Abnor Mole

The assumption that any avatar that stays more than 15 seconds is always and without question (1) making a choice, and (2) showing malicious intent is where you're going wrong.

The rules regarding adult content/activity and region Maturity rating are universal rules determined by the Lab, not covenant rules; and they are the same rules in Bellisserisa and on Mainland or anywhere else in Second Life... but I will let the Lindens clarify what those rules and requirements actually mean and how they are applied. Does having some sort of security on that removes avatars after a 15 second warning meet the "Allow only a group or specific individuals access to the parcel" requirement without actually having to ban all access? Is that enough in their view the same way it is generally accepted that simply being inside your home meets the "Enclose the area behind walls or other visual barriers" requirement without having to be completely surrounding by a box? It's not my place to say from a technical standpoint. From a practical standpoint though, we all know that adult activity happens in moderate regions across all of Second Life and neither the LDPW nor the Lab has any desire to get into policing what people are doing discretely in their bedrooms (and neither do most other residents when they are done discretely). But if I have to guess, I would wager they employ selective enforcement the same way that we do when we enforce some areas of the covenant such as objects that extend outside of parcel lines.

Governance doesn't write the Linden Homes Covenant, the LDPW does. You can trust me when I say we are the authority on questions regarding it's meaning and interpretation.

Phil asked about the Belliseria covenant is was explained to him that in Bellisseria we work from the concept that people should be giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming every avatar that happens to enter your parcel has ill intent. That is why we amended the covenant to disallow devices to automatically add avatars to the parcel ban list. He pointed out that his could do the same thing essentially by adding them automatically to the device's blacklist (and that wasn't expressly disallowed in the covenant according to his interpretation). I agreed that it is essentially the same thing... and because of that I recommend not including that feature in the "Bellisseria" setting on the device he makes and sells. I applaud him for wanting to make a security device that makes it easy for users to know they are complying with the covenant. I simply pointed out that adding features that use loopholes in the letter of the law to get around it and violating the spirt behind it is not the way to go. When that happens we will just amend the covenant again if we have to, making such "Bellisseria compliant" devices non-compliant. And then he will have to change it anyway if he wants to sell and advertise it as a "Bellisseria compliant" device.

Hmm... I'm not sure if the "don't blame the player, blame the game" defense really works all that well in a world of 100% user generated content.

If the orb added them to the automatically blacklist it removes the require 15 second warning time, making it non-compliant.

Don't feel bad. That was probably just one of us going through regions testing to see if any security systems were set improperly and checking to make sure it wasn't trying to teleport people home.

And this is the experience of nearly all residents. The idea that anyone would have to sit and ban people manually all day long is extreme hyperbole. In fact, a person actually coming into your home uninvited is usually such a rare occasion that if people set their security devices to only protect the area inside the house they would probably go completely unnoticed even if they had them set to teleport people home with no warning... but they don't. The ones we generally find or are reported are the ones that are set to cover the whole parcel and are triggered when someone is just flying over (or under in the case of skyboxes).

Banning an intentionally disruptive person is very much the appropriate level of response and consequence. Banning of a a non-disruptive or unintentionally disruptive one may not involve physical harm or permanent damage, but it still feels like an unjust punishment to those who have simply made a mistake or stayed to long for reasons beyond their control. Asking residents to actively decide if a persons actions genuinely warrant a ban before they do so may seem like a burden, but it isn't an unreasonable one.

Ejection, yes, but not necessarily an automatic ban. Rarely, some people may perceive it as a challenge and in those cases they naturally want you to know that is exactly what they are doing. People with ill intent want to provoke a reaction... if you don't even notice them because you are afk or watching youtube then they don't get one, become bored and move on. What probably more common is they don't even realize they are still on your parcel, have lagged out or maybe are in the throes of a viewer crash. Again, presuming innocence or ignorance and giving the benefit of the doubt until malice is proven. Then you can add them to your ban list or black list and be done with it. “It is better to let the crime of a guilty person go unpunished than to condemn the innocent.” had been a societal doctrine of law going all the way back to Roman times.

Because immediately ejecting or banning an avatar is something that needs to be a conscious decision on a individual case by case basis on the part of the parcel owner in Bellisseria. Automating that to remove the "does this specific person deserve a ban" decision is what is not necessary. It is based on an assumption that every person is a threat until they prove they are not, rather than treating every person as harmless or benign until that they prove they are. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions. 😬 If you mean automatically banning them, it can be if that's what it takes to make it clear. You asked a question and I believe it has been answered. -Security devices can have a feature that prompts or allows the owner to add names to the parcel ban list manually. They cannot add them automatically. -Security devices can have a feature that prompts or allows the owner to add names to the blacklist manually. They should not add them automatically for the same reason it isn't allowed for the parcel ban list. And if we have to spell that out for people in the covenant before they get it, we will. Bellisseria is different from Mainland and private estates in many ways and this is just another example. In the competition to make higher and higher levels of "security" the effect has been to encourage people to believe it is necessary to completely lock down your parcels in the name of "safety"; which instills the idea that strangers are almost always a threat. Both of which have added to the degradation of socialization in Second Life over the years. Bellisseria is taking a different tack to try and build that sense of community back into SL and showing that you can indeed actually have a better SL experience when every interaction with someone you don't know isn't tainted with immediate distrust and suspicion... while still being able to have a more than sufficient level of safety and security when necessary. The vast majority of people in SL are really kind and decent people, even moreso when they aren't met with hostility and cynicism. And as I alluded to previously when I mentioned I see fewer zero warning security orbs than before, maybe the idea is starting to take hold.

