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

This could be called "virtually sharding the grid". What a reactionary concept!

Ontario Sim
Near *Tringo Park, those are our schrooms I neg rated the prick.

M

"Slippery slope is the fallacy of arguing, without sufficient proof, that if one event is allowed to occur, a disastrous and uncontrollable chain reaction will result."

This wonderful description of the "slippery slope" argument, so often made by philosophy professers quoting directly from a textbook, is utterly incorrect. This creates a definition for "slippery slope" that isn't what is intended by those who invoke the argument.

Here's what a slippery slope is, think about actually stepping out onto a dew-covered steep grass hilltop:

-If you take a step out onto the slippery slope, you both gain momentum and subject yourself to a low-friction surface beneath you. Both of these make it more difficult to stop and stand still than it was before you took the step.

-If you take another step, you gain more momentum. It becomes more difficult to stop, and any attempts to do so are now more likely to result in a stumble and slide.

-Each additional step makes it more difficult to stop without slipping, and adds to your increasing momentum down the hill.

-The further you proceed down the hill, the more likely it is that you will, in the end, have to go all the way to the bottom; either because you kept moving forward, increasing momentum and speed, or because you tried to stop partway down, slipped and slid the rest of the way down on your arse.

-AT NO POINT IS IT INEVITABLE that you will have to go all the way to the bottom of the hill, either on foot or on your arse; however, it is increasingly more likely with every step forward you take.

-If you wind up either partway down the hill, still upright, or all the way at the bottom on your arse, it will be harder to get back to the top of the hill than it was to descend to the point where you are at.

-Faced with a slippery slope, it is perhaps best to stop several feet short of the slope's beginning and regard it from above, rather than from further down the slope, perhaps all the way at the bottom.


I wonder how many philosophy professors have actually walked out onto a physical slippery slope; I think the metaphor is pretty self-evident, and I imagine that Sir Isaac Newton would agree.

My house at Mimas used to be surrounded by beautiful gardens and a lake spilling into the ocean.

The ocean have now been replaced with a giant Casino that spams gambling-maching noises into my parcel even when no one uses them. And the view behind my neigbour's house have turned into a big floating market with crud design and rotating signs.

Didnt take long.

You still didnt get the fact that this is not a question of pride or of aesthetical value of whatever prim is placed on land. The point is not wether to decide if a building is nice or not, nor to regulate "beautifulness". The point is if someone that is objectively damaged by a build (whose intent it's owner doesn't even care to explain) has the right to complain and find help by the lindens.
There are many way to damage your neightbor, Biff's towers are one of those ways, they are beyond uglyness, i wouldnt be surprised if they could cause severe illness to people liable to epilepsy. I am not liable to it, but it did gave me a bad headache, same to the person that was riding in the car with me when i first stopped in front of it to fill the abuse report.
Other can be blatantly offensive builds (attacks to a religion, racism, nazi svastikas and so forth) or script that severely lag the sim.
If one has not the right to defend himself (and the lindens seem too inresponsive on this sort of things) by actual damage not only to his person and home, but to his business as well, in name of the "freedom of expression" we risk to go down the slope of havingcriminals protected by the law over productive citizens.
If people want others to respect their aesthetical tastes they should first of all learn to respect their neightbors.

I'm jumping in late, but this issue has significantly degraded my enjoyment of SL.

Here's what I'd propose, but it probably has too many technical details that would make it impossible to implement:

Give me the option to not have anything rendered in-world where the owner's rating is below some threshold (like -5), plus a customizable list of avatars whose prims won't be rendered.

This leaves the questions of what to do with scripts and the strange situation of seeing other avatars standing on or interacting with objects that don't exist in my client's universe. So maybe instead of not rendering the offender's creations, they're made textureless and mostly transparent.

Basically, I want some way to reduce or eliminate the visibility of creations of people I judge to be griefers.

I want to recognize their right to free expression along with my right to ignore it.

There's a similar suggestion posted in feature suggestions right now Buckminster. You should add your two cents to that thread

Ctrl + d > debug > render

i've removed my tower in ontario. the land is for sale at the price i paid.

LOL..being a fellow Mimas resident, I know exactly what you mean. However, just be patient. Being one of the first to build in Mimas, I've seen them come and go so many times in the neighborhood. Mimas was once one of the most tasteful and distinct non-themed sims around, and I hope it will be again. (But I do hate those giant floating open market signs.) Hell..discordia owns half the Sim now and she always builds very lovely things, so don't give up on us!

this practice is often known as landjacking, and its been done for many many months by various people and/or their alts. The best (and potentially only) way to combat this, from a system perspective, would be to have the system automatically delete all objects on plots set for sale.

