SL should stop banning people

[soxley]

People shouldn't be banned from SL, full stop.

If someone is annoying you, you already have the power to change things. Click mute. If you own land, ban them. If you don't, ask the landowner to ban them.

I am all for reporting, and inworld residents dealing with griefers in their own way.

What I am NOT for is LL permabanning people who have spent money on SL. It is lousy customer service and highly unethical.

And before anyone asks, no, I haven't been banned. But this month, six years ago, many were banned in one fell swoop and it was an affront to justice that still haunts the virtual world to this day.

[Qie Niangao]

I bet I'm not the only one who was around (long before) "six years ago" this month, and nonetheless has no idea what this concerns.

(Or wait. Has it been six years since one of the many, repeated, and richly deserved Woodbury bannings? If so, I mean honestly, the whole boody point of Woodbury was to get banned. For that lot, were there no bannings, there'd be no sport.)

[Freya Mokusei]

Think Qie's right about the whom, Google says 04-2010.

Regardless though, find one other example of a corporation-run service - in the entiiiiire Internet - that doesn't permaban folks. Then maybe we can throw around words like 'ethical' and 'lousy' like they actually have any weight when it comes to business operations online. Otherwise they're just maintaining the status-quo.

I'll be waiting!

[Syo Emerald]

---

soxley wrote:

People shouldn't be banned from SL, full stop

.

If someone is annoying you, you already have the power to change things. Click mute. If you own land, ban them. If you don't, ask the landowner to ban them.

I am all for reporting

, and inworld residents dealing with griefers in their own way.

What I am NOT for is LL permabanning people who have spent money on SL

. It is lousy customer service and

highly unethical

.

And before anyone asks, no, I haven't been banned. But this month, six years ago, many were banned in one fell swoop and it was an affront to justice that still haunts the virtual world to this day.

---

Let me just highlight the parts that make no sense together.

You say, people shouldn't be banned, but you are for reporting people. Whats the matter with reporting people, if there is no consequences to it?

You say, perma banning people is unethical. I say letting griefers, pedophiles, stalkers and scammers run rampant without any consequences is unethical.

Maybe, if people don't want to get banned, they should simply not break essential rules in the ToS. You do not get banned for doing nothing.

[soxley]

You say, people shouldn't be banned, but you are for reporting people. Whats the matter with reporting people, if there is no consequences to it?

You own a club. A man comes in and verbally abuses the dancers and litters malicious objects everywhere. The dancers report it to you and you ban him from your club and delete the items. Easily done. No need to waste LL's time with this.

You say, perma banning people is unethical. I say letting griefers, pedophiles, stalkers and scammers run rampant without any consequences is unethical.

There would be consequences if people inworld actually DID anything other than file reports to LL about these things. If word gets out that an AV is a pedophile, they're likely to be banned from a number of sims. Or call the RL police if you really want to make a stand, and let them investigate.

Stalkers? Total non-issue; just mute as each alt pops up. Being so emotionally warped you fixate obsessively on someone may be groteque, but it's not a crime. Scammers? Perhaps try not clicking stupid links? (Incidentally, apart from the incidents of scamming reported on GD, I have never encountered anyone inworld who's actually experienced this). The cunning prey on the dim-witted - you need to take that up with nature, to be frank, it'll never change.

As for breaking TOS, I believe sharing conversations is against TOS, which everyone does.

Is self-policing and self-reliance too much to ask for?

[mikka Luik]

---

soxley wrote:

...

Stalkers? Total non-issue; just mute as each alt pops up. Being so emotionally warped you fixate obsessively on someone may be groteque, but it's not a crime.

Is self-policing and self-reliance too much to ask for?

---

Just on that point - I think you may be a teeny bit out of touch with reality. Putting it mildly.

[Rhonda Huntress]

Ah.  I see.  Banning is OK as long as you are the one doing it.

 

If it is OK for you as a club owner to ban someone harassing your customers, why is it not OK on a larger scale for LL to ban someone harassing their customers?

[Perrie Juran]

---

soxley wrote:

<snip>

Is self-policing and self-reliance too much to ask for?

---

Perhaps we should have Resident composed Second Life Lynch Mobs instead.

 

[soxley]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

Ah.  I see.  Banning is OK as long as you are the one doing it.

