Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

1.8.0(3) - P2P changes! Huge privacy and landowner rights victory for SL!

Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
12-13-2005 02:46
From: Zepp Zaftig
I wonder if blocking teleportation to a parcel would also block teleportation from one part of the parcel to another. Even if you may want to block people from teleporting to your parcel, it would still be very useful to be able to use the upcoming llTeleportAgent function for intraparcel teleportation even when teleporting is blocked or landing point is set.

Zepp, that's an excellent point. I guess that's I need to start lobbying as well for allowing landowners to choose if intra-parcel teleporting is something that can be provided as an option in the land.

And, the bottom line is that land owners still lack lots of features we should have to tailor our SL content.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Magnum Serpentine
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,811
12-13-2005 05:09
I am not trolling, I am simply trying to figure out if you are trying to have land owners control each others land and the public lands as well.

I reject your soloution that if you cannot teleport to a private land, you go back to the telehub. or you get a message saying you cannot port and you remain where you are, because who knows how long it will take before you finally find a spot . This also defeats exploring
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
12-13-2005 05:54
From: Magnum Serpentine
Your question is completely off topic, and how dare you attack my lifestyle.


How dare I? I'm not attacking your lifestyle. If you read my previous posts, I said I've got nothing against what two consenting adults choose to do with one another. What I *do* have a problem with is your complete hypocrisy and question dodging; you're dodging questions with all the skill of the most conservative Republican politicians. So I'll ask, one more time:

From: FlipperPA Peregrine
You ignored the earlier question which I thought was quite poignant which I'll re-phrase, in case you missed it.

You express yourself on these forums as the champion of the MAJORITY of the people. How you could have met, interviewed and/or polled over 50% of SL's population... well over 45000... I have no idea. But I digress.

You consistently claim to represent democracy, choice, freedom and the majority. If that is the case, why do you practice a lifestyle that not only is inconsistent with freedom and choice, but is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF IT? Why am I not allowed to IM Whisper Speculaas without talking to you first? Or your other slave?

While I don't care what two consenting adults choose to do, I do care when someone is being COMPLETELY HYPOCRITICAL.

Please respond: How do you justify your chest-pounding as the champion of freedom and rights here when you practice the exact opposite in your choice of lifestyle?

Oh, and BTW - this isn't a personal attack, its a question about something I don't understand about you. You know I like you in general, we just disagree on most issues.


Now, let me explain, once again, why this is on-topic; I'll even number my points for you to make this stunningly clear:

(1) you continue to make claims as if you're the speaker for freedom, and the majority of the people.
(2) You practice a lifestyle (which is your right as a consenting adult - see, this isn't an attack!) which completely goes against democracy and freedom; you willingly call yourself a master to two slaves.
(3) You inhibit your slaves rights to receive IMs from anyone.
(4) You continue to call yourself a champion of the "rights of the people" and "freedom"; your lifestyle isn't just inconsistent with the statements, its the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.
(5) How can we take anything you say seriously with this extreme level of hypocrisy?

I'll keep asking every time you post until you actually answer instead of dodging the question and whining "personal attack", when in fact it is a question that needs to be answered to restore any shred of credibility you have left.

Regards,

-Flip
_____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars!
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
12-13-2005 06:07
From: Magnum Serpentine
All of this just leads back to the fact that the telehub owners want to stop pinpoint teleporting cold. Note the desire that if a person tries to teleport to a land that is no access, guess where it throws them.... You guessed it... The telehubs.

Nice try.


Please don't make me bring up your past (think late 2003 / early 2004) as debate points. You're really tempting me to.

Have you even paused to consider that some people might be opposed to dumping to a neighbors plot due to stalking implications? Probably not. If someone is trying to avoid someone else they don't want to see, is it fair to dump them mere meters away? Are you arguing for freedom, or the freedom to stalk? What about the privacy of people who've been stalked by others in Second Life? Shouldn't they have some sort of privacy controls put in place before handing over what could be the ultimate stalking and griefing tool? I tend to think so.

