TOS and the vulnerable adult players

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with the TOS rule of not naming offenders and abusers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I don't agree with most of your post I'm mystified by your first sentence.  I've never seen a rule that says that.  I hope you're not referring to the rule that says:

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

(v) Post, display or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

Because that's there to stop people from offending and abusing.

 

---

Yeah that - now I remember this.

I agree with you that there might not even be a policy against naming abusers and griefers.

As far as the ToS states - you can say "estate manager X done cheated me out of my Y" or "store A is selling copystolen goods from store B".

- BUT... the forum community here -believes- it is a ToS violation to post that, and the moderators also tend to often believe this, eroneously.

And as you can see by my post just before this one, I too often forget that the rule doesn't exist.

 

 

[jwenting]

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with the TOS rule of not naming offenders and abusers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I don't agree with most of your post I'm mystified by your first sentence.  I've never seen a rule that says that.  I hope you're not referring to the rule that says:

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

(v) Post, display or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

Because that's there to stop people from offending and abusing.

 

---

and publicly posting someone's username in order to defame them and make others shun them would definitely fall under this clause.

[jwenting]

---

MasoDevotina wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

.....

I believe that there should be people in world you can go to who have lists of names of all

potential

abusers.

.....

---

Now, tell me, how do you define a potential abuser?

Somebody used the term witchhunt, and that's exactly what this will become.

---

the term "alive" comes to mind. Simply by existing you're a potential abuser... After all, it's almost impossible for someone, somewhere, at some point to not dislike something you do or did at some point, somewhere, for some reason whether they were present or not.

E.g. I do not go to church 5 times on sundays. I'm pretty sure some people would be offended by that.

[jwenting]

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

<<

can I just add that in the last week one of the kids in a family I am with had rl paedophile convictions>>

Why are you sharing personal information with people in SL? How do you know this person is a pedo?

<<

and that when I tried to make a report on another with evidence **bleep** all was done for like ages>>

I don't think you can AR people for something they supposedly did in RL.

I have no snuggly feelings for pedophiles, but to be honest, you have no proof that any person is a pedo. You cannot accuse people of being pedo in SL just because they approach a child avi. While that is nasty, in all reality that child avi is NOT a child at all. 

Really, I see this as a demand for LL and everyone to play along with your RP by acting like child avi's are actually helpless children who cannot take care of themselves. If you are having problems with "pedo" avis harassing your "child" avis, then try keeping your RP to a private area. Be more careful about who you allow into your RP. Heck, keep your list of naughty avis if you want. It won't do much of anything though.

---

well said. And do remember that past convictions should NOT influence a person's life. Sentence is over, penalty was served, give them a chance to live a normal life. By continuing to push people into fringe millieus after they've served criminal sentences, you only drive them back into crime.

If former convicts can't get jobs because of their former life, they're forced back into criminal endeavours to pay the rent, fill their bellies.

 

That's what both idiotic laws do that restrain people with prior convictions after their sentences are served, as well as (and even more so) vigilante lists of people "reported" by whomever to be pedophiles. People end up on such lists for no more reason than having been seen near a school, especially single men (I know of one guy (rl) who had his life ruined because someone for whatever reason reported his name to "pedo hunters", had to change his name, get cosmetic surgery, and now lives in another country, that's what vigilante lists do).

[jwenting]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with the TOS rule of not naming offenders and abusers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I don't agree with most of your post I'm mystified by your first sentence.  I've never seen a rule that says that.  I hope you're not referring to the rule that says:

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

(v) Post, display or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

Because that's there to stop people from offending and abusing.

 

---

Yeah that - now I remember this.

I agree with you that there might not even be a policy against naming abusers and griefers.

As far as the ToS states - you can say "estate manager X done cheated me out of my Y" or "store A is selling copystolen goods from store B".

- BUT... the forum community here -believes- it is a ToS violation to post that, and the moderators also tend to often believe this, eroneously.

And as you can see by my post just before this one, I too often forget that the rule doesn't exist.

 

 

---

and you're wrong. That clause expressly states that defametory comments about a person are not allowed. And "naming and shaming" would definitely fall into that category.

If you had logs, and the TOS allowed you to post those, it'd be different, but we'd still only have your word for it that those logs aren't fakes, edited, or otherwise manipulated to make a person look bad, we'd only have one side of the story.

e.g. you claim to have been "cheated", and produce log fragments showing that someone took money from you. But you omit the log fragment where you took delivery of the items offered. Now the seller looks bad, you sullied their name, that's abuse and exactly the reason you're not allowed to do this,.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with the TOS rule of not naming offenders and abusers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I don't agree with most of your post I'm mystified by your first sentence.  I've never seen a rule that says that.  I hope you're not referring to the rule that says:

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

(v) Post, display or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

Because that's there to stop people from offending and abusing.

