Banning on property
|
|
Taylor Meness
Registered User
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 144
|
12-29-2007 21:21
From: Colette Meiji It is considered insulting, yes.
And it certainly seemed to be used in a derogatory way.
It traditionally has been used as such, for quite a long time.
However should it be?
Is the measure of a culture its technology? Seems a bit materialistic and shallow a method to apply to something like values and ideals.
Additionally there is the fact that those who are on the cutting edge of technological innovation are rarely those who ascribe the most steadfast to the culture in which they belong.
Otherwise techie types wouldn't be called Geeks or Nerds, would they? Good post, and a valid point. It's an entirely different subject that that raises though. I guess what I really want to get across is that can't we have an intelligent discussion, should cultural histories be brought up, rather than bad-mouthing and insulting any particular country? And maybe even keeping their mouth shut about subjects they know nothing about? I see so many threads closed cause of Flaming/Trolling, rascist remarks are always a sure way to get people angry. |
|
Har Fairweather
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,320
|
12-29-2007 21:24
So Chris is not up on his Indigenous Australian history. Ignorance is not racism. Neither is making a hasty generalization. Racism is racism, and that was a cheap shot evidently intended to derail the thread. Which is why I think Godwin's Law (the first one to bring Hitler or the Nazis into an argument not about them loses) needs to be applied to playing the race card as well. To cut down on inflammatory cheap shots.
|
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
12-29-2007 21:29
From: Har Fairweather So Chris is not up on his Indigenous Australian history. Ignorance is not racism. Neither is making a hasty generalization. Racism is racism, and that was a cheap shot evidently intended to derail the thread. Which is why I think Godwin's Law (the first one to bring Hitler or the Nazis into an argument not about them loses) needs to be applied to playing the race card as well. To cut down on inflammatory cheap shots. Of course does it matter if this thread gets derailed? There are at least 10000012315412351895125617834 ban line threads from Calender Year 2007 already. In the larger sense, yeah, you shouldn't call someone a racist unless you know they are. And yes we shouldn't insult other cultures. Aboriginal Australian culture is pretty fascinating actually. Especially when you consider it must have involved traveling across the OCEAN in basically large canoes in the prehistoric past. |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
12-29-2007 21:33
From: Har Fairweather So Chris is not up on his Indigenous Australian history. Ignorance is not racism. Neither is making a hasty generalization. Racism is racism, and that was a cheap shot evidently intended to derail the thread. Which is why I think Godwin's Law (the first one to bring Hitler or the Nazis into an argument not about them loses) needs to be applied to playing the race card as well. To cut down on inflammatory cheap shots. /me whips off her pants and waves them in salute
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|
|
Nika Talaj
now you see her ...
Join date: 2 Jan 2007
Posts: 5,449
|
12-29-2007 21:34
/me dashes into the thread, tosses Chris a kiss and a copy of "Guns, Germs, & Steel", notes that the OP's question has long since been answered, and runs away.
_____________________
.  To contact forum folks, join the inworld group "The Forum Cartel". New residents with questions about SL more than welcome! We has parties! To contact forum scripters, join the inworld group "Scriptoratti" (thanks Void!). New scripter questions welcome!
|
|
Har Fairweather
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,320
|
12-29-2007 21:35
From: Colette Meiji It is considered insulting, yes.
And it certainly seemed to be used in a derogatory way.
It traditionally has been used as such, for quite a long time.
However should it be?
Is the measure of a culture its technology? Seems a bit materialistic and shallow a method to apply to something like values and ideals.
Additionally there is the fact that those who are on the cutting edge of technological innovation are rarely those who ascribe the most steadfast to the culture in which they belong.
