How do I question an unexplained ban?

[Innula Zenovka]

There's no way to "monitor inbound TPs" (if by that you mean teleport invitations sent from another region) unless you have access to LL's server logs,  which presumably record such traffic.    Otherwise, no.  The only way the landowner, or anyone else, knows about tp invitations sent to third parties is what the third party chooses to say about them (which may or may not be the whole story, of course).  

Edited March 24, 2017 by Innula Zenovka

[Klytyna]

8 hours ago, Reg Eberhardt said:

Fair points Perrie. I was making assumptions that he could monitor inbound TPs as I really couldn't understand what else he meant by "unsolicited TPs". Yes, you may be right that someone complained despite me not being aware of anyone I chatted with being unhappy with the situation. I suppose someone who said "no, not interested" may have reported the exchange despite my gallant behaviour of respecting that no means no.

So,,, You didn't just IM one girl then...

The story becomes a little more clear. You went to a "popular noob hangout" to "share your wisdom", which apparently consisted of you IM'ing assorted female avis with "Hi babe you're hot, wanna come to Adult PoseBall Orgy Sim with me?", and when they say no, you'd ask another, and another and another...

 

Ban explained!

/thread
 

[Phil Deakins]

I have to agree that it now sounds like you were on a fishing expedition for a female in someone else's pond. It sounds like you approached muliple females in IMs, each of whom said no, until you found one who said yes, whereupon you whisked her off to an adult beach. Judging by your most recent posts, that's exactly what it sounds like now.

Here's a possible, perhaps even probable, scenario. You approach a number of females who are in someone's place. Each one declines and then one accepts. They were all in the same place and, no doubt, conversations were going on between them.

"Where did <insert name here> go?"

"Hang on, I'll ask her"

[short period of time elapses]

"Some guy IMed her to invite her to an adult beach, and she went. It's probably the same guy who asked me to go."

"Ha! He asked me too"

"And me"

"And me"

"He didn't ask me "

"He would have got round to you . I'd better tell <insert owner's name here> because he's been fishing for sex here and I really dislike that"

And so a ban was implemented - which sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[Perrie Juran]

2 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I have to agree that it now sounds like you were on a fishing expedition for a female in someone else's pond. It sounds like you approached muliple females in IMs, each of whom said no, until you found one who said yes, whereupon you whisked her off to an adult beach. Judging by your most recent posts, that's exactly what it sounds like now.

Here's a possible, perhaps even probable, scenario. You approach a number of females who are in someone's place. Each one declines and then one accepts. They were all in the same place and, no doubt, conversations were going on between them.

"Where did <insert name here> go?"

"Hang on, I'll ask her"

[short period of time elapses]

"Some guy IMed her to invite her to an adult beach, and she went. It's probably the same guy who asked me to go."

"Ha! He asked me too"

"And me"

"And me"

"He didn't ask me "

"He would have got round to you . I'd better tell <insert owner's name here> because he's been fishing for sex here and I really dislike that"

And so a ban was implemented - which sounds quite reasonable to me.

 

It's amazing how many men don't realize how much the women kvetch amongst themselves.  Just ask Maddy and Snugs.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Hmmm . . .

I'm not sure why I'm coming to his defence, given that he's completely ignored every post I've made here, but I don't actually see any real evidence in Reg's posts to suggest that he's been harassing women. Assuming that he's civilly backed away when those he's IMed have said "No" (and he says he has), then there's actually no particular harm in IMing multiple women . . . do you suppose women don't do the same at clubs? Really???

We don't have the chat logs, of course, but that's sort of the point: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . . . or, er, something like that.

There's this sort of game that gets played on this forum: someone will pop up with a complaint like this, and a forum regular (or regulars, more often) will begin to pick apart their story, looking for some slight evidence of hidden nefarious intent. Sometimes, maybe, that's justified, but as often as not it resembles a kind of mob swarming.

'Twas ever thus. I remember the very first time I ever posted in the SL "Residents Answers" board, in support of a friend who had made a pro-feminist post. Almost immediately, the assembled crowds decided that I was clearly a sock-puppet. Within an hour or so, I was also clearly part of an SL-wide underground conspiracy to rob men of their genital attachments, and ban dancing, hug animations, and cute puppy videos from the grid. (Well, ok, they were correct about one out of three. I hate cute puppy videos.)

Then again . . . Reg has been studiously ignoring everything I said here, so you're probably all correct, and he's actually the first of a new wave of Woodbury University griefers.

Anyone have a spare pitchfork I can borrow?

Edited March 24, 2017 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Perrie Juran said:

It's amazing how many men don't realize how much the women kvetch amongst themselves.  Just ask Maddy and Snugs.

Oh, you have no idea. Our underground network makes the Dark Web look like open chat in Club Penguin.