 

---

Yeah that - now I remember this.

I agree with you that there might not even be a policy against naming abusers and griefers.

As far as the ToS states - you can say "estate manager X done cheated me out of my Y" or "store A is selling copystolen goods from store B".

- BUT... the forum community here -believes- it is a ToS violation to post that, and the moderators also tend to often believe this, eroneously.

And as you can see by my post just before this one, I too often forget that the rule doesn't exist.

 

 

---

Community Guidelines..

Interpersonal Disputes or Personal Negative Commentary: If you have a personal disagreement, do not post about it on the Second Life community pages. Residents who have personal differences have other channels of communication available to them — private messaging in the forums, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life.

[Dresden Ceriano]

Oh, ffs... just add my name to the damned list.

...Dres

[161488303349]

---

Marianne McCann wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with the TOS rule of not naming offenders and abusers. I feel that unless they are known about then they can continue to hurt others until someone finally gets enough on them to make an official report. There are, among kid community, quite a number of vulnerable and easily abused grown ups who can easily fall prey to some less desirable characters. I believe that there should be people in world you can go to who have lists of names of all potential abusers.

Bringing this here in the hope that others will agree with me and we can make a

peaceful

campaign for change.

---

I'm afraid I cant agree. So-called "Naming and shaming" leads to far more troubles that it solves. If you don't have enough evidence to file an AR, then you really don't have enough evidence to be "naming and shaming." I'm sorry.

---

^^ yeah that

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

My only thoughts on restriction of child avatars is this- Please do not RP in non-RP areas in a way that interferes or annoys those not involved in RP, and that goes for all kinds of RP.

Second, Please do not appear as a child in an obvious adult environment, like a sex bed store or BDSM club. Ew. And you will get banned from those places in short order so why bother.

As for naming supposed sex offenders on a blog- This would be pretty tricky. First of all, how would you know they are actually a sex offender and not just screwing with people? Hard to imagine someone posing as such, but it would be a way of greifing child avis.

Second, what kind of sex offender are they? People see the words "sex offender" and lock their wives and children up and get out their guns- But there are literally thousands of so-called sex offenders on the registry for offenses such as being 16 and having sex with their 16 year old girlfriend/boyfriend, drunkenly peeing in an alley behind a bar and even for getting undressed in their OWN HOME with curtians open. Yea. You need to be really careful about who you call out in public and why. General you, not "you, you"!

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal,

harassing

or violates any person's rights.

and publicly posting someone's username in order to defame them and make others shun them would definitely fall under this clause.

That's how I see this. Posting the name of someone whom you believe to be a sex offender or whatever, is harassment and defamation. 

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

<<(I know of one guy (rl) who had his life ruined because someone for whatever reason reported his name to "pedo hunters", had to change his name, get cosmetic surgery, and now lives in another country, that's what vigilante lists do).>>

Scary! I'm so happy to be a girl. I know females can be offenders also but it sometimes seems like friendly single men just have a big target on their backs.

Most importantly, in another post I pointed out that sex offender, and even "abuse of a minor" doesn't mean he is, or was definitely some raving violent child rapist. It could very well mean that in 1986 or whatever, he was a 16 year old having sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. NOT what I would call a dangerous person.

I would like to add though, I do believe that those who are found guilty of actual child rape or abuse deserve the harshest punishment available. However, once they have served their sentence, whether I agree with the term or not, they should be left to live a normal life. I agree with that.

[JeanneAnne]

>>I would like to add though, I do believe that those who are found guilty of actual child rape or abuse deserve the harshest punishment available. However, once they have served their sentence, whether I agree with the term or not, they should be left to live a normal life. I agree with that.<<

I'm not sure it's that simple tho Rosemary. Many (most? all?) guys develop some fetish as adolescents. They visualize this fetish in order to become aroused. Usually the fetish is appropriate to their sexual orientation. Sometimes it's something kinky but harmless .. like feet or consensual bdsm or something .. & sometimes its perverse or violent or pedophilic. Our society has decided that sex involving childern is wrong both in theory & in practice. I'm a critic of our society about most things but not about this. The thing about fetishes is that they are very hard ~perhaps impossible~ to change or overcome. The crime of pedophilia isnt like the crime of robbery. The theif can be rehabilitated because stealing isnt a fetish. I'm not so sure that the rapist or pedophile can be. Perhaps its possible but is very difficult & seldom happens. This is why the sex offender, even after he has served his prison time, cant be trusted. This is why lists are kept & people in the neighborhood have the right to know that a convicted offender lives nearby.