Imagine that you're a woman with an ex in Second Life who's giving you a hard time. You have a 16 meter by 32 meter 512-size plot. That means your ex who's been hassling you can teleport closer than EIGHT METERS to you with the click of the button any time he sees a green dot on the map on your plot, regardless of if you've cancelled friendship with him. I'm not opposed to P2P teleporting - I'm opposed to it when the proper privacy controls aren't in place to guarantee peoples' privacy rights.

But I guess we'll just have to let the stalkers stalk and the griefers grief before we get any kind of privacy expectations. Have at it, Mags.

Regards,

-Flip
_____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars!
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
12-13-2005 06:09
From: Hiro Pendragon
No, my whole argument is based on landowners should have the ability to deny tp.
Landowners have the ability to deny TP.

They don't have the ability to force the denied TP to go back to a telehub. But they do have the ability to deny TP.

They also have the ability to force the TP to go to any location of their choice in the parcel, and since parcels can be discontinuous that can be any location in the sim.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
12-13-2005 06:14
From: Hiro Pendragon
How about as another alternative, when someone tries to port to land that is blocked, offer teleport or not, they are given a dialog box. "Teleport Blocked to this parcel. Do you want to land at the nearest public land?"
Bad user interface design: you should never pop up a dialog box where the only possible action is to continue doing what you were already doing.
From: someone
I suppose that helps with another issue - people being redirected and not know what's going on - they'd at least have an explanation why.
A pop-up message in the bottom corner of the screen would give you that.
From: someone
Are we building a world that is default fantastic, and people have to opt-out to make things realistic? Or, are we building a world that is default realistic, that people have to enable it to be fantastical?
If being able to rez plywood whenever you wanted was realistic, I'd like to know how. It would have been handy when Hurricane Rita was coming.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
12-13-2005 06:24
From: Sabrina Doolittle
1/ P2P enabled at the land owner's discretion.
Check.

From: someone
2/ Land owners also have the alternative option to set a single landing point on a plot.
Check.

From: someone
3/ People attempting to P2P to non-enabled land deflected back to the nearest Telehub and given the beam to their target.
Whereupon they will in most cases bring up the map again and click somewhere nearby, and teleport there instead. Because even making half a dozen attempted teleports is quicker than flying.

From: someone
Apparently that isn't how it's going to work, and I can't understand that. WHY would you dump someone looking for a specific location into the nearest available but totally unrelated plot?
Because that's where they're going to end up anyway, after you dumped them into a distant and totally unrelated plot.
From: someone
Also, where on next door's plot will they be dumped? A designated landing point? Mid-air? The living room? The pool? This just doesn't sound very workable to me, from a privacy or practicality standpoint.
Apparently, the answer is the nearest available point if they haven't set a LP. Which should be fine if you don't build your living room right up against the edge of the parcel.

Personally, I think that ALL parcels should default to "no teleport". Which would be a better way to resolve Hiro's and your problem... the nearest point will be public land unless your neighbors EXPLICITLY enable TP... but that seems to be too sensible an idea.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
12-13-2005 06:27
From: Zepp Zaftig
I wonder if blocking teleportation to a parcel would also block teleportation from one part of the parcel to another. Even if you may want to block people from teleporting to your parcel, it would still be very useful to be able to use the upcoming llTeleportAgent function for intraparcel teleportation even when teleporting is blocked or landing point is set.
That's why I suggested allowing it to work for scripts owned by the landowner. So you could set up teleports in your house without opening it up for random visitors.
Hank Ramos
Lifetime Scripter
Join date: 15 Nov 2003
Posts: 2,328
12-13-2005 06:28
Who's gonna make the first ever, auto-ptp-teleporting, camping chair network? :D
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
12-13-2005 06:30
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
Imagine that you're a woman with an ex in Second Life who's giving you a hard time. You have a 16 meter by 32 meter 512-size plot. That means your ex who's been hassling you can teleport closer than EIGHT METERS to you with the click of the button any time he sees a green dot on the map on your plot, regardless of if you've cancelled friendship with him. I'm not opposed to P2P teleporting - I'm opposed to it when the proper privacy controls aren't in place to guarantee peoples' privacy rights.
Buy some prim land or swap a 16m square with someone on the other side of the sim. Set your LP in that square. Someone TPs to you, they end up 200-300 meters away.
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
12-13-2005 06:32
From: Argent Stonecutter
Buy some prim land or swap a 16m square with someone on the other side of the sim. Set your LP in that square. Someone TPs to you, they end up 200-300 meters away.


