Are some people really so stupid as to expect privacy in SL?

Ah, that sounds more logical. Still an AR-able offense though

Maybe he rezzed a multi-multi-prim sculpted penis with 1000 textures, and the lag swamped her Net connection?

I got it 2nd hand, and she said 'he froze me for a short time'. I will look into it more now that I think about it, people should not be able to freeze you on your own land.......unless, like her, your land is wide open with no controls in options, I don't know. In other words, anybody can rez, create objects, object entry, scripts, etc......wonder if that would matter.

All of those are problems separate from banlines. THOSE are the problems, not the banlines themselves.

*shrug* Matter of opinion to be sure. On her land, the only opinion that matters is hers.

*LOL* @ the visual of 'a contant stream of assholes'. In SL that could actually be possible I suppose.

It's
1) Their choice
2) Their right (oh yes it is, good luck AR-ing anyone for placing banlines on a not-for-sale parcel)

It has nothing to do with people being insane, bonkers, or whatever you try to talk them down with. Infantile remarks like that will only make people more insistant how they're right, instead of trying to open a discussion. Congrats on your F-minus for social behavior, no matter how "social" you believe you are, or how many people you spammed with friendship requests, your lack of empathy makes you a non-person in any discussion regarding common interests.

We are only responsible for those things we have the power to change. I have land along a linden road. I can't do anything about lag, or about sim crossing problems, or about the SL controls. I can do something about whether I have obstructions on the road, or banlines adjacent to it.

Jeezuz. Where do these people come from.... seriously? Who talks like that?

The reality of actually controlling vehicles in SL has no parallel in RL.
Again, it seems to me that you have little or no experience in this area. You seem very resistant to accepting the explanations of the problems.

I was out on Linden roads on my motor bike last night. At some points of the journey it was necessary to slow right down just to stay on the road. At the worst points, even when single-tapping on the forward key, the bike drifted off the road. Then I'd get to a better stretch and could speed up to normal.

Your example of RL "No Shoes" or "No Smoking" rules are examples of a reasonable rules. They give an option to the guest. THe housholder doesn't want their floors damaged or doesn't want the smell or health-hazard of the smoke, or the ashes.

In SL, a "No Weapons" rule in a sandbox is a perfectly reasonable rule. People want to get on with building without being hassled. The person who wishes to bear a weapon has the option of not entering or getting ejected.

In SL, in the environment of varying lag and difficulty in seeing boundaries, a "Not An Inch" rule is not a reasonable rule. Unintentionally straying over the edge of a boundary is not an option that the person has taken.
What damage did I do to the (absent - even) landowners when my bike strayed over their boundaries?

It's easy to understand the logic and the need for what I describe as reasonable RL and SL rules above.
What exactly is the logic and need for a "Not An Inch" rule that results in major inconvenience for people who have no interest at all in intruding and/or abusing?
"Because I can. Because it's a rule I made" doesn't seem reasonable attitude to take in the circumstances.


Navigation in RL and SL don't compare.
In RL hazardous areas, we have channel markers and transit lines. Our boats generally stay on track and we allow for the currents and wind. In SL we are faced with near zero navigational aids and the effects of the equivalent of very powerful and capricious currents and winds. Additional to that, new hazards pop up where none were before.

If someone's boat unintentionally strays over a boundary, they are not deciding to ignore the 'stay out (please) rule.
That's totally different to someone making the concious decision to bear a weapon in your sandbox and saying "FU".

Ooh ooh ohh... I know what the answer will be.... "because it's my land. I paid for it!"

Yeh, but you never can quite beat that one, can ya.

See, that to me is not an excuse for being allowed to drive on other's properties. It is a reason to be annoyed and/or disappointed with SL, but is hardly the fault of the local landowners.

If you are constantly going off road due to lag, etc, why drive? Doesn't that break immersion? Unless of course you really like the thought of driving really badly and not caring about consequence, but that would be a form of griefing....