Otherwise techie types wouldn't be called Geeks or Nerds, would they? Yes, agree, Colette touches on something much more interesting - and applicable here: How does - or should - one evaluate a culture? This applies here, since the thread was a discussion of property rights, and their significance as a value affecting the development of not only the culture of SL, but of RL societies as well. It does seem to have a big effect in general. And a big effect on SL in particular. |
|
Taylor Meness
Registered User
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 144
|
12-29-2007 21:39
Just to confirm, I never called anyone a racist, just stated it was a rascist REMARK. Obviously by now it's been established that making derogotory comments about a certain country, or race, should not be taken lightly. Sorry if anyone miscontrued my comments, I probably shouldn't have bitten, but it ust annoys me when people make ill-informed comments.
|
|
Bradley Bracken
Goodbye, Farewell, Amen
Join date: 2 Apr 2007
Posts: 3,856
|
12-29-2007 21:42
From: Ricardo Harris Awww, and you don't do this now? No, I don't. From: Ricardo Harris Many of those opposed to not being able to go in other peoples property have all kinds of excuses as to why and many more like, enjoy and look forward to 'poking' where they don't belong. This being the reason they hate being stopped by security or ban lines. I could go on and on about my reasons for hating ban lines and security orbs, but you've heard them all before. All I'll say is that it's pitiful how people become over this so called "security" and "it's my land" issue in SL. It'd be one thing if there was true security and privacy but there is not, nor do I ever expect there to be. That's why I just keep my land open for any and all to enjoy. Sure, you''ll say that's my choice, but I'm just going to say that you're so called privacy is a dream in your head. Who's winning in all this? My guess is the scripters. It reminds me of the cold war. I can only guess that the same scripters who are creating snooping devices are the same ones who then create anti snooping devices. You can play their game if you want to but I have lots of other fun things to do in SL.
_____________________
My interest in SL has simply died. Thanks for all the laughs
|
|
Har Fairweather
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,320
|
12-29-2007 21:59
[Sigh] Okay, one more time. Privacy is a relative thing, not an absolute one. The idea that privacy must be perfect and absolute or it does not exist at all is a complete fallacy. There are varying degrees of privacy. The FBI "could" bug my RL bedroom or office, but the reality is both afford me quite a bit of privacy, FBI notwithstanding. Ban lines and security orbs may not keep out the prying eyes of those snoops willing to really master remote camming to indulge their peculiar perversity, but they do cut down on physical intrusion and griefing - and being observed by the 98% or so of the population who can't be bothered to become such dedicated Peeping Toms or business spies (or what is the motive for such extreme, and let's say it, creepy spying, anyway?).
In SL, there are several aspects to privacy: Being free of unwanted physical intrusion, being free of unwanted interruption or harrassment, and being free of unwanted observation.
Privacy is a value. Yes, a cultural value. It is important to a lot of people. It ought to be honored, and it is by most people. Just not all. Hence ban lines. Hence security orbs.
|
|
Bradley Bracken
Goodbye, Farewell, Amen
Join date: 2 Apr 2007
Posts: 3,856
|
12-29-2007 22:14
Har, I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. Having lived next to a club once that resulted in strangers regularly showing up on my patio looking for sex I can understand peoples frustrations. I will never like ban lines, but have no issue with security orbs that give people enough chance to continue flying overhead.
I guess I'll just never understand why some are so militant about maintaining their "privacy", but I guess they'd argue they don't understand me either. It's going to be hard to make anyone happy since it seems those with the opinion on one side believe that those on the other will continue to affect their enjoyment of SL.
_____________________
My interest in SL has simply died. Thanks for all the laughs
|
|
Surrealist Seesaw
Registered User
Join date: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 65
|
12-29-2007 22:36
From: Har Fairweather IMO, Surrealist loses the thread. I wasn't aware this was a competition. No, I wasn't playing a racist card, nor attempting to derail the thread, which I find interesting in its own right. However, race and culture are not mutually exclusive, and a racist comment is such whether spoken intentionally or in ignorance. Besides, as Colette has suggested, the measure of a culture requires a far more complex yardstick than simply the development of certain technologies. From: Har Fairweather Privacy is a value. Yes, a cultural value. It is important to a lot of people. Precisely - and my argument is that, within the environment of SL, we have the opportunity to explore a new type of culture, with alternative ways of interacting. Clearly, many people feel more comfortable adopting familiar norms, and that's fine. I find it more interesting, however, to step outside my comfort zone and experiment with relinquishing RL values. I would no more welcome someone walking into my RL home and helping themselves than the next person, but for me, SL is - and always will be - a game, a playground, a space in which to experiment, where the same rules need not apply. |
|
Karen Palen
That pushy American Broad
Join date: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 140
|
12-29-2007 23:18
From: Jessica Elytis Actually, there are "foolproof" security orbs. As for sitting *smirks* even the most basic built security orb functions with an Unsit command before ejection/ban/TP-Home.
