The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Dats entertainment.

---

Period!

I entertain on both this forum and the feeds; some laugh, some sleep, some whine -- so sue me!

  

---

Brilliant Storm!   This could lead to the test case the issue really needs.

---

One may win the legal suit, but the avatar Storm is technically broke... his alt is fat with Lindens, so try collecting. 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Dats entertainment.

---

Period!

I entertain on both this forum and the feeds; some laugh, some sleep, some whine -- so sue me!

  

---

Brilliant Storm!   This could lead to the test case the issue really needs.

---

One may win the legal suit, but the avatar Storm is technically broke... his alt is fat with Lindens, so try collecting. 

 

---

The courts might not take kindly to the real person should it be discovered that the real person failed to disclose their "off shore accounts,"  that is your Alt.

But to answer in general, sans what  I would call the ridiculousness of taking another person to court over a few linden dollars, the question would still be what would constitute a legitimate or reasonable expectation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation

And http://volokh.com/2011/12/13/what-makes-an-expectation-of-privacy-reasonable-a-response-to-chief-justice-roberts/

  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, we are dealing with Mr. Quon’s reasonable expectations, right?

MR. RICHLAND: Yes, yes.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And even with the written policy, he has the instructions — everybody agrees — you can use this pager for private communications.

MR. RICHLAND: That’s correct.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We’re not going to audit them. Right? That’s what he said. He has to pay for them. Right? Now, most things, if you’re paying for them, they’re yours. And this — it particularly covered messages off-duty. Now, can’t you sort of put all those together and say that it would be reasonable for him to assume that private messages were his business?

We might also consider what is going on with the SexGen situation.  Were  /  Stroker's agreements enforceable?

http://www.google.com/search?q=dcma+stroker+serpentine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

I am of the opinion that agreements between Avatars are enforceable but the cost of getting them enforced is ridiculous and for the most part would make any attempt to enforce them foolish.  Still, how a person wants to spend their time and money is their business.

[Paul Hexem]

The issue with SL is that everything's a microtransaction.

So even though a lot of illegal, fraudulent activity goes on that you should be able to take residents or even LL to court for, the amount money involved is usually so small, it's not worth the cost.

The bottom line is, saying "It was my avatar, not me" doesn't free you of legal obligation when there's a contract involved. The ultra small amounts of money is what does that.

I admit though, I'd love to see a lawyer with too much money get scammed in SL someday in some of the ways the average resident is often scammed. Just to see how it would go. We've seen it before with land. It'd be great to see the TOS that says L$ have no value put to the test.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Dats entertainment.

---

Period!

I entertain on both this forum and the feeds; some laugh, some sleep, some whine -- so sue me!

  

---

Brilliant Storm!   This could lead to the test case the issue really needs.

---

One may win the legal suit, but the avatar Storm is technically broke... his alt is fat with Lindens, so try collecting. 

 

---

The courts might not take kindly to the real person should it be discovered that the real person failed to disclose their "off shore accounts,"  that is your Alt.

But to answer in general, sans what  I would call the ridiculousness of taking another person to court over a few linden dollars, the question would still be what would constitute a legitimate or reasonable expectation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation

And

http://volokh.com/2011/12/13/what-makes-an-expectation-of-privacy-reasonable-a-response-to-chief-justice-roberts/

  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, we are dealing with Mr. Quon’s

reasonable expectations

, right?

MR. RICHLAND: Yes, yes.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And even with the written policy, he has the instructions — everybody agrees — you can use this pager for private communications.

MR. RICHLAND: That’s correct.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We’re not going to audit them. Right? That’s what he said. He has to pay for them. Right? Now, most things, if you’re paying for them, they’re yours. And this — it particularly covered messages off-duty. Now, can’t you sort of put all those together and say that it would be reasonable for him to assume that private messages were his business?

