Overzealous Security and Rude Landowners

I'm sorry - where did I talk about being rude at all? Please show where I was talking about attitudes at all - rather, what I was saying is to try and understand that each person has different perceptions and justifications. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Closing your land is just RUDE. We all have our griefer problems. I get hit with griefers more often than anyone. It comes down to this if you close your land to me I will close my land to you but only you and others like you. What is so hard to understand? I ban only griefers and those that close thair land to me. You may not like it either but it is a price you have to pay for your actions. I have done nothing to deserve being banned and dont like getting treated like a griefer.

No where did I say anything about my land being closed. In fact, it is rather open. The only place that is 'closed' is a 50 meter cube at 700 meters up - and it warns that is is closed.

So once again, I ask you to reply to MY comments, and not try to tie my comments into other assumed actions or comments.

Please go back to my original reply to Lewis - I did not say anything about bans, closed land, blocks, or anything else. I was correcting what I felt was a incorrect statement of his, that is all.

Trying to make a point oh RUDE one. You want to have a secure lot but still be able to fly over others land.

You have made no compromising and that includes your alts.

Anyway I did not start this by banning peaceful residents using security orbs in the guise of protecting themselves.

I call again for peaceful residents to close their airspace to no warning security orb and white list users.

Just like them you need no reason to close your airspace to any resident!

In RL a country that closes its airspace to anothers aircraft will have the same done to them.

It is not quite the same but close enough for me.

I gave. You kept demanding more and only took.

I took back.

Closing your land is just RUDE. We all have our griefer problems. I get hit with griefers more often than anyone. It comes down to this if you close your land to me I will close my land to you but only you and others like you. What is so hard to understand? I ban only griefers and those that close thair land to me. You may not like it either but it is a price you have to pay for your actions. I have done nothing to deserve being banned and dont like getting treated like a griefer.

I just looked over your other postings and am left well confused at best. Please explain yourself some more to allow a more complete understanding of your position.

Closing my land is my right. You flying through it uninvited is RUDE.

I have returned the favor and closed the airspace over my land to you. No security orb needed

WRONG! The security is a 30M radius that just covers my skybox. I have not in any way stopped anyone from travelling through my land.WRONG! 30M radius, the smallest I can get while still covering my skybox with an 8 second warning is one heck of a compromise from what it used to be... (think twice the radius with only 6 seconds warning...)

Oh, and though I have an alt, it's never once posted on the forums. I have the strength of my convictions that means I don't need to hide behind an alt when I post.Neither did I... I use a blanket warning then eject system that protects my home while allowing people to visit/travel through my land. No-one has been banned from my land, and never will.So... that's not calling for them to ban me then? That's funny because you've repeatedly called on them to ban me...

Guess some people do manage to change their tune... or have you realised that you were trying to get someone banned who'd done nothing to deserve getting banned and were treating them like a griefer...?Guess what? My airspace isn't closed...The closest you can get to how my security is, is a country that has a small area of restricted airspace...

You'll find there's a world of difference between having some restricted airspace and closing it all off. This is a difference that seems to be lost on you at the moment...
To you, it seems that an area of restricted airspace is the same as totally blocking off all the airspace...

That is a vast difference, which should be apparent to you. The fact that you consider then to be close enough to be alike shows that you have no understanding of what is going on and are just pontificating about this while disregarding what people say or do.


In short, you have made several assumptions about me that have been shown to be in error, you have constantly attacked me using those assumptions, you refuse to accept your own mistakes, you refuse to make any form of compromise, you refuse to acknowledge that people HAVE made compromises, you have denigrated me and others like me, you have been offensive, you are being intolerant towards me and people like me, you are leading a call to segrigate innocent people and are being incredibly hypocritical...

And you call me the rude one...

This is the first you have stated any of this. If you didn’t state it you implied that your policy was the same as Jonas with his no warning, alarm mode, tp home.

Let’s see 30 meters and 8 seconds to clear should be ok. With my flying style probably I would have cleared your land without receiving any warning at all.

Seems we have had a misunderstanding all along. If what you say is true and I have no reason to doubt it, we have no reason to be at conflict with each other at all! I am sorry for any misunderstanding and apologize for offending you. Thank you for making your position clear.

Again sorry for the problem and hope you enjoy your Second Life!

My position on the subject? I haven't posted one - have no interest in getting into a mud slinging contest. Each person will act as required by their perceptions..

I commented on Lewis' comment that someone else's position wasn't a valid justification for that person - I stated that it was a valid justification - for that person. It is up to each indivitual to decide what is justification for their actions. Everyone else does not have to agree with that justification, but they should accept that it is a valid justification to the individual..

A blanket statement that a justification isn't valid does nothing to help someone see a different point - it just causes defensive behavor which is not helpful in a rational discussion..

So, when you replied to me with quotes, but proceed to talk about being rude and to expect rude behavor in return, I in turn asked what that had to do with my statement.

You never even read did you? I use eject. I added a warning. I moved my skybox to 700m. I decreased my sensor range.

You demanded more, and never gave.

I put everything back.

Separate me from Friend Lewis who (I think) demands access while I demand the right to know the status of land which is not the same.

Jonas, we agree on more than we disagree. You change your security policy often and getting ejected means finding yourself sailing through the air without your vehicle without any reason or warning. I take offense to that and will continue to state that when these threads come up. Separate me from Friend Lewis who (I think) demands access while I demand the right to know the status of land which is not the same. About banning people who use a white list, if they limit access to their land I have the right to exercise the same privilege.

I still hope that Linden Labs will look and these threads and think about the flyers problems and do something about it one way or another. They also need to fix the problem of crossing a sim boundary on a vehicle and come up with a set policy on air rights. No Clinton approach of it could be this or it might mean that but a firm position. The policy is different depending on which Linden you encounter.

Ranma, you had notice on my land. I was out of the way. I didn't send you all the way home.

I gave room because someone has to be the first to.

I took those steps towards a compromise.

You continued to belittle my attempt.

You won't be happy until noone has any security.

You got the status of my land when my warning went off.

You couldn't accept that.

You want to define our status for us.

It is you that has brought my skybox back to where I had it..raised my scan range again, and taken off warning.

Any flyers get hit, its on your head.

I don't have a problem if people really are so paranoid that they want to restrict people flying over their land innocently.

My problem is that there is insufficient warning and indication that an area is 'no access to flyers', because of a user's unwillingness to spend a few prims with beacons indicating that an area is out of bounds.

99% of people have no problem with people innocently flying across their land. It's the 1% who are worried to a point beyond reasonable behaviour, and those who just can't be bothered to set them up correctly.

I am just now working on a flashing beacon that can be put up around a skybox to show that there is a security system, and I will give it away free to anyone who asks for it.

Lewis