Jeanne

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

The issue is, from interacting in SL you A. cannot know whether or not someone is/was a pedo. B. Likewise, you cannot tell if they are reformed, if they ever were a pedo.

Like I said though, which you might have misunderstood- YES!! Those who actually are child rapists deserve the harshest punishment available, but it is not up to individual people to continue to mete out justice when they believe the sentence is too light. 

Should you watch your children if a known pedophile lives in your neighborhood? Absolutely. Should you post signs and harass that person? Absolutely not.

Same goes for SL, double even since the children are not actually children at all.

[JeanneAnne]

>> A. cannot know whether or not someone is/was a pedo.<<

I agree with you that someone convicted of statutory rape at age 16 cuz he had sex w/ his gf is a totally different story than the violent adult serial rapist or child molester. The lists of convicted sex offenders tell what their crime was, tho. Perhaps it isn't fair to lump all offenders together on the list but neighbors & concerned citizens can read about what they were convicted of & come to their own conclusions.

>>B. Likewise, you cannot tell if they are reformed, if they ever were a pedo.<<

The purpose of my post was to question whether pedos can ever be reformed. I'm willing to concede that perhaps they can be but even if so, it rarely happens. Even if a guy refrains from acting on his fetishistic impulses he still experiences them & is tempted by them. I think that it's only reasonable to be on the safe side & never trust the convicted pedo or rapist, despite whether or not they've served their sentence & seem "reformed."

>>..it is not up to individual people to continue to mete out justice when they believe the sentence is too light.<<

I haven't commented on whether or not I feel that a given sentence meted out in a particular pedophelia case is too light or too heavy. I agree with you that it isnt up to individuals to continue to mete out justice to the convict once his sentence is served. I do feel that it's reasonable to stay informed about who these people are and to keep an eye on them. They are at least potentially dangerous for life.

>>Should you watch your children if a known pedophile lives in your neighborhood? Absolutely. Should you post signs and harass that person? Absolutely not.<<

I agree. I'm not talkinga bout having signs on convicts homes saying "A Pedophile Lives Here" !! I'm talking about a list of convicted sex offenders kept by the local police that anyone can access & thereby stay informed as to potential risks to their own safety & that of their children.

>>Same goes for SL, double even since the children are not actually children at all.<<

Agreed. Virtually all child avatars are driven by adults. The few underage individuals playing SL are still teens savvy enuf to be on the computer. Even if a teen who lied about his or her age becomes the victim of a sex predator in SL, no physical harm is done to them. Still .. tho .. I don't like the idea of sexual predators being in SL at all.

Jeanne

[Peggy Paperdoll]

The naming and shaming restriction is not a ToS violation.........it never was.  It's a violation of the "Community Guidelines" that is the "ToS" for the Forums.

---------------------------------------------------------

"Interpersonal Disputes or Personal Negative Commentary: If you have a personal disagreement, do not post about it on the Second Life community pages. Residents who have personal differences have other channels of communication available to them — private messaging in the forums, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life."



http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Discussion_guidelines

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

It's easy to find the Community Guidelines.........just look at the top right corner of this (and any) page in the Forums.



[Ceka Cianci]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

The naming and shaming restriction is not a ToS violation.........it never was.  It's a violation of the "Community Guidelines" that is the "ToS" for the Forums.

---------------------------------------------------------

"

Interpersonal Disputes or Personal Negative Commentary

: If you have a personal disagreement, do not post about it on the Second Life community pages. Residents who have personal differences have other channels of communication available to them — private messaging in the forums, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life."



http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Discussion_guidelines

 

----------------------------------------------------------

 

It's easy to find the Community Guidelines.........just look at the top right corner of this (and any) page in the Forums.



---

i love how the laugh smiley shows up in the middle of that link  rigth after the word official hehehe

i almost lost mah tea \o/

[Rosemaery Lorefield]

<<The lists of convicted sex offenders tell what their crime was, tho>>

Except that people don't always check. People who did not commit a violent or forceful rape have been harassed and had trouble finding work as a result of being on the registry. I don't know if SL people are any more prone to due diligence than people in RL.

<<I do feel that it's reasonable to stay informed about who these people are and to keep an eye on them>>

In RL, I would agree. There are children in RL. There are no actual children in SL to be preyed upon. 

<<I'm talking about a list of convicted sex offenders kept by the local police>>

I think the lines are blurring as to what I was talking about. I'm talking about SL, and how it shouldn't be treated the same as RL. The OP wants there to be a list for SL users who "may be a threat of abuse", and later something about convicted sex offenders. All that can, and should, be done in SL is to report child sex RP if it happens or solicitation. If, like someone suggested, being a sex offender is against TOS (I'd like to see that entry), then I suppose reporting people who are supposedly sex offenders?