We might also consider what is going on with the SexGen situation.  Were  /  Stroker's agreements enforceable?

http://www.google.com/search?q=dcma+stroker+serpentine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

I am of the opinion that agreements between Avatars are enforceable but the cost of getting them enforced is ridiculous and for the most part would make any attempt to enforce them foolish.  Still, how a person wants to spend their time and money is their business.

---

Wow - the quotes and references are super.

Agreements between avatars are enforceable?   Maybe between the average avatars... what if one of them was unable to legally consent/agree? 

("I was very drunk your honor.  I suppose I would have signed anything under the circumstances... well apparently I did.  I can't be held to any of it can I?")

---

Are you planning on claiming innocence by reason of "I am only a Chipmunk?"

We're you conspiring with this squirrel to deprive the birds of their just due?

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Dats entertainment.

---

Period!

I entertain on both this forum and the feeds; some laugh, some sleep, some whine -- so sue me!

  

---

Brilliant Storm!   This could lead to the test case the issue really needs.

---

One may win the legal suit, but the avatar Storm is technically broke... his alt is fat with Lindens, so try collecting. 

 

---

The courts might not take kindly to the real person should it be discovered that the real person failed to disclose their "off shore accounts,"  that is your Alt.

But to answer in general, sans what  I would call the ridiculousness of taking another person to court over a few linden dollars, the question would still be what would constitute a legitimate or reasonable expectation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation

And

http://volokh.com/2011/12/13/what-makes-an-expectation-of-privacy-reasonable-a-response-to-chief-justice-roberts/

  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, we are dealing with Mr. Quon’s

reasonable expectations

, right?

MR. RICHLAND: Yes, yes.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And even with the written policy, he has the instructions — everybody agrees — you can use this pager for private communications.

MR. RICHLAND: That’s correct.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: We’re not going to audit them. Right? That’s what he said. He has to pay for them. Right? Now, most things, if you’re paying for them, they’re yours. And this — it particularly covered messages off-duty. Now, can’t you sort of put all those together and say that it would be reasonable for him to assume that private messages were his business?

We might also consider what is going on with the SexGen situation.  Were  /  Stroker's agreements enforceable?

http://www.google.com/search?q=dcma+stroker+serpentine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

 

I am of the opinion that agreements between Avatars are enforceable but the cost of getting them enforced is ridiculous and for the most part would make any attempt to enforce them foolish.  Still, how a person wants to spend their time and money is their business.

---

Wow - the quotes and references are super.

Agreements between avatars are enforceable?   Maybe between the average avatars... what if one of them was unable to legally consent/agree? 

("I was very drunk your honor.  I suppose I would have signed anything under the circumstances... well apparently I did.  I can't be held to any of it can I?")

---

Are you planning on claiming innocence by reason of "I am only a Chipmunk?"

We're you conspiring with this squirrel to deprive the birds of their just due?

---

While I consider all squirrels to be squirrelly I still do admire their ingenuity.  Beyond that while I do have a slight inkling of what you're implying there.... it's really more than a chipmunk can process.

(snerk!... hehe um.. seriously, I'm just a chipmunk)

---

So you would have this court to believe that LeBron Squirrel in his devious and squirrely ways enticed you to climb that pole, and that despite your admitting knowing that squirrels are squirrely you happily climbed that pole and proceeded to not only scatter the seeds on the ground BUT STUFFED YOUR OWN CHEEKS ALSO full of the Bird's seed, and because you are 'just a chipmunk,' that this court should excuse your actions?  

[Storm Clarence]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

So you would have this court to believe that LeBron Squirrel in his devious and squirrely ways enticed you to climb that pole, and that despite your admitting knowing that squirrels are squirrely you happily climbed that pole and proceeded to not only scatter the seeds on the ground BUT STUFFED YOUR OWN CHEEKS ALSO full of the Bird's seed, and because you are 'just a chipmunk,' that this court should excuse your actions?  

---

That was NO pole that little squirrel was climbing.   I swear!

