Jump to content
RuchiVee

Sex Offenders on SL

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Orwar said:

    My name is Bond... James Bond. Pleased to meet you.

Hi James, I am Pvssy Galore.

Edited by Talligurl
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

OP,  I want you to google your real life name and go through the first 10 pages, look for other people who share it. Would you enjoy it if one of them was listed publically as a sex offender? Imagine all those Facebook hate messages you get as someone sees your real name, sees a barbaric sex-offender list with the same name (different person obviously) and puts 2 and 2 together to get 9?

 

Not my name, but, my stepfather has(had, since he's now deceased) the same name, and age, race, even general location(one town over) etc...as someone on the SOR. We learned to deal with the issues surrounding that when it became a problem. Neither he, nor anyone in our family, finds the practice of making the SOR public to be barbaric, in the least. Was it a nuisance, did it cause him some problems, did it affect our family? Yep. But what this other guy's victims went through was far, far worse. There likely would have been less of them had it been made MORE public earlier on. My stepfather felt no sympathy for himself, or the issues this caused him, he did, and we continue, however, to feel sympathy for the victims. It may not be a popular opinion, but it is ours. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

Vigilantism is never correct.

I understand you believe a public SOR is vigilantism. I call it, preventative measures. 

Perhaps if folks avoided committing crimes that would get them on the SOR in the first place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Crimes were committed, most of them pretty damn heinous in my eyes, and the folks on the SOR haven't room to complain when they're held accountable for it. I don't find a single thing wrong with others doing what they can to avoid those types of characters.  The town I currently live in has quite a few people on the SOR (like many towns in the US, really, we're not alone). Parents armed with this information were able to get bus stops moved from directly in front of the houses where those on the SOR live. Despite rules and regulations about how far these folks must be from certain buildings(like schools and daycares) there were no rules about places where children MUST congregate, like bus stops. I call that a win for the children, not vigilantism. Some of these stops only had a couple children at them, at any given time (and the pickup/dropoff times are extremely odd here, so that doesn't help any). The SOR helps protect many people, not just children. It keeps some folks on it honest too-why they need it, I don't know, but, it works.

Folks that use the names on the SOR to do heinous things themselves (ie, like going after people in some manner that are on the SOR, physically, verbally, textually online, whatever have you) are committing their own sets of crimes. I don't condone that, in the least, any more than I condone the people that threw things at our house, belittled our family, called my stepfather unspeakable things, and were general nuisances all of their own. 

That doesn't change my opinion that the SOR is not barbaric, to me. It may still remain so to you, and I respect that opinion, I just don't share it. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

You're James Bond? We're cousins! I'm Brooke Bond, but you can call me Tea :)

I'm Matrimonial Bond!  We should have a family reunion.  I'll invite all my relatives, Savings, Bearer, Epoxy, and Molecular!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lindal Kidd said:

I'm Matrimonial Bond!  We should have a family reunion.  I'll invite all my relatives, Savings, Bearer, Epoxy, and Molecular!

a nice familiy you are, leaving poor hydrogen freezing in front of the door...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tari Landar said:

I understand you believe a public SOR is vigilantism.

Yes, this very thread shows the danger. Some idiot sees a real name, scans a public database and sees a match (not caring about middle name, date of birth, document numbers) and starts a vendetta.

This thread should be an inkling to you of why public databases are wrong.

People are stupid. And the pitchfork crew, hyped up on a mistaken belief are downright dangerous.

 

SL doesn't need a "Megan's List", there are no if's or but's to this. The correct response is Mute the person you think is a sex maniac and report them to the Lab stating your beliefs. The Lab will investigate then, if there are grounds, perma-ban the pervert.

But we don't need to give stupid people the right to add any avatar name to a list as someone they think is a sex offender. Every single butt hurt break up would end up with one of the people listed as a sex offender.

