Ad Farmer Suspensions Have Started. :)

Yes I would hate it with a passion, but I'm also a guy who would never put up ban lines. And that really has no bearing on the issue, just had to get that in there.

I don't agree with her methods at all. But, I had a neighbor who refused to do anything about his security orbs that zipped all around his property and annoyed the hell out of everyone that came onto mine. I admit I was tempted to fight fire with fire.

I think if she wants to do away with ban lines, she needs to do what other customers did and band together and try to get LL to do something about it. This is something you've argued in the sense of government control, but I've argued as consumerism. That's what I would do, but I don't know if I can fault her for her method. It may be more effective in the short term.

When I saw the picture that Nina put up, it was a blindingly obvious assumption that the texture put up was purely to give a wake-up call to a neighbour who had put up ban lines , and presumably wasn't being understanding of requests to consider alternatives.

The ban liner is simply getting a taste of their own medicine. "visually griefing an innocent party" my arse!


Ad farms can be blocked with screens. Ad screens can be softened throughout, and more importantly, at the edges, by using textures with alpha in them.
Ban lines have to be screened, and screened with solid textures or the red lines shine right through the screens. The result is big high rectangular screens.
If a neighbour insists on keeping their ban lines, then a landowner if forced into screening them off.
I think that a screen that lets a neighbour see the kind of thing that they are inflicting on others is quite OK.

I'd rather have an ad farm beside me than a neighbour with ban lines.
There are more options for screening ad farms than there are for screening ban lines.



Aaaaannndd - getting back on thread topic -
The new ad-farmer griefing tactic of using access restrictions and ban lines is something that should be stamped on hard by LL.
We all know what they are at. It doesn't take a legal definition that they will attempt to wriggle around. Just zap the clowns. Tell them that it's the spirit of the rules that will be enforced, and not their own interpretation of the text of the rules.

Witch hunting, now. So now there is no blight that can be seen for miles, and no one is completely surrounded by them, but still, take away their land! Give it a rest. The problem is already working itself out. Don't let that get under your skin and let them choke on tier.

This is the most disturbing part of this all, no legal definitions and the "spirit" of the law.

If there is no law to follow the letter of, then we are all at risk at every minute of the day.

It is like the state saying "You can't speed." and then never telling you what it considers speeding. Leaving it up to each individual enforcement officer to decide. Or having a standard and not telling you what it is before you break it.

/me shudders and shakes her head as she turns around and walks away feeling like no one can ever be pleased. Enjoy it my friends, we are very lucky to have it.

LL have the power to change that themselves, why should ban lines be intrusive anyway, people should be able to use access restrictions without being accused of griefing.

As much as I hate ban lines I'm not for banning them at all. But the courts frequently deal with "intent" and that's the case here. I knew it was going to come up I just didn't expect it to happen this fast. I guess I was naive. It will be interesting to see how it will be dealt with.

For now, though, just chill and enjoy our beautiful new landscape. You'll see many of these fade away as ad farmers die and the problem will take care of itself. That's probably how it's best dealt with for now.

I think now you're letting your emotions get ahold of you too much. Let's deal with it when and if it becomes a widespread problem.

This is just patently false. For it to be true, we and the Lindens would all have to be blind idiots who have no concept of how to behave in a community. If you're not griefing and extorting your neighbor, then you have absolutely nothing to be worried about. I and most everyone I know are all at zero risk here, completely contrary to your overdramatic assertion.

If you insist that people hold the inalienable right to extort one's neighbor, then go buy your own island and set it up that way.

In reality, they can do this. Driving too fast for the conditions is an offense in most, if not all states. If it's 60mph and there's heavy fog, you can be ticketed for going 40 if the officer feels that's too fast to be safe. If you cause an accident, you're almost certain to get a ticket.

