Cut That Barbedy-Wire! Part Two

This.

It's not a construct, it's an observation and I only spoke to how it affected MY outlook.
I'm not the one asking for the change. I'm not the one suggesting how people should do things on their land.
But a lovely evasion of the point. Well done.

Anti-social by YOUR definition. Does it need to be said again that your definitions do not, nor should they, count on other people's property?

See above. Landowners don't have to justify their actions to you. THAT is what's self-entitled, this assumption that your view should supercede someone else's on THEIR property.

And? So is playing a video game. So is fantasy roleplaying. So are most things on SL.
(and... see above. YOUR definition. Don't count for a hill o' beans on someone else's property.)
Plus, this is kind of a strawman. Not in the strict definition, but you ARE boiling the whole issue down to one (very salient) point that is but a part of the whole argument.

None of your business.

Doesn't matter. It really doesn't.
The "Because I pay for it" is a response to "Why does what you want supercede what I want on your land?"
If someone doesn't want boats in their parcel, they're allowed to do that. It's simple.
They don't have to justify it to you. They don't owe you an explanation.
I don't know why you think they do...
I don't know why you think your view of this is the only way people should think.

Thanks for that insight.

Nice to see you adding to the conversation...

Give him this one, Mick. It's his birthday.

fine...

/me takes off Brenda's pants and swings them over Eli's head in a salute.

Yes. They are *allowed* to put up banlines. The current system *permits* them to do that.
It's not that they "don't want boats in their parcel". That sounds reasonable - if it meant that they didn't want people using their land for recreation. Y'know, like stopping for a swim and a picnic, or overnight, or permanently.
What they don't want is for a boat to drift even one centimetre over the boundary even for a second as it passed along a waterway.

Some geek without social or aesthetic awareness came up with a quick-fix security solution that visited gross ugliness and inconvenience on neighbours and passerbys who posed no security threat.

They don't *have* to put them up even if they are allowed to. It's simple.

Some people don't even realise that they've put them up.
Some people take them down once they realise what the effects on others are.
Some people realise that they don't actually need any security other than being able to eject someone *IF* it's ever necessary.
Some people decide that their circumstance needs automation and do a once-off spend on a security Orb. Yup! They spend the equivalent of US2$ for a market leader like Pyske or maybe US$1 or less for an alternative. That's a once in a lifetime spend compared to the ongoing monthly costs.

However, some others faced with that balancing act between a once-only spend of peanuts and visiting blight and inconvenience on others will see the issue as a complete no-brainer. "Other people?? *Other* people?? .... F**ck 'em"
Ask these people why they make that choice and you might be told "None of your business."

Suggest that the are sociopathic skinflints and they'd be outraged.
No! They are doing it in a high holy cause. The exercise of doing what you're allowed to do, no matter what the consequences for others.
This is the same high holy cause of the ad-farmers and the traffic-bot runners. These claimed that they had a "right" to do it because they were allowed to do it.
So much for "rights".

That was not an analogy, that was an answer to the question "How can this be done away with for money?" That's how. You want to "do away with" somebody's "not one inch" attitude that was being complained about, for money, then you take over the tier on the portion of the land you want to eliminate the restrictions on. Direct question, direct factual answer. Just like cities use emininent domain to get a right-of-way on somebody's property to put in a road. That person no longer pays taxes on that section of their property because it isn't theirs anymore, and they are also given some compensation for taking the land as well. Something's been changed about their land, FOR MONEY. Same answer here, not an analogy.

oh and not accepting a basic truth is just as infantile and akin to this:

Agree.

You answered a question with an analogy between SL and RL. That analogy doesn't hold up.

I have a right of way across the back of my garden, for utility access to neighborhood shared facilities (telephone pedestal, cable pedestal, etc), and I don't get a tax break for it. Your analogy doesn't hold up.

No Argent , You have whats known as an "easement"

Easement - An easement is the right to use another person's land for a stated purpose. It can involve a general or specific portion of the property. An easement may give a utility company the right to erect power lines or bury a gas pipeline across a tract of land.

The result is the same. It's my land, I'm paying taxes on it, but I can't erect structures on it or keep everyone out.

You know what, Sling, you're right.

People that use banlines are wrong and ruining SL for everyone else.

Those bastards shouldn't be allowed to own land, the unneighbourly, antisocial, silly fools.

