Does this look like a threat? and if so against TOS in any way?

[GingerHenderson]

Neighbor has issues with another resident neighbor and has this notecard called 'Declaration of War'

with theis as the content....I left their name out replaces with 'Their Name' and 'Accused neighbor as 'Mr Accused'...

"Dear Neighbours

You get the time, to convince  'Mr Accused' to stop banning ppl of this place. What

his plans are, is known to me. He can offer us an alternative, if he wants our land so

bad.
He didn't he didn't contact us, just harassing us with his random banning.

I put  this sign here, as a warning, to you. Against the policies of  'Mr Accused'. In

a war are victims.

If you are, think this, we are forced to defend us against ppl like  'Mr Accused'.

I will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant here.

Then I will leave this soil as it is....

Shalom.

Regards
Their Name."

 

Not sure how to deal with this but they said they will act on this after he 31st.

This notecard is on signs that are at all sides of hteir property.

 

Thanks in advance for any feedback.

[Kelli May]

It *looks* like absolute gibberish, but the gist of it seems threatening. Not necessarily to you, but to 'Mr Accused'.

Part 2 of the Community Standards probably applies, if anything:

 

Harassment

Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.

 

Usual disclaimers apply: I Am Not A Lawyer, Do Not Feed The Trolls, and don't get involved unless you have to.

[Perrie Juran]

What exactly is Mr. Accused doing? 

Banning people from his parcel?  Or from the whole SIM?

Is this Estate or Mainland?

It does sound like harassment to me but have no way of knowing how LL will respond unless he actually does something.

 

[GingerHenderson]

Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group.

It is Mainland.

 

[daisybloomer]

Could you describe a little more how the 3 of you neighbors (the accuser, accused neighbor and yourself) are exactly situated? I ask this because if the accused neighbor is banning only on his/her parcel, I do not see how that becomes an issue for the other neighbor who wrote the notecard. 

[Kelli May]

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group.

It is Mainland.

 

---

Mr Accused can ban whomever he likes from his parcel, assuming he doesn't use any kind of security orb that extends beyond his borders. Assuming that, the author of the note doesn't have any kind of complaint to base his threats on. Even assuming he had a valid complaint, he should be ARing Mr Accused, not making threats to 'set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant here'.

 

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group.

It is Mainland.

 

---

Mr Accused can ban whomever he likes from his parcel, assuming he doesn't use any kind of security orb that extends beyond his borders. Assuming that, the author of the note doesn't have any kind of complaint to base his threats on. Even assuming he had a valid complaint, he should be ARing Mr Accused, not making threats to 'set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant here'.

 

---

Mr. Accusor would also be entirely within HIS rights to put up an obnoxious eyesore on his property, though.

Also, many people who live on the Mainland do so to operate vehicles. Banning by name creates an impenetrable wall and the implication is that Mr. Accused is doing this only to inconvenience the members of Mr. Accusor's group, and not because of anything they've done.

It sounds like this is either a case of "blockbreaking" by Mr. Accused or "extortion" by Mr. Accusor. Of course, we don't know the actual facts of this case.

AAANNNDDD this is why Linden Lab doesn't get involved in resident-resident disputes.

 

[daisybloomer]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

Kelli May wrote:

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group.

It is Mainland.

 

---

Mr Accused can ban whomever he likes from his parcel, assuming he doesn't use any kind of security orb that extends beyond his borders. Assuming that, the author of the note doesn't have any kind of complaint to base his threats on. Even assuming he had a valid complaint, he should be ARing Mr Accused, not making threats to 'set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant here'.

 

---

Mr. Accusor would also be entirely within HIS rights to put up an obnoxious eyesore on his property, though.

Also, many people who live on the Mainland do so to operate vehicles. Banning by name creates an impenetrable wall and the implication is that Mr. Accused is doing this only to inconvenience the members of Mr. Accusor's group, and not because of anything they've done.

It sounds like this is either a case of "blockbreaking" by Mr. Accused

or

"extortion" by Mr. Accusor. Of course, we don't know the actual facts of this case.

AAANNNDDD this is why Linden Lab doesn't get involved in resident-resident disputes.

 

---

And this is exactly why I asked for clarification earlier. Everything we say right now is on assumptions and what could be. Too much gray area until she can give more details.

[Perrie Juran]

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

Hi Perrie, yes banning certain peeps from his parcel only that belong to the neighbor's group.

It is Mainland.

 

---

Mr. Accused as others have said can ban anyone for any or no reason at all from his parcel.  LL will do nothing about this.

Mr. Neighbor will get no sympathy from LL and could find him/herself subject to an AR.

 

[LlazarusLlong]

It looks like a tehrat more to me.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Given what we know...

If people that are in the author's group are going on Mr. Accused land without invitation, he has every right to ban them.  LL is going to do nothing about it. 

On the other hand the accuser and any cohorts of his could be AR'd for harassment.  Him putting up ugly things is punishing the other neighbor's too and is likely not to be effective because Mr. Accused can just derender anything he doesn't want to see or put up a wall to block the view.

