Hugsy Penguin

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Structure it right. There is no right. I would never ever accept a rule that allowed other residents any power to dictate what I can build on the land that I pay for. Also, when I was talking about groups, I didn't really mean a “Second Life group” that costs L$100 to create but rather just a collection of people. Pussycat Catnap wrote: The other opton is to start establishing standards for what is blight, and then returning builds that violate that standard on an AR basis. I bought mature (before there was adult) covenant free mainland for a reason – I don't want build restrictions (beyond the obvious stuff in the TOS). I knew very well that I may end up being next to ugly. That's why, when I was so new the grid I hadn't even heard the term "griefer" (mid-2005), I bought land who's north side faced what's now called Mare Secundus. I was good to see north and didn't have to care about what people did east, west, and south (and I've seen plenty of junk east, west, and south). I don't want more rules added that potentially limit what I may want to build. Make those rules on newly created mainland. Pussycat Catnap wrote: You'd have to weed out the maniacs that claim its socialism to not have anarchy No one's asking for anarchy. There already is a TOS. Pussycat Catnap wrote: Presently mainland has tyranny of the one against the entire whole of the rest of the sim and any sims within visible range. This flips that to tyranny of the majority which is also not perfect, but much better. I disagree. Pussycat Catnap wrote: My suggestion might not be ideal - so lets hear a better one. On covenant free mainland: Enforce the TOS. An absentee land owner is someone who owns land, pays their bills, but never logs in or maintains their land. Sometimes junk gets left behind by others on their land. I wouldn't mind LL cleaning up the junk. Otherwise, leave people alone.

Pussycat Catnap wrote: I'd favor a no-blight system. Let neighbors 'vote' out builds of others below 800m - including at ground. Though perhaps a greater majority needed for ground, and people who haven't logged in for a certain while would not be considered for the number of votes needed to either pass or fail a vote. People would vote out not just the ugly, but also builds by people they don't like regardless of how nice they were. Small groups would buy some land and then vote out builds by anyone not in their group no matter what just to keep the region to themselves. - Do that to maybe 30% of mainland sims, people who want some anti-blight control would migrate to them. People who don't would avoid them. No. Any drastic rules like this should only be applied to newly created mainland which is then given a covenant. Current covenant free mainland shouldn't have build restrictions added.

Maybe (hopefully) they're getting prepared to add some regions so that a road connection can be made from, say, Noyo, to the Bay City/Nova Albion area.

‘Junk’ is an assessment of aesthetics. When I see random cubes, spheres, cut torii, and other random bits, I’ll generally call that junk. A “skybox” (using that term loosely) so poorly done it’s obvious the creator just doesn’t care might be called junk too. Something that looks like the creator cares and put a little effort into (even if they’re not a master builder) is not something I’d call junk. The line is gray and not very well defined (hence the problem with making ugly a TOS violation). On covenant free mainland, I do NOT support any rules being added governing building heights/altitudes.

Ok, I can see it now. You have multiple points of interest on your land and want people to go to specific points instead of just anywhere. Right now you have to sub-divide the land, but that means you have to maintain multiple sets of land properties. Teleports would go to the nearest landing point.

I went to the region and if I'm looking at it right, ground level is about 100 meters and skyboxes are at about 200 meters.

I really hate seeing junk hanging in the sky. I've passed on buying land because of the surrounding ugly. Sometimes I do wish something would be done about this kind of stuff. The problem with making something like this a TOS violation is that a Linden has to decide what's too ugly and has to go and what's pretty enough to stay. That wouldn't be a good situation. I know some things are obviously just ugly, but other things are borderline. There won't be consistent enforcement and people will push the boundaries.

Ciaran Laval wrote: You can certainly create two landmarks on one parcel if you have teleport routing set to anywhere. ??? If you're on your own land, you can create landmarks anywhere regardless of the teleport routing settings. If you're on someone else's land, you can create landmarks anywhere but only if the owner checked the Create Landmarks checkbox in About Land | Options. Why would more than one landing point be needed for a parcel? If someone teleports to a parcel with two landing points, where would they go? The closest one? What would happen if one landing point was set to (50, 50, 50), another set to (100, 100, 50), and someone teleported to (75, 75, 50)?

Forum avatars or badges or whatever they're called that make it difficult or impossible to read the name of the poster (not-so-much interested in the other stuff).

Wildcat Furse wrote: this one makes me laugh .... *meows* This reminds me of http://getafirstlife.com/. You have to click on "The original “Get a First Life” page’s content" to see it now, but it was based on the SL web site as it was back in the day.