You've convinced me.

From here on in, I'm going to ignore all other logical arguments and cherrypick only the bits that I can use as a springboard to push my agenda.

You win.

______________________________________________

Thanks for the input, Jig. Nice of you to comment on it and expound on what you mean... oh, wait...

What now? Got another bone to pick with me?

I think banlines are ugly. I also think that people who won't make reasonable compromises with their neighbors on access issues are bad citizens.

Case in point: My land borders Linden ocean to a point--literally. I'm on the interior angle of an L-shaped bit of coastline. I can't actually enter the Linden water without crossing over somebody else's land. The sim next to me is owned by someone who has extended banlines out over her water land to the very edge of the Linden ocean. She isn't doing anything with that water land except blocking people's access to it--and in my case, my access to the Linden ocean. I asked her, politely, to carve off a narrow strip of that ocean and unban it so I could get out to the Linden water. She refused--no explanation, no discussion, just refused. Sure she's allowed to do that. Also, for sure, she is being pigheaded and obnoxious.

It's very true that people have the "right" to do certain things. It's a permissive society. It's also true that those of us who don't like what other people do have the right to react to obnoxious behavior, regardless of whether a person has the right to be obnoxious, in whatever punitive ways that we can come up with as long as we don't violate the letter of the law. This neighbor is going to get a cold shoulder from me, and no help on any possible joint project. Further, anybody who asks me about her is going to be told what a jerk she is and will get a recommendation that they don't deal with her. If you want to go to the very edge of what you're allowed to do in this world, that's fine. Just expect that if you do that, you will create a situation in which there will be people lined up just on the other side of that boundary, waiting for their first opportunity to hurt you when you step over.

It does seem to me that there is something about banlines that could be improved, however. Is it not a bug that when you hit a banline in a vehicle you're sent to lala land and your vehicle is cast into the uncertain void, from which it may or may not return to your lost-and-found hours, days, or weeks later? Wouldn't a simple bump and light bounce-back suffice when you hit a banline? Why can't the Lindens fix this? It would go a long way toward blunting people's objections to banlines. Is there a JIRA for it?

how long have you owned it? it is possible the person who(and i'm guessing and if it's not family owned) could have given their permission before you bought the land. if this is so, you should be receiving some sort of tax break. if not i would look into it. it all depends on how the previous owner set it up with the power company.

That does seem JIRA-worthy. It sounds like a start, at least.

As for your neighbor, I can only say it isn't how I would handle things. I assume all dealings with her have been polite and so on, if not that's the only reason I can see why someone would simply refuse to bend a bit for a neighbor. Unless she misunderstands what 'carving up' means, and thinks she's to donate the strip of land to the public, or something. I think there are some who are either nervous about subdividing a parcel (the warning about resetting things, etc.), or simply don't know how to.

If you want a place to sail from - again, IM me in world or send a note card and I'll send you a landmark. You can use it all you want to. Unless or until neighbors complain for whatever reason my plan is to offer this privilege to any who would like to simply have a place to sail from.

I know you'd rather sail from your own land, but it's there if you want to.

I have a parcel that abuts Linden ocean and I can't even get a sailboat into the water because that parcel doesn't include water. I was going to find a wearable boat, until I figured out the other lot did. I'd have sold lot 2 by now otherwise...lol.

All communications were very polite. This was the first time I had dealt with her. We went back and forth a couple times but she was not interested in a discussion. She has since erected a major eyesore of a bizarro 50-meter high multi-level racetrack right up against my boundary--initially she had it set back by 30 meters or so but recently moved it right up to the line. Given my previous experience with her I didn't even bring it up, but one of my tenants, who lives right on that line, talked to her. She reported that she was very polite and very unwilling to compromise on that issue also.



Thank you Clarissa, that is very kind.

Currently the sim on the other side of me does not have ban lines. They do have a non-phantom seawall that extends almost all the way to the edge of the sim but there is enough space there for me to get through and out to the Linden Ocean. I have set a buoy there so I can see where to go. Of course, at any time they may decide to extend that seawall and I'll be stuck. At that point I may take you up on your very kind offer.

I suppose I was a bit intemperate. I've been following this thread, and even more than the situation with my neighbor, property-rights absolutist libertarians gall me. So I provided an example of how I tend to respond to them.

Wouldn't it be dull if everyone was the same.