Proposed Constitutional Amendment - Defence of the Realm

Dump the pre-emptive banning and I could get behind this. I find the whole thing reminiscent of Minority Report.

Just to be clear, "machine-gunning" is just pushing and littering. LL has abuse reporting tools built right into the client for this kind of thing. Besides, the odds of anyone knowing of an impending push-and-litter fest is incredibly small, meaning this law will never be invoked (unless it's abused which it will be).

Maybe it's because I've been in SL for so long but I just don't see a credible threat that requires preemptive banning.

~Ulrika~

Well, I would say when they banned you it was a perfect example of when a preemptive ban should be used. There was a credible threat made by one who had the power to cause major disruption to the city. Wouldn't you agree that would fit the criteria?

And I would say just the opposite. It's a perfect example of why pre-emptive banning can be misused and cause more harm than good.

I don't understand how that is a misuse. There was a threat of major disruption, the threat came from one with the power to cause major disruption, and in the end the threat was partially carried out, after the ban was removed.

This is, of course, what this bill is trying to address, without actually stating it. It's a preemptive-ban bill with huge hearing delays, indefinite bans, and a pardon that's masquerading as an anti-griefer bill. It's will be abused by design, as it's intended use is completely separate from its stated use. It's icky.

By failing to address and define the real issue, it does not provide for legal entry to the sim for others to remove personal property. For instance, I've taken nothing out of the sim that wasn't mine to take, in response for state-sanctioned piracy. Would this law not be used to allow the government to keep another's property from them and to prevent investigations into misdeeds (such as piracy)? Given that the permission system and anti-griefing tools in SL are very well developed, I see no reason for this bill either for its stated purpose or its hidden purpose.

~Ulrika~

agreed.

This is true from your point of view because you don't see yourself as a griefer, or your actions as griefing.

I'll just agree to disagree with you. I understand perfectly well the issue. What I don't understand is your point, that completely misses the point of the issue by a country mile.

I guess I'm just doing the Christian thing.

I don't mean to get into the discussion of what's legal to remove etc, as that is being hashed out by the government right now, though I believe once you place things in the Sim it becomes the property of the sim as I read the tos you approved.

I know you didn't mean it to affect you, because your stuff was here before the tos, but by leaving the things here after agreeing to the tos I would argue you did agree to give the sim your rights.

But that's not the issue at hand, we need to decide when its acceptable to lock people out of the sim. By locking you out, it may have given the government time to replace objects as the old things were placeholders to show where to place the new objects.

It is incumbent upon the government to take whatever action it deems necessary to protect the rights of the people of N'burg from any attack, from within or without.

I'm surprised you aren't congratulating the officers for acting promptly to save the project from an angry collaborator.

Items that sit on municipal property of Neualtenburg. There are areas in Neualtenburg that are public --and areas that are private.

For example. Nothing stops me from removing every single prim in the Altenburg section which is, like your own property, private.

Are you saying that you may not remove your house from your own property?

The Government removed far more than Ulrika even claimed to have rights to. THIS is an example of how rash decisions and pre-emptive action can result in unecessary damages.

I'm saying that my house is now the property of the sim, I agreed when I set it out. I certainly wouldn't remove it and leave an empty lot. If I ever do leave, rest assured I will leave the lot as it should be, with a house. I will also leave furniture and other things I rez on the land. I will sell the objects to the gov. for $L0 unless the object isn't transferable, in which case I will leave it there until it is returned. I will gladly set it back up should it be requested.

It isn't.

I guess it depends on how one interprets the tos.

I interpret it correctly. How do you interpret it?

Everyone interprets it correctly, when the judge of that interpretation is the one doing the interpreting.

or when they helped write it.

The part I'm talking about was cut and pasted from LL's tos, the only change was replacing the names. The good thing is the wording was written in legalese by lawyers for LL, so it would be quite easy to verify it's legal meaning.

Neualtenburg property refers to property owned by the City. Private property is that property we hold deeds for. Sheeeeeesh

Under LL's tos.... does LL own the rights to your private SL objects?

No --and THAT's my point.

OK, then we understand one another correctly, we just disagree. Reasonable people disagree all the time.

you're making zero sense. sorry