Overzealous Security and Rude Landowners

Please show me anywhere that Linden Lab has stated this. They advertise flying both by avatar and vehicle, use both features heavily in promotion, text, images and videos. The "No Access" height implies 50m of privacy only. As for prims, you are absolutely correct, but much of this discussion focuses on the rights of Mainlanders to explore, and those prims are very temporary as a vehicle passes through.

If you can find a citation saying you are renting "volume" instead of a parcel (which is defined as "land" not airspace) I will gladly contact Linden Lab for verification and request they change their promotional materials to reflect their lack of support for exploration in Second Life.

I think they need to remove the air and ground vehiciles as "false"adversting. Neither of them is worth a thing and that is before the woes of the security orb griefer.
Oh what is the point if we have to stay on small lots? I might as well be able to import my avatar into my FS9 program and explore there.

In RL, it's widely recognized that some behavior is criminal even if you can't outlaw it. I think ejecting people for crossing a boundary they can't even see is in that class: completely legal, and criminally rude.

I would like to point out that in the real world, the land owner must give some type of notice before they can take any action to prevent trespass (typically fences and signs or other legal notifications). In other words, there is the concept of fair notification and that entering private land is not ipso facto trespass.

If RL landowners tried to do something equivalent to what SL landowners are currently doing, they would end up in jail themselves very quickly.

What, for turning around and immediately sending people off of their land after they come on it uninvited?

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing the parallel.

I would say that some behaviours IRL are legal but unethical, some are illegal, but in my opinion, perfectly ethical, some are both unethical and illegal, etc. But what behaviours and by whom are you refering to? If you're going to use an example from RL it would be nice if you gave an example.



I never said that it was polite. Even the Linden post that states that instant eject or tp is not a violation of TOS says that it *is* rude. It is in fact, not something that I'd do myself. But I still don't count it as griefing.

Then may I suggest you look again, the parallels are quite clear to me.

Imposing force on any individual in RL is seriously frowned upon.

Imposing force on an individual in SL is also interestingly seriously frowned upon.

If I am returned home involuntarily without notification and recourse, disrupting my travels and play, that is definitely imposing force on me. It's actually the most extreme force possible within the context of Second Life.

Put up a fence and signs so I'm notified before hand that I am about to trespass, and I'll accept forced TPing. But under any other circumstance I find it totally unacceptable.

I'm beginning to think we're using two different definitions of the word. The way I see it, the "griefing" bar is at least somewhat lower than the "TOS-violation" bar. It also seems reasonable to mean the word as a particular kind of TOS violation, too, but I'm using it in the asinine-griefing sense, not the TOS-violation-griefing sense.

(rant warning, insert "I think" everywhere grammaticallly possible)

The kind we all agree on have launched me without knowing a thing about me, without even being aware of my presence, when absolutely nothing I ever did has caused them a second's thought, let alone effort or anguish. When asked to stop, all the ones I've run across get belligerent. That's enough to make what they do griefing. That they're doing it on land they don't "own" makes it a TOS violation, and puts them so far outside the norms of acceptable behavior that there's no point at all in further discussion.

The kind there seems to be some disagreement on have launched me without knowing a thing about me, without even being aware of my presence, when absolutely nothing I ever did has caused them a second's thought, let alone effort or anguish. When asked to stop, all the ones I've run across get belligerent. That's enough to make what they do griefing. That they're doing it on land they own makes it "legal" in SL terms, and I really don't have any beef with that. Them's the rules.

Neither kind minds acting like assholes, and neither kind can take being called on it. We have a word for that where I grew up. They're punks. They can't stand that, either, and there's no profit in rubbing their noses in it. The only thing to do is walk away. The ones that retaliate in RL graduate to "vicious punk"and if they won't leave you alone you call the authorities. In SL, there's no chance of real damage, so "vicious" is simply out of the question. Out-of-control babies is the worst you can reliably diagnose.

But stay nothing about their behavior?

Nope.

