On The Incredible Attempt To Abolish The White List

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Rudy Ruml":1tncrlyy]But in modern times, the government has been used to impose on a community ideas as to how people ought to behave, what is right and wrong. These laws or rules constrain or control individuals according to the values of some powerful person, or group. It is in effect, government using the idea of a community to demand that individuals give up certain freedoms over and above the social contract that has evolved.

Although I'm convinced that there are no fascists among us, and all is meant in a democratic way, this view of the right of a government to override liberty, culture, and tradition by imposing laws and rules is at the root of fascism. So we get some governments that say freedom must give way to the right of the nation to develop, be strong, purify itself, recover ancient glory, do God's will, meet a foreign threat, etc. Or in our case, make the community look attractive and inviting, and to ease flight.[/quote:1tncrlyy]

You have expressed that your desire in using ban lines is to keep out rude intruders. We have suggested several ways for you to do just that. Instead, you have rejected each one and continue to do something that others find both annoying and alienating.

I would also add that your continued comparisons to an unlocked house in RL don't make sense. I lock my doors so people won't harm me or my wife, steal our stuff, or invade in our privacy. In SL the first two are impossible and the third is ALWAYS possible, though I have suggested a way to mitigate this risk if it is of concern (create a skybox with difficult entry).

Your attitude of "It's my right" is legal (for now) but goes against being a member of the community. Shall I ban you from my two plots in Nstadt until you change your mind or the law is changed?

[Patroklus Murakami]

This sounds like an issue that could be resolved by meeting inworld to discuss a solution rather than through Forum discussion (which, as Jon points out, often becomes confrontation with positions diverging and getting more entrenched) or legislation. I agree with Rudy that each citizen has the right to control access to their parcel and that placing restrictions on citizens to prevent them from doing so is tremendously illiberal. So, though I've expressed support for the sentiment of the proposed legislation, I'd have to say that after thinking about it some more, this isn't the best way forward.

This is a 'neighbourhood dispute' and we should resolve it the way that good neighbours do, by talking to each other and finding a solution we can all live with. When my neighbour disturbs me by leaving his bicycle on the stairway and partly blocking my exit, I leave a note for him or speak to him face to face. Most people are reasonable and are happy to adjust their behaviour when they know it disturbs someone else. This problem seems to me to be eminently solvable. Rudy has expressed his interest in keeping his home free of rude intruders and their debris, others have expressed their interest in avoiding aerial obstructions and ugly ban lines. Somewhere between the two positions there is space for a compromise.

[Beathan]

We could do something different -- and go the other way. Require whitelists for all private buildings. Provide free access to all public land and, at the faction's option, all faction land. Alternatively, we could distinguish between kinds of land. In NF, whitelists could be prohibited inside the wall, required outside the wall; in CN, whitelists prohibited along the north east/west road, required elsewhere.

This would have the effect of forcing people to use provided roads or overfly at a significant altitude. This is realistic -- if we are going for realism. It would also avoid the problem of people flying into forcefields unexpectedly by requiring them, in whitelist areas, to maintain a constant altitude above the exclusion zone.

Since I've joined SL, I've often wondered what the point of roads are given that most people fly and teleport. Roads seem to be the loneliest places in SL -- a vestigal part of an earlier stage in the history of SL transportation.

Note, I'm not advocating this position. I'm just putting it out there for discussion. Do we want our roads to serve a function, or to just be window dressing on our communities?

Beathan

[Claude Desmoulins]

Pat,

Your point reminds me of something. When I was on the receiving end of a bounce from a ban line. Rather ironically , this was at Ranma's old house in NFS, after LL had added some new parcel exclusion criteria. I was trying to fly back to my house from visiting somewhere in the valley and slammed into the ban line about thirty meters over her roof. It was quite disconcerting.

My first thought was , "We don't do that here." Since I very much doubted that Ranma was trying to ban me personally, I talked to her about it first. It turns out that she was using some criterion that it hadn't occurred to her would apply to any CDS citizen. I also pointed out to her that the entire apparatus of sim level banning and its accompaniments was in place so individuals wouldn't have to barricade their parcels to be secure.