 

If it is OK for you as a club owner to ban someone harassing your customers, why is it not OK on a larger scale for LL to ban someone harassing their customers?

---

If a person is vocally loud, bigoted, obnoxious, frequently drunk and never washes, you wouldn't invite him/her into your home - but you wouldn't expect the government to snuff them out either.

And unlike RL, you don't even have to use force to defend your property or call the police to get them off your porch - you just click mute and/or ban and they're gone.

People who pay for their SL homes can ban anyone for anything. I might think their decision sucks but that's their call. It's different to certain people deciding that because you're too rude, too obnoxious, too vocal or confrontational, they can file some ARs and have you removed from an entire grid made up of thousands of different sims.

[soxley]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Perhaps we should have Resident composed Second Life Lynch Mobs instead.

 

---

We already have, they're called AR parties. At least I could respect the lynch mobs a bit more if they dealt with inworld problems by themselves.

[Rhonda Huntress]

---

soxley wrote:

If a person is vocally loud, bigoted, obnoxious, frequently drunk and never washes, you wouldn't invite him/her into your home - but you wouldn't expect the government to snuff them out either.

---

Do you know my ex-husband? 

He was banned from RL for 2 years but got out in one.

[soxley]

---

Rhonda Huntress wrote:

---

soxley wrote:

If a person is vocally loud, bigoted, obnoxious, frequently drunk and never washes, you wouldn't invite him/her into your home - but you wouldn't expect the government to snuff them out either.

---

Do you know my ex-husband? 

He was banned from RL for 2 years but got out in one.

---

:smileyvery-happy:

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Sorry I totally disagree with you.

LL doesn't ban people for minor offenses, it has to  be something very serious or due to continual bad behavior  So what if they lose everything they bought for RL money?  That is part of the punishment.

Despite claims to the contrary, people who get banned know why they were banned and could have behaved in a manner that would not get them banned but chose not to.

As far as the incident six years ago, it isn't haunting anything.  I doubt you could find 12 people in a crowd of avatars that even remember it.  It certainly doesn't haunt me.

[Bree Giffen]

So this topic is being brought up for something that happened six years ago? 

Also, banning is a punishment and a deterrent. The in world methods for dealing with griefers do not punish or deter enough. Banning is used by many companies with online worlds and those being griefed would most likely consider it good customer service.

[BarcodeBrian]

---

soxley wrote:

 

Is self-policing and self-reliance too much to ask for?

---

I suppose if self-financing your grid comes with it, no.

Otherwise, yes, controlling another entity's commercial products and terms is too much to ask for.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

As far as the incident six years ago, it isn't haunting anything.  I doubt you could find 12 people in a crowd of avatars that even remember it.  It certainly doesn't haunt me.

---

You mean you didn't lose sleep over it? I'm thinking soxley did...

An affront to justice. Lawdy.

@soxley: Is it "lousy customer service" and "highly unethical" for Blizzard and CCP to ban "people who have spent money on" WOW or EVE?

Anything goes for people who spend $$$s?

[Kelli May]

---

soxley wrote:

People shouldn't be banned from SL, full stop.

If someone is annoying you, you already have the power to change things. Click mute. If you own land, ban them. If you don't, ask the landowner to ban them.

I am all for reporting, and inworld residents dealing with griefers in their own way.

What I am NOT for is LL permabanning people who have spent money on SL. It is lousy customer service and highly unethical.

And before anyone asks, no, I haven't been banned. But this month, six years ago, many were banned in one fell swoop and it was an affront to justice that still haunts the virtual world to this day.

---

Would it be okay for LL to ban people who hadn't spent any money? How much money would you have to spend to prevent LL from banning you? Is it a one-off thing or annual/monthly?

If a large group of landowners signed up to a mutual banning policy, where a ban from location X meant a ban from many of the active places of SL, would that be okay? That's self-policing. Who gets to decide what's worth a ban? Whose evidence is judged valid for enacting a ban?

What happens when something is happening on land where you can't contact the landowner? What if it's the landowner griefing you? What if that landowner is your neighbour, your landlord or the store owner who just ripped you off?

[Phil Deakins]

That's a lot of "what if"s, Kelli, so I'll add another. What if soxley's statement is just a wind-up, just for the fun of it? It's so utterly ridiuclous that it must be.