The objects rez and ask for permission to attach (or auto attach if they are part of an experience the person has agreed to). If they cannot attach they will just sit there rezzed if the creator hasn't accounted for that possibility and made them die if not attached.

Residents aren't always aware of the covenant and many just put out a device at it's default settings or try every option that it can do. Creators of devices very much should be concerned with the spirit of the law rather than just the letter of it if their products can be set in a way that goes against it's intent. When problems occurred with devices that automatically added avatars to the parcel ban list we updated the covenant to disallow use of that feature. We would do the same with any other features that became problematic. It is in security device creator's best interests to design their features with both of those in mind. Disallowing settings in the Belisseria estate that are not allowed by the covenant and not introducing features that would do an end run around them or break the intent of why those restrictions are there in the first place means their devices won't be set incorrectly and are returned to their owner. Because yes... if it is decided that checking if devices are set incorrectly and responding to reports of incorrectly set devices it simply too onerous or widespread; opting to change the covenant to disallow use of any device other than the one provided is where that would be going. We don't want to do that because we are not on opposite sides. We want creators to have a market for offering features our device does not. Creators just need to be thoughtful which features they offer and how they can be used or misused intentionally or unintentionally. That is why creators very much should have a huge interest in the spirit of the covenant.

If the orb is automatically adding avatars to the orb blacklist (circumventing the normal warning time) then it is essentially the same as a parcel ban, just without the ban lines. Your device would need to prompt the owner if they wish to add avatars it detects to either the parcel ban list or to the orbs blacklist or both, rather than doing so automatically and indiscriminately. Essentially, if an individual is going to be immediately denied access to a parcel it needs to be based on an active decision by the owner to ban that individual on a case by case basis rather than a blanket banning of anyone who enters and/or is ejected. That should apply whether that denial is done by the parcel access list or by a scripted object. The security section of the Bellisseria covenant is meant to encourage a presumption of innocence (or ignorance) before malice rather than the other way around; which is how many security orbs have historically been made or used and why they are often considered a bane on travel and exploration on mainland. One could argue that adding avatars to the orb's blacklist automatically doesn't violate the letter of the covenant; but it would still go against the spirt of the covenant to do so. If need be we would update the wording of covenant to reflect that, making devices that automatically add avatars to their blacklist non-compliant in both spirit and letter. On a side note, in the years since the launch of Bellisseria and the security orb policy there my own personal experience when traveling across mainland has been with a notable reduction in the number of security orbs I encounter that teleport people home with no warning.

One of the biggest complaints seems to be that the old mentor program failed because it was not properly managed by the Lab. I'm not sure how creating a resident run group would help in this regard since by definition it would not have any oversight by the Lab. If a group of residents wants to create their own group dedicated to helping new residents there is a way to do that... by applying to form your own Community Gateway (with the accompanying commitment and compliance). That way you are able to build and run it with all your ideas of how it should be run without coming in conflict with the existing program.

Mentors are instructed they need to be professional at all times. If you have witnessed any who are not, a better course of action would be to inform Viola. (rather than talking about it on the forums where people like to argue about anything and everything) That said, we have also heard complaints from Mentors as well who feel some residents enter the Welcome Hub more intent on undermining their efforts by "proving they know more" than actually helping new residents.

Resident are not restricted to certain areas, but we don't want a new residents to feel crowded as soon as they land. Let them orient themselves a bit and decide if they want to take the social path or the self guided orientation first. If it becomes a problem we can make signs to that effect, but it should be common sense for most long time residents to know not to crowd a landing area. Maybe you should have privately messaged the mentor instead. If they have the wrong information I'm sure they would like to know. You didn't make the mentor look bad in public, but you did to that resident. We do want old residents to feel they can engage with new residents and help them if they wish... but please defer to the Mentors in that regard. It is why they are there.

I can't tell you when the next theme is coming out, but I can tell you when it is not coming out (if there is a rumor that it setting up unreasonable expectations). Like if there were a rumor that the next theme was releasing tomorrow I can tell you "No, it is not releasing tomorrow." In the same way I can't tell you what it will be... but I can tell you what it won't be for the same reason.

To make that work in a Linden Homes environment smoosh all those islands in that picture in a quarter of that space or less and remove all the trees, deco, everything. Bare islands all jammed up close together.

He said very clearly it is a code name, not a hint. Anyone taking it literally and thinking the next theme is going to all be thousands of little islands is going to be very disappointed.

no

When we were building them we referred to them between ourselves as "Sandybrooke" in case you are looking for a non-official popular moniker.

No, we can't. Object bonus affects all parcels in the entire region. It cannot be localized to an individual parcel (assuming there is even enough LI that is not spoken for that could be allocated). Persephone is correct. Land Impact on regions doesn't work the way you want it to work. Edit: If it did we probably would have offered it as a Premium Plus benefit ages ago.

I have some bad news about the Secondhand Shorts Underwear Recycling Center...