Immense ugly griefing eyesores, a risk land-owning for residents?

Check out this thread, started by Cross Lament, for a productive suggestion on how to cut down on this. Critique, add to, or show support for the idea. Apparently it's been discussed before too, and I'm not suprised, as it's a sensible idea.

I really don't give a rat's ass what you do Prokofy. That's my whole point. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone does as long as they conform to the TOS. Why? Because I expect people in general and my neighbors in particular to understand that they don't have any inherent right to tell me what I can and cannot do on my own land. Given that, it would be extremely hyporcitical of me to have your point of view that neighbors should neg rate each other or apply social pressure to make someone change a build that doesn't suit their subjective tastes but isn't a TOS violation. As I've stated before, I find it ironic and amusing that someone who complains so much about an "elite" that lords over the rest of the community feels entitled to extort people with ratings to get his way. I also happen to enjoy debating. Strong personalities with strong opinions make for interesting debates. I'm not quixotic enough to think I could ever change your mind. You're far too myopic, which is partly what makes you so damn entertaining. Beyond that I just want to see how many times I can make you say "fuck you hedonism." Carry on.

Chip just let it go. Some people will never get that you can do what you want with your land.

There is no such thing as "exploiting aesthetics". This is a term conjured up by people who are looking to enforce taste and nobody buys it.

You people think this is new? That we all haven't had big gaudy spinning towers set up next to our homes? Please.

Tell you, if I put up an ugly tower on a plot I bought cheap, and you decided to buy me out at twice the "going rate", whatever the hell that is, and I sold that money on GOM or IGM or whatever and made a nice profit, I would consider my experiment a success and would turn it right into a business model. I'll sob and cry an ocean as I attempt to shove my wheelbarrow of L$ to the bank.

Don't buy the land, stop bothering them. Just look right through them, pay for your own land and mind your own business. It's good advice anywhere.

I tried. Sometimes I guess you just gotta let 'em touch the stove.

Can't I poke him with the stick just one more time? Please? Ohhh, all right.

You just never get it, even though Shiryu has explained it far more eloquently than I.

I don't suggest neighbours should negrate each other or apply social pressure to make someone change a build that doesn't suit their subjective tastes. I've never said that, I've never done that, I've never advocated that. Your persistence in claiming this is my position just shows your own myopia -- it's somehow part of the foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds. You're so bent on protecting your "freedom" and your right to "fuck-you hedonism" that you can't see a simple point. You want nothing but to discredit me so you try to ascribe to me a repression of freedom or an imposition of my subjective tastes. But that's not what either me or Shiryu or others trying to raise this issue are talking about.

I believe in negrating and applying social pressure in the following, narrowly proscribed situations:

1. When a build lags the entire sim tremendously with spinning, light, particle etc scripts.
2. When a build is designed to intimidate someone into buying the lot, when a person builds an ugly, big, glowing, spinning thing and sets it to sale -- thereby proving that they are NOT interested in "art" or "experiment" or "just doing what the hell I want on my own land" BECAUSE THEY HAVE SET IT FOR SALE DUH.
3. When someone's build blocks physical access to your land, i.e. on water in front of your waterfront.
4. When a build completely dominates and entire sim/neighborhood because of its size or light such that everyone is adversely affected by it, i.e. it colors all properties its own color.

There. Understand now? Or will you persist in your idiocy?

Yeah, sure.
"There are no piranhas in that pond! Let's swim!"
*munch munch munch munch*
lol

"Hobgoblin". "Fuck you hedonists". Idiocy. Myopia. You are apparently incapable of making your point without resorting to profanity and insults. Well done.

And registered what, four months ago?

Talk to me in a year when you've learned something about SL.

/ignore4ever. I'm outta this. Plz watch your bloodpressure buh bye.

This post is sociologically interesting, it includes both the usual insults and the (quite tasteless) statement than if one is newer his opinion counts nothing.
Basically the two usual elements (besides corrections in grammar) that characterize posts made by people that ran out of arguments.

Oh my god, please go to college or something.

