Poll: Getting The View You Pay For

Change of stance:

The poll asks expect to keep the view you pay for.

The view you pay for extends to the edge of the land you bought and no further..

...so I guess YES

outside of that is probably the view your neighbour bought.

The poll does not ask"expect to keep the view you pay for."

The thread title is "Poll: Getting The View You Pay For"

The question asked is



The choices are: "When I pay my land fees, I expect to be able to enjoy the view If I can't, I won't pay", or, "I don't mind paying to look at stuff I hate."

I could have worded things better, no doubt, however, the choice "When I pay my land fees, I expect to be able to enjoy the view. If I can't, I won't pay", does a pretty good job of asking what I wanted to ask.

When you go to a restaurant you may well not be entitled to a nice ambience, but you might expect to have a pleasant environment to enjoy the food you are entitled to, and if you don't get what you expect, you stop going to the restaurant.

The same idea extends to all sorts of places where goods and services are rendered. In a department store, for example, the customers aren't entitled to have the merchandise sorted neatly and with a price conveniently posted nearby, but most stores make an effort to do so. The customers aren't entitled to have a pleasant decor, but most successful department stores try to.


Why would a business want to go beyond providing the absolute minimum that a customer is entitled to?

The reason is that the business wants to keep doing business with the customer. A business that doesn't take customer satisfaction into account, that strives always to do the absolute least possible it can do without getting sued for failing to provide what was paid for, is a lousy business, and less likely to succeed than one that keeps "make the customer happy" in the foreground of it's thought.

Linden Lab want to sell virtual land to people. To do so it might need to consider what customers expect to get in order to enjoy what they pay for, which may extend well beyond what one might say their payment entitles them to. Otherwise they may have unhappy customers, followed by unhappy former customers.

In my RL town we have a few people who paint their houses some horrible color. The owner bought the land and house and paint. As ugly as it may seem to me, it's within his right to paint his house any color. I have a choice to move to a deed restricted community, or I can paint my house some uglier color in protest. But I can't force others to change their tastes to suit my viewing pleasure. They didn't buy the land to suit my needs.

Therefore, imho, unless I buy land in a restricted community, I have no right to complain.

Ummm... apples and oranges. In RL that situation has a definite shelf life. In SL, *everytime* you log in you are stuck between that smelly guy and the screaming brat. After enough of those "flights", I think you'll change "airlines".

Which ignores the fact that the smelly guy and the scremaing brat also have purchsed tickets. What make you worht more than them?

The way that light behaves in physical reality is not something we choose, it something we discover.

The way that Second Life displays images is not discovered, it is chosen by the program designers.


There are, at any rate, limitations on the properties of light that a person can put in their neighbors yard. If you fire a laser beam, which is just a form of light, powerful enough to vaporize the neighbor's yard and house and the neighbor herself, you will probably find that you can't just let any sort of light shine into your neighbor's yard without concern about legal consequences. If you put a lighthouse beacon rotating around on top of your roof, shining at the neighbors windows, I suspect you will find that you can't legally do that either in most places in the world, even though you could have an ugly paint color on the house.

The Second Life program designers don't have to reproduce the conflict generating aspects of the real world. They can improve on it. I wish they had. I hope they do.

That's an option, if one can find an airline that flies the same route, and offers the things one wants. But, if there is only one airline, the opinions are fly or not.

I believe this sums it up perfectly. It may be ugly, but unless you are willing to deface someone else's private property, you just have to live with it being there.

[rant]There is NO GUARANTEE as to what you are going to be looking at on a day to day basis on much of the mainland. It is all subjective - and as long as you let yourself be so damn upset over what someone else has on their own land (and I am NOT talking about something so broadly offensive your eyes are gonna bleed just looking at the thing) - maybe you should go exploring elsewhere or move your camera and look elsewhere. [/rant]

We could each buy cubes and not plots of land. Each cube could be a self contained enviromnent with wall that we texture ourselves. We could then have eache property entirely isolated from the rest of the grid.

Of course you could just build a wall to block the view, but then your neighboors would say its ugly.

You realize, I think, that IRL the overwhelming majority of land use restricitions and aesthetic preservation is done by way of CCR's that aattach to the land in varios developments be agreement. Thus the soluction is simple. If you do not like the neighboors build, for a land group with your like minded peers, but and sim (an island even). And live on that.

In my case, when confronted with an ugly build in SL, I put up a wall that is invisible from the outside. I can't do that in RL.

Moving is an option.