Based on my year or so in this community, I would kindly suggest to Rudy that I believe putting up individual parcel bans falls outside our implicit social norms. If it didn't, one would see many more ban lines than one does. Especially since a door with whitelist, which Rudy uses, can address the specific security needs he's identified, I'd ask him to consider if he could deal with whatever other security and privacy concerns he has in a more neighborly way than the parcel exclusion features. To be fair I believe he has already done so.

This raises a larger issue. As the community grows, how do we maintain what have been implicit social norms. One way is to make them explicit via legislative action. What are some others?

As to Beathan's idea, I very much like the idea of making the roads functional. However, places of business need to be open so people can walk in at any time and buy things. I'm not sure if it's possible to turn on "no-fly" at the sim level. If we want to be more realistic, no-fly might be a better option than parcel bans.

[Rudy Ruml]

Responding to Claude.

My argument for keeping the white list was based on a desire for privacy and security of my home. Now, since I have a white list lockable door, I no longer see my need for it, but do believe that in absence of such a door, others have a right to it.

Property rights to privacy and security trump low flyover rights. The one is a fundamental right, on the level of speech and religion, but flyover is not fundamental, but a convenience. And this is available. Just fly higher.

I signed onto the covenant provision Pat mentions when I bought a house. I accepted it. Had there been a white list ban at the time, and absent knowledge of the lockable door, I would not have bought a house in CN.

The pending legislation is proposing a ban that did not exist when others and I bought homes. In that case, I argue, it is an imposition on a fundamental right to privacy and security.

[Rudy Ruml]

As I wrote in my posts, I have eliminated the white list around my property, and thanks to Ranma, have added the white list to a lockable door. So, there are no lines around my property.

You have an interesting attitude. If you disagree with pending legislation for a community, "it goes against being a member of a community." And you suggest banning me from your property until I change my opposition. Wow.

Cheers.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Rudy Ruml":3lykvn0z]The pending legislation is proposing a ban that did not exist when others and I bought homes. In that case, I argue, it is an imposition on a fundamental right to privacy and security.[/quote:3lykvn0z]I agree.

Claude raised an interesting point earlier in the discussion: how do we retain social norms as we grow? Is legislative action one way to do this? If not legislation, what else?

I think we should avoid trying to legislate social norms and 'good' behaviour, especially where this involves infringing on the rights of individuals. Legislation is unlikely to be able to keep pace with, for example, rapidly changing social norms. Government is slow, the world is fast; just witness the inability of so many RL governments to keep pace with the changes wrought by developments in communication technology.

The place where social norms can properly be established, debated and changed is outside of the formal institutions of our state - in newspapers, blogs, these forums, inworld discussion and interaction, community groups etc. So that, for example, if a new resident comes into the CDS and instantly puts up ban lines that keep everyone out of their parcel, a neighbour says 'We don't really do that here, but there are other ways you can control access to your property and avoid griefers. What would you like to achieve/avoid?'

[Beathan]

I think that we should, for starters, include whitelist doors in all future construction of private residences in our current sims and in future sims. We should also consider builing-in other privacy screens. Because we do most of our own building (at least intitial building), as a quasi-governmental or governmental function, this should be doable.

Beathan

[Justice Soothsayer]

Pat, I very much like your good neighbour policy. In fact, that's exactly what Ranma and I did, explaining to Rudy about the functionality of locked doors that would achieve his objective. Indeed, it took us a while to realize that the door was case sensitive and didn't recognize rudy ruml as the same person as Rudy Ruml.

Maybe we need a CDS [url=http://www.welcomewagon.com:a6r54y8t]Welcome Wagon[/url:a6r54y8t]!

[michelmanen]

Pat,

I agree with you.

I however, am personally at the other end of the privacy spectrum from Rudy: I like to keep my doors always open (unless I lock it on purpose). And therefore (shock!) I strongly disagree with Beathan's suggestion to legislate that all our buildings have locking doors. This is a matter of individual choice - not public concern. In any case, even if this shoud be legislated, I can always leave my locking door unlocked, thus defeating the purpose of such intrusive legislation. Of course, in such a case Beathan may want to ostracize me because I don't lock my door....

