Why Do The Lindens Tolerate This Kind of Griefing?

[Prokofy Neva]

Since I'm finding that I have to repeat myself and valid points aren't being comprehended, I'm done with this conversation. You're all welcome to
"talk among yourselves" and also contact me inworld with any thoughts or comment on my blog at 3DBlogger.typepad.com/second_thoughts

 

[Luna Bliss]

"As for the rest of this "catch flies with honey," the real question here is why anyone would accept the word of a day-old alt making a claim not backed up by anything at all, versus the protest of a 12-year-old avatar. Again, this is common sense most people accept. "

Prokofy,

'Trust' in another person is a complicated issue, and how we determine trust in RL is not always the same in virtual worlds. Those differences are interesting to ponder, but perhaps best left to all those academics coming into forums and asking us annoying questions to complete their dissertations on virtual world dynamics.

I would certainly trust someone more readily that had an abundance of information in their profile (and this occurs more often in those who are 'old'). Not that I would believe everything written -- there are simply more clues to develop possible trust from.

There are numerous psychological studies on trust, and it seems familiarity is one aspect that enables trust to develop. And familiarity needs 'time'. Our profiles indicate that time has passed via our join date, and some can make this leap to more 'familiarity' via this indication of stated time. But for most people in order to develop trust one has to have 'experienced' time vs a simple statement of time on a profile.
So I agree with what you are calling 'common sense' for RL, but not for virtual worlds.

Of course if we want to go to the trouble and have the time we can check out the persons profile, make a verification of stated facts. But this person was needing to make fairly quick decisions on whether to trust you or not. Plus, she was being gaslighted...a form of abuse that makes it difficult to sort out facts -- she was caught in a kind of trap as she tried to determine who to believe, going back and forth between 2 people stating different realities while knowing one person was feeding her lies. We don't know to what lengths your griefer was going to in order to alter the perceptions of your potential renter. It was probably easier for her to believe you were doing something sort of benevolent ("entertaining" yourself and others with silly games) vs believe that she was being 'played' or manipulated by some creepy person whose intent was to harm others.

So anyway, all this is to say that I think your expectations of this avatar (to trust you over the griefer) were unreasonable given the circumstance. However, I'm not blaming you, and if I encountered the situation I very well could have told the avatar she lacked 'sophistication' in less kind ways. After all, here you are having to experience people griefing you for years, and these griefers are trying to make it appear that YOU are some sort of griefer, or a racist. Very crazymaking.

[Arkanus Andel]

20 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said:

I think this sort of comment self-discredits and I've answered it multiple times.

So one last time before moving on:

Do you deny that the Lindens remove objects from the asset server for various reasons including copybotting or griefing, Arkanus?

Yes or no.

 

First, there is nothing to discredit: I have made factual observations concerning this thread and your responses.

Second: There is no binary answer to be given for your question and the simple fact that you have solicited one shows your attempt to have your viewpoint validated where no such validation exists.

The Lindens have removed countless entries from the asset database only to have those objects reappear under new names and often created by wholly different accounts. This is why the same Marketplace entries and in world ripped content keep coming back.

It is why the items used to grief you will continue to return as well.

You simply refuse to accept this and seem to labor under this mistaken notion that once an item has been purged, there is no way for someone else to create an identical object.

The reality is that there most certainly is and the varied methods have been explained to you repeatedly.

Please feel free to keep to your track record within this thread where this response is concerned.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Arkanus Andel

[Innula Zenovka]

4 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

o when the Lindens want to, they get rid of objects from the asset servers AND people's inventories such that they can't rez out that infinite number. They do this with both copyrighted items that were illegally copied and griefer-type objects that crash sims, not just the script, but let's say an object on physics, etc. So it's is totally reasonable to suggest they do this with RL effigies with me

o There aren't infinite copies, only the POTENTIAL for the same. And as with many techie debates (one thinks of Snowden's false claims that the NSA spies on "everyone"), the issue is NOT POTENTIAL but ACTUAL. There are known caches at known locations. The Lindens can slow down griefers by deleting these as they do any griefer objects. Sure, there might be that one set still "out there" and the Lindens don't find it easy to do a global search (except when they do, i.e. to get rid of all the copies of copybotted items, especially of famous name brands that might sue them). But this, too is doable.

Your inability to acknowledge these two points may be a function of the binary approach, i.e. 100/0 instead of accepting that 87/100 is good enough.

I think @Theresa Tennyson's point, and certainly mine, is that scripts and objects may exist not only in people's inventories and in world but also as files on  people's computers and on websites from which they may be downloaded.   So if someone has access to these files, he doesn't need access to any sort of caches when he creates a disposable alt -- he can easily recreate the griefing objects and scripts using the files he has to hand on his computer, outside LL's control.

