I am having a REAL issue here with Second life AND the support staff!

[irihapeti]

---

mirbaz wrote:

And what if some one is dressed up all nice and yet has scum tattoos on their face in the photo, with some dangling flexi bits as well?

---

like street gangsta with earrings ?? or somebody who runs round in the RL with plywood penii stuck on their head ??

you dont have to answer this if you dont want (:

[LlazarusLlong]

Ignorance is no defence.

Otherwise everybody else here would be innocent.

[Lexbot Sinister]

I don't get why they can't just remove the offending picture and send a warning. A ban for a picture is pretty excessive. The message goes through just as well with a warning, that if you do it again, then ban.

Alienates fewer paying customers, too. Because you really don't want to ban out your moneycows for a minor transgression.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

I don't get why they can't just remove the offending picture and send a warning. A ban for a picture is pretty excessive. The message goes through just as well with a warning, that if you do it again, then ban.

Alienates fewer paying customers, too. Because you really don't want to ban out your moneycows for a minor transgression.

---

Well, just like RL, if you walk around with a picture of your junk on your shirt the authorities will arrest you if someone reports you. Having a dikpic on your profile is essentially the same thing.

[Lexbot Sinister]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

I don't get why they can't just remove the offending picture and send a warning. A ban for a picture is pretty excessive. The message goes through just as well with a warning, that if you do it again, then ban.

Alienates fewer paying customers, too. Because you really don't want to ban out your moneycows for a minor transgression.

---

Well, just like RL, if you walk around with a picture of your junk on your shirt the authorities will arrest you if someone reports you. Having a dikpic on your profile is essentially the same thing.

---

I would say thats very doubtful, that a cgi image of a dick would get you arrested, without prior warning, like "cover it up or you are coming with us". Do anatomically correct statues get arrested? Also, as far as i understand, it wasn't a profile picture but a pick picture. That requires an active action of clicking on the profile and going through the picks to see it, which is not correct with the shirt analogy.

It's definitely stupid to ban customers for minor things that they could receive a warning for. Same effect (picture removed and action not repeated) but a lot, lot less badwill.

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

I don't get why they can't just remove the offending picture and send a warning. A ban for a picture is pretty excessive. The message goes through just as well with a warning, that if you do it again, then ban.

Alienates fewer paying customers, too. Because you really don't want to ban out your moneycows for a minor transgression.

---

Well, just like RL, if you walk around with a picture of your junk on your shirt the authorities will arrest you if someone reports you. Having a dikpic on your profile is essentially the same thing.

---

I would say thats very doubtful, that a cgi image of a dick would get you arrested, without prior warning, like "cover it up or you are coming with us". Do anatomically correct statues get arrested? Also, as far as i understand, it wasn't a profile picture but a pick picture. That requires an active action of clicking on the profile and going through the picks to see it, which is not correct with the shirt analogy.

It's definitely stupid to ban customers for minor things that they could receive a warning for. Same effect (picture removed and action not repeated) but a lot, lot less badwill.

---

We don't know what actually happened - judging from the tone of the OP, it may well be that multiple toes were stepped on over time, resulting in a series of AR's for various incidents. It's interesting that the ban's length increased, for instance.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

I don't get why they can't just remove the offending picture and send a warning. A ban for a picture is pretty excessive. The message goes through just as well with a warning, that if you do it again, then ban.

Alienates fewer paying customers, too. Because you really don't want to ban out your moneycows for a minor transgression.

---

Well, just like RL, if you walk around with a picture of your junk on your shirt the authorities will arrest you if someone reports you. Having a dikpic on your profile is essentially the same thing.

---

I would say thats very doubtful, that a cgi image of a dick would get you arrested, without prior warning, like "cover it up or you are coming with us". Do anatomically correct statues get arrested? Also, as far as i understand, it wasn't a profile picture but a pick picture. That requires an active action of clicking on the profile and going through the picks to see it, which is not correct with the shirt analogy.

It's definitely stupid to ban customers for minor things that they could receive a warning for. Same effect (picture removed and action not repeated) but a lot, lot less badwill.

---

You can not walk down the street in the US wearing a t-shirt with a picture of your junk on it. It falls under sex offender laws. 

As was stated many times, profiles are supposed to be G rated. Junk pics are most definitely not G rated. We are not talking about an avatars junk, we are talking about the RL persons junk. Unless i totally missread the OP.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

It's definitely stupid to ban customers for minor things that they could receive a warning for. Same effect (picture removed and action not repeated) but a lot, lot less badwill.

---

You getting a bit confused. The OP hasn't been banned.

Apart from that, what everyone else says, including me, is right. The OP knowingly agreed to the ToS rules, and then broke them. What happened to him was justified, and he has no cause or grounds for complaint.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Lexbot Sinister wrote:

I don't get why they can't just remove the offending picture and send a warning. A ban for a picture is pretty excessive. The message goes through just as well with a warning, that if you do it again, then ban.

Alienates fewer paying customers, too. Because you really don't want to ban out your moneycows for a minor transgression.

---

Well, just like RL, if you walk around with a picture of your junk on your shirt the authorities will arrest you if someone reports you. Having a dikpic on your profile is essentially the same thing.

---

I would say thats very doubtful, that a cgi image of a dick would get you arrested, without prior warning, like "cover it up or you are coming with us". Do anatomically correct statues get arrested? Also, as far as i understand, it wasn't a profile picture but a pick picture. That requires an active action of clicking on the profile and going through the picks to see it, which is not correct with the shirt analogy.

It's definitely stupid to ban customers for minor things that they could receive a warning for. Same effect (picture removed and action not repeated) but a lot, lot less badwill.

---

Why would you have "bad will" here?  You screwed up.  The onus is on you, not LL.

And while you may think it's a minor issue, there are many people for whom it will be a major issue.

[Marigold Devin]

---

mirbaz wrote:

Do butt pics also come under junk?

---

arse is ok, arse HOLE is not - apparently

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Marigold Devin wrote:

---

mirbaz wrote:

Do butt pics also come under junk?

---

arse is ok, arse HOLE is not - apparently

---