I figure I'll throw in a dumb question. If someone is going into epileptic fits because their neighbor has huge green and black animated textures why not throw up a huge wall with a texture of the sky? I know that might not be the most aesthetic thing in the world but will save you from seeing the eyesore while dining on your porch.

As much a fervently feted fan as I am of Neon Watermelons, if I ever moved into a themed community with friendly people like Lusk or Uli with a certain je-ne-sais-quois to it but with a certain rolling design and rockin' naturescape present, I would humble myself and want to be a good neighbor. I could still be myself yet "fit in" while expanding my personal boundaries of how I see myself and what it means to be me. It perhaps would even be a fascinating challenge of sorts, and teach me new things about who I am and about other people. I would welcome the experience and the diversity that it would bring to my life.

LOL! If they aren't TOS violations then you're extorting people to conform to your personal "enhanced" TOS. So in other words, exactly what I bloody said.

I'll bow out of this now. Carry on

Is that possible for LL to do? That's the best solution I have heard!

I'm not sure. But it would solve sooooooo many disputes.

Oh, katy, Cross started a thread about it here:

/13/51/33068/1.html

Chime in at your leisure!

This should say it all, shouldn't it?

Of course, that was 2003 and this is 2005, and I'm sure that Daniel misses the days when the volume of *weekly* abuse reports could be counted on one's fingers and toes and he could keep a weekly police blotter under the Announcements section of the forums. The Community Standards haven't changed so much since 2003 from what I gather but the size of SL and the volume of abuse has.

I respect individual rights and rational self-interest, but the statement that "you can do whatever you want with your land" isn't completely true, even in Second Life.



Since we're talking about land that Anshe is trying to sell...being a business girl is Anshe's way of enjoying her Second Life. (I realize that I'm walking a very thin tightrope here and people are probably throw arguments at me based on the Falicy of the Slippery Slope). The question is: Is Biff *intentionaly* trying to go after Anshe and other land retailers? If that's the case, then you have a community standards (and TOS by extention) violation.

**RUMOR ALERT -- TAKE WITH BIG CHUNK OF ROCK SALT** I have heard people discuss (on IRC mostly) the idea of intentionaly buying land in the middle of for-sale plots and putting annoying builds on them in order to drive land barrons out of business. Couppled with Biff's almost self righteous yet cryptic defence of himself ("i might have motives you haven't thought of" and Prokofy's report of his conversation with him (an "experiment that buying the land or disclosing the nature of would spoil", it could be logicaly concluded that this might be what he is up to. **END RUMOR**

That's exactly what i thought Elle.

Think of this for a second
big ugly eysore building i nthe Ontario Sim
The C.N. Tower in The Ontario Province

Artistic connection? A parody of reality? O.0

well thats all the alterior motives i can think of.

I don't disagree at all Elle. I wasn't defending the actions of this individual but at the same time I wasn't making assumptions based on such little information either. When it comes to matters of possible TOS violations the proper course of action is to talk to the person and try to come to an agreement (and not by caving into demands). If that doesn't work and the build in question isn't a TOS violation either swallow your pride and accept that they have a right to build as they see fit or move. If you think it's a TOS violation, file an abuse report and let the Lindens investigate. The slippery slope isn't a fallacy.

The problem is, the abuse report has been filed (according to Anshe) and the build is still there. Prokofy has tried to talk to him and Biff certianly isn't volunteering information as to his intentions.

I guess what the question should be is, what can be done to get the Lindens to notice the problem so it can be resolved (considering that the first abuse report ought to have been enough but apparently wasn't). Untill then (or untill LL gives us better land tools), there isn't much recourse available exept for complaining about it on the forums and using neg-rates.




The Fallacy of the Slippery Slope (Scroll down to item number 4).

*fondly remembers her philosophy professor ranting about people who commit that fallacy while calling their arguement an example of a slippery slope and using it to defend their arguement*.

I am in search of a rough consensus in the forums and in the game about what is ugly and obstructive and "disturbs the peace". The Linden TOS actually has some language about that as Elle has helpfully pointed out. I actually don't want to turn to the Lindens over this issue. I really think it is possible to develop a social norm among people where they will not let this extortionist practice pass, where they will feel empowered to stand up, be counted, discuss such actions, negrate such actions, and establish a threshold of what is appropriate and tolerable on a very narrow issue -- the ugly, obstructionist, extortionist build.

