Skybox Security?

Why close it? Are we forcing you to read it? It is you that is disrupting this thread.

I've already come out of the recent discussion with a way to make money off of abused airspace by landowners. We may not agree, but we are discussing and not flaming.

You can do that, but, imo, it's mean. It's nothing to do with you.

Innula said that she'll post the result of an enquiry she made here. Ok. She can keep it to herself because you want to control something that has nothing to do with you.

Please... Don't pretend that's either a serious suggestion or part of a valid discussion.

But yes Innula, I remember she was going to post back. Fine, I won't have it closed for her sake. But don't pretend you guys are having any kind of valid discussion in here anymore.

Carry on repeating points over and over then, with Hank insulting landowners doing it. Have fun.

You're saying what I have to say is invalid?

There are certain reasons why land owners want security in their sky boxes ...
Some want to be alone.
Some don't want people using their stuff.
Some want those who are on their land to help pay for what they use.

My suggestion is for the last reason. Maybe land owners can extract some profit off the freeloaders flying over their land for once.

Anya, you're being an ass here. There is no need to post replies to Hank or me about this - you don't have authority in the matter. The only thing you are is the starter of it. Go and get it closed if it suits you - of you want be an ass. I did tell you how beneficial the thread has been, and Hank told you the same. So go get it closed and be an ass, and stop imagining that you have authority with the thread, or that people need to answer to you.

It's none of you business whether we are having a valid discussion or not. Go get it closed. It's the only thing you can do. You have no authority here and nobody answers to you for anything in this thread. Innula can do what she will with the result. Go get the thread closed. I want to see how much of an ass you can be.

I don't pretend I have authority in here, but if someone asked a mod to close a thread I'm pretty sure it would be done. I've seen it before.

You guys just seem to enjoy attacking each other, and now me as well. Please don't resort to name calling again. I have never and would never do that.

Yes, you can usually get it done as the thread starter, but it would make you an ass in this case.

An ass? Namecalling? Hardly. What we enjoy is none of your business. Now go and be an ass and get the thread closed, since you think it's your business.

When you mentioned it, I posted to reassure you that all is well in this thread, and not to get your ok for the thread to continue. So did Hank. But you seem to want to be in charge of it, so go and have it closed so you can feel you're in charge.

As Hank said, you are the one who has disrupted a perfectly good and interesting ongoing thread. Well done.

So you would attack us by running to a moderator to stop the discussion? That's not very nice. You've already derailed the thread, and sent us way off the topic of security, skyboxes, and the freedom of airspace. I'm not attacking you, just pointing out your passive-aggressive attack against us in the thread.

It's a bit like having a healthy animal put down because "I don't want it any more"

Yes you do. She was an alt of the person you both know



I thought I'd go back and see what this thread was about

I already said I'm not going to. I was under the impression others thought this thread had derailed as well and was no longer useful. When Hank is suggesting 'a system to make money off of landowners abusing the airspace' (note the choice of 'abusing') the sarcasm is pretty clear to me, as well as the fact that he has no intent of actually implementing such a system, because he is against the concept of controlling airspace.

I didn't mean to 'disrupt' a valid discussion and I'm not gonna get it closed now just so you can feel validated in calling me an ass. You guys feel there was still a valid discussion there, so carry on then. I've just been used to other kinds of forum moderation, where threads would be closed way earlier.

Interestingly enough I asked my friend and he said he didn't know her. She could've made the connection in various ways though, so maybe she was just trying to find something to freak me out with. She was relatively new to SL as well.

And by the way, after all this talk I'm definitely not going to install a security orb. (Now I'm actually paranoid about people ARing me for booting them )

Just because someone says "it wasn't me" doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't him/her.

They can't AR you for it, unless you don't give a suitable warning period. I'm not suggesting that you install one - I'm just assuring you that security devices that eject or send home, after suitable warnings, are not ARable. You see? All this long discussion caused a change in you too, so it wasn't worthless even to you.