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Qwalyphi Korpov]

The resident who provided the previous content, if any, has replaced it with this generic statement.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

So you would have this court to believe that LeBron Squirrel in his devious and squirrely ways enticed you to climb that pole, and that despite your admitting knowing that squirrels are squirrely you happily climbed that pole and proceeded to not only scatter the seeds on the ground BUT STUFFED YOUR OWN CHEEKS ALSO full of the Bird's seed, and because you are 'just a chipmunk,' that this court should excuse your actions?  

---

That was NO pole that little squirrel was climbing.   I swear!

---

As my next witness I call Storm Clarence...

---

Given the late hour we will adjourn for the day.  But I will suggest Mr. Chipmunk that you sober up this martini guzzler before putting him on the stand tomorrow.  And Mr. Clarence, we do not smoke cigars in this Court.

Court adjourned for the night.

[Dana Hickman]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Now this is the point I was attempting to raise.  If an AV is a character is it legally reasonable to enforce a standard of behavior normally applied only to mature adults capable of managing their own affairs?

---

 

I'm not sure why a roleplay "character" even could be held accountable considering it's entirely a fictitious construct, and therefore it's entire credibility at making binding statements or contracts, as well as the validity of any made are immediately called into question. No different than having an unreliable or questionable witness on the stand in a RL court, or even a biased juror in the panel. There's simply no guarantee, implied or otherwise, that such a "character" could be acting in good faith as an accurate and binding agent of the person behind it. There's even no guarantee that the approved account holder is indeed the person behind the keyboard at the time in question. Only evidenced acts or verifiable patterns of behavior in a RL capacity could ever lend any real credibility to an otherwise unreliable, and assumed unreliable source. This would probably hold true for all avatars, regardless of how they choose to approach SL personally, even the Lindens themselves.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls.  Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing.  My paper dolls were then fairly substantial.  Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking".  It was the paper doll talking, not me. 

Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it.  My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. 

So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. 

[Nova Convair]

There are 2 persons? No, just 2 avatars that have a deal about what? Virtual goods? In a (along many other things) game and roleplay environment.
You don't even know the other persons RL name! And want to claim there is a contract related to RL?

Thats simple. No case - not in my country - don't know about the weird american laws, but that wouldn't affect me in a case like that.

If you have a RL contract that involves SL - thats another story - only if you have proof of everything. But virtual goods are not subject to a case in my country. Only if there is hacking or deception involved there can be a case.

So keep in mind that SL has users of many countries, that will not make it easier.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Dana Hickman wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Now this is the point I was attempting to raise.  If an AV is a character is it legally reasonable to enforce a standard of behavior normally applied only to mature adults capable of managing their own affairs?

---

 

I'm not sure why a roleplay "character" even

could be

held accountable considering it's entirely a fictitious construct, and therefore it's entire credibility at making binding statements or contracts, as well as the validity of any made are immediately called into question. No different than having an unreliable or questionable witness on the stand in a RL court, or even a biased juror in the panel. There's simply no guarantee, implied or otherwise, that such a "character" could be acting in good faith as an accurate and binding agent of the person behind it. There's even no guarantee that the approved account holder is indeed the person behind the keyboard at the time in question. Only evidenced acts or verifiable patterns of behavior in a RL capacity could

ever

lend any real credibility to an otherwise unreliable, and

assumed

unreliable source. This would probably hold true for all avatars, regardless of how they choose to approach SL personally, even the Lindens themselves.

---

So then an Avatar that copybots can't be held legally accountable (I'm talking RL Law here, not the TOS) because the Avatar is a "fictitious construct?"

Will "I was just role playing a thief" hold up in a Court of Law?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls.  Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing.  My paper dolls were then fairly substantial.  Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking".  It was the paper doll talking, not me. 

Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it.  My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. 

So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. 

---

An excellent analogy!

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls.  Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing.  My paper dolls were then fairly substantial.  Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking".  It was the paper doll talking, not me. 

Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it.  My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. 

So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. 

---

Yeah, such tricks didn't work for me either. Damned parents!