This is about as big a hack of a solution as I've seen presented to the problem, but I'll give you points for creativity, hehe.

Consider: what if no one is willing to trade? What if your sim is all taken up and has been that way for ages (as most of the old simulators are)? What if getting another 16 meters would put you over your tier, because you have 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, etc?

Not good enough, my friernd. :-)

Regards,

-Flip
_____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars!
Soleil Mirabeau
eh?
Join date: 6 Oct 2005
Posts: 995
12-13-2005 06:42
jail is in place and ready for use. :D
Magnum Serpentine
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,811
12-13-2005 07:36
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
Please don't make me bring up your past (think late 2003 / early 2004) as debate points. You're really tempting me to.

Have you even paused to consider that some people might be opposed to dumping to a neighbors plot due to stalking implications? Probably not. If someone is trying to avoid someone else they don't want to see, is it fair to dump them mere meters away? Are you arguing for freedom, or the freedom to stalk? What about the privacy of people who've been stalked by others in Second Life? Shouldn't they have some sort of privacy controls put in place before handing over what could be the ultimate stalking and griefing tool? I tend to think so.

Imagine that you're a woman with an ex in Second Life who's giving you a hard time. You have a 16 meter by 32 meter 512-size plot. That means your ex who's been hassling you can teleport closer than EIGHT METERS to you with the click of the button any time he sees a green dot on the map on your plot, regardless of if you've cancelled friendship with him. I'm not opposed to P2P teleporting - I'm opposed to it when the proper privacy controls aren't in place to guarantee peoples' privacy rights.

But I guess we'll just have to let the stalkers stalk and the griefers grief before we get any kind of privacy expectations. Have at it, Mags.

Regards,

-Flip



My past?????
Magnum Serpentine
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,811
12-13-2005 07:37
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
Please don't make me bring up your past (think late 2003 / early 2004) as debate points. You're really tempting me to.

Have you even paused to consider that some people might be opposed to dumping to a neighbors plot due to stalking implications? Probably not. If someone is trying to avoid someone else they don't want to see, is it fair to dump them mere meters away? Are you arguing for freedom, or the freedom to stalk? What about the privacy of people who've been stalked by others in Second Life? Shouldn't they have some sort of privacy controls put in place before handing over what could be the ultimate stalking and griefing tool? I tend to think so.

Imagine that you're a woman with an ex in Second Life who's giving you a hard time. You have a 16 meter by 32 meter 512-size plot. That means your ex who's been hassling you can teleport closer than EIGHT METERS to you with the click of the button any time he sees a green dot on the map on your plot, regardless of if you've cancelled friendship with him. I'm not opposed to P2P teleporting - I'm opposed to it when the proper privacy controls aren't in place to guarantee peoples' privacy rights.

But I guess we'll just have to let the stalkers stalk and the griefers grief before we get any kind of privacy expectations. Have at it, Mags.

Regards,

-Flip



If I remember right, 2003-2004 I was still hiding in my little house in Freelon. I have absolutly no ideal what you are talking about.
Magnum Serpentine
Registered User
Join date: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 1,811
12-13-2005 08:16
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
How dare I? I'm not attacking your lifestyle. If you read my previous posts, I said I've got nothing against what two consenting adults choose to do with one another. What I *do* have a problem with is your complete hypocrisy and question dodging; you're dodging questions with all the skill of the most conservative Republican politicians. So I'll ask, one more time:



Now, let me explain, once again, why this is on-topic; I'll even number my points for you to make this stunningly clear:

(1) you continue to make claims as if you're the speaker for freedom, and the majority of the people.
(2) You practice a lifestyle (which is your right as a consenting adult - see, this isn't an attack!) which completely goes against democracy and freedom; you willingly call yourself a master to two slaves.
(3) You inhibit your slaves rights to receive IMs from anyone.
(4) You continue to call yourself a champion of the "rights of the people" and "freedom"; your lifestyle isn't just inconsistent with the statements, its the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.
(5) How can we take anything you say seriously with this extreme level of hypocrisy?