There are no absolutes in the law. The courts will almost always find enough wiggle room to do what's right, but the problem is that it's their definition of "right". In my experience, they usually do the right thing by my definition, even when I wish they wouldn't. Even if the legislatures wanted to write an absolute law with no wiggle room for interpretation, they wouldn't be able to. We aren't at risk because of that. It actually is a protection for the citizenry. Legislatures write broad sweeping rules that are meant to apply across the board. Then courts are given individual situations and have to interpret those rules in specific applications that the legislatures may not have considered. The court is in charge of interpreting the law to provide the most equitable outcome for the individuals involved, not for society as a whole.

I may not be explaining that well, but my point is that there is always room for interpretation and that is a good thing to have.

You are only extorted if you choose to give in.

And yes you are at risk if the rules only mean what the person enforcing them says they mean.
Or are you saying that Pissed off Linden may not get out of the wrong side of the bed one day and decide that what ever you are doing is against Community Standards?

If you think I am watering all those Ad Farms after the Ad farmers dies off, your crazy!

You explained it perfectly. It's also why I completely tone out anyone in the U.S. who says "That's not what our founding fathers intended when they wrote....".

Don't come to these forums complaining when you see nothing but dead grass and weeds then.

We will have to disagree on this point. Interpretation is just a means of tyranny. If the words do not mean what they say then people are treated differently, this is wrong. Why the local State's Attorney gets a slap on the wrist when he is caught with a DWI and the average person on the street gets a few weeks in jail.

Bradley, would you sign a contract knowing that the words would not always mean what they did when you wrote them? If words don't hold meaning, then they are worthless.

I had someone once buy all the land around my house back when I only had a 512m property and then they tried to tell me what I was going to sell my land for. When that did not work, they ended up building a mega prim tower around my property first with KFC ads all around then making it solid black. I did get all excited and fought a brief war in which I became the subject of an AR and lost. I then decided it was no good for my blood pressure, muted and banned the people who built the tower and took a couple weeks off. They ran out of steam and sold their land while I was away.

Sometimes all you need to do to win is to go on vacation…

As long is it dosnt grow a new crop of ads I'll live with it.

It's what you do anytime you sign a contract. If there is a dispute, typically a judge does not just look at the contract but the intent of the actions as well.

I hate to bring up gun control, but I think it will be a perfect example of following the letter of the law. I can only presume, Chris, that you are in favor of allowing gun ownership since the Second Amendment states that the right to bare arms shall not be infringed. I would agree. Are you also then, willing to continue to follow the letter of the letter of the law with the beginning line of that Amendment which states A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...?

And please, EVERYONE. I am not trying to bring a discussion of gun control into these forums. I'm probably going to regret it. This is the best example off the top of my head of interpretation of a law.

Make ban lines like parcel listing and classified ads - pay per week to have them active.

That'll then weed out those who put them up for griefing purposes, or forget about them, and those who feel they actually have some kind of 'genuine need' to have them. They are, after all, a 'premium' feature that most people do not need in everyday gameplay.

Beside the fact that the opening clause has no bearing on the right, every able bodied adult male between the ages of 17 and 45 is a member of the militia by the letter of Federal Statute.
10 USCS [Armed Forces]
"311. MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age [which deals with
membership in theNational Guard] who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of
the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard
or the Naval Militia."

So sure, lets follow the letter of the law. Does that mean we can repeal the tax on fully automatic weapons now?

And regulation?

You know... I'd almost be tempted to support that...

Why not just make ban lines less intrusive, win win situation.

Regulation in the 1700's meant trained. Even today if you take a double barreled rifle to a gunsmith and ask him to regulate it, he will adjust it so both barrels hit the same point. So training the men to hit as a cohesive unit is what is meant by regulation in this instance.

I would argue your interpretation but I don't see how we can go down this route any further without it becoming a gun control debate. It was a bad idea on my part. Something I'd be happy to do in world with you.

I was trying to discuss the issue of interpretation and chose a bad subject to do it with. Give me some time and see what I can come up with.