Jump to content
Nyll Bergbahn

Indecent and grossly offensive behaviour in a Linden Premium Home Moderate sim

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, KanryDrago said:

The support system is overloaded because people don't spend a few minutes trying to resolve the issue with their neighbou

don't be so naive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, KanryDrago said:

What two or more consenting adults do is frankly none of your business. Who died and made you the morality police.

Yes they broke TOS, yes they shouldn't have. However what they wish to do between themselves you have no right to judge other than to ask they don't make you watch. I am sure there are many things you do that others would find morally repulsive just as much. When you set yourself up as the morality police you hand that power too others to. The only issue should be consent. Equating this to the lgbt issues is exactly correct

In the past

Homosexuality is wrong they should be legally prohibited from doing it even though they are both consenting adults

You now

X is wrong they should be prohibited from doing it

 

I see no difference, I do see a hypocrite

Now you're just being silly and so I'll leave it there. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ethan Paslong said:

don't be so naive

What is naive about it? if even half the time you resolve the issue with an im that is the number of support tickets halved in one stroke.

I have had problems with neighbours in the past and so far always found a simple im does the trick and removes the annoyance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nyll Bergbahn said:

Now you're just being silly and so I'll leave it there. 

You do no we live in a world where homosexuals still get hung legally?

Why is your morality better than theirs perhaps we should ask SL to start banning people for homosexual activity as well?

What makes your morality the point we say SL should draw the line?

Yes I agree you should not have it shoved in your face and they were wrong but when we start judging what consenting adults should and should not be allowed to do behind closed doors then we are on a slippery slope where there will be always someone who thinks what we like doing should be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KanryDrago said:

You do no we live in a world where homosexuals still get hung legally?

Why is your morality better than theirs perhaps we should ask SL to start banning people for homosexual activity as well?

who drags gays in this discussion? YOU  .. it is NOT about that.

1 minute ago, KanryDrago said:

not have it shoved in your face

and exactly that is why LL should act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ethan Paslong said:

who drags gays in this discussion? YOU  .. it is NOT about that.

and exactly that is why LL should act.

and all you had to do is ask him to set his parcel so no one could see in problem solved. If he refuses then you AR

The gay reference was pointing out merely that morality should not come into it as there is always someone who will be morally outraged by something and that is what the issue is all about not the fact you could see in but that you didn't like what you saw.

If it had been a couple having missionary sex on a bed then I am sure it would have been merely an im asking to set the parcel private and not an ar. It was the fact that it offended the op's morality that prompted the ar not the tos violation

Edited by KanryDrago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want to pick sides in this argument because I'm not entirely sure what the argument is about but I think I get the gist of it, so I just want to leave two points here:

  • Consent plays a role here, regardless of it being a bot or not, if they oppose to being on the pose ball, they'd get up(or log out and onto the official client provided it is RLV locked).
  • You cannot harm polygons, they are mathematical equations.

While I do heavily agree with the original issue of the Linden Home Covenant violation and not disabling "Avatars on other parcels can see and chat with avatars on this parcel" as it violates the "Closed doors" policy on moderate regions, what people do with their Second Life is their business provided it is within the Covenant of the estate they are on and Terms of Service, even if you disagree with it. The simple solution would be to

A) Not cam on their private property(Which, in this case, wasn't a easy thing not to do provided the eyesore black box and encroaching)

B) Block and ignore.

Unless they are violating the Terms of Service(In which case you should AR the resident), there is no reason to encroach on someone's enjoyment of Second Life.

 

As for "AR-bombing" I see being quoted, please do not do this. The support team reads and handles each abuse report that is sent into the report system. Adding duplicate abuse reports only clutters the report system and makes issues take longer to resolve.

Edited by Chaser Zaks
Wording
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AmandaKeen said:

I can understand that AR-bombing people without talking to them is less-awkward......but is it proper just because we can?


?

Depending on case: Yes!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chaser Zaks said:

Unless they are violating the Terms of Service(In which case you should AR the resident), there is no reason to encroach on someone's enjoyment of Second Life.

and exactly there is this whole situation about.

The subject of AR was violating the Terms of Use for the Linden Homes and maturity ratings

Edited by Ethan Paslong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ethan Paslong said:

and exactly there is this whole situation about.

The subject of AR was violating the Terms of Use for the Linden Homes and maturity ratings

Yes, that was a issue that should be reported to Linden Lab. What I am referring to is the "morals" part of the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not see what morals there are to discuss... Folks can do whatever they do as long as they do not harm anyone, the ARed subject clearly trolled others by displaying gruesome acts they were not suspecting, why else go the way to include a display window? So my suspicion is, they wanted to extend the torture of their bots (which derives no psychological reward) to the torture of unsuspecting onlookers - which is an AR-able offense in itself (disturbing the public peace) and pretty sick.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guys!