And you should just see what our database has to say about you . . .

(Bwahahahahah!!!!)

[Perrie Juran]

21 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Oh, you have no idea. Our underground network makes the Dark Web look like open chat in Club Penguin.

And you should just see what our database has to say about you . . .

(Bwahahahahah!!!!)

You should see what the Martian Web looks like.

HeHeHeHeHeHeHeh!!!!!!!

[Marigold Devin]

On 23/03/2017 at 5:29 PM, Reg Eberhardt said:

Hi Marigold, thanks for the info I shall check it out.

In answer to had Zindra appeared last time I was using SL?  I am not sure. But, I do remember that at some point out of the blue I was told I had to provide age verification, which I think was connected with Linden tightening up in response to criticism over adult content.

I had the same (disappointing) experience as you upon discovering that my old haunts no longer existed

Someone also told me recently that my avi and clothes were rubbish and out of date. Which got me looking at the whole mesh thing (that def did not exist when I was last there). But, no way I could change my avi - he is like an old friend!!

That person is a shallow a-hole (but there are a lot of them about!)

You'll change your avatar if and when its right for you.

This avatar of mine has changed a fair bit since Day One, but at the moment I feel I have got it to look how I want it to look. For now. 

Sorry I didn't respond to your post earlier, but I have been away from computer for 24 hours or so.  

[Madelaine McMasters]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Within an hour or so, I was also clearly part of an SL-wide underground conspiracy to rob men of their genital attachments, and ban dancing, hug animations, and cute puppy videos from the grid. (Well, ok, they were correct about one out of three. I hate cute puppy videos.)

It took me considerably more than an hour, but I eventually became High Priestess of an underground conspiracy. Once you taste success via the efforts of others, it's hard to let them put down the cup.

[Klytyna]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Hmmm . . .

I'm not sure why I'm coming to his defence, given that he's completely ignored every post I've made here, but I don't actually see any real evidence in Reg's posts to suggest that he's been harassing women. Assuming that he's civilly backed away when those he's IMed have said "No" (and he says he has), then there's actually no particular harm in IMing multiple women . . . do you suppose women don't do the same at clubs? Really???

Anyone have a spare pitchfork I can borrow?

 

There's this amazing thing SL has, you might not have heard of it, it's called "local chat", and here's how you use it...

"Hi girls anyone want to go to Club Shag for some hot adult poseball with me?"

"No thanks we're mostly fine here"

 

Clever isn't it, but no, this guy is a Class-2 Loiterer, the Class-2 Loiterer goes to some populated place, stands there, and sends an IM to every female avi that appears, until he finds one who doesn't tell him to commit suicide by shoving an un-lubricated chainsaw up his own rectum.

In case you wondered, a Class-1 Loiterer simply stands there, utterly convinced that the macho manliness of his "House of Orange Spraytan Ghetto Bodybuilders" avi will compel "hot chicks" to IM him.

Does the action of a Class-2 cause"Harm" no, is it really annoying after you've had an average of 1 idiot every 10 mins all damn day, hell yes. It's a form of harassment, hetro females probably find it slightly less annoying than us non hetro types, but it's still harassment, and at a 'noob friendly' sim, fishing amongst 1 day olds for 'poseball' partners is almost certainly not welcome.

 

Edited March 24, 2017 by Klytyna

[Madelaine McMasters]

55 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

tell him to commit suicide by shoving an un-lubricated chainsaw up his own rectum.

Are you suggesting that lubrication would make a difference. Where's your evidence?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Klytyna, I too -- and probably every other woman who's ever been in SL -- has been annoyed by unwanted invitations to revel in virtual carnal delights. And yes, there is a part of me that gets at least mildly annoyed by men who clearly are only interested in sex, and for whom chit-chat is merely a necessary but probably slightly boring form of foreplay. But, in and of themselves, these things are not "harassment." Annoyances, like the bible thumpers or salesmen who turn up at your door, yes. But, unless their behavior crosses a reasonably clear line recognized, I think, by most people, they are still acting within the conventional bounds of civil engagement. So long as they respect the right of the women they are approaching to say "no" (which, to repeat, Reg says he did), that should be the end of the matter.

Our apparently differing attitudes towards day-to-day annoyances aside, however, the key point is that your admittedly engaging portrait of how Reg conducted himself is constituted of about 90% speculative fiction, tacked up precariously with a few sketchy details provided by the OP himself. You've generated an elaborate and unnecessarily damning little narrative here about what went down based upon the slenderest threads of actual information.

And I don't really get why. What does it cost you to take him at his word, that he was civil and polite? And what do you gain by publicly castigating him for putative behaviors that you can't possibly know him to have been guilty of? What does any of this achieve? Why say any of this?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Are you suggesting that lubrication would make a difference. Where's your evidence?