If I were you, I'd stay out of it.  If the author comes to you to ask for your 'help' in this situation, just say no.

[irihapeti]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

If I were you, I'd stay out of it.  If the author comes to you to ask for your 'help' in this situation, just say no.

---

^^ that ^^

+

unless you are say like a virtual wildebeest and you have to like follow the path with the herd along the land for grazing and that. The path which happens to go over that parcel

is not very fair if that parcel owner erect a fence to block you. Like if you a wildebeest. You might starve to death. Or have to go round and end up have to cross the river. And maybe get eaten by a virtual crocodile. Which not be very good. For the wildebeest

(:

 

[GingerHenderson]

I see some say it is not clear so here is simplified...

A = Person who has banned all group B
B = A few people who want to cross on A parcel (sail)
C = Other neighbors with no issue with either. 3 in total including myself.

B did the notecard to C in a sign saying 'Blocked by A' that is near all of C property lines for us to tell A to change the ban on B or A "will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

If they abandoned the land with it "materials to make living unpleasant" then no worries as i can do off sim nice skyscraper until LL puts it in Auction.
If they keep paying tier for keeping it they are surrounded on all sides so walls are going up to make a nice walls.

Only time will tell...

[Phil Deakins]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

It looks like a tehrat more to me.

---

tehrat? English not your native language?

[GingerHenderson]

And yes all 3 neighbors are staying out we just got the nc and were wondering if it was againsTOS but only for filing AR's if so.

I come to SL to have fun enjoy my property and stay clear of drama

 

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

I see some say it is not clear so here is simplified...

A

= Person who has banned all group

B

B

= A few people who want to cross on

A

parcel (sail)

C

= Other neighbors with no issue with either. 3 in total including myself.

B

did the notecard to

C

in a sign saying 'Blocked by

A

' that is near all of

C

property lines for us to tell

A

to change the ban on

B

or

A

"will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

If they abandoned the land with it "materials to make living unpleasant" then no worries as i can do off sim nice skyscraper until LL puts it in Auction.

If they keep paying tier for keeping it they are surrounded on all sides so walls are going up to make a nice walls.

Only time will tell...

---

C doesn't have an issue with A or B, and should do as has been suggested - stay out of it.

B needs to learn more about SL and sail round.

A should AR B for harrassment.

[irihapeti]

is a bit the same as RL this. Can get a property with ocean access. Cost heaps. Can get a property nearby with ocean views. Cost heaps less

if want undistrubed ocean access from your ocean view property then need to buy a right-of-way. Or can rely on the goodwill of your neighbour, who paid like heaps more than you did

why anyone who insists on ocean access be provided by their neighbour and has chosen to not actual buy this baffles me. I am always confused when they do that and then baww about it

[Kelli May]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

I see some say it is not clear so here is simplified...

A

= Person who has banned all group

B

B

= A few people who want to cross on

A

parcel (sail)

C

= Other neighbors with no issue with either. 3 in total including myself.

B

did the notecard to

C

in a sign saying 'Blocked by

A

' that is near all of

C

property lines for us to tell

A

to change the ban on

B

or

A

"will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

If they abandoned the land with it "materials to make living unpleasant" then no worries as i can do off sim nice skyscraper until LL puts it in Auction.

If they keep paying tier for keeping it they are surrounded on all sides so walls are going up to make a nice walls.

Only time will tell...

---

C doesn't have an issue with A or B, and should do as has been suggested - stay out of it.

B needs to learn more about SL and sail round.

A should AR B for harrassment.

---

(A+B)*C should AR Lou for Emmylou Harrisment

QED

[GingerHenderson]

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

I see some say it is not clear so here is simplified...

A

= Person who has banned all group

B

B

= A few people who want to cross on

A

parcel (sail)

C

= Other neighbors with no issue with either. 3 in total including myself.

B

did the notecard to

C

in a sign saying 'Blocked by

A

' that is near all of

C

property lines for us to tell

A

to change the ban on

B

or

A

"will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

If they abandoned the land with it "materials to make living unpleasant" then no worries as i can do off sim nice skyscraper until LL puts it in Auction.

If they keep paying tier for keeping it they are surrounded on all sides so walls are going up to make a nice walls.

Only time will tell...

---

Sorry made a mistake...

this

"B did the notecard to C in a sign saying 'Blocked by A' that is near all of C property lines for us to tell A to change the ban on B or A "will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is....""

should be...

"B did the notecard to C in a sign saying 'Blocked by A' that is near all of C property lines for us to tell A to change the ban on B or B "will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

[Phil Deakins]

So the goup B objects to a land-owner A excercising his/her right to block them (B) from crossing his/her land. So much so that the group has stated its intention to harrass A.

Group B needs to grow up.

Group B needs to learn about SL and sail round.

Group B has no rights in the matter.

Since group B finds it difficult to cope with the legitimate realities of SL, its members could try taking up a different hobby, such as sex, which is far less frustrating

C should stay out of it because it's nothing to do with him/her/them.

B is probably laughing his/her socks off, but s/he could AR the signs as harrassment, which they are.

