New proposal only slightly related to the Right to Roam thread

No, no build/no object entry is unchecked, but it doesn't work when you have the (???) group bug. Since the land is deeded to a group, this causes a problem. I removed the autoreturn because if you forget to change groups and put stuff down, it ends back in your inventory. I had that to happen once and it said returning to inventory, but item was lost for good. Good thing the creator was nice enough to replace it (after I posted to them the transaction day and number). Until LL fixes that bug, it will always happen.

Whaddaya mean, we don't? At least where I live, it looks like 90% of all the damn planes flying over our house are German Lufthansa....

I can agree with Conan's suggestion..

believe it or not.

I'd have to say having been a land owner for only a few months, the land options are not that hard to understand. They mostly made perfect sense to me. All you really need is Build off and Auto-Return set to whatever you feel is reasonable. It gets more compicated if you want to allow certain people to build on your land and so on. I see little point in preventing objects from entering your land if you intend to return things that are not yours anyway, and as far as scripts go, maybe allowing them is a risk, but it is one I choose to take on.

I know I am preaching basic reading comprehention and common sense, both of which being things in my oppion that are become a rare. But in truth if you take time to read your screen you should understand most of the Land tabs. There are a few parts that are unclear but to me land perissions is just not one of them. I would greatly welcome a seperation of Object Entry and Vehicles Entry.

I've been trying to login to JIRA to put up the proposal (if Conan hasn't already done it) but I can't get in...

'Private' property? In a computer program?

Civilization - In a computer program?

Thank you for making me laugh.

Glad I could help.


But in that SL is a virtual simulation of the real world, the terms do have meaning here.

Ahem, elves, dragons and other fantasy creatures don't exist in the real world.

It's not a simulation of the real world - it's just a simulation and a computer program. The 'land' isn't real.

Sorry - call me a bit of a litteralist but ... The terms don't apply at all to Second Life, or any simulation software for that matter.

Then we will have to agree to disagree. As far as I am concerned, the land I pay tier on is my private property. If you don't feel that way, more power to you.

hrug: My point being that you cannot physically use said 'land' and you are in reality renting said 'land' no mater who really owns it (Mainland or Private Sim).

In any event - yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

The same could be said of any land in the U.S., as long as we have property taxation. But I get lots of use from my SL land. It brings me pleasure and enjoyment.

igh: The later part - yep.

The fact still remains that you cannot use the land in SL for anything other than modifying and storing data (building, modding, rezzing ....)

Does LL allow you to control access to your land?

You are given the ablity to deny access to any avatar when you wish, through banning.

You are entitled to eject anyone at any time, even by using a script,

You are entitled to turn your land damage enabled at any time and kill intruders.

Ultimate access rightslare granted to you by LL as a land owner power

You dont lose them until you sell said land.

So you letting anyone pass your land is just being nice and helpful. Its your choice. The need to bypass land borders was removed when P2P teleporting was added.

Too, the fact remains that SL land exists only on servers owned by a company. RL land, however, does not exist as property of the government. The government does not claim to have sole decision making power and ultimate control over your land. The government cannot "delete" your land. You merely pay taxes on it.

One could therefore argue that it's not really your land; it's still LL's land. If they want to have fly zones and no fly zones (vertically or horizontally) it's LL's decision.

I'm just causing trouble... not taking sides here.

[Edit: I've been reading Wikipedia on property taxation in the US and I still can't figure out how it's legal in the first place... Don't we have a lawyer here somewhere? *eyes Trout* ]

And how does that, in any way, validate your argument?

But if you don't pay your taxes they will take it, same as if you don't pay your tier here. And if some nanny state do gooder wants to build something where your land is, the government will take it and pay you what they think they should pay you.

Hey I remember that game!

That was so much fun! I had the original board game, way back in the dark ages when Atari 2600 was cutting edge, and our parents would kick us off the TV so they could watch the news. I've got several versions of the computer game, which isn't quite as much fun, but oh well.

At any rate, back on topic... Conan, you want to post this to JIRA, you want me to do it, or do you hate the whole topic now and are giving up?

Civ IV is amazing.

I still play the original though. They don't make 'em like they used to.

I don't call a 48/52 split a "substantial" majority. Besides, this is entirely different proposal to which only two (you and Porky) out of many many people has objected to. I think you are confusing this thread with the previous one, which did raise a lot of important objections that are now nolonger relevant to this thread.

Also, I've never even built, let alone sold any aircraft, biplane, vehicle or, for that matter, anything. Anyway, it's not a failed idea when only two people object to it.

Objects go off-world at 2518m, even when you are sitting on them (i.e. vehicles) ; beyond that the physics is fine above 768m in my experience.

Why are you pissing on my dreams!?

I don't know what that means - I don't actually know what JIRA is. People talk about it, but it's just incomprehensible sounds to me. I assume it's something to do with getting changes enacted or something, but I never read the Linden blog, so this sort of thing often passes me by.

We aren't discussing banlines. Banlines were never part of this thread. Someone mentionned them in passing off-topic and you carried on talking about them. So yes, it was a waste of time. Well done.

Conan, if I'm reading your proposal correctly, basically you want a box for land owners to check that allow vehicles entry even if object entry is otherwise prohibited, correct?

The only real argument I can see against that is that it might require coding gymnastics to put in a conditional flag for the vehicles. Not sure how you could distinguish between a vehicle and any other physical/scripted object.