also a bunch of other crap, even textures. So, would I also need to "change a single digit" in other settings too? I find all this, quite honestly, all a bit idiotic, and that is to put it mildly and in a polite manner... While I can respect the assessment of the situation of this particular "CSR", I find it a bit odd to say the least, but I will abide to it unless I have some evidence that this decision has no foundation on anything other than ignorance perhaps? Is there any concrete documentation regarding this particular issue? Thanks in advance, to any and all input!

I wont move, I have moved. But like I said this is not about my particular situation as an individual it is an issue that affects a group of individuals, all of them who are now, no longer able to use a significant space amount above or below. The object is a huge linked object, which the root prim is a tiny prim. The whole size of the linked object is around 960x960. It is not counting as prim size, no... however it is counting as rendering cost for everyone that happens to be in the radius range of the camera setting. Which means that there will a dead zone in which no one can rez things either up or down, under the risk of increasing the rendering costs, which in that platform's case is over 1 million (1.380.409). See the new attachment and read more about it on: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mesh/Rendering_weight . If the platform is at that height covering the entirety of the sim, it will hinder the ability to stay away from other objects which is one of the advantages of having platforms in the sky. If for example your camera is set to 256, and you have a platform at 2500, you would want at least to have nothing at 2500+256 and 2500-256, to avoid your camera from seeing it. If ALL the tenants wish to do the same, (and let's hypothetically consider a land with 4x4 parcels, which makes up to 16 tenants), and if you want to keep at the very least platforms above 1024 only, then if all tenants will have only between all 16 platforms a 384 distance. 256 up + 256 down = 512 distance. And then what? How do you solve that issue? And when establishing rules, should you give the same rights to everyone? And that would mean allowing every single tenant to be allowed to do the same. And again, why should I (or others) be subject to other tenants will to be able to rez at any specific height? What happens if everyone does that until someone runs out of space? Yes I have brought this to the attention of the Landlord, but that is besides the point of the thread. I'm going to repeat this again. This is not me about as an individual or about my no-longer existing problem (moved). This is simply to debate whether this would be a determining factor on whether this would be a deal breaker for you or not. If not that is absolutely fine ofc! If you feel ok on having neighbours spilling into your and everyone else's space in the region, that is absolutely fine, just go on and say "I'm fine with this". We all are different and have different points of view. And I want to hear people's opinions. 😃 Not at all, and again, not specified in the Covenant. The object also doesn't belong to the landlord, but to one of the tenants. EDIT: Going to remind again that NONE of this was specified in the covenant. It's like advertising you're being leased a building with several floors, but forgetting to mention there are tenants occupying some floors that cannot be moved.

A fair reasonable expectation, no doubt, to not having constraints on something that is not set as a rule. But isn't the expectation of you being allowed to build anywhere you wish, within the boundaries of the parcel you rent, takes precedence? Why should the person being encroached, be the one being limited on where to build, within his own land? The parcel is deeded to that person/group for a reason, it actually exists on a Database saying "this piece of land is leased to X" (I also had to buy the land in order to do so btw). It is not one of those places you have a system like Casper or whatever, with multiple tenants over the same parcel. If that did not meant anything... why even have a system operating that way? If parcel boundaries are irrelevant, then it makes more sense to use a system like that to control the Land Impact, without any expectation to have a parcel. If people are ok with that, then they might as well go rent on those cheap places where they have multiple tenants on the same parcel. And is it not better to respect your neighbours and not build into their land? This is not just a tree hanging over another person's land, I could live with that as long as it respected the rest of the scenery, and didn't prevented using some other object or go right through a wall or something. This was a deliberated action from one of the tenants, knowing full well that would spill into his neighbours parcels. And as I pointed out, let's say that there are 16 tenants on that sim. What if all the 16 tenants decide to do the same? Is it a sustainable thing to allow? This basically gives the opportunity of everyone to landscape a full sim, without having to pay for one. Sure, they will have LI limitations, but how sweet it is to have your own mini-homestead, without seeing the neighbours ugly buildings? Just my thoughts... Ultimately this is a business decision, but would you like to be on a region where rules run amok and tenants can do whatever they feel like? All over the region?

Not for me, this rule was not at all specified on the Covenant, and I only realized this after being there for 2 months and a half. The landlord did gave me a discount but because I have helped in the the past with scripts, and solving issues with his scripts, even without pay (I like helping ppl, what can I say...), and whenever I had a friend asking me for a place to rent, I would advice his business out of the kindness of my heart because I wanted to see his community thrive. EDIT: The landlord did commit to add the rule that every tenant can build at any height, spilling to other parcels, once I exposed the situation for him, but did not do so. Just talk... EDIT 2: I Want to say though... the purpose of this thread is not my personal experience, but rather, discuss what is appropriate or not, or what is an expectation when rules are not specified. While I completely agree that each Sim owner is completely entitled to create his own set of rules, what is a good code of conduct, when such rules are not specified, and in this particular case what is to be expected on the particular subject of land encroachment. I hope it gets clear. EDIT 3: Also to make it clear... That object IS NOT from the sim owner, it is from one of the tenants!

