Overzealous Security and Rude Landowners

Letting go of an assumed right to privacy in land you own between ground level and 768m will help you out a lot. You have no automatic right to restrict passage from anyone.

Lewis

After reading all of the post, I have to vote on the griefing side. To be transported against ones will is griefing!! It doesn't matter if it's 5 seconds or 5 minutes. It is no different than someone sitting on private land and shooting anyone that comes by claiming they have the right because it is private land.

I note that areas that allow for weapons use normally have a sign warning tourist.

But TPing someone home is especially nasty if there is no warning and no alternative. Simply put, allowing this to be acceptable behavior will destroy a great deal of the value of Second Life as well as lose clients for LL.

I need to review the TOS, but I'm starting to think these security systems violate the TOS, if not in the letter of the law, certainly in the spirit of the law.

Why is this griefing and a violation of the TOS? Because it takes 'work' away from you. You expend a certain amount of 'work' to achieve the location you were in (typically flying to some place, positioning your avatar to do work, or just exploring). By being sent home, this location work has been stolen from you.

However, on the opposite side of the coin, I see nothing wrong with a security system that pushes you out of private land. It does not steal 'location work'.

I've been saying that for ages, yet for some reason LL haven't caught up.



I don't have a problem with a "push" as a gentle nudge to let you know you shouldn't be there. What is the real problem is the "throw 3 sims away" push and poor use of the "teleport home" function - again, legitimate tools that are being abused.

As the "god mode" camera can be used from some distance away, you can be spied without you even knowing it, which makes the whole notion of "privacy" even more of a joke... but you don't hear people who 'demand their right to privacy' being so vocal about god mode, do you?

Lewis

But ejecting (which a security script can do) is a land tool built into preoperty on SL. These systems violate NOTHING. Why is it not greifing? Because I own the property and can decide if you can pass through or not. You do not have that right automatically.

Oh, and if they turn damage on, they can shoot to their heart's delight on the property too. The heart and health meter are your warning then, a system supported by the lindens.

Amen to that!

Yeah sure SL sex is safe...but i'm signing petitions to make SL sex unsafe and introduce unexpected pregnancies to SL...montly periods and of course condoms and pills and the best of all STD's.

Just to add a bit of a 'risk' to the all the humping.

If you want to be a complete asshole to everyone who passes by you do have that right - but it's not going to get you many friends.



So why don't you use that instead?

Lewis

No, it's not griefing. It's spelled out very clearly and has been confirmed in statments by the Lindens that TP home is *not* in violation of the TOS and it *not* griefing.

TP home without a warning is rude, but it is absolutely not griefing.

People can yell and fuss and whine about it all they want, but this is not going to change.

There's really no point in arguing with Jonas. All over the forums he has shown his inability to understand the definition of the word "parcel", which is a piece of land. Flying by avatar and vehicle were around long before his entry into SL and Linden Lab's access restriction of 50m is an obvious indication of where public airspace begins. None of these facts work on him because he has severe personal problems that also affect his avatar.

Short of Linden Lab actually publicly stating that the Mainland (any continent owned by Linden Lab) has a flight corridor that begins at the access barrier location he will continue to rant and rave over his need to change his shorts whenever he sees a dreaded green dot appear on his mini-map. Even if they do that I'm sure he'd just whine that he "paid" for the volume of space that encompasses the earth to the moon or his parcel.

However, for most of us, who read Linden Lab documentation and watched Second Life videos before we actually joined the world, and were excited by the prospect of exploration as well as building, we expect the features that were advertised: namely free flight, be it by avatar or vehicle. I for one marvelled at the things demonstrated in previous videos released by the company and expect even more wonders on display following this lastest video contest Linden Lab is sponsoring. And I will enjoy just getting onto my Mythic Airship with friends and soaring across the continents on auto-pilot while chatting and enjoying all the wonderful scenery that slowly scrolls by below.

Actually, Jonas used to live next door to me and he *is* a friend, and one of the things that I like about him is his willingness to stand up for the rights of landowners to do what they like with their land.

So, you're wrong.

What about me being willing to stand up for the right of those who like to explore freely the whole grid for the pure purpose of pleasure?

You can yell for the rights of landowners to do what they like with their land - but I'm quite sure that if the landowner next to you made a 100m tall bright purple fully illuminated glowing tower that ruined your view and tainted the colour of everything in your house (and half the sim), you'd soon have something to say about it, even though they are "doing what they like" with their land.

Have you seen what's next to my property? Do I like it? Not one little bit. Can I do anything about it? Nope.

Lewis

Just ignore Lewis on the subject, Jack. I'll continue to defend yours and others rights while doing the same myself. A misguided ranter who refuses to give a little space from his side isn't worth debating with.

Yuck. Having a neighbor that painted a wing of their house hot fuschia was painful enough. Thank you. Another of my neighbors had to erect a huge wall just to blot out the painful color as he lives next door to the thing. Thank goodness artistic sobriety returned and my neighbors tore down that wing and built a new one with better design and prettier on the eye earthy tones.

There's many reasons why people turn to virtual sex. Large physical distance, physical disabilities, possibility to explore fantasies difficult to carry out in RL, safety and what have you.

People who feel the need to tell others what would be universally better for them while they are unable to take all factors into account and/or lack the first hand experience on subject in question.... should shut the fuck up and think twice before they open their mouth, when they feel that urge to share such trite 'pearls of wisdom' again. --;;

Looked in the mirror lately?

Lewis

First, let me point out that insisting something is true, and using *asterisks* to reinforce the statement still doesn't make it true. Especially when you fail to take the time to support your thesis, other than repeating the statement more than once. I suggest that if you want to convince others of your point of view, you need to acknowledge alternate view points and address why you think they are not correct.

