Cut That Barbedy-Wire!

That place blew me away, it was really beautiful.

The only people who need to be admonished about the lack of privacy on mainland are working at Linden Lab. They're the only ones in a position to do anything about the fact that nobody who can't afford US$300 a month for their own sim gets any privacy worth talking about.

If Linden Lab implemented any of the mainland privacy suggestions their sales of private estates would plummet. There's an obvious conflict of interest here.

Again... if it's not a hardship on neighbors then it wouldn't be a hardship on the owner that puts up the banlines. It's just silly to have banlines period, and I can't believe this conversation goes on over and over again.
And yes... being able to turn them off visually is a nice feature... until you forget they are shut of and run into them. It's a catch 22.

whoever created the no entry or ban lines outta be shot over and over and over and over and over since we can't be killed sl pfft

that and how the hell are we supposed to bring over a bundt cake to our new neighbors if we can't even walk to the front door, and no im not goin up the emergency exit ladder again after falling 20 meters nearly breaking my legs pfft

Argent, you're upset, I see. I'll wait until you've calmed down.
This "I can't walk on my own property" is an argument you haven't brought up in this discussion and does warrant attention.
Just curious. Since you've changed your tack, does that mean that you see my point on the other argument you've made?
____________________________________
Eli, that's not an answer to my question. Your logic is flawed, as I've pointed out, and you're twisting words. It's YOU that think it's a hardship, not me. It's YOU that is suggesting that the landowner should have to have to see them.
What's not fair in your scenario, and something you seem to have conveniently ignored, is that the neighbours can turn of visibility in their viewers. What you're suggesting, one would assume, otherwise, what's the point, is that the landowners NOT have this option?

How is that fair?

And again, "it's silly to have banlines" is your opinion and has absolutely no bearing on someone else's land.

That makes sense for LL sales, yeh. it's be no skin off their nose to make a few sims sky orientated though, probably would be pretty popular land.

It's fair because if you want to be seperate from the rest of the mainland then why should you be able to freely walk off your land and onto someone elses?

well, that would be up to the other landowner, wouldn't it?

And the answer to your question?

"why should [they] be able to freely walk off [their] land and onto someone elses?"
Because they pay for the property and are allowed to do what THEY want on it. Not what YOU want them to do.
(Changes made because I don't use banlines.)

not talking about the property we are talking about the border

How does that matter?
Isn't the border owned by one person or the other?

Or are you saying that they should be stopped on their own land? That their should be a barrier on their own property stopping them from leaving? Is that what you're suggesting?

Good advice, but I'm not the one who's posting absolutist rubbish in ALL CAPS here, perhaps the person who's doing that needs to take it.

I haven't changed my tack. It's not a new point.

That's what I'm suggesting, yep.

Argent,

first off, the "absolutist crap in all caps" is also in quotes. I was using hyperbole to show how crazy I think the position is. It's in no way an indication of my state of mind.
You, however, looking at the post in question, seem to be agitated about this. Also, trying to twist my posts seems to be an indicator of this.
Secondly, your original stance, the one I started responding to, had to do with your vehicles getting borked when they hit banlines.
It appears you've abandoned this and have changed tack to "I can't move on my own land", which is far more legitimate and, had that been your original stance, I wouldn't be posting on it, other than to say "Yeah, that's messed up and LL should fix that". If you had offered a solution, other than to take away banlines altogether, which seems to be your stance, then I may have supported it.
I think it was Sling who had a problem with the visual aspect of banlines, back on the... 148th iteration of this argument, I think it was... and I agreed with him on that and supported his call for something to be done about that... And look! Now we can turn off visibility.
But you've moved the goalposts. You're arguing two separate things.
Removing banlines because you hit them with your vehicle while flying around is one thing.
Banlines affecting you while on your own land is another.

If you own land next to someone who puts up banlines, add their name to your banned residents list.

I could do that... but then I would be an a-hole too.

"Or are you saying that they should be stopped on their own land? That their should be a barrier on their own property stopping them from leaving? Is that what you're suggesting?"


Then you're trying to tell people what to do on their own property and you don't have that right.
It's not your place and the suggestion is just ridiculous.
You keep saying "I agree. It's their land" blah blah blah.

Now you're saying "They should have to do what I want on their land".

Which is it?

No more of an a-hole than pushing for them to have banlines on the inside. Instead of doing it on your own land, you're calling for this to be instituted for EVERYONE.

Nope. The border is not their land. The border is where their land stops and someone else's starts.
And I am not telling anyone what to do. Nobody is forced to have stupid ban lines.. it's their choice. I am suggesting an improvement to a feature that would make it a little more fair and hopefully would make people less likely to use the feature without thinking about the ramifications that it has on the community. It's not rediculous at all.

Um, it's not their property they'd be banned from.

I think Eli's a bit over the top, but I do think that ban lines that don't effect you should still be visible, so you know that they're there. There's been lots of people I've spoken to who had NO idea.

I don't have ban lines. I'm not calling for it for everyone.. just the ban-line-havers

I'm two days late but I still want in on this.

*coughs and wiggles, getting ready*

Toy. That I can eat. When I get bored with toy.

Ok, your whole argument is just silly.

There's some magical place in between one person's land and the next?
Either it's (A)'s land or (B)'s.
(And either way, it's not yours to impose your will on.)

You still haven't explained how punishing landowners for using banlines (as defined in past posts and refined by your stance that they should not be allowed to turn the visibility off, which others CAN do from the outside) is fair.

Would you care to elucidate?

______________________________
Lexxi, I like the way you think!

I have explained it numerous times... you just pretend not to hear it... I think because you just like to argue.

Nope.

You HAVEN'T explained.

You keep saying it's fair to punish landowners for using banlines, but haven't explained HOW or WHY it's fair.
Banline visibility is optional. You're suggesting that landowners should not only have them visible from the inside, but also not be able to turn them off AND that this punishment be either on their own land or someone else's (as there is no "No-Man's Land" between two parcels... unless you have evidence of this...)
Your reasoning, from what I can see, is nothing more than "I don't like them".

So, please. Explain how that is fair. You haven't yet. Maybe you could link or quote the post where you did, if you did and I missed it.

I never said anything about taking away the feature of controling ability to see the lines. You made that up.