Argent,

I drive too. And I fly. Lag is one of the consequences you live with from driving and flying in SL. If lag causes you to be lagged into a property with ban lines, you accept that and handle the consequences. It doesn't even have to be next to the roadway you're driving on, you can lag completely through a property that has no ban lines at all and hit one further inland that also has ban lines up. It happens. That is never under any circumstances the fault of the person who has decided to pre-emptively ensure that Joe Asshat cannot create a new avatar and come around to places where they don't belong. Place the blame in the proper quarters, not with the people who don't want morons coming on their property.

They bought the land along linden roads because they wanted land along Linden roads. One of the things that you get when you buy land next to the road is traffic. If you don't want traffic, why did you buy there? And people DO want land on Linden roads, they pay a premium for it.

If the effects of lag bother you that much, why are you in SL?

I'm not placing blame, I'm asking for courtesy and consideration.

So what you're saying with "I can do something about whether I have obstructions on the road, or banlines adjacent to it" is that you ARE, in fact, trying to impose your will on other people.
________________________________
Sling,


again, you're demanding justification for something that is none of your business.
You're applying your own definition of "reasonable" to someone else's property.
You don't have that right.

According to you, it isn't. According to a land owner, it may be perfectly reasonable.

So, what is the difference between you saying "it's unreasonable" and someone on your land saying that one of your rules is unreasonable and demanding they should be exempt from it?


That sounds remarkably similar to... oh, I don't know... how it is in the real world!
Doesn't it?
________________________________
Eli,

So we're reduced to snarky comments that add nothing to the conversation?
Yeah. That's not rude at all.

And, as Ian said... you still haven't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why YOUR wishes should supercede someone else's, on their own land...

(Oh, yeah... and would you please stop implying that I'm referring to myself when I speak of landowner's rights. I have said repeatedly that I don't use banlines and never have. Your "quote" should read "because it's THEIR land. THEY paid for it!"

I'm imposing my will on people by not putting obstructions or banlines on MY OWN LAND?

OK, you're officially too weird for me to deal with.

*plonk*

But such markers could be put in place on maps, without adversly affecting views.

And in RL, people do unintentionally go outside markers all the time due to carelessness, stupidity or whatever.

The big difference is that if you go outside markers in RL you could end up in real danger. That does not stop people from doing so though.

Oh, and unintentional does not equate to justifiable. That is why we have concepts such as negligence.

And again, that's none of your business.
They don't have to justify their decisions to you.

Negligence, as a legal concept, requires actual harm.

Now, if there was a misunderstanding, I apologize.
I read this as meaning that you were actively trying to stop banlines from being allowed next to the road.
You said "I can do something about whether I have obstructions on the road, or banlines adjacent to it."
I took this to mean that you can do something about having obstructions or banlines along the road, period, not just on your own land.

Sorry if that's what you meant. I just can't see any other way to read it in the context of this discussion.
Can you elaborate on it, please?

Sorry... one more...



it's not the unintentional straying. It's the demanding that banlines be taken down because of it.
That IS a conscious decision.

Ban lines do not stop the roads from existing. They do not prevent people from walking down them. I admit I have never felt the need to drive down one but if I did and was going off road all the time I would stop doing so.

As for lag bothering me, I am not the one complaining about driving in an uncontrolled fashion due to said lag, nor arguing any right to do so regardless of how it might affect others.

You are the one complaining and the one who seems to be insisting that others (and not LL) should be accomodating your needs.

I said *I* have land next to a Linden Road. I can do something about whether *I* have obstructions on the road, or banlines adjacent to it. That's what's under *my* control.

I am also *asking* that people who are in a similar position do what *they* can to help the problem.

That's as far as I'm going. That's as far as I've *ever* gone. When you come back and tell me I'm DEMANDING things,over and over again, I drop that topic. When you tell me that just doing *my* part is *also* demanding things, I stop talking to you at all.

Breach of privacy is considered harm. Hence laws in RL regarding tresspass. Negligence is also a moral concept too. So is the concept of property rights.

Even if lives and property were not endangered by it in RL, if cars were as uncontrolled as you suggest, they would be a lot more heavily restricted just due to the annoyance/nuisance factor.