I'll keep asking every time you post until you actually answer instead of dodging the question and whining "personal attack", when in fact it is a question that needs to be answered to restore any shred of credibility you have left.

Regards,

-Flip



Flipper,

I only thought I was the spokesperson because I wrote the proposal. I apologize for any wrong I have caused. And I think I need to stop posting to this thread. I was just trying to represent those who supported my proposal.
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
12-13-2005 08:20
From: Magnum Serpentine
Flipper,

I only thought I was the spokesperson because I wrote the proposal. I apologize for any wrong I have caused. And I think I need to stop posting to this thread. I was just trying to represent those who supported my proposal.


Thanks for answering and your honesty. That's all I really wanted. I'm just in the camp that thinks there's a lot more that needs to be thought about and discussed with P2P and that the whole thing was a bit rushed. I'm pro-P2P, but again, I think we're rushing to something that will be nice without thinking about the pain it can cause residents in world due to the total lack of any privacy controls.

Regards,

-Flip
_____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars!
Sera Cela
A little bit of crazy
Join date: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 197
12-13-2005 08:31
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
Imagine that you're a woman with an ex in Second Life who's giving you a hard time. You have a 16 meter by 32 meter 512-size plot. That means your ex who's been hassling you can teleport closer than EIGHT METERS to you with the click of the button any time he sees a green dot on the map on your plot, regardless of if you've cancelled friendship with him. I'm not opposed to P2P teleporting - I'm opposed to it when the proper privacy controls aren't in place to guarantee peoples' privacy rights.

CODE
default
{
on_rez(integer blah)
{
llSetTimerEvent(1);
}
timer()
{
llSensor("Persons Name",NULL_KEY,AGENT,20,PI);
}
sensor(integer numdetected)
{
llTeleportAgentHome(llDetectedKey(0));
}
}

There ya go, I call it the personal restraining order. Drop that on a prim in the center of your land, and if he comes on your land he gets teleported home.

People are expecting the p2p teleport system to deal with too many issues. This is a great example of that. People will still beable to explore/invade places now just as easially as they have in the past. If I want to go somewhere and watch something, private home, skybox, whatever, it's easy to do. If they force your teleport to end up 3 sims away it is just as easy, it just takes me 3 minutes to fly there.

I'll agree that stalking is an issue. However dealing with it is not a job of the p2p teleporting system. It's a seperate issue.
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
12-13-2005 08:44
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
Consider: what if no one is willing to trade? What if your sim is all taken up and has been that way for ages (as most of the old simulators are)? What if getting another 16 meters would put you over your tier, because you have 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, etc?
What if you don't have any land, how do you keep your ex away then? What if you've only got 512, and don't want to tier up? And what does it have to do with teleporting anyway? Your ex could fly over in the space sim and llApplyImpulse himself down to your position at Ludicrous Speed.
Sabrina Doolittle
Registered User
Join date: 15 Nov 2005
Posts: 214
12-13-2005 08:54
From: Argent Stonecutter
Whereupon they will in most cases bring up the map again and click somewhere nearby, and teleport there instead. Because even making half a dozen attempted teleports is quicker than flying.


Possibly. I'm not sure about that; we live with a lot of attachments these days, so who knows. I have doubts about how often people use the map; I rarely use it myself unless bringing up landmarks for TP. But then my player experience is my own and it is difficult to extrapolate an average experience from that.

From: someone
Because that's where they're going to end up anyway, after you dumped them into a distant and totally unrelated plot.


