Cut That Barbedy-Wire! Part Two

Yeah, I get it. And of course, it's not really something you can AR, is it?

Nice.

I guess I asked for it. I hate fences. They dont make for "good neighbours"

Thanks for demonstrating my point. That's kind of what I suggest people do about privacy on the mainland. Linden Labs won't give you any, ban lines don't get you any, so deal with it realistically.

Um, sure it is, and I hope that Jig did AR them. That's more effective than banlines.

No, but the sure has hell keep the punk kids off the lawn. Especially if you electrify that sucker.

Electric Lawn? Hmmmm..that might be a fun surprise for those people who insist on ringing my doorbell every Saturday Morning.

And people won't stop wanting to use them. So the same could be said about accepting that.

THAT! Or be like my dad, when a certain religious group that likes to visitsfolks early Saturday mornings, he show up at the door naked. That tends to stop that as well.

Dealing with it realistically doesn't mean simply accepting it.

Putting banlines up around empty or nearly-empty parcels is due to ignorance or discourtesy.

Educating people about this is charity.

It also works. The majority of the responses I get when I finally catch the person who owns the parcel are "oh, I didn't know it was up" or "oh, I didn't realize it worked that way". When we started buying up land in Noonkkot, about half the parcels had ban-lines up. We're down to a handful.

There is nothing at all wrong in sending a neighbor a polite note card and requesting a change.

It's only when people demand things as if entitled, and it's someone else's coin paying the bill, that I raise a brow.

So why are you raising a brow at me?

Being hardheaded means never knowing when to quit. Just look at StoneHedge.

Yer right, fences do not make for good neighbors.
However, fences with knotholes in them for peeking DO

*makes note to go hang out by Dana's fence. I'll bring a lunch.

Argent I do apologise for carrying on the discussion with one person in particular and thereby seeming to single them out. In this case it was you who I carried on the conversation a bit too long, with.

I read your continued steadfast defense of flying anywhere, and continued argument against ban lines, as an attempt to tell others what to do with their own land. But, a closer examination, despite the strongly held position evinced in the forums, says that you do try to deal with people reasonably on a one-on-one basis in world when you come across a ban line.

I never really felt you were the 'enemy' Argent, we just disagreed. But I probably rode that horse, for want of a better analogy, a bit past when it was tired.

So for that I apologise.

Firstly, it's none of your business why people put banlines up on their land.

Secondly, if "we" need space, put your money where your mouth is and buy up the land! Pay people's tier. Compensate them. Give them incentives to take their banlines down.
If it's that important to you, let's see your dedication.
Jig's Open Community Project has a nice ring to it. I'm sure you can find a whole load of like-minded people that would chip in and donate to help out in paying people's tiers to get them to take down their lines.

Someone did it for adfarms, didn't they?
That seemed to work out... no?

Hmm, that could work...

A piloting group that chips in and buys a flight path. No one could ever put up a ban line or a single prim to block their way. I'm serious - it could work.

Except they won't.

I think you're missing at least part of the point of flying.

Plus, why should residents pay for it? Do residents have to pay for roads and rivers? Why should air corridors be different?

Firstly, I like to make things like this my business. Just call me curious. I ask these kind of things in reality and I pi$s off people like you there as well.
Secondly, I have plenty of land. Tons of it, in fact. I can afford it. And I dont "work" in sl for it, either.
Thirdly, I allow certain artists to use my land for free (like many other people do)
Fourthly, why should I give you money? - you sound like an ungrateful wretch. i am not "my brother's keeper" in your case.
Fifthly, what on earth does tier have to do with banlines?

But, yes, "Jig's Open Community Project" does have a nice ring to it. A litle bit more of that in reality and we might be getting somewhere with the homeless and the disenfranchised.

There's something about this 'if you pay their tier...you can go over their land' thing that doen't seem logical.
It implies that people would completely trade this "NOT AN INCH" territorial attitude for a few bucks. If the absolutist "not an inch" is of such critical fundamental importance, how can it be done away with for money?

Same way that rights-of-way from RL property can be purchased or even condemned through the principal of eminent domain. The idea being "If you want to use part of my land for your own purposes so desperately, then you buy that part from me and I won't pay taxes (in SL this would be tier) on it anymore, otherwise sit down and shut up."

Speaking as someone who sleeps under her SL shop counter at night, I say go for it!

Um, Jig, I'm not pissed off. I don't get pissed off, especially about silly stuff like this.
Secondly, just because you're interested in something doesn't make it your business. Asking questions of (and expecting answers from) people who don't have to justify anything to you doesn't make it your business.
Oh, and... I'm not asking for money for land. I'm not asking for anything.
You are the one that's asking folks to give up access to others for nothing.
You said I sound ungrateful... what do I have to be grateful to you for? Have you done something for me that I don't know about? Or were you just lashing out and attacking because I have an opposing view that has some weight behind it?
For the record, I never asked you for money. Please read my post.
YOU are in the camp that is asking (and in some cases demanding) that banlines be taken down (or demanding justification)... or at least defaming and denouncing those that have them up. As has been said before, it's not your land. If you want to get a say, pony up.
(I can't believe I have to say it again, but... I don't use banlines. Never have. I just don't like being told what to do on my own property.)

Which brings me to Sling.

I'm not sure if you're intentionally missing the point or just don't get it. The "NOT AN INCH" thing is YOUR construct. No one else said that. YOU did. YOU have labeled it an absolutionist stance, no one on the other side from you did that. Your whole thesis is based on your own supposition and not the actual stance of landowners.

Most of the folks that have expressed opposition to a banline ban are only interested in owner's rights and take offense at being told that they're doing something wrong by people who don't seem to have any consideration for them.

The whole point of it is "I pay for this land, I am allowed to do what I want on it, including putting up banlines, if I so wish, for whatever reason. Your definition of "silly" or "neighbourly" or "stupid" or "useless" don't matter on my land."
Money IS a fundamental point in this issue. People pay for property and the right (or privilege) to use it how they see fit.

Ok... I just thought of something that might make my stance a little clearer.

If LL said "You know what? Banlines DO suck and people should be able to travel around willy nilly, wherever they want. Let's keep SL open." and just took them away, I'd have a problem with that. HOWEVER, if they said, "Let's make it so that all land bought from here on in doesn't have the ability to have banlines.", I'd support that.
As long as they don't take away pre-existing rights (or privileges), I'm cool with it.
I don't like banlines. I don't USE banlines. I don't WANT banlines.
But I dislike self-entitlement, and an assumption of privilege that isn't there, even more.

But this "self-entitlement" and "assumption of privilige" is YOUR construct.

My position is that I'm fully supportive of methods to keep abusive people away from us. However, some methods are indiscriminately anti-social.
I don't consider that I'm *entitled* to go over any resident-owned land. I just think that this insistence that nobody can even pass over the edge of a parcel, even when the owner had been away for months, is hard to justify rationally. "Because I pay for it" just seems downright infantile.

What are these precious rights and entitlements to land *for*?
What is their purpose?
Do they only exist so that they can be exercised to the maximum extent?

Say if someone in a boat clips the corner of a parcel, where is the hurt? Where is the damage that must be prevented?

Your analogy doesn't hold up... there's all kinds of "no, you can't say "not one inch"" types of restrictions on what you can do with your property in RL. Even if you're paying taxes on them.