ToS Question - Is this a violation?

[Derek Torvalar]

---

Colby Firehawk wrote:

@ LL decides if, when and how to enforce their rules... You have no recourse.

I can talk like that too!

This thread was start to finish about what the rules mean, not about enforcing them. It's pretty obvious it's up to SL to decide what to enforce. So far I haven't ask they enforce anything at all, so duh, they haven't done anything.

I think I have the answers I wanted at this point. It is time to move on. Thanks to those that answered in earnest!

---

Implicit in my statement was the understanding that only LL determines what the ToS and CG mean, which specifically addresses your OP. It doesn't matter what anyone elses interpretation of the ToS or CG is, you have no recourse.

Sorry, you do. Hire a lawyer and take them to court to enforce their rules. I hope you have deep pockets though because the shyster will soak you for every penny you have trying to win that one.

PS Your imitation of my style impresses me not. But perhaps your parents will be enthralled by your achievement.

[Tolya Ugajin]

In my opinion, no, this is not a ToS violation.

If I have a group of friends and business associates, and I say, "Hey, this guy is a **bleep**" that is my opinion.  Am I not entitled to my opinion?  Am I not entitled to share my opinion with people I decide to associate with?  I think I am.  I don't see anything in ToS that restricts me from sharing my opinion.

And if I carry this forward to "and I think you should ban him", why is that a ToS violation?  It's still my opinion.  I'm still entitled to it.  If you think it's a violation of ToS, then I have news for you - it happens at clubs all over ToS every day.  One club visiter will tell another "oh wah wah Susie was mean to me, you should ban them!"  It's called drama.  Welcome to SL.

Now, your problem appears to be that this security system allows me (assuming I am a "field officer" or whatever) to ban people at someone else's sim.

So?

Any land owner can give rights to anyone they choose to add people to the ban list for their land.  This is no different.  If I give Bob rights to ban you at my club, guess what?  Bob can ban you on his own discretion, and that's not a ToS violation.  If he meets you at another club, decides he doesn't like you for some reason, and then bans you at my club, well, guess what, that's between he and I.  This system you describe sounds like it merely automate the process.  Ain't tech grand?

Now, I'll use your own words to demonstrate why this is not a ToS violation.

"It is absolutely the land owners prerogative to ban someone, justly or not."

If I and 50 other land owners all decide to share each other's ban lists and all agree that everyone banned on one sim will be banned on all sims, then, as you say, that is our prerogative.  This system you describe means I and the other 50 land owners have all put together some automated means to do something we are entirely entitled to do - give 50 other people of our choosing the ability to add someone to the ban list on lands we own.  That's not a ToS violation.  It's a benefit of owning our own land.

You forget something - it is not a violation for a land owner to impede or interfere with your normal use or enjoyment of THEIR land.  It is THEIR land.  They paid for it, and they pay for it every month.  If they choose to be jagoffs and randomly ban people they've never met, that's up to them.

You are not being "harassed" "defamed" or "libeled".  Your privacy is not being invaded.  You have not been threatened or harassed.  You've been banned "justly or not" by someone who has been authorized to ban you.

This part of the ToS is about stopping people from doing things like adding "Colby Firehawk rapes kitten in RL, here's his RL email address" to their profiles, and similar things.  THAT would be a ToS violation.  This system doesn't sound like it is.  Asinine, counterproductive, and indicative of stupidy, sure, but not a violation of ToS.

[Tolya Ugajin]

It sounds to me like you've made up your mind and you're not really asking a question, you're just asking to have your viewpoint affirmed.

If you think it's a ToS violation, then AR them.  End of story.  At the end of the day what we say is immaterial and won't get you off this evil ban list thing.

[Tolya Ugajin]

On a side not, I find it hilarious that I was bleeped, so let me see if it will put through the following

"I got my biometric assessment done today.  As part of that, my finger got pricked.  I really hate the finger **bleep** test"

Next time I'll just say schlong.

[Cerise Sorbet]

You are assuming that LL would define "content" as broadly as you do. They may not. They included a list of things they want to count as content, and "data" didn't make the cut.

 

[Colby Firehawk]

Thank you for the detailed explanation Tolya. That's the sort of feedback I wanted.

The thread was prompted by my experiences, but was not about what to do about them. Yes I was a little miffed, but the thread was about trying to understand how subjective and judgmental accusations were allowed to propagate and security service and others were allowed to act on them. I deal with lots of detail oriented stuff in RL and I suppose I've gotten used to picking apart the details, as well as tried to apply too much real life thinking about what is considered defamation and damaging in real life and tried to equate that to SL. RL defamation and the SL version obviously are not the same.

Anyway you offered a good explanation here about why security services are allowed to do what they do. Thanks!