What's at issue here, I suppose, is what constitutes "breakage". I understand the argument that "you can just log out", but that ignores the emotional and monetary investments we make here. RL courts already acknowledge the value of emotional well-being, so if it is determined that the handmade pottery is actually another's emotional well-being, it hardly seems a stretch to place the responsibility on the person holding the paper doll.

As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

---

My mind has been in outer space for a long time. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

---

My mind has been in outer space for a long time. 

---

Where no one can hear you scream.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

---

My mind has been in outer space for a long time. 

---

Where no one can hear you scream.

---

But the voices in my head have followed me there.

[161488303349]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

but lindens do have value because there is a market for them..a place that gives them real world value..

 

---

Perhaps.  Why then did you agree when the Lindens said they had no monetary value?  Coercion?  If so - does that invalidate your TOS agreement? In whole or in part? Are there any legal precedents that apply?

---

in Korea maybe. has been some court rulings there about virtual currency

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/01/116_58775.html

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls.  Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing.  My paper dolls were then fairly substantial.  Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking".  It was the paper doll talking, not me. 

Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it.  My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. 

So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. 

---

Yeah, such tricks didn't work for me either. Damned parents!

What's at issue here, I suppose, is what constitutes "breakage". I understand the argument that "you can just log out", but that ignores the emotional and monetary investments we make here. RL courts already acknowledge the value of emotional well-being, so if it is determined that the handmade pottery is actually another's emotional well-being, it hardly seems a stretch to place the responsibility on the person holding the paper doll.

As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

---

The problem is in determining the state of another's emotional well-being.  Online, I can present any type of emotional status that I choose.  There is no way for my fellow web-denizens to know if what I present is real.

Even if one could know what emotional status is real for fellow web-dwellers, there is also no way to determine what or who may have caused distress.  Sometimes people who are already emotionally on edge due family, health, or job issues, may react to something that another person would just shrug off.  

Like the kid at school who breaks down crying when another kid says, "You're ugly and your mother wears army boots".   A completely different kid might have burst out laughing, as they know they are not ugly and the thought of their mother wearing army boots, tickles their fancy.

A griefer crashing a sim with a self-replicating spammer prim, yeah, we can see what caused the harm.   But, if someone tells me that my singing sounds like a cat with it's tail caught in the door, do I get upset?  Well, I wouldn't..because whether I can sing or not is a subjective matter of opinion. (plus anyone who has been exposed to my singing should be cut some slack as...well, you'd have to hear me sing to know...lol )

What if someone online says other mean things to me or about me?   Is what I present to people, regarding my emotional status and reaction, caused by the meanie-cat person who said stuff about me?  Or is my reaction more like the straw that broke the camel's back, because my life has so much stress that the little straw flipped me out? 

1) A person who's only seen online, can present any emotional status, and there is no way to validate the status.

2)  There is no valid way to determine that another's actions in an online anonymous virtual world like SL has actually been the cause of emotional distress. There could be other factors in that person's RL/SL that precipitated a heightened emotional state thereby creating a hair-trigger emotional reaction.

So, if there’s a way to determine for factors one and two above, then we might be able to say that person A caused emotional distress to person B.   But, did they really?   Who’s ultimately responsible for my emotional well being?  If I were a child, I’d say parents and other caretakers are partially responsible for my emotional well being.  But, I’m an adult, and as an adult, it is I alone who is responsible for my own emotional well being. 

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

When I was a little girl I made these cut-out paper dolls.  Colored them with crayons and glued the paper to cardboard backing.  My paper dolls were then fairly substantial.  Gave my paper dolls names, and personalities, more daring than my own. I started carrying them around, and holding them in front of me to "do the talking".  It was the paper doll talking, not me. 

Needless to say, when I broke one of my mother's handmade pottery pieces while playing tag indoors, that my parents did not buy into defense that one of my paper dolls had actually done it.  My parents were cool about it though. They talked me through the logic process of seeing as how the paper doll could not walk on her own, and that as I'm the one who ran through the house holding the paper doll, that I was ultimately the one who broke the pottery. 