This does not, of course, mean that the Lindens should not remove griefing items from the inventory servers whenever they can.

However, it does mean that it's unsafe to take the fact these griefing objects and scripts keep on reappearing and conclude from it that this means the Lindens aren't removing these items from the inventory server whenever they become aware of them.    That's because the offending object may very well be a completely new one (as far as LL's servers are concerned), created only a few minutes ago by script or by .dae import.    You would not, after all, conclude from the fact that illegal drugs are widely available in your town or city that this must be because the police and customs don't bother to confiscate and destroy them whenever they can.

ETA  I have recently been passed inworld a copy of one of the griefing objects to which Prok refers, a "Prokofy Linden Bear"  comprising some 63-odd prims and sculpts.   As far as I can see, every single prim it contains was made by an avatar who is one week old today, so it can't have been created more than 7 days ago.   I very much doubt that the avatar made it from scratch and think it much more likely he created it either by importing it or by using a script.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Innula Zenovka

[Tari Landar]

3 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Evidently you're unable to realize that people fully understand your points, but they aren't relevant. You keep hammering on the idea that objects in SL have endless -- infinite -- ID numbers each time they are rezzed out. Um, I get that. It's like any infinite number situation. But that's not relevant to my request, which makes two points YOU fail to acknowledge:

 

As for the rest of this "catch flies with honey," the real question here is why anyone would accept the word of a day-old alt making a claim not backed up by anything at all, versus the protest of a 12-year-old avatar. Again, this is common sense most people accept.

 

You are confusing posters...where in the heck did I say ANY of that? 

This is what happens when people get over emotional about things..thoughts go haywire. 

The catch flies with honey thing has absolutely nothing at all to do with trusting an older versus a newer avatar, it has everything to do with how YOU are responding, period. That said, there are some older avatars I would trust before I'd trust a newer avatar, based on my own personal experiences. That does not mean I'd trust them *all* though, but again, that is just MY experience. The griefers I dealt with for three years were in varying ages, some from as early as 2004, while others were brand new(mostly alts, I am sure). So I learned my lesson real quick about age versus wisdom and whether or not one should be trusted or believed based on age alone.  I com at this from an angle others probably don't...having been in the position of the one being griefed, for years. You're still being nothing but rude as all get out, confusing me with other posters, not even reading anything I say at this point, but merely suggesting I have said things I haven't.

Biting the hand that helps you is a god way to ensure you never get help again. I can't say that enough. Whether you deserve to be griefed on this level or not(I don't think so, my opinion may be in the minority on that one) it is absolutely going to keep happening, without intervention from LL, if you keep acting, and reacting, this way to anyone that offers any kind of commentary. I wasn't even rude, nor did I even offer ANY suggestions. 

I'm the legally blind one here and even I can see you're no longer looking for actual assistance at this point. But, best of luck to you, I hope your griefers stop at some point and offer you some peace. 

 

[ChinRey]

7 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

Advice like "don't be controversial" or "don't criticize" aren't relevant as the TOS doesn't say "the TOS doesn't apply in cases where you have a critical blog".

What the TOS does say - among a lot of other things, is:

Quote

You are solely responsible for your interaction with other users of the Service, whether online or offline. We are not responsible or liable for the conduct or content of any user. We reserve the right, but not the obligation, to monitor or become involved in disputes between you and other users.

That is one answer to the question in the thread's title. Linden Lab has no obligation to do anything at all. Whether we like it or not, they reserve the right to wash their hands of cases like this.

The people who have participated in this discourse certainly had no obligation to get involved. Some of them (not all, I have to give you that) have tried to help you. Nobody had to and nobdoy had any personal interest in it themselves. Their only motivation was sheer goodwill. You rejected all suggestions and showed no gratitude. Well, it's your decision whether you want to listen to the advice or not and personally I didn't expect any gratitude so as far as I am concerned, that's ok. But if you choose not to accept any of the answers we can possibly give you, the only thing we are able to do is wish you the best of luck and hope you find a solution some day. You're out of reach and on your own.

Edited July 16, 2017 by ChinRey
Typos

[Klytyna]

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

I always suspected it, but now I'm pretty sure shes a communist.

Don't be ridiculous, communism is a moronic system of governance, as it ignores basic human nature. That's why communist revolutions always seem to end up with Comrade Accountant being more equal then Comrade potatoe farmer, and having a larger apartment, a nicer car, and more food coupons, or with some party member graduate student in a clean uniform telling a muddy peasant their water buffalo is too short, the bit of rope it's on is too long, and it's crapping in the paddy field in a counter-revolutionary way that will get it and the peasant shot by the Revolutionary guard.