[Kelli May]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That's a lot of "

what if

"s, Kelli, so I'll add another. What if soxley's statement is just a wind-up, just for the fun of it? It's so utterly ridiuclous that it must be.

---

If I only responded to the sensible posts I'd hardly get a chance to write anything on here.

[Aethelwine]

Posted in wrong thread...

[Venus Petrov]

---

soxley wrote:

People shouldn't be banned from SL, full stop.

If someone is annoying you, you already have the power to change things. Click mute. If you own land, ban them. If you don't, ask the landowner to ban them.

I am all for reporting, and inworld residents dealing with griefers in their own way.

What I am NOT for is LL permabanning people who have spent money on SL. It is lousy customer service and highly unethical.

And before anyone asks, no, I haven't been banned. But this month, six years ago, many were banned in one fell swoop and it was an affront to justice that still haunts the virtual world to this day.

---



[Bobbie Faulds]

---

soxley wrote:

 

You say, perma banning people is unethical. I say letting griefers, pedophiles, stalkers and scammers run rampant without any consequences is unethical.

There would be consequences if people inworld actually DID anything other than file reports to LL about these things. If word gets out that an AV is a pedophile, they're likely to be banned from a number of sims. Or call the RL police if you really want to make a stand, and let them investigate.

Stalkers? Total non-issue; just mute as each alt pops up. Being so emotionally warped you fixate obsessively on someone may be groteque, but it's not a crime. Scammers? Perhaps try not clicking stupid links? (Incidentally, apart from the incidents of scamming reported on GD, I have never encountered anyone inworld who's actually experienced this). The cunning prey on the dim-witted - you need to take that up with nature, to be frank, it'll never change.

As for breaking TOS, I believe sharing conversations is against TOS, which everyone does.

Is self-policing and self-reliance too much to ask for?

---

Stalking is a non-issue? Tell that to this man. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5650591&page=1

I'm an admin in an RP sim and we had a persistent griefer. We reported him. He did keep coming back with more stuff, some of which LL had to come and help us clear up since we couldn't get on the sim. He's been permabanned and, because he was using computers where he worked and it was reported to them, he lost his RL job.

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

 

Regardless though, find one other example of a corporation-run service - in the entiiiiire Internet - that doesn't permaban folks. Then maybe we can throw around words like 'ethical' and 'lousy' like they actually have any weight when it comes to business operations online. Otherwise they're just maintaining the status-quo.

---

Yeah I've seen MMOs ban upwards of 20 or 40 thousand accounts in single hits.

I myself a few years back when managing an online forum banned people in the several thousands on a daily basis (granted these were forum-spam-bot accounts... and I had fun explaining to managers why the registrations on their cherished forum went down to a third of the total that where there the day before, vindicated when "suddenly" the users started having topical discussions again... ).

I'm mosty shocked though, that somebody wants to rehash 6 year old news like it was relevant drama...

 

[soxley]

Would it be okay for LL to ban people who hadn't spent any money?

No.

 

If a large group of landowners signed up to a mutual banning policy, where a ban from location X meant a ban from many of the active places of SL, would that be okay?

I think you're being a bit naive if you think that doesn't still go on, post-Redzone.

Who gets to decide what's worth a ban? Whose evidence is judged valid for enacting a ban?

I think there's some confusion here. I'm arguing: SL should STOP banning people.

If you have to ask those questions regarding landowners, why aren't you applying the same queries regarding LL 'policy'?

What happens when something is happening on land where you can't contact the landowner?

Fight back or leave.

What if it's the landowner griefing you?

Mute them and leave.

What if that landowner is your neighbour

Put up ban lines, mute them.

your landlord or the store owner who just ripped you off?

You say that as if LL does anything about those now. 'We won't get involved in personal disputes', remember? Leave a bad review, cut your losses and mute them. Problem solved.

 

 

---

 

[soxley]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

That's a lot of "

what if

"s, Kelli, so I'll add another. What if soxley's statement is just a wind-up, just for the fun of it? It's so utterly ridiuclous that it must be.

---

If you think this is trolling, you should see my next post.

Too cynical, jaded and uninterested to troll people, tbh.  Just my opinion.