Possibly it makes a difference in the US with regard to how much of the damage is covered by health care?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

It took me considerably more than an hour, but I eventually became High Priestess of an underground conspiracy. Once you taste success via the efforts of others, it's hard to let them put down the cup.

Well, there's the difference between us, Maddy. You actually are an Evil Genius.

Whereas I . . . I am a mere waif, a hapless ingénue, tossed hither and thither upon the waves of fortune.

/me flutters her eyelashes fetchingly

[Madelaine McMasters]

6 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Klytyna, I too -- and probably every other woman who's ever been in SL -- has been annoyed by unwanted invitations to revel in virtual carnal delights.

The very (worryingly?) few times that's happened to me, it's been more amusing than annoying. SL affords tools for addressing unwelcome behavior I can only dream of in RL. Using them can be a blast. When I hear an "every 10 minutes all day" claim I wonder how that happens.

And maybe that's why neither of us carries a chip on our shoulder. Giving the benefit of the doubt usually works pretty well. Even if there is room for a little doubt here, men don't own all the enthusiastic awkwardness.  I suspect you and I have proved that... and still have potential.

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Madelaine McMasters

[Treasure Ballinger]

1 minute ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The very (worryingly?) few times that's happened to me, it's been more amusing than annoying. SL affords tools for addressing unwelcome behavior I can only dream of in RL. Using them can be a blast. When I hear an "every 10 minutes all day" claim and I wonder how that happens.

And maybe that's why neither of us carries a chip on our shoulder. Giving the benefit of the doubt usually works pretty well. Even if there is room for a little doubt here, men don't own all the enthusiastic awkwardness.  I suspect you and I have proved that... and still have potential.

 

Yeah!  Like when you get bored dealing with it, you click that 'outfit' and morph into your giant dragon, breathe some fire, and fly away!  Waving and saying.... 'bye, boy.'.   (it's SL...) Seeing the avatar of your dreams morph into a green flying creature will take it down some, every time..... works for me.  

[Perrie Juran]

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Klytyna, I too -- and probably every other woman who's ever been in SL -- has been annoyed by unwanted invitations to revel in virtual carnal delights. And yes, there is a part of me that gets at least mildly annoyed by men who clearly are only interested in sex, and for whom chit-chat is merely a necessary but probably slightly boring form of foreplay. But, in and of themselves, these things are not "harassment." Annoyances, like the bible thumpers or salesmen who turn up at your door, yes. But, unless their behavior crosses a reasonably clear line recognized, I think, by most people, they are still acting within the conventional bounds of civil engagement. So long as they respect the right of the women they are approaching to say "no" (which, to repeat, Reg says he did), that should be the end of the matter.

Our apparently differing attitudes towards day-to-day annoyances aside, however, the key point is that your admittedly engaging portrait of how Reg conducted himself is constituted of about 90% speculative fiction, tacked up precariously with a few sketchy details provided by the OP himself. You've generated an elaborate and unnecessarily damning little narrative here about what went down based upon the slenderest threads of actual information.

And I don't really get why. What does it cost you to take him at his word, that he was civil and polite? And what do you gain by publicly castigating him for putative behaviors that you can't possibly know him to have been guilty of? What does any of this achieve? Why say any of this?

 

Sometimes I feel like it's a return to Puritanism.  Both men and women getting condemned for simply wanting to get laid.  I do understand that at times either of the sexes can be obnoxious about it.  I don't condone that.  And I can empathize that all the constant requests can get tiresome.  But treating me like some low life because occasionally I get horney, that I don't buy either.

[Snugs McMasters]

3 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, there's the difference between us, Maddy. You actually are an Evil Genius.

Whereas I . . . I am a mere waif, a hapless ingénue, tossed hither and thither upon the waves of fortune.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm glad I'm Maddy's conscience and not yours.

[LaskyaClaren]

59 minutes ago, Snugs McMasters said:

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm glad I'm Maddy's conscience and not yours.

Seriously, I couldn't even begin to tell you.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

The very (worryingly?) few times that's happened to me, it's been more amusing than annoying. SL affords tools for addressing unwelcome behavior I can only dream of in RL. Using them can be a blast. When I hear an "every 10 minutes all day" claim and I wonder how that happens.

And maybe that's why neither of us carries a chip on our shoulder. Giving the benefit of the doubt usually works pretty well. Even if there is room for a little doubt here, men don't own all the enthusiastic awkwardness.  I suspect you and I have proved that... and still have potential.

 

Well, it was never exactly a constant problem for me either.

The number of occasions when the whiny solicitations for "the sekksies" have got out of hand and truly annoying, or verging on harassment, have been pretty few.

