Sex Offenders on SL

[Syo Emerald]

15 hours ago, RuchiVee said:

in fact, I found this, which, if anything, is somewhat antithetical:

Of course, its only antihetical, when you want to disclose someones private information...or should I say your assumption of someones private information. To value everyones right to privacy is not antiethical. Do you even have the smallest idea how important it is to have a rule against spreading someones private informations out in public?

On the flipside: What do you exactly hope to archieve?

You are on the internet. Everyone here can be "inappropiate" towards you, thats not tied to being a registered sex offender. And you don't meet people, that are from the US only. But the good side is: You are only on the internet. Mude, block, derender and move on, instead of getting all emotional and curling up in a victim position, because someone wrote something offensive in your IM box. You are, at no point, in harm. And you don't need to spread out anything publically to report a person that breaks the ToS or the law. Report it to LL, if its breaking the ToS and report it to the police, if you have evidence that there is a law being broken.

The damage of outing peoples identity are is a milion times higher, than the benefit you are seeing.

[Phil Deakins]

8 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

There is nothing wrong with warning people about repeatedly convicted sex offenders who are doing, on SL, what they do in RL

But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that he'd made suggestions to you, and you're an adult avatar.

[RuchiVee]

2 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

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.

Actually, Garnet, it is you who has thrice solicited me now to name this person in contravention of the forum guidelines.  It is I who have shown restraint in avoiding your and others' questions attempting to elicit this information.  So, please don't manufacture facts that support a false narrative.  The reality is quite the opposite of what you suggest.

[RuchiVee]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

Correction: the inference may obvious but not the implication.

Call it what you like.  I'm glad you agree with me that his insult is obvious.

[Garnet Psaltery]

Just now, RuchiVee said:

Actually, Garnet, it is you who has thrice solicited me now to name this person in contravention of the forum guidelines.  It is I who have shown restraint in avoiding your and others' questions attempting to elicit this information.  So, please don't manufacture facts that support a false narrative.  The reality is quite the opposite of what you suggest.

Absolutely I have not solicited you to name the person.  I asked you to talk seriously about the subject, that is to raise your concerns and let other people give you advice or possibly raise their own concerns. I DO NOT ENCOURAGE THE DISCLOSURE OF REAL LIFE INFORMATION.

[RuchiVee]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that he'd made suggestions to you, and you're an adult avatar.

I actually didn't go into detail about what he did in SL to me.  In the portion of my post you seelctive quoted out-of-context, I was talking about what he did in RL to others.

[RuchiVee]

Just now, Garnet Psaltery said:

Absolutely I have not solicited you to name the person.  I asked you to talk seriously about the subject, that is to raise your concerns and let other people give you advice or possibly raise their own concerns. I DO NOT ENCOURAGE THE DISCLOSURE OF REAL LIFE INFORMATION.

You most certainly have been repeatedly goading me into revealing information in contravention of the guidelines.  But I'm glad to hear you've changed your ways since yesterday. 

[Garnet Psaltery]

You're procrastinating, dragging this out to get - what?  Drama, attention?  You're lashing out at everyone, misrepresenting people because you can't get your own way. 

[RuchiVee]

4 minutes ago, Syo Emerald said:

Of course, its only antihetical, when you want to disclose someones private information...or should I say your assumption of someones private information. To value everyones right to privacy is not antiethical. Do you even have the smallest idea how important it is to have a rule against spreading someones private informations out in public?

On the flipside: What do you exactly hope to archieve?

You are on the internet. Everyone here can be "inappropiate" towards you, thats not tied to being a registered sex offender. And you don't meet people, that are from the US only. But the good side is: You are only on the internet. Mude, block, derender and move on, instead of getting all emotional and curling up in a victim position, because someone wrote something offensive in your IM box. You are, at no point, in harm. And you don't need to spread out anything publically to report a person that breaks the ToS or the law. Report it to LL, if its breaking the ToS and report it to the police, if you have evidence that there is a law being broken.

The damage of outing peoples identity are is a milion times higher, than the benefit you are seeing.

The right to privacy, like all rights, is a balancing test.

The right to disclosure of information that poses a danger to others can outweigh the privacy rights of the sex offender.

[Garnet Psaltery]

2 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

You most certainly have been repeatedly goading me into revealing information in contravention of the guidelines.  But I'm glad to hear you've changed your ways since yesterday. 