For example, I argued that involuntary TPing involved theft of 'work' or time. You could acknowledged that but then point out the loss is minimal and that the landowners right to privacy trumps the value of the work lost. I don't agree with this judgement, but at least it's a valid counter argument.

Second, I already said that involuntary TPing probably doesn't violate the letter of the TOS, but it certainly does seem to violate the spirit. I spent some time in my last post explaining exactly why I felt it violated the spirit of the TOS.

Third, 'griefing' is not the equivalent to violating the TOS, those are two separate things, although I admit there is a great deal of overlap. Griefing is actually a fairly subjective judgement. As such, my subjective judgement says that for the reasons I listed before, I find involuntary TPing to generally fall under the label of 'griefing'.

Teleporting/ejecting without or with too little warning most certainly is, in certain circumstances, greifing.



People can yell and fuss and whine about the mean ol' flyers zipping past their precious skyboxes, but it's not going to stop people from flying.

HP

The short version of what Clubside said about you a few posts ago.

TP Home is one of the landowner options in the Land Tools - as is Eject from Land. Did the Lindens violate their own TOS?

The TOS is there for the protection of the Lindens. Using it to define residents' rights isn't going to always work.

You don't seem to do a lot of that from what I've seen. You *do* seem to spend a lot of time going on about how anyone who wants some privacy from randon stranges dropping in on them or who wants to be alone with only people of their own chosing must have something wrong with them, and shouldn't be in SL.

I'm sorry, but that *is* IMO a fairly extreme position.

So is your position of filing AR's against anyone who uses a TP home script. The fact is that as much as you and others may dislike it, and as rude as it may be, it's *not* an ARable offense.

I've not said that at all. Everything in moderation. Those who set up security scripts for no reason except to satisfy their own paranoia are no different than the 'media whores' who go to every single event hoping to be noticed and get their picture somewhere, so they can be seen to be "mixing with the right people".



Situation A: My innocent path of travel is disrupted by some griefer with a gun using llPush to launch me across the sim for no reason.

Situation B: My innocent path of travel is disrupted by a security system using llPush to launch me across the sim.

It is exactly the same problem, with exactly the same result, under exactly the same situation - negatively affecting my avatar and imposing something I have no control over against my will.

You do realise that people like Jonas who have these systems might as well have big targets painted on their walls so griefers know exactly where to go? They feed off of reactions from people they can irritate, and knowing that someone has a system is like a red rag to a bull for them to know they'll get a rise out of the owner if they try to get through it.

Lewis

WTF! I was exploring the beautiful landscape. Why bother having any sort of terraforming at all if you have to directly teleport everywhere? I saw a shop and walked over to it, and happened to (god forbid) walk on someone's lawn on the way there. Stop being such an asshat. There was no one on the property. "Trampling" indeed, you think I caused damage? It's attitudes like yours that make SL such an unfriendly place sometimes.

My home is in Satang. Feel free to "trample" across my lawn any time you're exploring. I'll even smile and say hello.

Perhaps you need to more clearly define what you consider to be griefing then. I generally defind griefing as something that is abuse reportable. IMO, a script left running over private property that isn't aimed at any particular individual is not griefing. It may be rude, but my feeling is that it doesn't rise to the level of griefing.

My comments previously on the use of automatic TP home comes from policy statments made by the Lindens that while a tp home without a warning may be rude, it is not a TOS violation.

(The asterisks I use are to denote what would otherwise be italicized or underlined words, a habit picked up from my years on Usenet where neither of those other things are possible.)

What tends to bug me the most in these discussions, are the arguments that land owners shouldn't be permitted any sort of privacy that would in any way interfere with people's ability to explore and go where they will at any time. The fact is, that *most* land in LL is privately owned and it's existance is subsidized by the person who is paying tier on it. Again, IMO this makes me feel that the use to which the land is put, be it public area for people to wander about in and explore, or completely private land where no one at all gets in should be left to the person paying the bills.

Personally, I own quite a bit of land, (Over 1/4 sim.) and I've left the entire ground level landscaped as a park, and free for people to visit and enjoy, with the only exception being that if I have guests over and we want privacy that I will ask people to leave the section that we're using.

My house and work areas are in the air, and the house is built in such a way that there's no mistaking that it's private. (It's a featurless cube, accessible only through a teleporter.) There is a security orb protecting it, but I only have about 14 people banned. I don't mind people looking at it from outside if I'm not there, if I am home, I'll ask them politely to move along, and only if they refuse will they risk ejection and banning.

There are a number of things that LL could do to improve the situation for everybody when it comes to people being able to explore and in terms of allowing people their privacy, but forbidding land owners to use security to keep others off of their property is not, so far as I'm concerned one of them.

If LL wants to do that, they they should restructure the game so as to eliminate private property, and alocate land evenly to each member, changing the fee structure as needed to pay for it. Until then though, I will stick up for the rights of people to reserve the use of their property for themselfs and their friends exclusively if thats what they want to do.

While I voted: "It's their land they can do what they want"


But I would prefer that people use the LL provided ban features rather than deploy possible resource hogs in order to 'protect' their land.

And... I wish LL had better privacy features period.

addendum: If you're gonna deploy a security device that will orbit, tp'd-home, shove or whatever... *PUT UP A FENCE* and warning signs.

Since you have such an enlightened view, Lewis, and seem to think that anything above 50 meters is public space, why not let me put a skybox at 700 meters over your land?

Maybe Jonas could put one there, too? After all, it's "public" space, it does not belong to you, it belongs to all of us!

LL Policy seems to be: "There is plenty of land. If you don't like your neighbors you have the freedom to relocate."

Conventional Wisdom (Siggy(?)) of course: "If you want to protect your view, you have to own your view."

If the thorn in your side doesn't violate the ToS, your proximity to it is your problem. Not LL's.