Aye but a telehub is an identifiable, central, public space. My neighbour's land is not. Additionally, if my neighbour sets his LP for the far side of his property, you can't even see mine from there; this experience will prove to be quite disorienting, I suspect. TH do have an advantage over random LPs, I think.

From: someone
Apparently, the answer is the nearest available point if they haven't set a LP. Which should be fine if you don't build your living room right up against the edge of the parcel.


Interesting. Of course, I *do* have my house against the very edge of my plot; to the front is the, umm, ocean and to the right is the public boardwalk. (I live on a sim with grided private islands and public boardwalks between them.) In this instance, the boardwalk or the telehub are sensible places to land folk; the reindeer-infested lawn of my other-side neighbour is not. He's never there, he never logs on, he's never going to set a landing point, and someone is going to end up with an antler up their backside in very short order. Which, granted, will be amusing at least.

From: someone
Personally, I think that ALL parcels should default to "no teleport". Which would be a better way to resolve Hiro's and your problem... the nearest point will be public land unless your neighbors EXPLICITLY enable TP... but that seems to be too sensible an idea.


I would be fine with that. The people who have a vested interest in enabling P2P are by and large commercial enterprises. I assume that if you're that invested in the workings of the game, you're going to be able to figure out a tick box on your land properties, hey ho.

- - -

The issue here is really that there isn't a way to differentiate "I want to go to this exact commericial location I have recieved a P2P landmark for from the land owner" P2Ping from "I want to click random places on a map and instigate my own, potentially annoying P2Ping."

P2Ping only to a landmark generated by the landowner - now that would be an ideal solution, no?
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
12-13-2005 09:43
From: Sera Cela
CODE
default
{
on_rez(integer blah)
{
llSetTimerEvent(1);
}
timer()
{
llSensor("Persons Name",NULL_KEY,AGENT,20,PI);
}
sensor(integer numdetected)
{
llTeleportAgentHome(llDetectedKey(0));
}
}

There ya go, I call it the personal restraining order. Drop that on a prim in the center of your land, and if he comes on your land he gets teleported home.

People are expecting the p2p teleport system to deal with too many issues. This is a great example of that. People will still beable to explore/invade places now just as easially as they have in the past. If I want to go somewhere and watch something, private home, skybox, whatever, it's easy to do. If they force your teleport to end up 3 sims away it is just as easy, it just takes me 3 minutes to fly there.

I'll agree that stalking is an issue. However dealing with it is not a job of the p2p teleporting system. It's a seperate issue.


Great, so now you're saying to run a sensor every second, which will cause the entire sim to perform worse and able to handle less agents and scripts that are actually necessary. Also, please note llSensorRepeat is a much easier way to use a repeating sensor than mixing in a timer.

The fact remains IM-style privacy controls should be introduced before P2P. Why should the woman in my scenario be required to understand scripting to be able to have privacy? And what about when her stalker creates an alt, sees her green dot on the map because she can't black list him or log in "invisibly", and ports to her green dot on her plot on the map, thus evading the llTeleportAgentHome() call?

I'm not anti-P2P, as I've said before - just anti-P2P before privacy controls. I agree its not the job of the p2p system, but privacy controls should have be implemented first. It only makes sense.

Regards,

-Flip
_____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars!
FlipperPA Peregrine
Magically Delicious!
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,703
12-13-2005 09:47
From: Argent Stonecutter
What if you don't have any land, how do you keep your ex away then? What if you've only got 512, and don't want to tier up? And what does it have to do with teleporting anyway? Your ex could fly over in the space sim and llApplyImpulse himself down to your position at Ludicrous Speed.


