I would have to agree with Charlie for the most part. I think that public lands in their respective areas (outland vs. non outland) would always be fair game, but privately owned land should have controls so that unwanted activities and/or unwanted guests and/or their unwanted objects/attachments can be limited or prevented.
Let me take a very long walk on a very short pier to make my point.
<SOAPBOX PONTIFICATION>
Transcending into the metaphysical for just a moment, Second Life is not just a game, it's a world in which it is what every user makes it. It is not just the sum of it's parts--it is more than that. In Second life, you can fly (who hasn't had THAT dream?) or build something out of nothing. Second Life is a microcosmic copy of the RealWorld(tm). There are every sort of personality (and personality disorder in some cases) represented in here. Tree huggers, mercenaries and snipers, politicians and consensus builders, mad scientists and bombers, programmers, designers and artists, social climbers, homies, cliques, groups, and gangs, etc. The range we have in here represents the real world so well that it is a true testament to the success of Second Life's namesake objective--at least in my mind.
Second Life has a almost indefinable "this is beyond reality and is, therefore, not reality" aspect to it. Some people interpret that concept as "I am now without limits and can build and create and do things beyond my 'real' reality would otherwise allow". Other people choose to interpret that concept as "I can do anything I want and it doesn't matter since it's not real, so I can do whatever makes me happy" even if their implementation of "anything" winds up impinging on someone else's happiness--intentional or unintentional.
Personally, I want to believe that all people are good people (yeah, call me optomistic) and generally give people the benefit of the doubt to start with. More often than not, I find that the farther away you move from reality, the more people tend to go against that grain. In games (you name it, Quake, EverQuest, UO, Diablo, ad nauseum), people hack, exploit, cheat, grief, and do so much more frequently and easily (typically) than they do in real life. While I personally detest such actions, I acknowledge that they will be a part of any such "second life" I participate it. It's just the way of the world, regardless of the original intent of the designers. I accept it and it's "ok"--as long as it doesn't directly affect or impact my experience and my enjoyment.
What do I care if some guys manage to wake and kill the sleeper (through a bug in the scripting) in EQ and get all the good loot and I never do? What do I care if groups of high-level chars whoop on newbies outside of town while bunny-bashing or trying to mine ore in UO? What do I care if someone in Second Life manages to find a way to make extra money through a bug or exploit? Well, I do care. Call me a purist, but cheating is wrong. Griefing is wrong. Exploiting is wrong. And unwanted or undesired PvP is wrong. Finding bugs and reporting them is what Beta is about. Exploiting them and using them to annoy other gamers is not what Beta is about. Yes, these are my opinions, and everyone is entitled to my opinion, but I do acknowledge the fact that these are nothing more than my opinions.
Since I am not the game designer, nor the CEO, CTO, CxO, or EIEIO of any of these companies, my opions are just those of one in the crowd that may or may not get listened to. That's the hard fact of reality. And I accept all that too. Do I like it? Not necessarily, but that's the world, virtual or real, and I accept it. If I don't want to accept it for any reason, I can leave.
Now all that being said, when those people who cheat, exploit, hack, and grief start doing all that to me personally, they've now done more than just performed those acts of atrocity. They've done them to me and in the process ruined MY experience directly, and that just frosts my shorts WAY more (as it would with ANY person).
</SOAPBOX PONTIFICATION>
So now to come back to the original point and put this in Second Life parlance. The following events are theoretical, but I imagine at least a few people will have experienced something similar.
I visit my friend, who lives in the outlands. I get shot and die. Do I like that? No, but I accept it as a part of visiting my friend--like it or not. Does my friend like it? No, but that's what it means to live in the Outlands. I go back to my friends and the same person kills me off again. Do I like that? No. Even less now, especially since the person was asked not to do that. But again, that's the outlands. So I decide to leave and go home. The assasin now follows me home. My home is in a PG area that does not have a life meter. Now this person drops bombs and rockets on my house (10 at a time or more) repeatedly. The bombs make lots of noise and smoke. I ask the person to stop, they don't. I call a Linden, they stop while the Linden is present, but resume shortly after the Linden is gone.
Do they kill me now? No. Do they ruin my experience? Yes. I call that griefing. Some say "Then turn your speakers down". Doesn't solve the particle issues. The point is that as far as Second Life is concerned, this is MY land. I paid for it with my earned/saved L$, I pay the taxes on it, I built the house that resides on it. And while I have little to no control over the rest of the world, Second Life allowed me to create a small space where I did have some manner of control. And I would like for that control to be UP TO ME as to what I will and will not allow. So let's say I turn on any controls that prevent someone else from creating objects (bombs) and running scripts (that make the bomb noise and explosion and the particle effects) in my space. Now the bomber is "de-fused" and my experience is a happier one for it.
So the typical counter-argument to my position is:
From: someone
"By implementing those controls, you are now limiting or impinging on someone else's experience".
I am a firm believer in equal rights for everyone, but not when one person's rights negatively impede, impact, or impinge on anothers. Balance is the thing. So to that counter-argument I would say:
From: someone
"If my space and my controls are too restrictive for someone else to the point where they cannot drop their bombs on me (therefore impinging on MY experience), they should go somewhere else where they CAN do those things."
and there are plenty of places in Second Life where they can do those things.
So what would it then mean if everyone had the ability to prevent this sort of behavior and 75% opted to turn those controls on? Well, that would say to me that 75% of the population of Second Life has passively asserted that the bomb-dropping behavior is an undesired one. Does that mean we should take further steps? No, I don't think so. What if that number was only 10% instead? Does that make it any more or less important or decisive as a statement? No, I don't think so. Less people find it offensive, so that gives the bomber more targets. Hey, what is it to me if someone else LIKES having their home or event showered in bombs? If they like that, great! More power to them both (the homeowner/event holder and the bomber(s)! That will be an event that I probably won't attend, but that's MY decision!
It is also true that once you start down the slippery slope of controls, it only gets harder to control, not easier (UO proved that conclusively). However, in light of the current state of affairs, I think the controls originally suggested by Charlie are warranted and could be very useful for people who wish a peaceful, quiet, non-violent experience.
My $1.02. Keep the change.
"I bet they didn't tell you that was in the gift bag!"