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer your question: Second Life is, effectively, a game, as far as the U.S. Federal Law is concerned. Some people who are registered sex offenders are not allowed on the internet, but others are. In this case, he is likely permitted on the internet. If he would not be required to reveal such information on, per say, Steam, World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, etc, or social media, he isn't required to do so on Second Life.

Now, while I cannot judge how he was acting because of lack of information, take this as a blanket cover message:

Some people get wrongfully convicted and their life ruined. Not all people who are labeled "sex offender" had been labeled fairly. I am not saying all sex offenders should be trusted by default, what I am saying is, you may not get the full story. Some people are falsefully accused of rape, others may have been accused of pedophilia by disgruntled parents(EG: Teenagers dating, both under 18, one turns 18, parents file a report about this because they don't like who their child is dating), etc. While I heavily dislike those who actually raped or committed pedophilia as those affect the victim for a life time, it is important to look at the full picture than a single word just in case. In this example case, they may be using Second Life as a second chance at life as many others do whom may have disabilities or intense germaphobia(me). Labeling them or forcing them to label themselves would be wrong in this case, at least in my opinion.

It is important to note that some people even share names, I remember when my Mom found a article saying she died, but it was someone over on the other side of the United States. In which case, you may even have the wrong person. This is why taking matters into your own hands and labeling them out in public would be bad.

The best course of action here is to let Linden Lab be the judge. Send in a AR or support ticket about this. Ask if they can investigate it, Do not send names, they cannot use these, they will use supplied names by the user during signup. They will investigate the issue and decide the best course of action.

If he is found to be violating the law, Linden Lab will notify the authorities with the proper evidence. Notifying the authorities yourself will only cause problems for you, Linden Lab(as warrants may be issued and they have to dig through stuff) and the authorities as they try to gather evidence.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

People are stupid. And the pitchfork crew, hyped up on a mistaken belief are downright dangerous.

SL doesn't need a "Megan's List", there are no if's or but's to this. The correct response is Mute the person you think is a sex maniac and report them to the Lab stating your beliefs. The Lab will investigate then, if there are grounds, perma-ban the pervert.

But we don't need to give stupid people the right to add any avatar name to a list as someone they think is a sex offender. Every single butt hurt break up would end up with one of the people listed as a sex offender.

I do agree with you, on several points, the first sentenced I quote, absolutely-and that goes for all areas of life, sl and rl...people can be pretty damn stupid.

I also agree that sl doesn't need what we have in rl...for all kinds of reasons, including those you've listed.

I was arguing for the rl version of a public SOR< not an sl one. I probably should have been far more clear about that. The dangers that exist in rl, for which a public SOR can help(not fix, but help) do NOT exist in sl. So, yes, I agree wholeheartedly, we don't need an sl version of it, even remotely.  I can only imagine the stupid things people would say and or do, to try and get someone on such a thing. It would be, well, awful...primarily because of that very first sentence, people are stupid! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tari Landar said:

I was arguing for the rl version of a public SOR< not an sl one. I probably should have been far more clear about that. The dangers that exist in rl, for which a public SOR can help(not fix, but help) do NOT exist in sl. So, yes, I agree wholeheartedly, we don't need an sl version of it, even remotely.  I can only imagine the stupid things people would say and or do, to try and get someone on such a thing. It would be, well, awful...primarily because of that very first sentence, people are stupid! 

I think we agree about SL, and for RL I do respect your view as well.

Certain hard-right politicians have tried for such RL lists in Australia, each time they were voted down decidedly. While some here do cry out for them (parents of this boy, tragically murdered, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Daniel_Morcombe) and use all the common arguments, Aussies in the majority don't support these lists in RL. (not just one try at it either, it's a perrenial attempt that is always voted down) And yet, despite not having such a list, we are likely the *only* country in the world that will jail someone for looking at a drawing of Bart Simpson in a sexual situation (not joking, it's in our laws)

Perception of what's a good law and what's a barbaric law often comes down to nationality. The USA has vastly different views on Crime and Punishment to many other countries. Australia also has a few laws with make people scratch their heads and thing "oh, jeeze louise, seriously?"

