Jump to content

Building on land not owned by you


4tune
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4677 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Chronometria wrote:

Well, i would say to fight fire with fire.

 

As such, if they are not looking after the land but anyone can build on it......you should go build on it first and put something tasteful there. Need to be pro-active, otherwise more motivated people will beat you to it and this sort of thing happens.

Of course, that wont stop other people building on it, but it may well make them less likely to do so, or might fool them into thinking the land is being maintained, so they look elsewhere.

Otherwise, i agree with the posters above who suggested you file a ticket about it all and ask the lindens to set an auto return.

these alleged "squatters" are not being agressive, they opened a store.

all i can see from the OP is spite.

perhaps he should mind his own business eh?.

petty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:


Chronometria wrote:

Well, i would say to fight fire with fire.

 

As such, if they are not looking after the land but anyone can build on it......you should go build on it first and put something tasteful there. Need to be pro-active, otherwise more motivated people will beat you to it and this sort of thing happens.

Of course, that wont stop other people building on it, but it may well make them less likely to do so, or might fool them into thinking the land is being maintained, so they look elsewhere.

Otherwise, i agree with the posters above who suggested you file a ticket about it all and ask the lindens to set an auto return.

these alleged "squatters" are not being agressive, they opened a store.

all i can see from the OP is spite.

perhaps he should mind his own business eh?.

petty.

yes how horribly petty, I'm sure no legitimate RL business would ever complain if you set up a store in the adjacent empty lot... seriously?

as a general rule, people that ignore one property law or rule, are much more likely to violate others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's get real about this.  It can't be much of a store, now, can it?  It can't change the parcel name/description nor even set it to show in Search. 

Even in the unlikely event that the parcel is still set for a basic search listing under its previous name and description, accidentally paid for by the previous owner, how likely is that to send searchers to this freebie mall?

Much more likely, the store is completely invisible to Search and thus visible only to hapless wanderers, inexplicably drawn to cookie-cutter freebie outlets. 

It's quite beyond me how this misbegotten endeavor could contribute anything to the SL economy, nor enhance anybody's SL experience -- perhaps least of all the doomed proprietors.

So it's not that this "squatter" is competing with any serious business.  It's just that the whole thing isn't worth the photons to render it even once.  It's just a dopey side-effect of a not-quite-complete abandonment by the previous owner, and anything the neighbors can do to protect their (paying) interests is fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:


Chronometria wrote:

Well, i would say to fight fire with fire.

 

As such, if they are not looking after the land but anyone can build on it......you should go build on it first and put something tasteful there. Need to be pro-active, otherwise more motivated people will beat you to it and this sort of thing happens.

Of course, that wont stop other people building on it, but it may well make them less likely to do so, or might fool them into thinking the land is being maintained, so they look elsewhere.

Otherwise, i agree with the posters above who suggested you file a ticket about it all and ask the lindens to set an auto return.

these alleged "squatters" are not being agressive, they opened a store.

all i can see from the OP is spite.

perhaps he should mind his own business eh?.

petty.

yes how horribly petty, I'm sure no legitimate RL business would ever complain if you set up a store in the adjacent empty lot... seriously?

as a general rule, people that ignore one property law or rule, are much more likely to violate others.

lets not forget they are alleged squatters.

before the keystone cops start griefing. oh they have done already...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

lets not forget they are
alleged
squatters.

before the keystone cops start griefing. oh they have done already...

 seems pretty clear based on abilities and behavior....

and while I didn't advocate griefing them I can certainly understand the sentiment, having seen similar scenarios play out before. I have very little sympathy for them.

rezzing a large prim in the store isn't so much griefing as it is testing and confirming a hypothesis. any legit land owner could have easily and quickly dealt with it... an squatter never can and must work around it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

lets not forget they are
alleged
squatters.

before the keystone cops start griefing. oh they have done already...

 seems pretty clear based on abilities and behavior....

and while I didn't advocate griefing them I can certainly understand the sentiment, having seen similar scenarios play out before. I have very little sympathy for them.

rezzing a large prim in the store isn't so much griefing as it is testing and confirming a hypothesis. any legit land owner could have easily and quickly dealt with it... an squatter never can and must work around it.

its griefing, pure and simple.

 

one of the stores i rent is full perms no return set, now what if the owner were away for a month on holiday or sick and some  presumptuous fool rezzed a giant prim there?

wouldnt that be just dandy?

you are prejudging the issue without evidence and hearsay does not count where i come from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

lets not forget they are
alleged
squatters.

before the keystone cops start griefing. oh they have done already...

Person's not the landowner and not in the landowner's group rezzed on the landowner's land. That's pretty cut and dry.

This is established not only from seeing who owns the land - but also by their failure to remove the prim placed on the land.

But you've got one thing right. It is griefing. Building on land you don't own is griefing both the landowner and those nearby.

 I would say its not griefing to fill up prims however if done non-visibly, as you're not leaving clutter or causing a sim-resource drain.