That's exactly my point - with a proper white list / black list system, and IM-style privacy controls, your ex wouldn't even know you're online!
_____________________
Peregrine Salon: www.PeregrineSalon.com - my consulting company
Second Blogger: www.SecondBlogger.com - free, fully integrated Second Life blogging for all avatars!
Dorra Debs
Poptart
Join date: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 177
My p2p experience
12-14-2005 15:01
First day with p2p and someone tp's to my land. I was working at the time and she was pretty much in my way. I asked if I could help her and she said no that she was just trying out p2p and had picked my place at random, but she didn't move. I told her that she was on private property and that I was busy and got no response. 10 minutes later I banned her from my property. I then set up a lp in a far corner of my lot, screened it off with privacy sceeen and made a sign that says "You have tped onto private property. Please respect my privacy." Hope this solves my problem, but if it doesn't I will ban p2p from my property.

Dorra
Nicola Samiam
xoxox
Join date: 22 Oct 2004
Posts: 142
12-18-2005 15:13
From: Dyne Talamasca
Putting silly obstacles in people's paths is an innately unfriendly and unwelcoming act, just like setting ban lines.....you could have just turned on the ban lines.


Who turns on "Ban lines"? Landowners legitimately restrict access to their land precisely to stop the "unfriendly and unwelcoming" actions of people who think it's ok to just wander into someone's property and give them grief.
The Lindens control the visible lines, not the landowners.
Huge difference: Like the difference between locking your rl front door and having a big huge sign outside that says "F**K OFF!".
It should be possible to have the first, without having to have the second imposed every time you lock your door!
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
12-18-2005 15:49
From: FlipperPA Peregrine
That's exactly my point - with a proper white list / black list system, and IM-style privacy controls, your ex wouldn't even know you're online!

Flipper, I can't even get into your idea to consider it, because this "white list/black list" sounds so terrible, just the words of it turns me off.

coco
_____________________
VALENTINE BOUTIQUE
at Coco's Cottages

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Rosieri/85/166/87
Dyne Talamasca
Noneuclidean Love Polygon
Join date: 9 Oct 2005
Posts: 436
12-18-2005 16:01
From: Nicola Samiam
Who turns on "Ban lines"?


Everyone that uses the access controls for any reason whatsoever. Don't be pedantic. "Turning on ban lines" works just as well for referring to the result as it does for an intent.

From: someone
Landowners legitimately restrict access to their land precisely to stop the "unfriendly and unwelcoming" actions of people who think it's ok to just wander into someone's property and give them grief.


Not necessarily. You realize it's possible to ban the entire Second Life population (except yourself) by simply clicking the checkbox on the Access list and not adding any names, right?

Some people (not a trivial number, judging by how many times I've hit them the very first time I ever visited their sim, much less encountered their land) limit access to a few people they know personally, quite independently of whether anyone has done something to warrant banning.

People especially do this when they are new and don't know very many people. The Second Life world is large and complex, and it's probably, in part, a way of keeping the world at arm's length until you get your bearings.

Then again, they could just be jerks. It's not as though those are rare on the internet.

Or just forgot to turn it off.

From: someone
The Lindens control the visible lines, not the landowners.
Huge difference: Like the difference between locking your rl front door and having a big huge sign outside that says "F**K OFF!".
It should be possible to have the first, without having to have the second imposed every time you lock your door!


It's more analogous to building a wall around your entire yard than locking your door, IMO.

But even locking your door can be seen that way. I strongly suspect that many real life communities even today see it exactly that way. And even within my lifetime, I've watched the practice become significantly more prevalent. There are a number of factors that make the act more common like it is today, but none of them make it friendly.


Anyway, it doesn't matter whether the lines are visible or not, if people are bouncing off your borders, it's still an unfriendly and unwelcoming act. Especially when they person bouncing has never been there before and wouldn't know you from Bob.

The only thing changing the lines' visibility would do (aside from possibly not looking as ugly when you are next to one) is making it less likely people would realize it in time to avoid smacking into your boundary. Not that the current lines are all that helpful there, since they disappear beyond a certain small distance.

I'm not saying it's not justified or necessary to use access controls. It certainly is. But, as with locking your door, justification or necessity doesn't make it friendly.
_____________________
Dyne Talamasca - I hate the word "bling".

Miscellany on MySLShop.com, SLB, and SLEx

Plonk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9