True, but SL landowners aren't really doing anything comparable to what would get the RL ones jailed. Nothing that can suck up as much time as SL can is "just" a game, but no actual body is getting hurt and no actual property damaged. I don't see any reason why analogy would be a more reliable basis for argument here than anywhere else, and RL/SL is an entirely arbitrary and voluntary analogy.

----
and I don't think the people making RL money on SL products (into which they've put real time, creativity, diligence, sweat, maybe even blood, and quite possibly tears, so I don't belittle the SL or RL value of the business) have any special claim on how the place runs. Any claim that griefers are responsible for RL damage due to lost business would strike me as, on a charitable assessment, ludicrous. The place is too new, the analogies too slippery, the expectations too infirm.

except I added a warning where there had been none before. I gave a little.

Lewis is. I didn't use to have a warning.

My rights are on MY land. Your rights stop where mine begin - at the edge of my parcel.

Show me where it says you do. I have EVERY right to put what I want on my land, you have no right to a view. You just ASSUME you do.

15 seconds is unreasonable. 5 seconds is reasonable.

No. If you want me to have an island so badly, buy it for me yourself.

Trying to apply FirstLife property mores and rights to SL is, at best, an exercise in navel-gazing.

There are no rules in FL that you have a legal right to cut across someone else's property. In FL, you cannot fly. In FL, you can be arrested for trespassing.

Honestly, now - I think people who demand complete access rights to everyone's land would be the first to scream like harpies if I sat my arse down in their living room and started watching their TV, uninvited.

I don't like security systems; I think they're a pain in the arse, but I don't bitch out property owners for wanting them or using them unless they are /blatantly blocking my access to a place I have been invited to/ - i.e. a business that wants my Lindens, or a friend's house.

I think that the best compromise would be to mark off-limit areas on the mini-map - block them out in orange, or something, so that flyers can plot their course more easily.

Why?
I have alot of enjoyable things that I couldn't get out of the way in 5 seconds. Some parcels aren't even crossable in 5 seconds.

i see the legitimate issues- thats why I don't use push, its abuse. Eject is not abuse.

Mine is. Your point?

If I were going to put out a security system, it'd have a five-second warning; it cuts down on the time that griefers would have to rez things, which is probably the sole reason I'd get one in the first place.

Ah, uninvited primdongs...

How about this? You find me where it says I don't have control over Anywhere prims count against my limit.

You have no guaranteed RIGHT to explore. You only imagine it.

Thanks to the intentionally vauge wording of the Community Standards it could be.


Harassment:
Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.

Behaving in a manner which is likely to cause annoyance.

Linden Lab has made it clear in abuse reports they interpret the community standards with the broadest meaning possible.

Ejecting me without warning sure as hell is an annoyance.

You have a warning on my land. So silence and quit assuming.

Here is where the implication is, I'm asking for proof that these marketing messages are incorrect. Each is taken from "What is Second Life?", bolding added by me for emphasis.

From the moment you enter the World you'll discover a vast digital continent, teeming with people, entertainment, experiences and opportunity. Once you've explored a bit, perhaps you'll find a perfect parcel of land to build your house or business.

Those avatars Explore the World and Meet People

Whether it's a modest nook for a relaxing cottage, or an entire island to build your dream amusement park, land is for everyone.



Ban Tab:

On the "Ban" tab you can restrict access to your land by preventing certain avatars from visiting. Please note that any residents, even those who were added to the ban list, can still fly over your land at a certain height.

There's your proof, taken directly from Second Life web pages. I'll repeat that last one more time:

Please note that any residents, even those who were added to the ban list, can still fly over your land at a certain height.

I am not assuming. You are advocating the ability for anyone to do as they damn well please on thier land, and I am proving that the situation may be conterary. If you parcel is small enough that with 5 seconds, with lag, I have enough time to respect your privacy and make it out of the airspace, then thats fine. If I can't make it out in time despite trying then I feel it could very well be in the gray areas the CS covers.

Then anyone who wants flight access over my land can help pay for it if its for everyone. I pay for the land, I control whos on it.