I don't believe this is my "enhanced" TOS. Go over the list. Lagging a sim, obstructing passageway to one's home or land for sale, devaluing people's land, ruining their game experience -- these are all objective norms that people can find with reason and intellect and uphold. It's not personal. It's a social norm that can be established because most everybody understands the difference between a build you don't like, or an inept newbie build and THIS glowing pulsing monster forcing a sale! There's still a small cadre of the feted elite who cling to the notion of freedom uber alles with in-your-face zealotry, and pretend to defy common sense. They are objectively holding up a norm that says it's ok to lag sims, block property, and ruin another person's game in the name of their sacred fuck-you hedonism.

So let me put it to you directly that way Chip, Tcoz, and all you others who think the pulsing box should stand:

Do you believe it's right to deliberately lag a sim with lights, scripts, and particles?
Do you believe it's right to force somebody to make a purchase of land by putting something obnoxious on adjacent land?
Do you think it's right to block access to someone else's property?

Let's hear you on these three issues.

What's incredible is there are still people flailing around trying to defend "art" and "freedom of expression" in this thread when Biff has clearly stated that he is "up to" something, that he is doing an experiment. Whether an experiment in sim-lagging or one in driving land barons away, he's "up to" something and it isn't art.

Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words. Let me be more specific. People should not be encouraged to feel like they have some entitlement concerning their neighbors land (aside from genuine TOS violations). It will take even longer for the Lindens to investigate legitimate complaints, because for every one there'll be twenty reports for builds where the creator is perfectly within their rights. This isn't conjectire about unkown variables. We've all seen a few hundred of these disputes already. They're divisive and almost never accomplish anything except making sure that more than one person ends up annoyed and pissed off. Where there might have been cooperation had an honest effort been made to achieve it, there ends up being only antagonism and no further opportunity for reconciliation.

I've had a few instances where things were built next to my land that seemed less than considerate. In each case, after talking to the land owner, there turned out to be no malicious intent at all... simply people who were doing their own thing and experimenting who weren't endowed with much empathic intuition. In my experience you're a hell of a lot more likely to get concessions by being nice instead of being confrontational. The old cliche is true... you catch more flies with sugar. Being confrontational and unyielding only lowers your chances of finding equity.

"Right" is subjective. If it's not a TOS violation then they have a right to do it. If you truly believe it's a violation, report it and abide by the verdict.



If it's determined by the Lindens that the intent is a genuine attempt at extortion, obviously it's not right. Again, if you feel it's a TOS violation, report it. Don't take it upon yourself to be the arbiter of good taste.



If your land is blocked on all sides by a single neighbor then it's a TOS violation. If you're just annoyed that people have built tall buildings at the edge of your land in an effort to use as much of their land as they can, no. Annoying? Yes. But within their rights. The onus is on you to suck it up or go elsewhere.

If we start making up rules as to what is 'acceptable' building practices then people lose the right to make their own second life how they want it. When you buy a plot of land you buy the right to just that - your land. If you own a 512 plot of land, you can do whatever you want on that land, just like any of your neighbors can do the same.

However, I am talking purely about aesthetics, just because something is ugly, noone has a right to make you take it down, but something created purely to induce lag, or block one from their home is a completely different story. The things built at Club Mo-Ran for example, did not induce any more lag then any other club in second life, much less so as it only housed like, 30 people at a time =D, but if someone makes something that does in deed lag the entire server, then by all means it should be at least modified to be less of a strain on a server.

mmmm, first i did not read all the post, but i think there should atleast be some rules when it comes to buildings, i mean there is a big difference between buildings you dont like, or buildings that are just there to grief, but than, this is my opinion, i had friends of mine being grieved this way in the past, (before 1.2) and i had a flikkering huge "thing" in front of my window.

Also in RL youre not allowed to build whatever you want ( i know this is SL, but still....), and use paint for the outside of youre house in all the colors of the rainbow, atleast, not were i live

Have a great day!