So, if anyone needs a case decided regarding the actions of their avatar, I'll give you my parent's contact information, and they will have it sorted for you in no time. 

---

Yeah, such tricks didn't work for me either. Damned parents!

What's at issue here, I suppose, is what constitutes "breakage". I understand the argument that "you can just log out", but that ignores the emotional and monetary investments we make here. RL courts already acknowledge the value of emotional well-being, so if it is determined that the handmade pottery is actually another's emotional well-being, it hardly seems a stretch to place the responsibility on the person holding the paper doll.

As we move our minds further from our bodies, we'll certainly have to work through these issues.

---

The problem is in determining the state of another's emotional well-being.  Online, I can present

any

type of emotional status that I choose.  There is no way for my fellow web-denizens to know if what I present is real.

Even

if

one could know what emotional status is real for fellow web-dwellers, there is also no way to determine what or who may have caused distress.  Sometimes people who are already emotionally on edge due family, health, or job issues, may react to something that another person would just shrug off.  

Like the kid at school who breaks down crying when another kid says, "You're ugly and your mother wears army boots".   A completely different kid might have burst out laughing, as they

know

they are not ugly and the thought of their mother wearing army boots, tickles their fancy.

A griefer crashing a sim with a self-replicating spammer prim, yeah, we can

see

what caused the harm.   But, if someone tells me that my singing sounds like a cat with it's tail caught in the door, do I get upset?  Well, I wouldn't..because whether I can sing or not is a subjective matter of opinion. (plus anyone who has been exposed to

my

singing should be cut some slack as...well, you'd have to hear me sing to know...lol )

What if someone online says other mean things to me or about me?   Is what I present to people, regarding my emotional status and reaction, caused by the meanie-cat person who said stuff about me?  Or is my reaction more like the straw that broke the camel's back, because my life has so much stress that the little straw flipped me out? 

1) A person who's only seen online, can present

any

emotional status, and there is no way to validate the status.

2)  There is no valid way to determine that another's actions in an online anonymous virtual world like SL has actually been the

cause

of emotional distress. There could be other factors in that person's RL/SL that precipitated a heightened emotional state thereby creating a hair-trigger emotional reaction.

So, if there’s a way to determine for factors one and two above, then we might be able to say that person A caused emotional distress to person B.   But, did they really?   Who’s

ultimately

responsible for my emotional well being?  If I were a child, I’d say parents and other caretakers are

partially

responsible for my emotional well being.  But, I’m an adult, and as an adult, it is I alone who is responsible for my own emotional well being. 

 

---

I didn't say this would be easy! The courts have already determined that emotional distress can be inflicted by others, so they don't agree that you alone are responsible for your own emotional well being. We already have at least one cyber-bullying case that's hit the courts, that of Lori Drew.

Given the hunger of personal injury lawyers (and perhaps similarly hungry medical professionals), it might be only a matter of time before a virtual world is the medium through which someone claims to suffer sufficient damage at the hands of another to take a case to court. I'd be surprised by success, but not by an attempt. I think I'd be about as skeptical a juror as one could find, even though I'm very well aware of the emotional power that can be conveyed through SL. But you know they won't pick me for such a jury, I know too much.

;-)

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

Some people play that their AVatar is a character.  So what the AV does is character role playish stuff.  Others play that the AVatar is their self.  So what the AV does is an extension of the RL person.  Which leads to misunderstandings and drama.  But how does the legal world view the interactions?  When an AV says 'I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a service today" is that a verbal contract offer from the RL person or just role play chat from the AV?

---

If we're both in WoW and I kill your Gnome with my Orc - the police are NOT going to be knocking on my door...

If I offer your Troll 1 million gold to escort me into the Dungeon of Despair, and then skip out on you at the end, good luck suing me.

But on the other hand, there have been lawsuits over virtual goods and contracts thereof.

Even in SL, if someone griefs some venue, the police are not going to show up with a disturbing the peace citation...

So for the most part... "its a game" is the prevailing mentality, but there are exceptions.