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.  So .... um .... yeah .... about that house ....  Sometimes the mouse pointer gets away from even the best of us, but things are once again back to normal in that region.

I wanted to just say a few things about this issue, but I will not be debating the content which was present.  The main issue here is that the original home was modified by adding textured prims and extended past the parcel boundaries.  This is a clear violation of the Covenant we have set up in the Linden Homes regions to keep the planned feel of those areas.  With so many Linden Homes regions it's really hard for us to police them all so we really rely on all y'all's keen eyes to point out those violations so we can then come out and take a look.  We really appreciate the reports we get so that we make sure to keep the regions nice for all Residents.  If you ever see particularly egregious violations,  a ping to me after filing the required Abuse Report would be appropriate (as Linden Homes fall under my watchful eye).  Just remember, like with Abuse Reports, I won't be able to discuss any findings or actions taken as a result of that contact but I will definitely look into it and coordinate with Kristin and her team on any actions that need to be taken.

Thanks to all of you keeping a watchful eye out there!

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll buck the trend :)

Simulations of roasting people and sawing them in half is totally and utterly wrong, regardless of whether or not it's legal in some country or other, pixel, or whatever. It makes no difference whether or not the 'victim' agrees to it. It's wrong, and that's that.

Sorry if that gets up anyone's nose, but, if something is wrong when done for real, it's wrong when simulated for pleasure. The idea that anyone can do anything as long as it's consented to is totally wrong, but that's the idea that's coming across from one or two people.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Keira Linden said:

The main issue here is that the original home was modified by adding textured prims and extended past the parcel boundaries.

Sorry to shortly abduct: But I never found a clear answer on this on the Covenant, and by seeing them offered even on MP I reason that extensions that stay in style (by using the supplied textures) and stay in parcel are OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except when they go beyond the parcel boundaries :)

I wonder how the rule would work if the little sub-plots that host the root prims were built on. It'd probably be ok.

Edited by Phil Deakins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

Sorry to shortly abduct: But I never found a clear answer on this on the Covenant, and by seeing them offered even on MP I reason that extensions that stay in style (by using the supplied textures) and stay in parcel are OK?

Hey!

Good question!  So, that would actually fall under this part of the Covenant:

* Linden Homes may not be removed, modified, exchanged, set or deeded to group, or transferred.

In particular, the 'modified' part.  I have seen some fabulous looking modifications that used almost the same textures we have on the home to add an enclosed patio or lounge area.  Sadly, it is a modification of the actual home so it technically isn't allowed.  I really hate asking people to take those down, but community rules kinda have to be upheld.  We don't want any slippery slopes in the Linden Homes.  (Yes, I did have to ask one person to take down a slip and slide type contraption that started at the top of their home and ended in their living room!  After I tried it a few times first though ... you know ... just to make sure it was in violation ? )

Let me know if you are thinking of something specific and I can take a look and let you know.

  • Haha 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my observations about Second Life since I landed here in 2005 is that;

(a) People often complain about people-related subjects (can’t find friends, can’t find a Group, can’t find a Partner, nobody talks in social settings) because they themselves are waiting for the other person to initiate contact or they view the burden of communication as “not THEIR problem”

(b) People frequently over-rely on the Lindens to intervene in situations where a polite word between Adults would obviate the need for mediation (simple misunderstandings fit this bill).

Without a doubt, there -are- people whose idea of Performace Art is reallly just a troll on everyone else around them, or who come to SL specifically to be a bigger butt-head than they could survive being in RL - and those are the folks ARs were intended for; the willfully obnoxious.

IMHO, as we are all human beings behind the keyboards, attempting the Polite Word before jumping to the AR is the best way to go. If it fails, the AR is ready to drop anyway. If it succeeds, it’s one less issue for overworked Admins to have to burn-out on ?

This particular issue seems to have been heinous enough for LL to use the nuclear option. This does encourage me; maybe this is the precursor to doing something about my stalker from multiple years past ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing people jumping into this thread, to raise their own issues, who didn't see the violations themselves.  I saw the scene and ARd it, the main reason being that the house owner deliberately left a doorway open to public view with a naked tortured female as bait plus a sign over the visible internal doorway showing a tortured bottom, presumably to make it clear what people were being invited in to see. I do think the content of that house was unacceptable for a General-rated region anyway but this was not a simple matter of a resident wanting to do something distasteful in private.  So please, latecomers to the thread, take your issues to another thread.  Thank you.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

 Simulations of ... sawing them in half is totally and utterly wrong,

Always?  :D

 

Edited by LittleMe Jewell
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AmandaKeen said:

IMHO, as we are all human beings behind the keyboards, attempting the Polite Word before jumping to the AR is the best way to go. If it fails, the AR is ready to drop anyway. If it succeeds, it’s one less issue for overworked Admins to have to burn-out on

This particular issue seems to have been heinous enough for LL to use the nuclear option. This does encourage me; maybe this is the precursor to doing something about my stalker from multiple years past ? 