The implication from my last post is that that option is disabled on the region, so no, I couldn't do that. It is an option that needs to be enabled via console, so nothing that can be done as a mistake. And if a sim owner enables that option, then it is with the intention of ppl to use it. Why would a sim owner do that if he wouldn't?

The region must have enabled an option for that. It is on LL Covenants: https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Parcel_encroachment

Well I'm new, so allow me the right for being shocked? Or may I not? But more importantly, this is a forum, and as the definition very simply explains, it is a place to debate on a particular issue, so my question is, aside from the fact that it is a private region and everything can happen (and yes within the confinements of the ToS), what makes it a plausible rule. And mind you, this specific rule is not even specified on the Covenant rules, there is absolutely nothing expressing that tenants may OR may not spill their objects into other tenants lands. But here is a GREAT post I read sometime ago which is a very wise point (regardless of exactly what is being considered here, this is just common sense that can be applied to anything: So what if, all tenants decided to do the same? Obviously you cannot play favourites (lol) so, how do you solve the issue? What if every tenant decides to rez on his land, EVEN if at different heights, a 960x960 object that would just end up being too close to everyone else? Thoughts?

This is a forum, it's not for governance, or to ask for assistance or help. If I was looking for assistance, I would have chosen the appropriate channel. Being a forum, means it is a place, for a wide range of topics. It can be to try to get help from other users, share advices, or experiences. Is it wrong? Just scroll through and you will see other threads without any real purpose. In this case, it was simply to express somewhat shock how some people find this acceptable. May I not express my thoughts about it on a public forum? That is the purpose, not rocket science guys: forum a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged. "we hope these pages act as a forum for debate"

Well, it is a private region, with it's own covenant, so the owner can do whatever he wants ofc. But in LL covenants for example, that is absolutely not allowed (much less a 960m2 object that encompasses several regions). It is fun to see though, how... "creative" ppl can get! 😃

I'm just gonna leave this in here because why the hell not... Context... a region is 256x256, created a prim that was 64x64 on my land for reference and raised to the level of the object, to avoid perspective distortion. Yes, that is an object not only encroaching all the tenants at 2500 height, but also with an estimated 960m2. How is this even allowed, it beats me! And basically it's a huge middle finger to any other tenant that may want to rez at that height, by her majesty the queen! 😃

I'm in the proccess of moving my stuff between 2 different sims. The original sim shut down over 3h ago, still down. New sim I'm moving to, restarted after that and it's already up and running. I was holding the move to happen post weekly maintenance, and currently "stuck". I have submitted a ticket.

I don't recall saying it was foolproof or not, maybe you have misread the post? I mentioned a way to know for certain, if it is a different channel, when you get the message saying "different version". As your own message implies, it may not always get that, in which case, it is inconclusive. *shrugs* And on that I added: which means, using your own words, I have monitored them. I'm sorry if my english is not clear enough, not a native speaker =(

That is actually easy to figure out. go to a region that you are certain that restarts on Tuesdays (Main Channel). If you see the warning that you have entered in a different simulator version, then it means that the channel of the region you left, is on a RC Channel (restarts on wednesdays). I have a "list" of regions I know that they are on RC, so I always go there while I wait for restart on Tuesdays. So far, has never failed me.

Yes and for the past 3-4 weeks someone other than me, the owner or the other manager, somoen asked to restart the sim on Monday after 6AM SLT? I doubt, and if any resident could ask a restart just when it feels like, it would be pretty silly, if there is no problem with the region. I spend almost all my online time in said region, and I would know about any problem, and could restart if a problem was indeed happening. Regardless, the region owner already made a ticket last week to understand what is happening, because as I said this is like the 3rd or 4th week in a row this happens. Restarts on Mondays after 6AM, no one with the ability to restart the region, other than Linden Labs as done so.

Yep, restarted yesterday, and also again today, just now, as predicted. I'm all up for doing more than one restart per week, as long as it is scheduled and predictable and I dont see any benefits of making 2 restarts, one day after another. Don't understand either how 2 restarts will help with either performance or reduce the stress. If the plan is for example, restart the simulators in different days to reduce the stress, then someone might have forgotten to remove them from the list restarting on Tuesdays too. Something just doesn't add up.