Feedback on Ad Farm Post - Part 2

Err.. let me think for a minute here regarding question 1... is it... hmmm... Linden Lab? Gosh, thanks, I was never ever aware of that.

Perfect, Phil

And you just showed yourself as the kind of person who kicks someone when they're down.

this thread is supposed to be a discussion about ad farming

Err... the fact is that someone else owns that parcel and they don't want you on it.

Please explain why, you, the person that does not own the parcel, has a right to enter it even though it's not your property and you don't pay the fees associated with it.

Hang in there, your slowly getting it..

Why? Because it's his foot. He owns it. It's his.

Or, to put it another way: Pwnership is the greatest form of morality.

Or, to put it another way: Pwnership is the greatest form of morality.

Banlines on 16M parcels are simply unacceptable.

Elax is almost as old as you are, Toy. Do you really think somebody could be in SL this long and _not_ know this stuff?

Okay... that's an excellent jumping off point... ignoring anything that's /already/ covered in the Terms of Service and the Community Standards please give me a list of everything else that's unacceptable (regarding parcels).

LOLZ! Luv it!

Whatever Linden Lab deem is unacceptable, simple enough answer for you?

Where do you get that answer from? ToF & CS say a lot about what you can't do, but where do they give you the right to do anything else you want?

On the other hand, ToS 3.3 says "... you do not own the account you use to access the Service, nor do you own any data Linden Lab stores on Linden Lab servers ...". Given that SL land and it's fantasy ownership are data on LL servers, this makes the issue of claiming rights on the basis of land ownership rather moot, doesn't it?

According to the Land FAQ:...

Having read the last few pages of personal arguments, I just want to reply to the last comment, "what is unacceptable ?", anything that does not take into account other peoples feelings, or neighbours quality of life in SL. that is the top and bottom of it.

A good approach. Use a generalized statement rather than giving a list of specifics. I would probably phrase it slightly differently (maybe use 'impact on others' to be more generic) but that is the implementation vs the idea.

OK. I would have to say the ToS takes precedence over the FAQ though. I guess you could say the FAQ has to do with the fantasy while the ToS has to do with the fact.

What do you think about the "right to visibilty", as used recently by 16m adplot owners to force the removal of otherwise legitimate content from neighbouring parcels (via successful ARs). Here two neighbours claim mutually exclusive "rights", one to build what he wants (and look at what he chooses), the other to have his adverts seen without obstruction. Does this not provide an illustration of the well-known problem that the concept of absolute right is not self-consistent?

I do agree with a recent posting - what possibly can be on a 16m plot that requires a ban line to stop people travelling over it?

Ads are allowed..the purpose of an ad is to be seen and draw traffic.
And so i ask again... are people going to be allowed to block an ad deliberately on most sides purely for their own gratification?

Ahem.

As far as I know, Elbow Room didn't go out of its way to incur the kind of social costs that obtain from ad farming and land extortion. It didn't need nor use the "rights" that are at issue here. (Okay, maybe it sold for piles o' L$s and all, but it was surely the business that was sold, perhaps using the parcel as the most convenient means of transfer.)

Moreover, it's not that every small parcel must be abused in order to require differential treatment of small parcels, any more than every gun must be a murder weapon in order to need firearms regulations.

It is not my fault that some small parcel owners are responsible for using the rights afforded them as property owners to so destroy the Mainland that it's no longer viable for LL to even bring any new sims to auction.

It's not my fault that LL now must, in deed if not in word, treat smaller parcels differently than larger ones.

I'm just explaining how it is, and why it got that way. Everyone is free to ignore what I say if they find it upsetting or at odds with their political predisposition.

And if it's any consolation, it's quite likely to be possible to ignore it without seeing many contradictions. Judging by the language they've been using, it will be possible to interpret most of the ways LL will end up defining harassing behavior as being consistent across all parcel sizes.

But whether they admit it or not--whether they even realize it or not--they are responding to human failings engendered by giving disproportionate power to those with the least at stake.

No, I'm afraid you are very much mistaken about that. I've ARed two extortionists who put their 16M parcels on sale (inside my property 100%, not roadside) for 10,000$L and set the parcel to No public access. Lindens came and turned access back on the same day.

Next the extortionists took the land off sale and put the lines back up, I ARed again and Lindens turned public access back on. So extortionists raised the price to 20,000$L and put it on sale again without the No Entry lines. I'm just waiting patiently until the 1st so this stupid game can end once and for all.

There is no "right to visibility."

As long as a wall, or some other form of obstruction, does not completely encircle the parcel of another then the wall builder is okey-dokey. If the ad parcel was visible from at least one side it was not "blocked."

Note that another resident (Weedy) pointed out "intent" and that intent is the same as committing the crime itself (I agree [but as neither the Lindens nor us can look into each other minds intent can be hard to determine). And logic cuts both ways. If the /intent/ of the wall builder was not to block but to interfere with the ad parcel and encroach upon it then the wall builder violated the ToS/CS.