New proposal only slightly related to the Right to Roam thread

There's no pressing, world changing need for sex or gambling in Second Life either - but many people seem to think there is.

Broccoli

How so? In SL I find neighbors who erect ban lines to be at best extremely annoying. I don't deny them their (or my) right to do so, but I would hardly call the ones who do so good neighbors.

Not me, been here 3 years and not stepped foot in a casino and dont even have any genitals so sex is not on the cards. I fear change, Im just about getting over the fact they took my dwell away, next thing you know they will be abolshing the ratings system.

Thanks Kevyn, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Oh I'm more than happy with your right to present your opinon. But my right to dispute what you say is equally strong.

I am most shocked by the anti-social behavior of posters in this thread, maybe I'm misunderstanding what SL is suppose to be about? I thought the premise of such programs as SL was to encourage social interaction and I read often that people believe SL is the basis of the 3D WWW?

And please understand I don't mean anti-social as meaning your a bad person.

Freedom isn't about censorship and restrictions. In reality when people speak of "I have freedom to travel the world as I like," well they don't, even though I meet some people who will argue until they are blue in the face that they have. I had this discussion once with an American on a train going into Poland on it's way to Germany, their destination. At the time Americans had restricted access to Poland, and not because the Polish didn't want them there, but because the US government didn't want them there. I pointed this out to them, but they said they had no intention of getting off the train in Poland and they had every right to travel to Germany on it, and of course when we arrived in Poland, they were arrested and with much amusement to the guards where escorted of the train screaming "I'm an American subject", of course the intention was just to put them on a train going back to where they had come from.

My point is, is that an imperfect world is one that needs to apply censorship and restrictions, and although I agree that I would be stupid to think that SL is a perfect world, I would hope that we as citizens of SL would be more than willing to strive for perfection than rally against it.

Going back to the proposal, I can't imagine why anyone would be aggressively against it, it's perfectly valid and those that want to prevent it, keep their choice to prevent it.

You told me my opinon was tenuous. So basically you present your idea, I appose it, and give my reasons for doing so and you dismiss them because they do not conform with what you think or want. Next thing you know you'll be invading Poland....

How weird we both spoke of Poland at the same time!

Ironically I was about to say the same to you. I don't dismiss your opinion - I do find your ojection tenuous though; in the sense that it seems to be based more on a knee-jerk emotional response to the proposal which you then had to come up with a logical reason for. That is the impression you gave, regardless of whether that is the case or not. I take on board what you say, but still don't feel that your objection would be sufficient to seriously affect the proposal. It's really upto how LL feel about your objection and the proposal as a whole though.

I get what you are saying, but it sounds like you are assuming we are all here to socially interact, become chums and get along with each other. That is allot of peoples goal in SL but not all. I log onto SL to work. I dont want interuptions or vehicles zooming around my plot.

For the sake of the world the idea is a good one, but i couldnt really give a toss about the rest of the world, only what i can get out of it.

Using that logic there is no pressing need for ANYTHING in SL. Or for SL itself. As long as parcel owners can decide for themselves to allow it, I am in favor of it. If an owner wants his proerty off limits to the entire SL population, that's his right. Sl is not "Supposed" to be any one thing in particular.

That's fine ... but when you aren't there doing anything, why should the ban lines stay up?

In effect, ban lines are really a griefing tool that can disrupt other people's enjoyment, and spoil the view.

Broccoli

I'm here to fly my blimp, and have no desire to interract with the people I pass overhead of. I have put a lot of thought into the idea, and tried to take privacy into account. You would still be able to prevent people flying onto your land. I take on board your point about the proposal encourageing others to occupy space near your land that they wouldn't have done before, but to be frank what others do or allow people to do on their land is none of your damn business - just like what you do on your land is none of my business.

It is right and proper that people should look out for their own interests - that's how democracy works; everyone looks out for themselves and we eventually reach a consensus whereby proposals that do the most good to the greatest number of people are the only ones that make it through. That's the theory anyway.

There isn't, really... it's just a computer game that we can play for fun and relaxation.

Isn't the point of "online" games to interact with others in some way? Otherwise, you might as well play offline games instead.

Broccoli

Well no, you are right, overal my opinion will be that of the minority and no one will support it. However as I couldnt really care whether SL residents get to enjoy a better flying experience, I looked at how the change would affect me and commented on it. This will not be a positive move for those residents that welcome peace and quite and privacy. I for one dont think that is a tenuous argument and i think you should take my argument seriously in order to consider those people not so vocal as myself.

I dont use ban lines, I just situate myself high in the sky to avoid people. The OPs idea will help populate the sky further so thats my objection.

This is one of the most selfish things I have read in a long time.

But without protections of certain rights (or better yet, strict limits on what proposals may in fact be enacted) such a democracy can (and I predict, will) be as repressive as any other form of government.

The core of our disagreement here is based on the point of whether it affects you or not. You have suggested a way in which you think it will affect you - the reason I find your objection tenuous is simply because I disagree with your assertion that it will affect you at all. I simply don't believe it will have any impact on you one way or the other. So it's not the case that I disregard your opinion, merely that I disagree with it.

And my objection to your objection is simply that it's not for you to dictate who may or may not populate the sky other than on your own land.

Don't the Greenies own the sky?

lol

Seriously though, I support the notion that land owners own the sky above their land. It's the notion that land owners should feel justified in objecting to what others do on their land that sticks in my craw at the moment.

i agree 100%

I looked quickly and thought that said Germans instead of Greenies.

Do you want to come on this Forum Cartel Airship Cruise on sunday or what!?