Let that AR business go in one ear and out the other. I've heard people say that they will AR others just for sending an uninvited IM. Not worth having to question every single move you make in SL.

No of course not, but I really couldn't think of any reason why he would do that. If he just wanted a female alt, he could've told me. Not like I would find it weird. And that girl acted really strangely as well.

Her: Have you seen [my friend] around?
Me: Not physically much, but online in general sure. Why?
Her: I'm trying to kill him. Kind of hard to do when he's not online.
Me: Erm... And why?
Her: He's the one that killed my family.

Most bizarre conversation I've ever had.


And yes, I did change my mind through this thread, though that happened very early on. I had never thought anyone would consider security systems griefing. I never use vehicles for example. I don't agree with the idea that it's griefing, naturally, but I'd like to avoid trouble if I can. Like I said in the beginning, it's not THAT important to me.

If it was really important to me, I would set up the system anyway. Logically I know nobody is going to AR me if I set it up in a reasonable way.

But it wasn't important for me to start with, and that just gave me another reason not to do it. I was kind of dreading having to look for and possibly buy a suitable system. I doubt I'll run into anyone as weird as that girl again.

I've never used one - and don't mind the wackos dropping in now and then - got a few dates that way - - but that conversation of yours, is bizarre - - my curiosity would have me tracking the background on that...are you going to drop it?

Not much I can track. There was nothing in her profile and if my friend says he doesn't know her, not much more I can do. If she was clearly part of some RP group it would've made some sense, but she was still dressed as a newbie.

Also, she has a name that brings up unrelated google hits.

She had no groups? and no picks? I usually start there - then start cross-referencing. If she mentioned "family" - she should have all their picks spread out in her profile. If she's only a week old - with none of that on her profile - and knows your friend's name, and already has a "family'.......interesting.

Do you have a visitor's list script to keep up in your skybox? That comes in very handy, if you don't want to mess with a security system.

While I believe that the airways are open for everyone, if Linden allows people to continue to grief vehicles and fliers then why not...
1. Profit from it
2. Make security devices free and responsible
3. Make land owners happy they can secure their parcel, yet profit from renting their airspace
4. Make vehicle flyers happy by providing guaranteed cooridores to fly as allowed by land owners.

While there was some sarcasm, if that's the way the wind is blowing, I'd want to make a system that makes everyone happy. I wasn't joking.

Anya, I hope you don't ask for the thread to be closed, but please don't feel you have to keep it open just for me. Based on previous experience, I'm not expecting a reply to my ticket for another couple of days at least, and I perfectly well start a new thread and post it there.

You must have seen in this forum that threads tend to go all over the place. People don't usually ask for them to be closed unless they've descended into a really horrible fight, which this certainly hasn't. I'm enjoying reading it and chipping in now and again, certainly -- thanks for starting it.

No groups, and just a welcome area in her picks. Her age and location are mentioned in her 1st Life tab, but the rest is empty pretty much. She's a couple of months old. Apart from asking her what she was talking about, there's not much to do I think. I don't really want to IM her, because she creeped me out

I don't have a visitor's list script. That could be useful maybe. I haven't seen her back though and I don't think she'll drop by again.

Others apparently still want to chime in, so I won't ask for it to be closed. I was being too controlling about it I suppose, when this forum really isn't moderated much at all. I'm used to forums where everything is cleaned up a lot more.

I do feel most relevant angles on this issue have already been discussed. But if some want to continue the debate and the mods aren't bothered, then it's no problem I guess.

I'll take the bait and go along with the derail of this thread to ask one question...

Why do folks go into a thread they didn't have to read, aren't forced to read and proceed to tell people that they have spoken enough on that particular topic and threaten to have it closed by a moderator to have all discussion stopped? Why? Are you being harmed by the discussions here? Are you just upset that the topic is being talked about and you want it stopped? If you aren't part of the discussion, what gives you the right to unilaterally decide that "discussion is over!"?