I'm just a 'Realist'

But speaking of communism...

Let's talk about the insurance industry...

You pay an insurance premium based on the value of the property you wish to insure...

"From each according to their means..."

And when disaster strikes, and you make a claim your payout is proportional to the cost of replacing the lost or damaged property...

"To each according to their needs..."

 

Wait... Thats from the communist manifesto!

All insurance brokers are COMMIES!



 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Klytyna
Added official Red Peril warning ink

[Innula Zenovka]

24 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

You pay an insurance premium based on the value of the property you wish to insure...

"From each according to their means..."

To be strictly accurate, "From each according to their means" would mean the premium was based on your disposable income, not on a combination of  the value of the property you want to insure and the likelihood of the risk against which you want to insure it.

 

 

[Klytyna]

8 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

To be strictly accurate, "From each according to their means" would mean the premium was based on your disposable income, not on a combination of  the value of the property you want to insure and the likelihood of the risk against which you want to insure it.

 

 

True but...

More disposable income means more expensive stuff and higher insurance premiums.

And when it comes to the payouts...

"Well yes sir, you did insure your new car for $50,000 but, that was six mon tha ago, and you spent that six months driving the car around instead of keeping it sealed in plastic in a hermetically sealed off road parking vault, so your payout is only goingto be $35,000..."

Insurance brokers are not only COMMIES but dishonest profit seeking CAPITALIST COMMIES!  
 

[Love Zhaoying]

I find this thread wildly inappropriate, offensively dramatic, and way too long to catch up on. *popcorn*

[Love Zhaoying]

15 hours ago, Klytyna said:

Let's talk about the insurance industry...

*is confused by topic change and falls over, drooling*

[Klytyna]

19 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

*is confused by topic change and falls over, drooling*

Remember, comrade,  to claim for facial injuries on your peoples revolutionary personal forum-accident insurance...
 

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Klytyna said:

23 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

*is confused by topic change and falls over, drooling*

Remember, comrade,  to claim for facial injuries on your peoples revolutionary personal forum-accident insurance...

*Is even more confused by conflation of insurance and Communism, and passes out*

[Derek Torvalar]

Welcome Back.

Your Welcome, 

[LittleMe Jewell]

Ummmm, now I'm confused. 

[Tari Landar]

[ChinRey]

8 hours ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

Ummmm, now I'm confused.

Assuming it's Derek's post that confuses you, this thread was locked and "scheduled for removal" yesterday. I suppose that meant the moderators needed a timeout to read through this mess before making a final decision. Since it's back now, the final decision must have been that it was ok after all.

Anyway, I had a chat with Prokofy inworld yesterday and that was far more constructive than this discussion and also cleared up a few misunderstandings.

There's one thing that still worries me though, something that was mentioned in the original post that got completely lost in the mayhem:

On 11.7.2017 at 5:01 AM, Prokofy Neva said:

Furthermore, griefers are often on rogue viewers where they can override group permissions and land settings.

For those who thought that was just nonsense, it is actually possible for a viewer to block autoreturn. Or at least it was. It was a Linden who once told me about it and I would have thought a security hole like that would have been something they looked at the moment they became aware of it. Is there anybody who can see if they can reproduce it and post a JIRA if neccessary? Paging @Whirly Fizzle.

It is also possible to override object entry settings but as far as I know, that is an occasional server glitch and not something that can be triggered by any kind of viewer. But mnaybe I'm wrong there.

Edited July 18, 2017 by ChinRey

[Phil Deakins]

10 hours ago, ChinRey said:

this thread was locked and "scheduled for removal" yesterday. I suppose that meant the moderators needed a timeout to read through this mess before making a final decision. Since it's back now, the final decision must have been that it was ok after all.

The thread was always ok after Dakota first posted in it, ChinRey, and before it. The thread is back now, as you noted, but not all of it came back. I know of one post that's missing - one of mine. Maybe more are missing. There was nothing wrong, or against the guidelines, with any of the content of my missing post. The top part pointed out that Prok had subtly changed what she initially wrote. Then I wrote a paragraph stating that I actually do think she deserves at least some of the 'attention' she gets, followed by a paragraph stating why I have such a harsh view. There was no name-calling, no flaming, no nothing that infringed any of the guidelines, just statements of facts, but it's been removed without any indication of the reason. Other posts may also have been removed.

My opinion is that there was nothing in any of the posts that merited either the lock or removal. It was all the same sort of mild stuff. There weren't even any slightly heated arguments. There were gentle waves but no rough seas. The moderators ought to give us an explanation, so that we know what not to write in future. Is that too much to ask?

