New AD farmer tactic

1. There was a bug in some recent versions of the Viewer so that banlines didn't show up, even though they were there. Many people seemed to like this new feature. Maybe it should be an option in the Viewer for turning off banlines!

2. Maybe it is extortion, given the parcel size and cost.

3. Suppose that banlines started popping up all over the place because land owners felt pressured or forced into declaring their land "Mature"? People who were not in the Identity (aka "Age" Verification system would encounter a visually ugly world. Would you consider that to be a kind of extortion by Linden Lab: "Stick Em Up! It's Your Personal Info -- Or Your View!"

What's a waste of energy is worrying about people ARing small, over-priced, ban lined plots under the guise of the no ad farm rule. There is no threat to ban lines nor your privacy especially considering that there is no privacy on the mainland.

--Hugsy

We're all obviously concerned citizens here who are generally on the same side in most values but differing in means. When you send LL a needless AR, you take time away from something else that would benefit more from LL's attention. Can't we get rid of the eyesores visible for SL miles first before worrying about something that can't be seen until you're too close? Why is that an unreasonable position?

It's not, but you're seeing 2 - 4 years of anger and frustration the ad farmers brought on themselves. Reason doesn't always take precedence when that occurs.

The spinner ad-farm plot and the ban lined ad-farm plot are the same extorting behaviour.
".....intended solely to drive an unreasonable price for the parcel it is on,...."
There is no difference in principle and intent between them.
There is no need to differentiate between them for AR purposes. They are the same.

It is unreasonable to ignore the same extortionist behaviour simply because the range of the grief is less.
Someone in a parcel beside a suddenly ban-lined 16m plot is not "too close". They are on their own land.
Someone in a parcel beside a suddenly ban-lined 16m plot is worse off than they were when the plot had spinners.


The parcels that you AR for griefy spinners yesterday are the same parcels, owned by the same owners, with the same extortionist intent, that you AR for *gratuitous* ban lines today.

Ban lines on ad-farm plots are not "because I need them for my security"
They are "because I consider that I can wriggle past what I hope the LL policy is, even though their purpose is to drive an unreasonable price for the parcel".

Refusing to see the point is not simply unreasonable. It's freaking insane.

No, the difference is my view on ban lines, which is squarely that I DON'T CARE about them and I don't let them get to me. I don't consider the ban lines to be extortion because I reserve my right to use them if I so freaking wish. These people are allowed to own land, and just like any person that isn't serious about selling their land at much larger sizes, they can keep the price at some ridiculous rate if they want, and they can restrict access to whoever the hell they want. If they want to be pissy about it and ban people, it's water off a duck's back. It will be abandoned or priced to sell soon enough.

Patience.

Don't let others pick the battlefield.

The main difference with using ban lines instead of "ads" to extort is that in nearly all cases it will fail...

The blog post and new rule although vague, made the point that it is the intent (or apparent intent) rather than the action that is not allowed.

If someone had one single invisible prim that shouted constantly, and high-priced land - it would be extortion.

If that person had three megaprims with rotating textures and high-priced land - it would still be extortion.

If that person had one single invisible prim sending a particle stream 8000k up and high-priced land - extortion again.

If that person has ban lines and high priced land - you guessed it - extortion.

The commonality is the land price and the inconvenience of neighbors, not the *method* of acheiving the high return for minimal valued land.

I appreciate that at the end of the day you're just trying to make the mainland a nicer place. You want to get rid of the ugly spinning cubes first because that seems to be the biggest problem. It may be, but it's certainly not the only problem nor the only potential problem.

The knowledge base states: "For the purposes of this document, "Ad Farm" will apply specifically to advertising or content that is intended solely to drive an unreasonable price for the parcel it is on, usually by spoiling the view of others."

Granted, calling ban lines "content" is a stretch. However, they are things that are placed there by the land owner, "spoiling the view" is something ban lines certainly can do, and their sole intention may be to "drive an unreasonable price for the parcel". If you got all that then you've got extortion and therefore something outlawed by this rule.



I honestly can't understand why you keep thinking this is an attack on ban lines themselves or the parcel access lists that come with them. It is not.

--Hugsy

Because you can't separate the two. It's not like Nina's texture which she uploaded saying no entry, and stuck on a prim. It's attendant to land access rights and only appears when exercising the power to restrict access. You can't get rid of one without getting rid of the other. Taking away land because you banned (most) everyone from accessing it is wrong.

Of course putting up 3 annoying prims is only exercising your right to build what you want on your land.


It would be less of an issue were banlines to have no visible marker.

There was no problem separating real Advertisers from Ad Farms. It's all about intent.

If we can get rid of spinning ugly prims solely intended to extort money from other residents, we can get rid of ban lines intended to do the same thing.

--Hugsy

I see this as a no brainer.



That statement says "harassing behavior OR visual spam"

Notice the word _OR_ in there.

This is obviously (to me, at least), harassing behavior for land extortion purposes. The blog does not say it has to be visual spam, harassing behavior applies just as much. Therefore, AR IS applicable.