 AR the squatters and fill up the emtpy prims to prevent future griefers from setting up shop.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

[..] you are prejudging the issue without evidence and hearsay does not count where i come from.

 that's a plain silly assertion. to judge something I would actually have to be involved and take some kind of action based upon it. I'm not and haven't. I've done only what any forum goer can do... offer an opinion given the facts stated. the court of public opinion is just that, opinion; not a legal body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

 

Dogboat Taurog wrote:

lets not forget they are
alleged
squatters.

before the keystone cops start griefing. oh they have done already...

Person's not the landowner and not in the landowner's group rezzed on the landowner's land. That's pretty cut and dry.

This is established not only from seeing who owns the land - but also by their failure to remove the prim placed on the land.

But you've got one thing right. It is griefing. Building on land you don't own is griefing both the landowner and those nearby.

 I would say its not griefing to fill up prims however if done non-visibly, as you're not leaving clutter or causing a sim-resource drain.

 AR the squatters and fill up the emtpy prims to prevent future griefers from setting up shop.

 

one of the stores i rent is open perms, i do not need to have a tag to build there.

want proof?

griefing is ony griefing when LL says it is, not you or any of us mortals can make that decision without knowing the full facts - and we don't.

shoot first and ask questions later mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Void Singer wrote:


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

[..] you are prejudging the issue without evidence and hearsay does not count where i come from.

 that's a plain silly assertion. to judge something I would actually have to be involved and take some kind of action based upon it. I'm not and haven't. I've done only what any forum goer can do... offer an opinion given the facts stated. the court of public opinion is just that, opinion; not a legal body.

 

you were not given facts, you were given assumptions and hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dogboat Taurog wrote:

griefing is ony griefing when LL says it is


You could do well to listen to your own words there.

If the shop has a rental script or rental info yeah, then that's kind of evidence that the squatter isn't a squatter. And this is trivial to find out.

If its lacking, then a spade is a spade.

 

An example for me just happened inworld yesterday. I saw 'obvious squatters' setting up on some rental land. I IM'd the rental agency. Guess who was right? ;)

It doesn't take a genius to spot the difference between a renter and a squatter.

That rental lot is now empty again, and the rental agency changed the perms on its lot to prevent getting ripped off again - and thanked me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to illustrate? 

This is why all abandoned land should have auto return set to 1 or higher by default.

And just to be clear, in case people thought I'd have not tried all avenues before complaining here? It took (IIRC) three ARs on my part, a ticket (there would've been earlier/more of those if I could have gotten the support page to work properly), and a phone call to get the land cleared. And all this despite the fact I already had all land permissions off, so it wasn't really my land that would've been suffering. But some neighbors were clobbered. One IMd me to ask if there is anything I can do despite it not originating from, or being on my land, or of course the cubes not being mine at all. I suppose they were desperate.

The lady on the phone was incredibly nice and supportive and went in world right away to deal with it; the griefer had been very crafty and I probably shouldn't go into the logistics of it more than that, so I won't. But, phone support was great.

It is not as simple as reporting griefing with an AR or a ticket, though. Let's be very clear on that. I first reported it when it was one cube, in hopes it would be gone before a passerby clicked and replicated them. Clearly, until the system is such that grief reports can be dealt with immediately, land needs to have auto return set to 1 or higher and all land permissions off by default whenever it is abandoned.

Which was my original point: I just wasn't going into it at length, presuming more explanation was not necessary. This also applies to absentee land owners, too. Please, please, auto return on, land permissions off while you are on a months-or-years-long vacation, for your neighbors' sakes.

In this illustrations the white border = my land, the blue border = someone else's land with land permissions off. The cubes were so huge they could be seen from the map/sky. Mega prim cubes. In these pix you would barely even be able to detect my avatar were it in the frame.

By the way it also is not the case that all abandoned land goes automatically for sale to anyone. This has been abandoned at least for some weeks, which is when I first noticed & reported the original Megaprim Goo Cube. Again this is why I originally said what I said, and hoped further explanation wouldn't be necessary. 

Sorry for being wordy this time, but, really, the problem is much, much bigger across Second Life, with garbage all over neglected or abandoned land, than "file an AR" could hope to address. Or I wouldn't have said anything to begin with.

Goo Cube 1.png

Goo Cube 2.png

Goo Cube 3.png

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Melita Magic wrote:

 

This has been abandoned at least for some weeks

If the land was abandoned around April 21st or earlier (Announcing an Easier Way to Purchase Abandoned Mainland Property) then it wouldn't have been set for sale under this new policy.  If it was abandoned afterwards, then the system failed in this case.

The way the system is supposed to work and did work for me just recently is this.  You abandon land.  Governor Linden takes ownership, auto-return is set to 0, and it's set for sale back to you for L$1 per m².  After 24 hours, all prims on the land are returned to you, the land is set for sale to anyone, and auto-return is set to 5 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 4677 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...