Edited by Callum Meriman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Callum, I resent your calling me stupid, an idiot and other such names.  Your resorting to ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the lack of substantive value of your arguments.  Furthermore, you have been reported for violating the prohibition against "flaming."

As it turns out, the sex offender in question has also revealed to me photos of his face that clearly match those on the sex offender database. 

Please refrain from attacking me.  Why don't you invite the sex offender in question over for tea when you have daughters if you think laws like Megan's Laws are "barbaric"?  

Edited by RuchiVee
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RuchiVee said:

in fact, I found this, which, if anything, is somewhat antithetical:  "Sharing someone else’s personal information—of any kind—is not allowed. Disclosing another Resident’s real-world identity, contact information, or the text of interpersonal communications (chat, email, IM) is not allowed."

The problem with your dislike of the "antiethical" ToS is simple...

If Arrogant.Prodnose (rez date 2006) is allowed to "out" Paedo.McKreepy (rez date 2007) as a registered sex offender in Buttwipe, Wisconsin, because the ToS has been altered so divulging personal RL info is allowed, then that means Paedo.McKreepy is allowed to "out" Arrogant.Prodnose as an unemployed topless weasel juggler and  single mother, with a convictions for drunk driving, possession of cannabis, and being too stupid to breed, and that she lives at 666 Dumbass Street, Buttwipe, Wisconsin, and her phone number is 555-Ass-Wipe...

The ToS says divulging RL data about others is a no-no for a good reason...
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Callum, I resent your calling me stupid, an idiot and other such names

I was talking in general.

Quote

People are stupid. And the pitchfork crew, hyped up on a mistaken belief are downright dangerous.

If you see this is flaming, well you reported me. Fair enough the lab can decide and smack my knuckles if I did wrong. Reporting is the same response you should take with the person you want to slander as a sex offender.

Note this: I am saying people (in general) are stupid - you are wanting to say "XYZ.Resident is a sex offender"

41 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Why don't you invite the sex offender in question over for tea when you have daughters if you think laws like Megan's Laws are "barbaric"?  

Vigilantism is wrong.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Callum, I resent your calling me stupid, an idiot and other such names.

I just checked his posts in this thread again, to be sure, and he hasn't called YOU any of those things...

40 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Your resorting to ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the lack of substantive value of your arguments.

Further, you, like a great many people, seem to believe that pseudo-intellectual "5th Rate Cow College Debate Society" crap about Ad Hominem attacks ALWAYS being "false", when in fact empirical evidence from the real world shows clearly that Ad Hominems are often factual and logically true.

Some ideas ARE NOT worth considering BECAUSE they originated with morons. some decisions are BAD because they were made by idiots.

Supporting "Dumbocratic One-Moron-One-Pitchfork Blind Vigilantism", certainly falls into those categories.

43 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Please refrain from attacking me.

Nobody has yet, however I'm confident that you pulling the "You disagreed with my BS so I'll claim i was attacked and report you for flaming" card...

That's bound to make people respect you and your opinion, yes?

*rolls eyes*



 

  • Like 5

Share this post


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

Callum, I resent your calling me stupid, an idiot and other such names.  Your resorting to ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the lack of substantive value of your arguments.  Furthermore, you have been reported for violating the prohibition against "flaming."

As it turns out, the sex offender in question has also revealed to me photos of his face that clearly match those on the sex offender database. 

Please refrain from attacking me.  Why don't you invite the sex offender in question over for tea when you have daughters if you think laws like Megan's Laws are "barbaric"?  

Your reaction to the general post makes me think you are very easily offended.

I wonder, you got several replies suggesting filing a report to LL, or to take contact with rl authorities.