And in each case, I stopped when asked politely to do so.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Perrie Juran said:

Sometimes I feel like it's a return to Puritanism.  Both men and women getting condemned for simply wanting to get laid.  I do understand that at times either of the sexes can be obnoxious about it.  I don't condone that.  And I can empathize that all the constant requests can get tiresome.  But treating me like some low life because occasionally I get horney, that I don't buy either.

Well, it's funny. In some ways, or in some contexts, we've never been more "free," sexually speaking, than we are now. In most urban and well-educated environments, anyway, it's now pretty acceptable for a woman to be interested in just plain ol' sex. And I really think that's important, because I think that women have driven the sexual revolution of the past 50 years, for a variety of reasons. It was, after all, the widespread introduction of female contraception in the 60s that really got the ball rolling (so to speak) on this. That liberated women not merely to have sex -- i.e., be the newly-attainable object of male sexual desire -- but to actually seek it out.

At the same time, of course, there remain corners and contexts where "***** shaming" and old-fashioned priggishness remain. And, more importantly, the relationship between sexual desire, and how we articulate that, has become much more complicated because the old rules regarding dating, courting, and the other rituals that used to establish the foundation for sex, have kind of gone out the window. And then there's the issue of consent, which, because it can no longer merely be "assumed," is now another complicating factor.

And finally, there is context. Klytyna suggests just walking into a room and publicly announcing that you're looking for a sexual partner. In some contexts (in both SL and RL), that would be fine. In others, it would be a disaster. Not being entirely clear on those differences, and the different social conventions that adhere to each, means catastrophic failure.

So I think that what you are detecting is really the confusion that arises during transitions from one set of social conventions to another. We're still working out how to talk about this, really.

[Klytyna]

9 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Klytyna, I too -- and probably every other woman who's ever been in SL -- has been annoyed by unwanted invitations to revel in virtual carnal delights. And yes, there is a part of me that gets at least mildly annoyed by men who clearly are only interested in sex, and for whom chit-chat is merely a necessary but probably slightly boring form of foreplay. But, in and of themselves, these things are not "harassment." Annoyances, like the bible thumpers or salesmen who turn up at your door, yes. But, unless their behavior crosses a reasonably clear line recognized, I think, by most people, they are still acting within the conventional bounds of civil engagement. So long as they respect the right of the women they are approaching to say "no" (which, to repeat, Reg says he did), that should be the end of the matter.

Our apparently differing attitudes towards day-to-day annoyances aside, however, the key point is that your admittedly engaging portrait of how Reg conducted himself is constituted of about 90% speculative fiction, tacked up precariously with a few sketchy details provided by the OP himself. You've generated an elaborate and unnecessarily damning little narrative here about what went down based upon the slenderest threads of actual information.

And I don't really get why. What does it cost you to take him at his word, that he was civil and polite? And what do you gain by publicly castigating him for putative behaviors that you can't possibly know him to have been guilty of? What does any of this achieve? Why say any of this?

I took him exatly at his word, he openly admitted going to a popular noob welcome sim, he openly admitted that he im'd more than one girl with offers of a trip so some exotic a rated destination for whatever purpose, he openly admitted that several said no,

What I didn't choose to believe was "the sim owner monitors tp requests" because thats horse manure, nor did i believe the stuff about how the girl who said yes was obviously some alt of the sim owner and part of a honey trap, especially as 'honey traps' are designed to get something out of the victim, where as here theres no demand for blackmail money etc.

The evidfence is n the posts... Class -2 Loiterer, caught fishing for noobs at a public pg rated hangout by the management and banned for being suspected as a predator... theres the explanation right there, nothing rude about it just the facxts the poster admitted to in their posts... plain logic.

As for your points about bible thumpers for example...

Personally I consider them serious criminals deserving of jail time...

Spiritual Kidnapping: Our invisible friend has your dead relatives, if you want to see them again do as we say...

Demanding Money with Menaces: Give me 10% of your earnings or my invisible friend will hurt you

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Klytyna

[Lindal Kidd]

We can debate all day about whether Reg is a predator who lures innocent young girls to nude beaches, or whether the sim owner is a priggish sort who bans people for trivial reasons or for personal ones.  That's loads of innocent fun for everyone.

But the bottom line is Second Life's Golden Rule:  He Who Owns the Land, Makes the Rules.  A landowner can ban anyone she pleases, at any time, for any reason or even for no reason at all.  

We can even debate whether that's a good rule or not.  Me, I think it is...but then, I am a landowner!

[Rhonda Huntress]

/me frowns.

Maybe I need to work on my avatar.  I'm just not getting the flood of requests that others seem to be getting.

[Phil Deakins]

16 minutes ago, Rhonda Huntress said:

/me frowns.

Maybe I need to work on my avatar.  I'm just not getting the flood of requests that others seem to be getting.

Maybe it's because you're not hanging out at the right sort of places, Rhonda - my place, for instance