It is truly amazing how few actually manage to do that with any effectiveness. Of course I am using a modified LL viewer rather than some form of LSL scripting, that likely makes a difference. I will however concede that like the real world you cannot achieve total security, but you can significantly increase the hassle for an intruder. Also like the real world 99% of "security" aids and devices are wishful thinking rather than anything with any real effect. www.grc.com on the subject of firewalls comes to mind. Steve HAS managed to make most of them achieve at least minimal effectiveness, but there are still a lot out there that charge a lot of US$ for virtually no protection! Zimmerman's comments on his development of PGP also comes to mind. Same problem, it is easy to THINK you have a secure system since no truly evil intruder is going to announce themselves! |
|
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
|
12-30-2007 00:19
Most people who have security orbs would likely never have been harassed.
Most people who put up their ban lines most likely wouldn't have been bothered if they'd left them down.
Unfortunately some people are harassed, intruded on, griefed, verbally and visually abused, etc.
And its because of that ban lines and security orbs are a necessary evil.
The alternatives are either:
-a free-for-all griefer zone
Or
-a Heavily Moderated Linden Police state.
Neither of which seems particularly appealing.
|
|
Ricardo Harris
Registered User
Join date: 1 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,944
|
12-30-2007 03:05
From: Jessica Elytis Correct.
Nope. Not even close. Ban lines are the SL equivilant of property fencing. They can easily be avoided. If you can't due to your system lagging, then you shoudl moderate your travel accordingly. ie, don't use vehicles you can not properly control.
Incorrect. They appear at close range only. Improper alpha-texturing on prims can cause a visual distortion, but that's due to the poor texturing, not the ban lines. Neighbors should talk to each other to work out having the need to see ban lines. Most times nighbors can put each other on the access lists so they do not need to see them all the time. Travelers can simply move on.
Actually, this makes them perfectly acceptable.
If you have no intention of intruding, then ban lines do not effect you. Moot point. That's liek being angry at a locked door in RL when you had no intention of going in.
Passing over pacels is still allowed with ban lines. They only extend upwards 50m above the land surface.
To see the "markings" of the Linden owned land, use CTRL+ALT+SHIFT+P. This turns on parcel boundry lines so you can see where you're going.
I fly, drive, boat, etc all through SL and have absolutely no issues traveling due to ban lines. I suggest learning to navigate a vehicle.
As for the "in your face rape" of the ban lines up close....move. Why you would insist another change their land to meet your outlook when you are "simply passing through" is a msytery to me.
Yes, it is. However, unlike some I do no demand it of others. I EARN it. Of course, I have to want a person's respect in order to earn it from them. Otherwise, their opinion means absolutly nothing to me.
I do NOT force my ideals on others. If I don't like something in SL I move on. Don't like ban lines. Move on.
However, on my land, I pay for the right to do as I wish to MY ideals. Personally, I do not use ban lines. I have no need. If I needed them, for any reason (or no reason), then I darn well would put them up.
Next thing people will whine about is wanting to Build everywhere, with Scripts and Push enabled. Might as well let them all terraform everyone's land too. Leave it all open to everyone!!!
If you don't want to see ban lines,then look on the JIRA pages. There is a JIRA entry for putting in a client-side option to turn off/adjsut their visual effects.
If you want people to turn off thier ban lines completely, then you need to meet halfway on that RESPECT street in one or two ways;
1) Come up with a better means to keep out the troublemakers.
2) Convince everyone in SL to respect another's property.