Since you know so much about the person, and is so sure, it should be easy to do the last, yes? What is keeping you back?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another quick point. Sex offenders are allowed a social life, and a sex life. The OP's pic appears to be of an adult, and not of a child, so, even if the guy really is a sex offender, there is nothing wrong with him trying to get some sex with an adult - SL or RL.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RuchiVee said:

As it turns out, the sex offender person in question has also revealed to me photos of his a face that clearly match those on the sex offender database.

Because that's all you can say. For instance, a well-known former forum troll listed their RL name as that of a searchable sex offender on their personal blog deliberately to trick people into making false accusations.

A general rule to bear in mind - people who have things to hide (like being a registered sex offender) operating in an an environment that allows them to hide (like an anonymous online community) logically will not go out of their way to reveal what they're trying to hide, like telling this information to a stranger. If someone does behave like this it is wise not to take that at face value.

Edited by Theresa Tennyson
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Klytyna said:

The problem with your dislike of the "antiethical" ToS is simple...

The problem with your "problem" is that I didn't say "antiethical."  I said antithetical.  Different word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

I was talking in general.

If you see this is flaming, well you reported me. Fair enough the lab can decide and smack my knuckles if I did wrong. Reporting is the same response you should take with the person you want to slander as a sex offender.

Note this: I am saying people (in general) are stupid - you are wanting to say "XYZ.Resident is a sex offender"

Vigilantism is wrong.

No...you used those terms after reading my post.  The implication is obvious.

There is nothing wrong with warning people about repeatedly convicted sex offenders who are doing, on SL, what they do in RL, especially when what they do is sexual predation.  What's wrong is keeping that information from the public.  In fact, *that's* what's barbaric...allowing a barbarian, like a twice-convicted sexual predator of underage women to lurk around and prey on a community in the shadows.  That's actually *actual* barbarism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Klytyna said:

I just checked his posts in this thread again, to be sure, and he hasn't called YOU any of those things...

Further, you, like a great many people, seem to believe that pseudo-intellectual "5th Rate Cow College Debate Society" crap about Ad Hominem attacks ALWAYS being "false", when in fact empirical evidence from the real world shows clearly that Ad Hominems are often factual and logically true.

Some ideas ARE NOT worth considering BECAUSE they originated with morons. some decisions are BAD because they were made by idiots.

Supporting "Dumbocratic One-Moron-One-Pitchfork Blind Vigilantism", certainly falls into those categories.

Nobody has yet, however I'm confident that you pulling the "You disagreed with my BS so I'll claim i was attacked and report you for flaming" card...

That's bound to make people respect you and your opinion, yes?

*rolls eyes*



 

Okay, Klytyna, again, I don't appreciate being called names like "Dumbocratic One-Moron" with a "Pitchfork" or a "Blind Vigilante" and having you roll your eyes in a silent insult.  And saying that I went to a "5th rate cow college," ie, calling me an ignorant rube.  Again, your ad hominem attacks, which demonstrate the lack of substance of your argument, are reported, and it's not because you disagree, but because you haven't disagreed civilly, but rather have done so in a way that violates the terms of service (and attempts to shame me into silence, which won't happen). 

Edited by RuchiVee
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruchi, it's time you took the good advice that's been given to you by more than one person. AR, block, move on.  If you're after what you see as justice in this forum you won't find it because no-one in this forum can give it to you.  You clearly want to name this person but if you stay here keeping your grievance hot and not taking sensible action, then you're wasting your time.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Marianne Little said:

Your reaction to the general post makes me think you are very easily offended.

I wonder, you got several replies suggesting filing a report to LL, or to take contact with rl authorities.

Since you know so much about the person, and is so sure, it should be easy to do the last, yes? What is keeping you back?

I'm not easily offended, I just don't take crap from people and prefer to have a civil discourse, rather than one that degenerates into name-calling.  That's not unreasonable.

And how do you know I haven't reported the sex offender?  My OP was yesterday.

Edited by RuchiVee
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

No...you used those terms after reading my post.  The implication is obvious.

Correction: the inference may obvious, albeit wrong, but not the implication.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...