The AR button might well be overused, but sometime there are clues in the profile or behaviour - or in this case a complex torture chamber and the names given to the accounts - which suggest that making oneself known is just asking for trouble, especially given how hard it can be to shake a committed stalker with multiple accounts.

Perhaps this isn't the best thread to argue for polite conversation first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

The AR button might well be overused, but sometime there are clues in the profile or behaviour - or in this case a complex torture chamber and the names given to the accounts - which suggest that making oneself known is just asking for trouble, especially given how hard it can be to shake a committed stalker with multiple accounts.

Perhaps this isn't the best thread to argue for polite conversation first.

The ar button is always overused it should be a last resort not a first. Just as law is always overused in rl and end up blowing neighbour disputes out of all proportions. Was the guy a troll quite probably and would he have refused again quite possibly after which I fully support the AR response. The stalker defense does not work here however as if the op was worried about the guy stalking her then she would not have posted it on the forum.

The sooner we as human beings learn to communicate and sort our own issues out rather than immediately going the nuclear higher authority route the sooner the world becomes a slightly nicer place. Giving someone the benefit of the doubt and a chance to rectify the problem is rarely a mistake in my experience, often they don't even realise they are causing an issue and are apologetic when it is pointed out.

As to the morality side, I jump on things like that as experience has taught me that its a "give them an inch they take a mile" situation. First they go for something that seems reasonable to a lot of people. Then they use it as precedent and shift the goal posts ever downwards. In my country we now have the situation where things it is legal to do in the privacy of your own home cannot be video'd for example because it breaks the porn laws. Even if its just of you and a partner and for private consumption. The reason I raised the issue in this thread is I strongly got the impression from the op that it was the subject of what was visible that was the reason for the ar rather than merely the fact it was adult content. Maybe I am wrong and the op would have AR'ed any adult content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bitsy Buccaneer said:

The AR button might well be overused, but sometime there are clues in the profile or behaviour - or in this case a complex torture chamber and the names given to the accounts - which suggest that making oneself known is just asking for trouble, especially given how hard it can be to shake a committed stalker with multiple accounts.

Perhaps this isn't the best thread to argue for polite conversation first.

I advocated for extending the respect of personal communication, not for toleration of the intolerable ?

“Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.”

-The Dalai Lama
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Keira Linden said:

I have seen some fabulous looking modifications that used almost the same textures we have on the home

Not almost.  The exact same textures.  They are available at the info hubs.

So ...
Why are the textures available if we cannot add a wall inside the house?
Or are we talking just the exterior?

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AmandaKeen said:

I advocated for extending the respect of personal communication, not for toleration of the intolerable ?

“Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible.”

-The Dalai Lama

It offends my morality should not make things intolerable and preclude personal communication to resolve the problem first. There are many things in life I find morally unacceptable however I would not seek to ban them. They are morally unacceptable to me and others would likely go "What the hell dude, why does that even bother you" If someone was doing something I felt morally unacceptable but legal  I still like to think that I would talk to them first and explain why it bothers me and why they shouldn't do it in public and I would hope they would listen. Only if they didnt would I then refer them to a higher authority for arbitration

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

I think I'll buck the trend :)

Simulations of roasting people and sawing them in half is totally and utterly wrong, regardless of whether or not it's legal in some country or other, pixel, or whatever. It makes no difference whether or not the 'victim' agrees to it. It's wrong, and that's that.

Sorry if that gets up anyone's nose, but, if something is wrong when done for real, it's wrong when simulated for pleasure. The idea that anyone can do anything as long as it's consented to is totally wrong, but that's the idea that's coming across from one or two people.

to derail the thread a little I should point out the following link

Fantasies about being cooked and eaten are common for both male and female

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201604/vorarephilia-and-being-eaten-sexual-pleasure

SL is a fantasy land whether you agree or not many come here to live out fantasies which they cannot live out in real life or would never live out in real life. It does not make them bad people, it does not mean they would ever do such a thing in real life. They are merely exploring a fantasy they have in a safe way and that should be none of anyones business except theirs

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...