I highly suggest working on choice #1. You can try #2, but my faith in the human race isn't that high. (Which is why we have ban lines)
~Jessy Jessy, I'm impressed. |
|
Conifer Dada
Hiya m'dooks!
Join date: 6 Oct 2006
Posts: 3,716
|
12-30-2007 03:14
I don't use ban lines - anyone can walk round my place, even if I'm in the bath!
While ban lines might seem a bit anti-social, I don't think they should be abolished. If people don't want strangers wandering on their land, why shouldn't they be allowed to stop them? If there were no ban lines available people would just put up high walls round their properties using megaprims. To me that would be worse.
You do see some silly use of ban lines, though. Up the road from me someone has built a hut that covers their small plot. It looks impossible to get into the hut yet they still have ban lines!
|
|
Ricardo Harris
Registered User
Join date: 1 Apr 2006
Posts: 1,944
|
12-30-2007 03:19
From: Bradley Bracken but I'm just going to say that you're so called privacy is a dream in your head. More like a nightmare in yours. Trying to convince yourself and others people should welcome uninvited intruders is just that, a nightmare cause no one is buying it. No one who doesn't like being bothered anyway. If you don't mind trespassers then that's fine but don't try to tell others they need to do the same and they're wrong for not doing as you do. And if it's a dream then let us dream on, don't wake me. Long as no one I don't know, no one I haven't invited in comes where I am then I'll dream peacefully. Doesn't bother me I keep them out. |
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
12-30-2007 03:54
From: Jessica Elytis ......
Next thing people will whine about is wanting to Build everywhere, with Scripts and Push enabled. Might as well let them all terraform everyone's land too. Leave it all open to everyone!!! OK. Time for all us "so-called" explorers to 'fess up and admit our true agenda. Do we just have a general distaste for people who impose ugly griefy red ban lines on the neighbourhood? Do we really wish we could clip the corner of a parcel while moving in a straight line? Are we really just passing through? Nope! Nope! Nope! 1. There are only two (2) genuine explorer residents. They don't log in much, so their case can be ignored. 2. Anyone doing anything other than TPing to places in Search is a pervy griefer - and they are legion!! They want to mess with your stuff, force-collar you and terraform you. They are terraformists!!!! 3. Do not spend the equivalent of a RL burger on a security device. Those things might allow some terraformist to set foot for a while on a corner of YOUR LAND THAT YOU PAID FOR. 4. Use the cheapest(free) and most visually-intrusive method possible. Grief the neighbourhood. Assume that anybody coming near is a terraformist. 5. When your hear voices telling you that you are a sad paranoid freak - DO NOT LISTEN TO THE VOICES !!!!! *THEY* are out to get *YOU*. Be afraid!!!
_____________________
Maggie: We give our residents a lot of tools, to build, create, and manage their lands and objects. That flexibility also requires people to exercise judgment about when things should be used.
http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/BDVR/589
|
|
Snowman Jiminy
Registered User
Join date: 23 Dec 2007
Posts: 424
|
12-30-2007 04:20
From: Taylor Meness Chris didn't just comment on cultural values. He also insulted Indigenous Australians AND Australians by stating that they never advanced past the Stone Age. For anyone who actually knows the history of Indigenous Australians, this is extra insulting. I just don't get that something that was said in discussion, with no malice intended, could inspire such a ignorant statement by someone. There was no need to get into insults, and that's exactly what he did. To be fair to Chris, he hardly strikes me as being ignorant, although he is quite up-front and honest about being "arrogant", so no need to take offense. |
|
Kitty Barnett
Registered User
Join date: 10 May 2006
Posts: 5,586
|
12-30-2007 04:21
From: Sling Trebuchet *THEY* are out to get *YOU*. Be afraid!!! If you're out "exploring" why would you care how banlines look? You don't live there, you're just passing through, so it's not something that's relevant to your argument at all unless you're going to complain about all the other eyesores out there, which you haven't. Vehicles: you have to deal with parcels that have object entry turned off (extends all the way up), parcels that don't have enough prims to accomodate the vehicle, sims that are full, sim crossings that unseat you at best or crash you at worst. Yet funnily enough you again only complain and blame access restrictions for all of the problems you encounter with vehicles. Annoyance factor: access restriction is entirely predictable, fly 50m+ above ground level and you'll never see on in your entire SL life and if you hit one, all that happens is that you get a popup that fades away on its own. Fly around at any altitude and you'll encounter security orbs that spam a dialog every second (or worse) that has to be manually dismissed or that tp you home before you even realize there is one. Getting rid of access restrictions won't really accomplish anything at all, all it would do is just shift the problem around a bit. |