Before Dakota's first post, there was one little bit that she pointed out - Prok accusing someone of being a 'concern troll'. She used the word 'troll'. The target was fine with it - she quite liked it actually. The accusation didn't go anywhere, and accusations of being a troll are commonplace here, so it was no big deal. They don't develope into full-on arguments, and it didn't here. Also, the 'concern troll' bit wasn't even removed.

Frankly, this whole thing was weird. The result is that none of us know what might be hit on next. It's like walking on thin ice now. I did get a '0 point' warning (whatever that is) from Dakota because of the thread about the lock that I started. That was fair enough because it's against the guidelines to criticise moderations, or even discuss moderations (that's a silly guideline in itself). But exactly what was wrong in this thread to cause the moderation, is beyond my understanding. Maybe I'll get another warning now for writing this. Maybe even a '1 point' one lol.

Having said all that, I admit that I didn't read all of Prok's long posts because they were much too long. So I might have missed some stuff.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[ChinRey]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Frankly, this whole thing was weird. The result is that none of us know what might be hit on next. It's like walking on thin ice now.

Yes, I do think a bit of clarification could be helpful. The guidelines are rather general and it would be nice to know a bit more about how they are implemented.

 

7 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I did get a '0 point' warning (whatever that is)

You mean you haven't got one of those before now?

Welcome to the club!

[Phil Deakins]

I've had the odd warning, and even a suspension (maybe 2 - I forget), but what's a 0 point warning. Incidently, the 0 points are permanent - they'll never expire. I'm stuck with those points for life now

Heh. I just saw that there are three 0 points warnings in my profile. Two from years ago and the new one. When I'd seen the Warnings box before, with the 0s in it, I'd thought that all the 0s meant no warnings of any kind lol.

I'm guessing now, but I'd guess that a moderator can allocate points to a warning and, when the points reach a certain total, a suspension or ban is automaic. That's just a guess though.

 

[Klytyna]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

I've had the odd warning, and even a suspension (maybe 2 - I forget), but what's a 0 point warning. Incidently, the 0 points are permanent - they'll never expire. I'm stuck with those points for life now

Heh. I just saw that there are three 0 points warnings in my profile. Two from years ago and the new one. When I'd seen the Warnings box before, with the 0s in it, I'd thought that all the 0s meant no warnings of any kind lol.

I'm guessing now, but I'd guess that a moderator can allocate points to a warning and, when the points reach a certain total, a suspension or ban is automaic. That's just a guess though.

 

Think of a zero point perma-warning as a badge of honor, it shows you have justifiably annoyed the right kind of people enough for them to get you warned, but you haven't done something they could realistically punish you for without creating bad pr...
 

[ChinRey]

2 minutes ago, Klytyna said:

Think of a zero point perma-warning as a badge of honor, it shows you have justifiably annoyed the right kind of people enough for them to get you warned, but you haven't done something they could realistically punish you for without creating bad pr...
 

I love that answer and I'll wear my badge with pride.

But seriously, I think it's just automatic. When a thread is removed, the system registers this as a warning to the OP even if the cause of the removal doesn't qualify for any warning points. For all I know, the moderators may not even be aware of this.

[Phil Deakins]

3 hours ago, ChinRey said:

I love that answer and I'll wear my badge with pride.

Me too

 

3 hours ago, ChinRey said:

But seriously, I think it's just automatic. When a thread is removed, the system registers this as a warning to the OP even if the cause of the removal doesn't qualify for any warning points. For all I know, the moderators may not even be aware of this.

I don't think it's automatic. The warning I received was done by Dakota Linden. If it were just that, then the name of the person who removed the thread could be autmotically (programmatically) put on the warning, but it's not just that. I have reason to think that the content of the warning email varies quite sigificantly, although that could be automated too. I prefer to believe that Dakota specifically sent, or generated, the warning to me.

ETA: See my Title now

Edited July 18, 2017 by Phil Deakins

[ChinRey]

21 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

I don't think it's automatic.

Well, I don't know. One of the moderators may be willing to tell but it's not that important really. With no warning points given there won't be any actual consequences and unless you choose to mention it yourself in a post or in your rank title or something like that, nobody else will ever know.

ETA:

21 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

ETA: See my Title now

I already had.

Edited July 18, 2017 by ChinRey

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 hours ago, ChinRey said:

Assuming it's Derek's post that confuses you, this thread was locked and "scheduled for removal" yesterday. I suppose that meant the moderators needed a timeout to read through this mess before making a final decision. Since it's back now, the final decision must have been that it was ok after all.

I was confused when it suddenly showed back up - I didn't expect the reversal on the lock / removal decision.