The land griefing continues...

You assume the intent is to grief. Why? If the intent was not to grief, would he still be obligated to contact the neighbor?

you just have to see... I have been here more than 3 months... great neighbors with good sense...

this bad texture wall is BAD!!!! Vestalia, he didn't have the sense of communicating with me, like every neighbor does.... at least he could of put transparence on my side... is simple.. he did it ON PURPOSE!!

no idea why!

Are you saying you asked him to put transparency on your side of the wall and the owner refused? You've already contacted him and received a reply?

And what it should be? Palomma is on almost 24/7, so it would have costed him nothing to drop her an IM if he had honest intentions. And anyway one doesn't go out of his way to drop a wall 30 meters tall and 150 meters wide just out of a whim yanno?

Hiro: there is not only palommas building blocked by that wall, but even Rebecca's beautiful garden, and that being a garden, allows a lot of buffer space. The wall completely ruins the feel of it.

I am astonished at how fiercely some griefers that actively damage other people's effort and properties are defended by some people here.

I am here a lot lol *ejem* IM... drop me a line... lets discuss, I want to put a wall here.. hope you don't mind (that type of IM) would be nice....

he just did it intentionally...he covered others people view and property... and the texture is BAD!!.. is not a simple wall.... I wouldn't do that to you, I have a sense....

You wouldn't be happy

All I've done is ask questions. Reasonable questions.

I have not yet defended anything except your integrity by offering opportunity to demonstrate you're dealing with a griefer, as opposed to making assumptions that he is one.
So again, the owner of the wall has been contacted about the complaint before he's been publically accused of being a griever? He has responded? He has refused a request to change the wall textures?

No I wouldn't. I would begin by assuming it was done without malice and contacted him before posting this to the forums. Have you?

It's not palomma or the others in the neightborhood that should contact him, it's him that as the newcomer that enters any decent neightborhood and preparing to build something potentially negative, should take his time to talk with his neightbor whose properties he is about to influence and damage.
They have every right to complain, publicly if they feel like to do it. If the guy didnt want to be publicly accused of griefing he could have moved in a different way than an elephant in a crystal shop.

Frankly I think thats awesome. Give a hoot, go pollute!

It's your position then, that if someone builds something on their property, it's their responsibility -- as opposed to a courtesy -- to notify the neighbors beforehand, and if they do not, they have demonstrated dishonest intent.
And because they have not, questions or complaints about the build should not be made to the builder, but rather made as a public accusation of being a dishonest griefer. It should then be up to the person being accused of this to publically prove his honesty and non-malicious intentions.

Actually, no I don't know. I still maintain it would be more informative and just, if someone were to simply ask the guy instead of speculating about intentions. I don't accept that failure to communicate is the equivilent of dishonesty. Your analogy of the elephant is not lost on me, but I'm not sure the builder need be construed as a bad person for it -- the builder might simply be an elephant.
I don't accept the argument that "They shouldn't talk to him because he didn't talk them first." That has a ring of playground thought.
You've answered my third question.

My first question was closely echoed by Hiro, which you sidestepped:

Hiro's question, and mine, both referred to your original post which listed measurements and complained of closeness between the Dove Vogue and the new wall. Your and/also answer about a different property, though interesting, answers neither of us:



Between Hiro's question and my own, it's the third time you're being asked about your issue of proximity between the wall and the DV.

Ahhh, that is the sticky wicket, is it not?

Water is undesireable? You have no idea what the you are talking about. Much of my land is water, and premium.

You merely have a burr up your ass about builds that don't suit your tastes.

Funny, I am sorta glad I have missed the first 3 pages of this entire thread.

You know it befuddles me how anyone and I DO MEAN ANYONE can assume for a moment that they can judge anything else in SL with perspective.

On one hand I can see Shiryu's flustration with the build considering the fact that the land is for sale but on the other hand, I personally thought the build was unique as it reminded me of a power plant from Sim City4.

But considering my objectivity of the entire thread I continued to get angered as I read futher down the list of posts.

So Im not going to attack anyone individual I am merely going to say this.
Who gave any one individual the right to presume they are god and can judge anyone else.

If you ( you refering to any individual that equates themselves with this manner of thinking to follow) sincerely think like this I have a solution for you.
But, I cant mention it here on this thread even though it advocates the removal of Oxygen thieves from the presence of humanity with a concience thought of independent rights.


Now on a personal note and no one has to agree or abide by my thoughts as to be honest they are only speculation, simply based on information given thus far in the thread.
My perception to this point is the biggest supporters and arguments presented in this thread against the build are a multitude of alternate accounts.
Why do I speculate this sort of behavior.
Because many sound suspeciously like some arbiters that I have seen in the past advocating the same BS.
But again this is a personal perception without naming any names so I allow the community to draw thier own conclusions.
Again as I suspect I am not the only person that sees this but as per the new guidelines are unable to announce their theorys without getting angry and violating the guideline Robin L. put forth.

(Disclaimer, if I announce that I am speculating that means its a personal perception of information given throughout the thread via posts and retorts. In anycase by announcing speculation the mere fact that the information is valid or invalid can only be supported by mere conjecture from both sides of the fence and cannot be arbitrated fairly thus punishing me for my opinion henceforth dictates tyranical reign.)

Sincerely, Shadow Weaver

Ah, it's very likely that you missed the attribution in the comment line which said that I had written the script-lette.

HELP, HELP, I'm being oppressed, Shiryu is calling me a plagarist!!!!! And makes laggy, ugly builds!!! And doesn't know what "derisive parody" means!!! And is a polluter!!! And has destroyed the habitat of the endangered pygmy hippo!!! And causes global warming!!