Now, with direct teleporting, I can go from one house to another without even seeing the neighbor's yard.

So I would say LL has already offered ways to avoid seeing ugly builds.

My last employer had me zipping around the US all the time on Southwest and AirTran. The Screaming Baby/Smelly Fat Guy analogy is an accurate one if you're a frequent traveller.

If I had gone to my company's travel office and said "Hi - These flights really suck. Could you please start booking me in First Class, or on a Full-Service airline instead?".... they probably would have rolled my eyes at me and giggled, as my pay-grade didn't warrant exempting me from my company's budget-cutting measures.

Here in Vegas recently an apartment complex was being built on a newly sold parcel of real life land.

One of the objections put to the council was that the apartment complex would 'ruin his view of the mountiain.'

I was rather amused when the answer came back:

'If you wish to have an unobstructed view of the mountain for all time - you should buy the land up to the base of the mountain.'

Honestly this 'entitlement to view' is an utter load of cock - no matter how you twist it, it still comes down to 'My right to look at your land is greater than your right to build on it'

Dress it up as pretty as you like - thats what your saying.. And I for one would have loved to see you all as newbs with your off-angle first rezzed cubes and houses with linden textures, with people like yourselves as neighbours.

I've had some ugly ass stuff built next to me in my years here - but it doesn't annoy me - I don't care - in fact I rather enjoy watching new players and their skills improve.

But yeah I know, it's all about the 'bush guy' - just with a slightly hipper rap.

'Not all ugly builds.. not all view obstructions.. just the ones we don't like'

Put a dress on a pig - it's still a pig.

*wild applause*

No, this isn't a matter of beginner's builds, or Linden textures, or any other purely aesthetic concern. (And what is this snobbery about Linden textures?)

coco

It's exactly the same thing, Coco. It's about subjective tastes and people believing they have some right to be the arbiters of it on other people's land. The land being for sale has no bearing.

Chip, you just hit the nail on the head. I think the problem for most people is that there is a price attached to the land. I bet if he had never put any plots up for sale, there would still be upset about it, just not to this magnitude.

Well, you know, we're just not ever going to see this the same.

In this particular case, the griefing and extortion outweigh the other factors. Doubtless, the message of the sign is something the individual believes in, and would like to spread. (Or maybe not.) Similar to the regular political campaign signs you see.

And maybe all those political campaign signs of yesteryear were also on small plots set for sale at exhorbitant prices. (However, I must say I doubt that.)

But I give you the quintessential tell-tale giveaway that this is not the same as that, in this one shining clue:

That sign outside Daltrey's window.

coco

Why are people still discussing things like rights, view, interpretation, etc? There will never be an agreement going down that path.

A technical solution is the answer; all else creates drama.

Support Prop 905!

"Not since the Pocket Fisherman have we seen such an ideal solution." - Philip Linden

Disclaimer: No Philip didnt say that.

Now this is interesting - and I picked it up from the Land forum I think - (and I think it was Trudeau who said it):

Just as I believe they won't move against these signs for fear of losing Coke, etc., advertising, so too might a technical solution allowing us not to see these signs be unfeasable, also because of Coke. If rl advertisers are to be wooed to SL, they will need assurance their signs will be seen.

coco

I cant wait for the impeach pepsi signs. Seriously, if you looked at a list of top 10 issues LL needs to address to obtain and keep corporate investment in SL, worry over a user filtering or ignoring their content would not be in that list. Things like stability, ease of use, etc. would be a REAL concern. I can filter Coke and others from email, does that mean they'll stop using it? Nope.

I didn't take part in the poll.
Everyone has a right to build what they want. I have seen really obnoxious builds that in my own eyes have been way worse than these signs (that are phantom by the way click them and they go away).
Seriously these signs aren't going to be around forever.
When purchasing property, no one can guarantee a view here or in real life. Things get built, views get obstructed. It happens.

I told him he should AR that as harassment, but that's still a stretch. If you build right up to the edge of your property line your neighbor is equally entitled to do the same. If you don't want something like that right outside your window, don't put your window at the edge of your property.

Heh... and I said that where??? Oh... no where! But it's another reason why the analogy fails. Each of us are traveling in SL for fun, when circumstances start taking *your* fun out of it, you will start looking elsewhere.

Seems like Wells Fargo has.... Hmmm. Not a single Impeach Bush sign in those AW piccies. Dot, connect?

Not a single Impeach Bush sign in those posted AW snaps. Dot, connect?