Qie Niangao wrote: I kinda doubt that the unusual events around that abandoned 16m² was really a function of this policy. Very rarely, I see some unexplained transfer of abandoned microparcels to somebody not otherwise present in the sim. It's very rare, and I've consciously decided not to probe into it too deeply, partially because of something stupid I did to myself in my "main" region: There's other weirdness with this land and the timing is oddly coincidental. To the North of this land is Linden land/water. To the East and South is land owned by another resident (who hasn't logged into SL for over two years). To the West is land owned by me, but in another region. Years ago it was, of coarse, an ad plot. Then that land was abandoned. When I finally noticed, I put in a ticket to have it sold to me. I thought I might have a chance since I own most of the rest of the land in the region (although not bordering this plot) plus one side in the neighboring region. Also, of the two residents who do border, I'm the only active one. This was denied and they actually set the land for sale to the inactive resident. *facepalm* It stayed that way for months. The land was bought by the land group on April 21 IIRC which is the date of the blog post in the OP. I'm very certain that this resident didn't log in, buy the land, and then sell it to the land group I bought it from. It must have been Linden Lab switching the land from “for sale to resident” to “for sale to anyone”.

Welp, just got hammered a bit by this policy. A 16m² that was abandoned for quite a while (in the sim where I have most of my land) must have went up for public sale. The first I see it is today and paid L$449 (someone other than LL) for it. It's only a few bucks, but I can see this happening with some larger plots that will go who-knows-when (grrr). LL, this is not better (for us anyway).

Pauline Darkfury wrote: The situation described did not have the OP using any of the neighbour's prim resource, all prims were counted on his own parcel, had they been using the neighbour's prims the neighbour could have simply returned the object. Megaprim lag is almost entirely a myth these days, there's no evidence that even 256m megaprims cause any measurable region lag when used for scenery. The OP did not have the right to be encroaching on the neighbour's unused airspace, that's not disputed, I agree with all of that completely. Pauline Darkfury wrote: but the way the neighbour dealt with the issue (as described in this thread, and that's all we have to go on) made the neighbour a bad neighbour in my book. Using deliberate visual blight as a first response to an issue makes them a bad neighbour, that's all there is to it. A good neighbour would have started by opening a dialolgue and explaining that they were not happy with it and what their concerns were. I agree that it would have been nicer if the neighbor had said something first. But, because the OP displayed an such a degree of ignorance and sense of entitlement, I don't blame the neighbor for getting ticked off and doing what they did. I think the OP is lucky all they saw was ugly purple cubes.

Mags Indigo wrote: I think no matter what they (LL) do it wouldn't be good enough fot everyone - by offering it for instance to the biggest adjoining owner first they would be accused of helping land barons get bigger (or helping creat new ones) - and so on. To a degree what they have done is probably the best over all way of doing it. What they could do I think is set the land with an 'intention' of sale sign on it. So that local landowners would have a chance to see it was going up for sale in maybe 3 days. Of course if someone only logs in once or twice a week and isn't very good at checking stuff like that - chances are they will always lose out. Before this change, if the abandoned land was 512m² or less and you owned land bordering 3 sides (which I take as 75% of the border) or more, then they'd set the land for sale to you for L$1/m. I don't recall anyone complaining about that. If the complaint is about large land owners getting preference in the tie-breaker, then so be it. At the very least, they should make that part of the automated process, but drop it down to more than 50%. If someone owns more than 50% of the border (no possibility of a tie) set it for sale to them for L$1/m, send them an IM, and send an e-mail. After a week, if there's no purchase or a decline to buy response, set it for sale to anyone. If no one owns more than 50% of the border then go directly to set sale to anyone. I'd still rather they go through the list of all neighbors first with some sort of tie breaker (heck, even throw in other land owners in the region before opening up to anyone), but even just the above would be a nice improvement.

Wildcat Furse wrote: Blondin, I still believe that abandonned land should be made available to adjacent landowners first! Couldn't agree more. :smileyhappy: Abandonned land can connect land in 4 ways; 4, 3, 2, 1 side, this should also be the selection criteria in which LL should offer the buy options to landowners connecting to the abandonned plot. Not all parcels are rectangular shaped. The land I own in Suisun is very oddly shaped. The way the road goes through, one corner is cut into a sort of triangle shape and, in another area, I wrap around someone else's property in a "U" shape. If I were to abandon all that land, there simply is no concept of "how many of the four sides" a neighbor owns. LL would have to measure the length of the border with all neighbors. Whoever owns the most length should get first dibs. There would have to be tie-breaker rules. For example, who owns more land in the region first, who owns more land in all of SL second, and finally who has the earlier born-on date. Why don't you guys sent a message to the neighbouring landowners first, rather than releasing land to the masses? *meows* I really wish they would do that, but it does somewhat open a can of worms. Nothing that can't be figured out, but a bit of thought would be needed. Since this land doesn't show in search, and, apparently not found by land bots, perhaps the thought is that's good enough. I'd still rather see them do it right and make neighbor notification/preference part of the automated system.

