Cut That Barbedy-Wire!

You're so full of it your eyes are turning brown. Barb wire stops animals, not humans. Ban lines stop humans, and let animals through.

All I have is an orb guarding my skybox, but it's fairly tame. 10 sec's to vacate, but it's only a square 1024m AND way up in the sky. You could nearly *walk* across it and make it out before you get ejected. I'll admit fixing the stuff on my other property is getting old though. Every time I go there people are leaving the doors open, editing the settings notecards, moving poseballs around, etc.. It's the ones who take advantage of the stuff people let the public use that cause the security attitudes to happen in the first place IMO.

I've never liked ban lines, only ever used them once, when I had my place closed and was rebuilding it.

This time I'm rebuilding it with no ban lines, it's taking longer though have to keep an eye out for those visitors who get a bit too close, wouldn't want to smack them around the head with a prim as I swing it into place.

In real, I have enough land to have a few creatures live in peace and space. I think my most valuable "guard" is an old male wolf who lives alone and circles around my place when the lake freezes. He knows my smell but he'll scare the s**t out of anyone coming near my place in real. Failing him, there is a bear that makes even Pep look cherubic. And following him is the meanest creature of all: a stag with a full rack of antlers. Everyone stays away from him coz he is a sod. This spring he ate all of my hostas. I saw him one dawn and he sneered at me.

In sl, I ban no one and wont ban if I can help it. In rl, well, I am reclusive but not fiery. I try and welcome who I can. In sl, anyone is welcome on my land - just dont mess it up or be shocked by the art work.

For over two years I've had parcels all over mainland. They've always been unrestricted. Only two people have ever been banned, and that was only temporarily, and only on one of up to maybe 15-ish parcels spread around the grid.

And yet, I've had neighbours who have put up ban lines on arrival. Unless they were the specific target of stalkers who were going to follow them, there was no actual need to have the restrictions. I had not observed any history of J.Random Griefers persistently or even intermittently messing about in those sims.

I would guess that this feeling of being under threat is simply some psychological baggage that people import into SL. Unless someone has a continuing experience of actual abusive behaviour of their SL space, ban lines are an expression of a sad impoverished RL of the person putting them up. The "get off my lawn" - when the incidence of lawn-trampling is very rare - is a actually an expression of rage and impotence at life in general.
Ban lines are 'because I can'. They are ungenerous, totally self-centred and pathetic.

There should be a special continent for people who want to have ban lines. Make it a beautiful continent, with beachfront, oceans, lakes, waterways, streets, mountains, valleys and whatever. Just let the small-minded residents ban each other from the joys of it. Have the sims set such that every parcel has to be specifically opened for access to owner/group/individual.

Pay my tier and I'll take down ban lines.... put up or shut up

I beg to differ.

The principles of the civil rights movement succeeded so well that they now permeate society. Just the fact that we could have a presidential election with an African-American where race was barely an issue came from a seed planted in the fifties and sprouted in the sixties. How many people still think that a woman's place is in the home? The First Lady at the start of the sixties hosted a tour of the white house. The First Lady of the nineties made a credible effort at running for President. The Stonewall riots took place in 1969; today, gay characters on TV are a given.

Socialist ideals certainly played a strong role in the turmoil of the sixties, and certainly haven't survived to any large degree. But there was far more to the sixties than that.

Last I checked those were not mutually exclusive possibilities.... Unless you (and the song) are asking if we are human or one of Santa's reindeer.....

Actually the 'ideals' of the 60's were all about selfishness. Those with things (not those protesting) should share with those who don't have those things (those protesting). Those protesting were not giving up vehicles or factory made clothing, etc, just complaining that those things actually had to be worked for.

When those kids grew up and became executives in the 70's and 80's, the same principles or something for nothing were extended to wall street and heavily leveraged buyouts and other pyramid schemes resulted.

Other examples of the mentality led to the high tech boom (and bust) and more recently the sub prime mortgage crisis. When will we learn something for nothing is simply not going to happen?

You kidding? That's half the fun. And, non-phys prims don't count on the bump log so they can't AR you. (^_^)y

No banlines at my places, all my lands are open and I get very few problems of which exactly none have been impossible to deal with quickly.

I have no idea about the 60's references that are being talked about as that was a long time before I was born. I don't like it when people try to "out" the age of other people by the things they say though. I think it is extremely rude, even in fun.
Whilst interacting with an avatar, I am essentially ageless and that is how I assume other people to be too.

LOL
FU

This is what happens when you resort to glib generalizations . . .


Kidd, you're dead right. I stand corrected. The 60s was a time of enormous social and political change, and its legacy DOES extend far beyond that which I delineated, at least in a few select and very important areas. To your two I would, in fact, add a third, the legacy of the Vietnam War. The US has not exactly stayed out of regional military conflicts since 1975, but the political dynamic has unquestionably changed: no US gov't can be assured of the unfaltering support of its citizens in times of war, as was once the case. It is possible to protest and critique military action as it never was before. And that is a pretty damned good thing too.


I think that the "truth" probably lies halfway between my facile generalization, and this rather cynical reading of the idealism of the 60s. That many of the youth of the period were really pursuing a selfish agenda is undoubtedly true; also, it is certainly the case that the counterculture and protest became "chic," and participation in it for many as much a fashion statement as a pursuit of change. But (see Kidd's post), I do think that there was a solid cadre of that generation who DID "believe," and that some of these betrayed those ideals later in life.

The Truth ALWAYS lies in the middle. it is one of the few constants in the universe.

Yes, I think I probably agree. But I would add that you can't find the centre without looking for it from as many different perspectives as possible (which is why I think discussion is so important), and that when you DO find it, there is never a single unitary "Truth" anyway: it's always FAR more complicated and multivalent than it is accounted by any single view.

Actually, even thinking about it is exhausting . . .

This is true.

LOL
ILU

LOLFU and LOLILU?
Huh?
WUFLOLILO 2 U2

Where's Pep when you need him?

Jig - this thread was already. It's an ex parrot. It ceased to exist.

Why did you do not one but TWO more threads about ban lines. For criminetly sake.

Are you that bored?!

Here's a topic.

Seagulls: Pet or meat?

IMO the animal territorial instinct is at the root of the "barbedy wire" psychology - we just rationalise it to ourselves as respecting other's privacy and extend it (out of the physical realm) into all sorts of virtual situations. This leads to noticeable conflicts with the human tendancy to communicate and share - blog everything and put pictures on facebook - but I must be able to restrict who sees it, etc.

Some can extend their rationality to see this process, but others cannot. Not much to be done about it - its "in the genes".

EDIT: Serious point to make - sorry!

You can see this process in the responses in this thread - where the rationalising arguements come first:

"We should respect wach other's privacy."
"I can do what I want in the privacy of my own property."

Then this decends into farse and the discussion breaks down.

There will be those who stop and think, "Hold on, what's happening here? This is virtual reality - it's not a matter of life and death!" This process is important, because it leads to the realisation that it is in the interface between the virtual and the real where the "barbedy wire" is needed. This is the boundary where the stalker and the abuser operates.

Bored to death with the original ludicrous squabbling about privacy in sl . . .

Pep ( . . . and then you come along and start even more boring repetitive threads on the same subject. )

I don't think I have ever agreed with Pep more that I do right now.

They're almost annoying enough to be good only for food.. But then there's that inquisitive head tilt and endearing eyes, and you forget the selfish evil streak and can't help but adore them.

Vermin.

But quite handy for indicating the location of fish shoals.