I have the ideal place for them - a little plot in Seefeld

Put them next to the smellovision - and feel free to have a look around the area

Smells to me like a case of elitist artistes with a bad case of 'my s**t don't stink' attitude.

For whatever it is worth, to the creator of the smoke stacks: I liked them!

For anyone who wanted to read Prokofy's post but thought it was just too damn long, I've taken the liberty of editing it down to a more concise version....

*ponders* Do we need to get an Immanuel Kantbot in here?

i tend to agree, for sale plots should return all objects (including the owners' with say a 30 minute grace period for accidental setting)

since the objects will not transfer with the plot, there is no reason to 'have' them there in the first place besides extprting neighbors into buying it to remove bad builds

The end result reads like Big John Jade and George Orwells lovechild

Siggy.

I'll build what I want on my land, and until a sale is complete, the land remains mine, and I will build what I wish on it, within the terms of the TOS.

If someone builds a giant, ugly wall right by the side of your house, IM them and ask if they could please remove it, lower it, or retexture it. If they refuse to work with you, simply build your own wall and texture it how you like.

You can't tell folks what to build, or not to build, on land they are paying for, unless they are violating the ToS and Community Standards. It may make for some hardships, (I've had my share of neighbors in various sims that build ugly and then never visit), but to take away such freedom is to change, and lessen, what SL is all about.

i think it's a great idea to not allow us to set land for sale with items built on it. if you want to sell land, clear it off and sell the land. if you don't, don't.

this will eliminate problems such as for sale signs, greifing builds, astronomical prices listed in find & squares of foreign-owned land underneath a build.

the only thing it prevents is development in the sense that we won't be able to sell items on the property with the property. oh wait, we can't do that now? is ll planning to add that feature or are wel arguing to sacrifice a lot of good things for one nice feature that'll never exist?

actually, we will still be able to develop property, we just won't be able to use the builtin advertising mechanisms. i do believe, though, that people with enough business sense to develop property can find ways of advertising, without any help from ll, those projects to the kind of people that will purchase them lock, stock and barrel.

I strongly oppose this idea. The vast majority of people with builds on land they have for sale are in no way violating the TOS and have no nefarious intentions. This would benefit a very tiny minority while punishing the vast majority.

Vestalia: if one plans to build something that is potentially damaging to someone else's property (and we are not only talking about Palomma's property, but the property of FOUR people, palomma's is only the biggest of the four) he should at the very least drop him an im to know his opinion, otherwise he takes upon himself the responsibility of his actions and of the possible complaints, expecially if between the victims of such behavioir there is someone always available and friendly as Pal.
In this case, if you took a minute to go see the wall (in Davvi) you will notice it's carefully shaped to completely block Dove Vogue and the nearby garden. It would be a little difficult to disguise it between something else than an attack.
The issue of proximity is kind of a moot point, since DV was there first, and it's been there for a lot of time, if someone builds after someone else it's his responsibility to at least talk to the owner of the building was there first to find a decent solution. Othwerwise everyone could build all around and against his nneightbor's property and SL would turn in a far west. Think how nice it would be if everyone walled out the builds of their neightbors just out of a whim. It's their right since it's their land, but would turn SL in a far west in wich people grief each other until the situation explodes. Moreover there is a further difference. While DV (and the nearby garden) are full brlown buildings used for something (expecially DV always had a public utility purpose of giving visibility and space to new designers), the wall built "against" them is just that, an enormous 0.010wall, with an ugly not even tileable texture on it. It can't have any different purpose if not blocking someone else's property.
Wanna turn SL in a new Berlin in wich everyone builds his 30 meters walls around his property to block nout neightbors? Feel free if this is your choice, but i will always be against it.
By the way, as the second picture shows the wall runs even out of the guy's property, because it continues on the limits between DV and other two small 512 plots. Sure it keeps exactly between two sims and between two properties, so it's built on no one's land, but still its built in the property that guy does not own. He just came into the sim, slammed his immense wall there, without caring about anyone else's property, and i find VERY surprising that you continue to defend him so fiercely.

Shadow: i find kinda interesting that you feel that the people advocating the same "BS" against griefing builds are all alternate accounts, one could tell exactly the same of the other advocating the opposite "BS" on the other side. If people think differently from you they are not necessarily just one person writing with many accounts, you know?
anyway...



It's not about judging someone else, but about judging the damage someone else's build is doing to his neightbors. I got to the "factory" build while looking for a nice parcel of land for a newbie friend, near to it there is a very cute waterfront parcel that would have been just ideal for that newbie, but due to the "factory" we had to move on, i don't know many people that would like to build land near a particle emitting waste spewing monument to pollution... This not only damaged the newbie, becasuse she found herself deprieved of the chance of turning that cute waterfront plot in her little personal corner of second lifem, but damaged the land owner as well that finds the value and desirability of hois property drastically reduced. Same for all the other neightboring properties, that, in fact, remain unsold and undesirable.
The wall built against DV and the nearby properties is even worse. There the damage dealt to nearby properties is evident, and i doubt anyone could really think that wall is not damaging. Now i don't know if you want to defend the right of people to damage others as long as they do it on their own land (or on the very limits of it), but i honestly think this is not right, and will fight against it



So you gave it to yourself? wow. Not that i care about the paternity of that script, the idea is sure not original and the more are around the better.
Anyway your nice parody is only a quite ineffective way of disguising a personal attack, that as all personal attacks comes from lack of arguments.

I really really doubt SL is about the freedom of griefing each other with immense walls just out of a whim. Or maybe it is? Strange i didn't see any pictures about it on the front page of the website...