[Qie Niangao]

It's possible that B wants to alert C to A's intent to do something sinister to both B and C. That isn't quite how I'm reading the situation, though, from the facts currently in evidence.

Without knowing more, it's all just guessing, but there are plenty of similar cases in SL in which "B" is making themselves miserable, unwilling to acknowledge that A is deeply invested in being pissy about their personal piece of pixel paradise: They bought a bit of shabby frontage on a scummy Nautilus backwater or wherever and they've made it their life-work to defend it from invading sailors. Or something. The point is, there's nothing B can do that won't stiffen A's resolve to be a petty little b!tch about it because it's all A has in life. B is making themselves miserable to no effect, and it would merely spread the misery for C to take any notice of it.

[Perrie Juran]

 

And in the end, ax2 + bx + c = 0 ?

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

I see some say it is not clear so here is simplified...

A

= Person who has banned all group

B

B

= A few people who want to cross on

A

parcel (sail)

C

= Other neighbors with no issue with either. 3 in total including myself.

B

did the notecard to

C

in a sign saying 'Blocked by

A

' that is near all of

C

property lines for us to tell

A

to change the ban on

B

or

A

"will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

If they abandoned the land with it "materials to make living unpleasant" then no worries as i can do off sim nice skyscraper until LL puts it in Auction.

If they keep paying tier for keeping it they are surrounded on all sides so walls are going up to make a nice walls.

Only time will tell...

---

More information after I decided to do some investigation instead of RL laundry:

1) The region in question is directly adjacent to the Blake Sea and is about half water and half land.

2) A is a lower-level land baron who specializes in Mainland in sailing areas. I have seen this person intentionally block out neighboring lots from sea access on other regions but through means that are technically within their rights (erecting walls, etc.)

3 )The main lot in question is a completely empty all-water rental lot owned by A in the middle of the region and does not in itself have unblockable Blake Sea access.

3) B has a small sailing club-type lot in the center of the lot but has Blake Sea access by crossing other lots.

4) A's rental lot is public access but the members of B's group have been banned by name.

5) Even with A's lot being blocked to them, the members of B's group still have open-water access by going through a neighbor's lot which is set up for public boat travel (and which is quite nice, by the way.) This is a rather awkward route, however.

6) B's signs are currently small and inconspicuous; however, I didn't see them when they first went up.

7) B's lot isn't a travel factor for anyone else in the region, being in the center.

8) Neither A nor B appear to be long-established residents of the area and together only own a small portion of the region.

9) B has seen fit to not only ban A by name, but also the neighbor whose lot they can use for the alternate access route. This neighbor hasn't reciprocated in the banning.

 

 

 

 

 

[GingerHenderson]

Great investigating Theresa

 

 

"9) B has seen fit to not only ban A by name, but also the neighbor whose lot they can use for the alternate access route. This neighbor hasn't reciprocated in the banning."

 

Yes the Neighbor just found out as this was read about being banned on B

The neighbor don't believe in banlines, so all good.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

---

GingerHenderson wrote:

I see some say it is not clear so here is simplified...

A

= Person who has banned all group

B

B

= A few people who want to cross on

A

parcel (sail)

C

= Other neighbors with no issue with either. 3 in total including myself.

B

did the notecard to

C

in a sign saying 'Blocked by

A

' that is near all of

C

property lines for us to tell

A

to change the ban on

B

or

A

"will set up all kind of materials to make living unpleasant Then I will leave this soil as it is...."

If they abandoned the land with it "materials to make living unpleasant" then no worries as i can do off sim nice skyscraper until LL puts it in Auction.

If they keep paying tier for keeping it they are surrounded on all sides so walls are going up to make a nice walls.

Only time will tell...

---

More information after I decided to do some investigation instead of RL laundry:

1) The region in question is directly adjacent to the Blake Sea and is about half water and half land.

2)

A

is a lower-level land baron who specializes in Mainland in sailing areas. I have seen this person intentionally block out neighboring lots from sea access on other regions but through means that are technically within their rights (erecting walls, etc.)

3 )The main lot in question is a completely empty all-water rental lot owned by

A

in the middle of the region and does not in itself have unblockable Blake Sea access.

3)

B

has a small sailing club-type lot in the center of the lot but has Blake Sea access by crossing other lots.

4)

A

's rental lot is public access but the members of

B

's group have been banned by name.

5) Even with

A

's lot being blocked to them, the members of

B

's group still have open-water access by going through a neighbor's lot which is set up for public boat travel (and which is quite nice, by the way.) This is a rather awkward route, however.

6)

B

's signs are

currently

small and inconspicuous; however, I didn't see them when they first went up.

7)

B

's lot isn't a travel factor for anyone else in the region, being in the center.

8) Neither

A

nor

B

appear to be long-established residents of the area and together only own a small portion of the region.

9)

B

has seen fit to not only ban

A

by name, but also the neighbor whose lot they can use for the alternate access route. This neighbor hasn't reciprocated in the banning.

 

 

 

 

 

---

Now all we need is Twenty Seven 8 x 10 Color Glossy Photographs with circles and arrows...............