|
Taylor Meness
Registered User
Join date: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 144
|
12-30-2007 04:31
From: Snowman Jiminy To be fair to Chris, he hardly strikes me as being ignorant, although he is quite up-front and honest about being "arrogant", so no need to take offense. I'm not saying he is stupid, over the last year I have read a lot of his posts and he mostly comes across as intelligent and well informed (ok, maybe quite arrogant at times, but all power to him). He simply came across as ignorant as he was making a statement that was completely ill-informed and uneducated. It's just such a shame when an interesting discussion is interrupted by someone basically making derogatory comments about another's country. It's not neccessary. Anyhoo, ban lines are annoying as hell, security orbs all the way. As others have suggested it would be great if there was an option to turn the ugly red lines off, or something similar. |
|
Sling Trebuchet
Deleted User
Join date: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 4,548
|
12-30-2007 05:25
From: Kitty Barnett If you're out "exploring" why would you care how banlines look? You don't live there, you're just passing through, so it's not something that's relevant to your argument at all ....
It's very simple. The way the default parcel access works is butt-ugly. It's *institutionalised* ugliness. To remain silent until a neighbour puts them up would be to adopt an impoverished self-serving frame of mind. From: Kitty Barnett
... unless you're going to complain about all the other eyesores out there, which you haven't.
I have actually, but in other threads in which it was relevant. From: Kitty Barnett
Vehicles: you have to deal with parcels that have object entry turned off (extends all the way up), parcels that don't have enough prims to accomodate the vehicle, sims that are full, sim crossings that unseat you at best or crash you at worst. Yet funnily enough you again only complain and blame access restrictions for all of the problems you encounter with vehicles.
Nope. My start point is that they are visual grief. I then move to question if they are actually a measured response to whatever real problem might exist. Again, you have either mis-read or not-read my posts. From: Kitty Barnett
Annoyance factor: access restriction is entirely predictable, fly 50m+ above ground level and you'll never see on in your entire SL life and if you hit one, all that happens is that you get a popup that fades away on its own.
Stand on the ground beside a banning parcel, and unless the parcel you are standing on has built a solid wall 50m high on the banning boundary, you'll see something entirely and predictable butt-ugly. Flying? 1. Get down to ground and check the level 2. Add 50m to whatever that number is. Add another 5 for safety 3. Fly straight up 4. Estimate for any higher ground levels ahead in draw distance. 5. Remember that for some strange reasons you lose or gain altitude while flying True one could program a flight assist that always stayed 51m above the ground below, but that still leaves the ugliness on the ground. True one could program a vehicle to constantly scan ahead for parcel boundaries. That would be useful when the ground is a number of metres below or under water. Someone(?) posted a while back about such an experiment. There were scripting and lag issues. From: Kitty Barnett
Fly around at any altitude and you'll encounter security orbs that spam a dialog every second (or worse) that has to be manually dismissed or that tp you home before you even realize there is one.
Those sort of bots should be dealt with as any other type of grief. From: Kitty Barnett
Getting rid of access restrictions won't really accomplish anything at all, all it would do is just shift the problem around a bit.
I'm not in favour of having "no access restrictions". I am in favour of having methods of restricting access that are a well thought out measured response. What we have by default at the moment is a programmer's half-baked sociopathic quick-fix. The closest we get at the moment are polite security bots that warn within a protected zone and then eject if needs be. It would be nice if they were scripted well enough to ignore passing-throughs. Bees sound fun, and I really am taken with the idea of Grannies with brooms shouting "Get off my lawn". In the long run, there should be a default access mechanism that behaves well and is scripted to minimise server load. In the short run, the use of ban lines indicates a disrespectful attitude towards the world at large. They are a selfish knee-jerk response to whatever threat is perceived.