It's too bad there's not a preference given to adjacent land owners. :smileysad:

Marianne McCann wrote: I too hope to see some work on a "southern passage" that links Bay City to the inland waterways. In fact, I have heard there are things afoot for that. Wouldn't mind seeing more tail (though the short line in Bay City may well have some ferry component to it that could link it to the Atoll lines). Not sure where a roadway connector could go in. Maybe something that could connect the roadway in Luna to the rez zone and roadway in Noyo? That could have a bit of an impact on Cowell, though. Not sure if any other good ways to route from one to the other. Would be great if there is a way, though! I haven't been to Noyo in a little while and got concerned that Sinatra's Spook House wasn't there. I was glad to see it just moved to a new location. With that land now owned by Linden Lab, there's a connection from the end of the road to Linden land that reaches over Dore (which has a road that reaches Bay City). It's a tight fit, but there's Linden land in southern Noyo, Cowell, and Abbotts. From there, there's the sandbox regions or you can go north up the western side of Abbotts to Rosedale/Georgean. Then make a road over to Dore. If adding new regions, it seems to me that connecting into Noyo may be the most feasible but I wouldn't want to ruin the view for the existing residents in the area. To deal with that, I think an underwater tunnel would be pretty cool. They could bring the road down off the hill and then underwater so the surrounding residents wouldn't notict much change. It would have the underwater murkyness, but I don't think that's too bad. From there it could go into a set of of new regions (perhaps move the sandbox regions out of the way). At some point the road would come up out of the water and connect to Luna. Just some thoughts.

Way cool! I can sail from my land in all the way over the Rizal. It would be nice if they made a channel to get to Bay city. Also, I hope they add more regions and make road connections between Bay City and mainland Sansara. I wouldn't mind seeing a more developed RR in Sansara too.

Thanks for the reply. I tried rezzing the streetlamp somewhat near 0,0 in the region. Then I derendered the ground (Ctrl-Shift-Alt-5) and water (Ctrl-Shift-Alt-7) to take a look at (0, 0, 0) and still didn't see it. Just now I broke down and installed the latest "development snapshot" (Second Life 2.6.3 (225675) Apr 4 2011 10:37:37 (Project Viewer - Mesh)) and it worked! I'm leary of unstability though. Would be nice to see working in a "stable" release.

I've got the Project Viewer - Mesh and am standing in a Mesh Sandbox region (see Help --> About below). I can upload samples from http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mesh/Sample_Content and get the model in the Meshes folder and the object in the Objects folder. When I rez the object, nothing appears (e.g., the street lamp sample). Guessing where the object is, I can bump into it. The physics engine knows it's there. When I turn on Develop --> Render Metadata --> Physics Shapes, two thing happen: -----1. I see the physical shape. -----2. It gets *very* laggy (I had to turn graphics options all the way, clear cache, and relog to make it acceptable).While rendering physical shapes, I can edit the object, make it a light source, and see the light at nighttime. Anyone have an idea why I can't see the mesh objects? Are there options I'm missing somewhere? Somewhat off-topic question: Is there an OpenSim release that support these COLLADA meshes? Thanks for any help. -------------------------- Help --> About Info: -------------------------- Second Life 2.6.0 (218701) Jan 11 2011 08:43:57 (Project Viewer - Mesh) Release Notes You are at 205,435.0, 179,354.0, 23.1 in Mesh Sandbox 16 located at sim9001.aditi.lindenlab.com (216.82.40.149:13010) Mesh Import 11.03.21.224722 Release Notes CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz (2660 MHz) Memory: 4087 MB OS Version: Microsoft Windows Vista 64-bit Service Pack 2 (Build 6002) Graphics Card Vendor: ATI Technologies Inc. Graphics Card: ATI Radeon HD 4800 Series Windows Graphics Driver Version: 8.14.0010.0685 OpenGL Version: 2.1.8870 libcurl Version: libcurl/7.21.1 OpenSSL/0.9.8j zlib/1.2.3 c-ares/1.7.1 J2C Decoder Version: KDU v6.4.1 Audio Driver Version: FMOD version 3.750000 Qt Webkit Version: 4.7.1 (version number hard-coded) Voice Server Version: Not Connected Built with MSVC version 1400 Packets Lost: 291/7,441 (3.9%)

I ride the fence of being both a land owner and an explorer. While I support land owner rights to restrict access to their land, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to be on someone else's land without their express written permission. If they have a security orb, ban lines, signs, something in the parcel description, or whatnot, then, ok, avoid it. Otherwise, don't worry about it. It could very well be that the land owner doesn't care. You could wondering around a bunch of homes that end up being a home seller demo area. Or maybe they're unoccupied rentals where the landlord doesn't mind. If the land owner does come along and ask you to leave or ejects you, then just deal with it and move on.

CaptainJack Grauman wrote: Once I was on the runway level at Abbott , and, before the runway fully rezzed up, I saw below it a seaplane floating on the water below. How can I reach that seaplane when the airfield is fully rezzed up? If you are at the runway level, you'll see a large hanger at the beginning of runway 9. To the right of that (facing North, i.e., while standing on the runway facing the hanger) will be two jet liners and a fire truck. Behind the fire truck is an elevator. Click the elevator to stand on it. A dialog box will appear. Click the Next or Prev button as-needed to select the Submarine Dock location. Click the START! button and you'll be taken down to the water level.