If the owner of the beach in question restricted access to only group members, and did not show it in search, there would be a pretty good claim that it was private. We may see a lot more bankines soon.
Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Mainlanders: Do you feel like you have been pushed aside? |
|
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
06-24-2009 12:48
I would move to Zindra LONG before I'd put up banlines or any other such evil. _____________________
Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/
"And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore |
|
Viktoria Dovgal
…
Join date: 29 Jul 2007
Posts: 3,593
|
06-24-2009 12:49
You assert that it always had to be enclosed. I don't recall seeing that provision any time between 2005 and now, and I have certainly never seen it enforced... even on parcels adjacent to PG sims. The specific wording was back there in 2004, "Textures that would not be allowable on PG sims must be on private property and not be visible outside the property.". The "ctained within" language came in shortly after that, it was obsoleted by the wider variety of content like animations that were becoming possible for residents to use. Even under "residence"? Renting an apartment doesn't make it public. It's public while it is being advertised for rent, yes. When I've rented on mainland, I didn't get to show the land in search unless I forked over the additional 30L a week. Thre are other parcels ("rental office" spots and so on) to do the advertising. It doesn't matter if the change was announced in 2009, 2008, or 2007, it's still a *change*. But it's far far to late to bitch and whine and feign shock and play sophist games over definitions. |
|
Argent Stonecutter
Emergency Mustelid
Join date: 20 Sep 2005
Posts: 20,263
|
06-24-2009 13:03
So you're talking about language that was in use five years ago, and was obsoleted and abandoned when it was barely out of beta?
It's public while it is being advertised for rent, yes. Yes, there are such arrangements. I lived in one for a while when I was new to SL and didn't know any better. Yes, there's workarounds, but people who don't even know there's a need for workarounds are going to get screwed. But it's far far to late to bitch and whine and feign shock and play sophist games over definitions. As for it being "too late", that's why we've been working on getting the definitions fixed since March. And we DID get them changed. They're still not clear (and no matter how much you whine about it, they *aren't* clear) but they're better than they used to be. Oh, and the G Team is all about playing sophist games over definitions. _____________________
Argent Stonecutter - http://globalcausalityviolation.blogspot.com/
"And now I'm going to show you something really cool." Skyhook Station - http://xrl.us/skyhook23 Coonspiracy Store - http://xrl.us/coonstore |
|
Feldspar Millgrove
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 372
|
06-24-2009 18:33
If the owner of the beach in question restricted access to only group members, and did not show it in search, there would be a pretty good claim that it was private. I am unaware of any process guaranteed by LL in which a "claim" of any sort would be useful, outside of an expensive RL court proceeding. The entire situation is a FUD-laden clusterfuck in my opinion. |
|
Feldspar Millgrove
Registered User
Join date: 16 Nov 2006
Posts: 372
|
06-24-2009 18:36
It's public while it is being advertised for rent, yes. These are all very nice personal theories of yours. But you do realize that's all they are, right? Your personal interpretation of how you would see things and wish that the Lindens would see them. |