_____________________
Maggie: We give our residents a lot of tools, to build, create, and manage their lands and objects. That flexibility also requires people to exercise judgment about when things should be used.
http://www.ace-exchange.com/home/story/BDVR/589
|
|
Snowman Jiminy
Registered User
Join date: 23 Dec 2007
Posts: 424
|
12-30-2007 05:40
From: Sling Trebuchet In the short run, the use of ban lines indicates a disrespectful attitude towards the world at large. They are a selfish knee-jerk response to whatever threat is perceived. I have a lot of sympathy for this view. If ban lines did not exist people would have to actually talk to each other and reach a common understanding. Banlines rip the soul out of SL, and are totally not needed (at least an invisible banline would be a big improvement). Despite that, I would not under-estimate the extent to which some residents in SL unconsciously (or even consciously) react to or use SL as the major part of their RL, and so having banlines becomes as necessary as having locked doors in RL. A shame, but QFT. |
|
Tom Suntzu
Registered User
Join date: 17 Nov 2005
Posts: 4
|
Cameras
12-30-2007 05:42
Cameras should be banned on pvt property,,, U like ppl spying on you when u are with a loved one?
|
|
Jessica Elytis
Goddess
Join date: 7 Oct 2005
Posts: 1,783
|
12-30-2007 07:09
From: Sling Trebuchet *THEY* are out to get *YOU*. Be afraid!!! Okay, let's do this step-bt-step. 1) Greifers are FACT, not the boogyman. If you don't beleive that, then don't bother reading further as your head is in the sand right next to Philip's. I agree, it's silly to be paranoid into inactivity, but it's outright STUPID to not prepare for issues that are present, or have happened in the past. 2) Ban lines are a FREE way to prevent a good chunk of the griefing. They are not perfect by a long shot, but until someone finds/builds a better way, the ban lines are thier primary means. 3) Ban lines can be put up for a varity of reasons. That doesn't imply that they are permanent. The "explorer" has no way to tell if they are always there, or if the ban lines are only there for a day or week or so for some other reason. Quite frankly, only neighbors of the land have any legitimate reason to complain. 4) Ban lines do NOT indicate anti-social behavior. They indicate a dislike toward YOU. Before you say "But it's a blanket ban, banning everyone!!", even that is directed to YOU. Why? Because YOU are representing the society that has made ban lines nessicary. Be that the NoPayment accounts, all but a select few, or just simply your name on the ban list. What it comes down to is that ban lines represent the fact that YOU are not wanted there, and this offends YOU. First, why are you trying to go someplace YOU are not wanted? Second, if it offends YOU, then change it. Not by whining at the landowner to take down the ban lines, but to correct the problem that has created them in the first place. Stop all griefing in SL and the ban lines go away. Or you could just go someplace where YOU are welcome. So while you quote the "*THEY* are out to get *YOU*" Be afraid!!!" phrase, what it means is that YOU are afraid of THEM because THEY won't adjust to YOUR view of society and how YOU think THEY should be. Those using ban lines are just living thier Second Lives and not trying to change YOUR ideals. Only to live with theirs. ~Jessy
_____________________
When your friend does somethign stupid: From: Aldo Stern Dude, you are a true and good friend, and I love you like the brother that my mom claims she never had, but you are in fact acting like a flaming douche on white toast with a side order of dickknob salsa..maybe you should reconsider this course of action and we go find something else to do.
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
12-30-2007 07:23
How about we submit a JIRA proposal for a "Cone of Silence" that can be lowered on our land? On camming, If I have up all the access restrictions I can use enabled and someone is that bored or that sad of a person that they want to peek in on me trying on new underwear, then have at it. I truly feel sorry for you if that's the best you can get from SL.
_____________________
Don't you ever try to look behind my eyes. You don't want to know what they have seen.
http://brenda-connolly.blogspot.com
|