Personally though, I think it is a greifer messing with them. Actual pedophiles hide their nature so they can fool victims and those around them.

[LittleMe Jewell]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

The naming and shaming restriction is not a ToS violation.........it never was.  It's a violation of the "Community Guidelines" that is the "ToS" for the Forums.

---

The naming and shaming, if done inworld via profiles or notecards or whatever, might violate section 8.2 item (v) of the ToS (which I think someone did post earlier in this thread):

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

(v) Post, display or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

The items I noted in red could be the trouble area.

[Peggy Paperdoll]

But you can still say "Peggy Paperdoll is a loudmouthed, evil, brat who hates everyone" to anyone you choose to chat with in-world.  As long as you do not spam it to the entire grid or follow me around spouting the vindictives toward me you are not violating any ToS rule.  That's one of the common "LL does nothing about so-n-so who is trying to deflame me in-world".......it's just not a violation so LL does nothing.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Peggy Paperdoll wrote:

But you can still say "Peggy Paperdoll is a loudmouthed, evil, brat who hates everyone" to anyone...

---

Come on, you are not *that* evil.  

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

jwenting wrote:

---

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote:

---

Princess Gata wrote:

I seem to be having a bit of an issue with the TOS rule of not naming offenders and abusers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I don't agree with most of your post I'm mystified by your first sentence.  I've never seen a rule that says that.  I hope you're not referring to the rule that says:

8.2 You will not post or transmit prohibited Content, including any Content that is illegal, harassing or violates any person's rights.

(v) Post, display or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

Because that's there to stop people from offending and abusing.

 

---

and publicly posting someone's username in order to defame them and make others shun them would definitely fall under this clause.

---

Not if truthful. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, slander, and libel. And you cannot be harrassed with the truth.

Nor is it an invasion of privacy to reveal public facts about a person or business within the community that such is public to.

 

But the rules could say anything - and that means nothing - if the Lindens wrongly read their own rules. So if the hint from the lindens is that they are going to punish people for following the proper rules on this - then one had better not stray down that path.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Not if truthful. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, slander, and libel. And you cannot be harrassed with the truth.

Nor is it an invasion of privacy to reveal public facts about a person or business within the community that such is public to.

---

But since LL have no way of knowing the truthfulness or otherwise of any allegations someone might make in these forums, and since they probably don't want to find themselves joined in any subsequent action for defamation and having to defend them, it's probably prudent of them to stay well out of it, do you not think?

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Innula Zenovka wrote:

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Not if truthful. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, slander, and libel. And you cannot be harrassed with the truth.

Nor is it an invasion of privacy to reveal public facts about a person or business within the community that such is public to.

---

But since LL have no way of knowing the truthfulness or otherwise of any allegations someone might make in these forums, and since they probably don't want to find themselves joined in any subsequent action for defamation and having to defend them, it's probably prudent of them to stay well out of it, do you not think?

---

Well see my edit above.

But were the lindens actually to properly enforce their rules - there are some things that are simply very easy to prove. And some for which; were one to claim them, one had better be willing to trot out a lot of evidence.

 

[Melita Magic]

---

Rosemaery Lorefield wrote:

Should you watch your children if a known pedophile lives in your neighborhood? Absolutely. Should you post signs and harass that person? Absolutely not.

---

 

It's coming across a little too much like defending pedophiles in some parts of this thread for my liking - even if you don't mean it  that way. I'm trying to avoid nausea but I keep seeing this "but most sex offenders just had consensual sex while teens themselves." That's a really old pro pedo defense, not sure if you are aware. And I think the gold standard for abuse of a minor is that there is at least three years age difference. So if they were both 16 he wouldn't be on that hypothetical list you mentioned.

And in the U.S., pedophiles are required to tell people in their new neighborhood of their status. Or were, at least. I am not completely sure of current regulations. I don't have kids so I don't pay a lot of attention, unless there's a big storm in the media, or the child protection groups ask for signatures on some petition to pass a new law, or something like that.

But my point is that the neighbors don't have to 'put up signs' because it's on the internet, legally, as well as the notification laws. Unless that state has a no internet ruling in which case any citizen can peruse the books that list sex offenders, usually at their local P.D.

[Ceka Cianci]

just to clear something up..pedos don't date teenages..

they are not even considered pedos if a teen was involved..i forget the age but it is before teen years that it's considered pedophile..

whatever a state or country considered prepubescent..