Theres really no harm in this anyway since the actual objects themselves do *not* transfer with the land and would be returned by the new owner

(yes there are some rare situations where you would want to sell land with building, charging weekly listing fees etc with those types of land sales may help mitigate this as well)

You simply refuse to acknowledge that what you are doing is attempting to coerce this individual by aligning the public against them. It is wrong.

Let's apply a term to you. Witch hunter.

Regarding your questions.

"Do you believe it's right to deliberately lag a sim with lights, scripts, and particles?"

I built the Vorago in Varney. It has working bots, spawners with particles to highlight the positions, lit up doorways and interiors. It is probably the only long-running arena style game in SL, undoubtedly has a huge impact on the sim (in fact it is probably one of the most script intense builds on the grid), I am fully aware of that, and aside from attempting to make the code work as quickly and consistently as possible, have taken no measures at all to reduce the impact on the sim. I let it run 24/7 and I most definitely am deliberately pushing it as hard as I can. By this definition, abuse reports would be legit and it should be a candidate for removal. But it is not. You know why? Because I pay the fee to log in every month, and I am not in violation of the TOS. In fact, the build was a top pick when Lindens were still picking them.

People also have told me that it is not in keeping with the "waterway" feel of the sim, is out of character for the general la la community feel of Varney, and probably should be moved. I have had people tell me that I put my house on a hill in Natoma in a deliberate attempt to chase people out of the sim. In fact, abuse reports were filed and they went to the boards, just like you. Guess what. I'm still there. They are not.

"Do you believe it's right to force somebody to make a purchase of land by putting something obnoxious on adjacent land?:

Again, you have no evidence of this other than your interpretation of what you see. It apparently is not at all what they were trying to do and yet you harassed them endlessly. I am constantly confused by how people do not see that this is wrong. It is their money, it is their land. FYI I have had some of the ugliest and laggiest things you can imagine next to my house, and it never bothered me. I just close the window. If I can hear it, or the particles come into my house, then it's TOS time and I have always won, usually just by informing the owner that they are in violation and I'll report them in a day or so if it doesn't change. Typically the people will entirely shut off the sound or pariticles because they aren't good enough to know how to control it.

"Do you think it's right to block access to someone else's property?"

That is a violation of the TOS and not part of your original objection. A direct complaint to the Lindens will solve this matter immediately without all this public accusation and harassment. Some people did this to me in Natoma to try and get me to move, witch hunters, and the Lindens settled it in short order. However, it had better really be blocking the way, not just forcing you to move around a structure as you pass over somebody else's land.

Look, I've been in SL for a long time. I have had huge spinning flashing particle throwing towers next to my little old english brownstone house in Natoma, S&M dungeons at the base of my hill, and so on. I never complained because if I can still do what I want with my land I have no right to force my taste or suspicions on other people no matter how obvious I think they are. Those who have attempted to chase me away have always, always lost because I ignore them and go about my business on my land, and when they violate the ToS, I report them immediately. You think nobody has tried to chase me out of Varney or Natoma? Think again. But I'm still there, and they are not. Perhaps you should consider that.

I have had 2+ years to form this opinion, have piles of real scenarios to site as examples long before you heard of SL, and it only gets stronger as I get older. I believe what you are doing is wrong. If you want to start generalizing people with this opinion with profane group names, that's on you, I want nothing to do with it, and am considering reporting it because I dislike having the profanity and insult applied to me.

Tcoz, having a resource intensive build is one thing. Having an unattractive build is one thing. And no, we don't have much evidince.

But when someone like Biff puts an utterly repulsive build on a peice of land, refuses to present a justifiable explaination or even defence of himself or his build other than "its a secret experiment", AND sets the land for sale at a high price, what else are we supposed to think other than "extortion"?

(waiting for a JSecure Hanks 'A union would solve this post')

"utterly repulsive build on a peice of land"

Whose land? And whose taste?

"refuses to present a justifiable explaination or even defence of himself"

Why, exactly, does somebody not violating the TOS owe this to anybody? And even if they are, to anybody but the Lindens? Some community born ethics thing having to do with cooperation? I commend anybody that ignores this. It's like being told you MUST answer your phone, a ringing door buzzer, or read spam email. You don't have to. Period.