[Beathan]

Michel --

Per usual, you are wholly unfair to me. I specified, clearly, that I was floating an idea not advocating a position.

Further, why do you insist that public debate and speech can be "unconstitutional" just in case it disagrees with a "democratic" decision of the RA? What kind of society are we creating here if citizens cannot disgree with the law and advocate for change?

With your statist bias, inability to understand nuanced discussion, and advocation of restricting political debate, I have serious concerns about you in any official position in the CDS. Others share these concerns. As an office-seeker, you really should try to reassure us that we are not inviting a viper into our bed.

Beathan

[Gxeremio Dimsum]

[quote="Rudy Ruml":wr4hzuoh]As I wrote in my posts, I have eliminated the white list around my property, and thanks to Ranma, have added the white list to a lockable door. So, there are no lines around my property.

You have an interesting attitude. If you disagree with pending legislation for a community, "it goes against being a member of a community." And you suggest banning me from your property until I change my opposition. Wow.

Cheers.[/quote:wr4hzuoh]

Thanks for making the change. My point was not to ban you because you disagree with me - but to ban you so you see what living in a community with those blasted red lines is like. Bear in mind that what you're basically taking offense against is the idea that I might do what you already do to me (and others). Until you removed the ban lines, anyhow. In any case, it was more of a "How would you like it if..." than an actual threat.

[michelmanen]

[quote:2800vwp3]Further, why do you insist that public debate and speech can be "unconstitutional" just in case it disagrees with a "democratic" decision of the RA?[/quote:2800vwp3]

Please refresh my memory and point out to me exactly where i made this specific point in exactly those terms. I certainly would never agree to such a statement.

[quote:2800vwp3]With your statist bias, inability to understand nuanced discussion, and advocation of restricting political debate, I have serious concerns about you in any official position in the CDS. Others share these concerns. As an office-seeker, you really should try to reassure us that we are not inviting a viper into our bed. [/quote:2800vwp3]

Personal attacks and invectives won't do you any good, Beathan. It is quite fascinating to see how well you think to know me already after a few exchanges of text-based communications. Or did you find all this in my horoscope?

I am always willing to meet with any fellow citizen who wants to talk to me and discuss any issues he/she would want addressed. All one has to do is get in touch with me. (This, of course, does not include my appearing before an "Un-CDS Activities Commitee" chaired by you... )

[Ranma Tardis]

[quote="Rudy Ruml":35qsv8ea]As I wrote in my posts, I have eliminated the white list around my property, and thanks to Ranma, have added the white list to a lockable door. So, there are no lines around my property.

You have an interesting attitude. If you disagree with pending legislation for a community, "it goes against being a member of a community." And you suggest banning me from your property until I change my opposition. Wow.

Cheers.[/quote:35qsv8ea]

My bill will be voted on as scheduled, I have no intention on withdrawing it. When this bill passes it will put a stop to the me too banning and using of the land tools white list. Use of these tools will make the CDS a very unfriendly place to keep a residence. As I said there are Sims for that if you want to use land tool whitelists and security scripts. These Sims are as much fun to visit as a prison or a commerical airport.
I left the mainland due to people with they obsession with privacy. I live in a zoned community in real life. In this way I know will not live next to a trash trailor and an outhouse! That the person next to me will not take up raising chickens and pigs. That standards of housing will be maintained. Yes I loose certain "freedoms" as do all of us that live in the CDS. These "restrictions" are for the common good and promote our community and way of life. If you want to have total "freedom" it is as close as the Linden mainland. Anshe Chung will be happy to sell you a peice of "freedom".

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ranma Tardis":qgbrdnbn]My bill will be voted on as scheduled, I have no intention on withdrawing it.[/quote:qgbrdnbn]Could you post a copy of it on the forums? I've looked in this thread and the other one but couldn't find it. Aplogies if I've overlooked it