The most knowledgeable people in this game have said it several times; "community" enforcement, that is, standard players granted authority of any kind above and beyond their rights in the TOS, is the end of SL as we know it. I will most definitely quit the day anybody not working for Linden Labs can tell me what to do when I'm on my land.

"AND sets the land for sale at a high price"

I did actually put the land in Varney up for sale once. I think it was 10mil L$. Comments were along the line of "that's unrealistic". No, it's not. I want 10 mil. If you don't have it, you don't have it. I don't give a damn what you think the "market" says. I've never had anything to do with any measure of worth in SL, I don't care if they have ATMS or web sites, and I never will. For me, it's either free to 10 bucks, or 10 mil.

Nope, not feeling ya. I am guilty of every "crime" you state Biff is. But the LJury found in my favor.

SL is about random creation, mayhem, and pushing the boundaries. Any vision as long as it's on your land and doesn't violate the TOS is not only OK with me, but applauded. You want order, buy the sim. You think the Lindens wrote the TOS in an Amsterdam coffee house in an afternoon, to be altered by some player that doesn't like a big spinning ugly tower?

I've said it before...I am a huge critic of many Linden decisions. But not this one, because I believe in the rights of the individual to do as they please, AND the rights of the other individual to IGNORE IT.

Take it to the forums all you want, say I'm part of some profane group. But you will lose this fight.

Lastly, I like huge flashing towers. Go ahead, build one (that is, another in the long line) of them in Natoma. Stay in the TOS and I will stand on my roof and applaud. Yes, I will. Don't mind the fireworks, I'm good with particles.

Over and F'n out.

I've always been pissed about this one build. What makes me mad is that the build is basically a giant wall that completely blocks out my build on two sides. The owner doesn't do anything with the land except sell it for a large amount of money. My guess is that he/she is expecting me to get tired of looking out my SL office window and seeing a giant wall and eventually fork over the lindens to buy his or her land. I understand where people come from when they experience this kind of problem and think they are being cheated by a person.

Attached is the wall I see surrounding a large part of my land...

Derek that might very well be an access violation (cutting you off from your land). People can not box you in with no alternative but to get in from the top. I'd hand that one over to the lindens. At a minimum they should make the wall facing you transparent and the objects phantom. This would not effect their view at all, but would allow you to see through it and would let you come and go as you please.

You could also raise up your land to be on top of it. If they raise the wall then they are griefing. I went through this in Natoma and won the battle.

That is, if they built this AFTER you were there. If you moved in and built next to it, I'd say well that's that.

Agreed! What happened to common sence?
I build a realy ugly building
I add 16 scripts so your sim FPS is shit.
I put if up for sale for 10 times what its worth.

Come on now ppl are not stupid. That guy is obvously trying a new way to make money, at the expense of everyone around him. Neg rate. Report to LL until they get the message loud and clear. Nice way to bring a lot of land values down quick.

Cat

Last night tower in Ontario is gone - finally. I assume at last Linden intervened after so many people filed reports.

Mmmm, will we soon be able to read how somebody voluntarily ended his "research" project? *giggles*

what a disgrace. It's this kind of shit that makes me sick. Congratulations, you all villianized an SL resident for your own personal gain and satisfaction. Pathetic, really. Tcoz is the only sensible person here (and a few others I can't remember after 8 pages and several days of this thread).

I called it from the beginning, and I know I am correct.

Champie

wow, thats all i need to know thanks

no this practice *is* despicable, and it is done specifically to blackmail more well to do neighbors into buying over-inflated 'investments' usually at 10:1 profits or more, i had to pay a total sum of $53,000 lindens to buy a whopping 192 sqm of land someone 'invested' in, in perry just to rerturn all of their waves of increasingly obnoxious crap they put out. and keep the 42000 sqm we had in the sim actually *USABLE*

and yes it *WAS* done on purpose, each time they put somethin else out we'd get an im on the order of 'want to stop this yet or should we continue?'

Oh my! I feel sorry you had to experience this. Reading this kinda story make me so angry I just want fry those jerks in rotten soybean oil

Déjà vue....

if you want to know who someone is, look at them when they're angry.

no linden asked me to remove my tower. i'm putting it back up for a day to prove this.

if you want to know who someone is, look at them when they think they've won.

no linden asked me to remove my tower. i put it back up for awhile to prove this. it only costs me $4 a month so it could be up for quite some time.