I have not done so.  I do not tell lies.  Your saying so does not make it true.  Are you a troll?

[RuchiVee]

3 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

You're procrastinating, dragging this out to get - what?  Drama, attention?  You're lashing out at everyone, misrepresenting people because you can't get your own way. 

No, I'm just responding to posts with counter-arguments.  Isn't that what you're doing?  I take that back...it's not what you're doing...you're calling me a drama queen and an attention seeker to attempt to undermine my arguments.  That won't work, and also constitutes insults/flaming.

EDIT:  And now you've called me a troll.  I'm not a troll.  If anything, calling me names is what's trolling, and now I'm reporting you for it.

I'm not "lashing out" and I'm not trying to "get" my "own way."  I asked a question in the OP.  Perhaps you have lost sight of what this thread is about because many of the participants are not conducting a civil discourse.

Edited September 14, 2018 by RuchiVee

[Phil Deakins]

5 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Actually, Garnet, it is you who has thrice solicited me now to name this person in contravention of the forum guidelines.  It is I who have shown restraint in avoiding your and others' questions attempting to elicit this information.  So, please don't manufacture facts that support a false narrative.  The reality is quite the opposite of what you suggest.

Unless people have been sending you private message, nobody has made any attempt to have you disclose the name.

[Phil Deakins]

4 hours ago, RuchiVee said:

Call it what you like.  I'm glad you agree with me that his insult is obvious.

Oh, I don't agree with you at all. He didn't say anything negative about you. Some sensitive people could think that, but he didn't write it.

Edited September 14, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Garnet Psaltery]

1 minute ago, RuchiVee said:

No, I'm just responding to posts with counter-arguments.  Isn't that what you're doing?  I take that back...it's not what you're doing...you're calling me a drama queen and an attention seeker to attempt to undermine my arguments.  That won't work, and also constitutes insults/flaming.

EDIT:  And now you've called me a troll.  I'm not a troll.  If anything, calling me names is what's trolling, and now I'm reporting you for it.

I asked you if you are a troll, I did not call you one.  You accusing me of encouraging someone to break the guidelines is laughable, so go ahead, report me.  It still won't get you your idea of justice.

[Phil Deakins]

6 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

I actually didn't go into detail about what he did in SL to me.  In the portion of my post you seelctive quoted out-of-context, I was talking about what he did in RL to others.

I don't even have to re-read your op because I remember what you wrote - words to the effect him making unwelcome or disturbing suggestions to you. That's what I referred to.

[RuchiVee]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Oh, I don't agree with you at all. He didn't say anything negative about you. Some sensitive people could think that, be he didn't write it.

See...again...you're name calling, by saying I'm being overly sensitive.  He did resort to name calling that rises to the level of flaming, and he's been reported for it.  Whether you agree or not doesn't change that.

[Garnet Psaltery]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Unless people have been sending you private message, nobody has made any attempt to have you disclose the name.

I haven't IMd her either, just to make that clear.  The forum mods can check that, I believe.  I have nothing to hide.

[RuchiVee]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

I don't even have to re-read your op because I remember what you wrote - words to the effect him making unwelcome or disturbing suggestions to you. That's what I referred to.

Maybe if you DID re-read my post, you'd see it was a question.  But the people in this thread who have engaged in a lack of civil discourse have caused readers to lose sight of my original question. 

[Garnet Psaltery]

Well, forum members, has this topic gone to lockdown status yet?  What do you think?

[Phil Deakins]

Just now, RuchiVee said:

See...again...you're name calling, by saying I'm being overly sensitive.  He did resort to name calling that rises to the level of flaming, and he's been reported for it.  Whether you agree or not doesn't change that.

You are waaay to sensitive. I didn't say that about you. I said it about some people. As it happens, judging by your post, I do think that about you - either that or you just like to argue.

Ans whilst I'm here, Garnet has not tried to get you to name the person, and neither has anyone else in this thread.

[Phil Deakins]

3 minutes ago, RuchiVee said:

Maybe if you DID re-read my post, you'd see it was a question.  But the people in this thread who have engaged in a lack of civil discourse have caused readers to lose sight of my original question. 

Ok. I went back to read it. This is what you wrote:-

16 hours ago, RuchiVee said:

I ask because another user divulged his real-life identity to me, and then subsequently behaved in a way that was arguably inappropriate.

It wasn't a question at all. You said that his interaction with you disturbed you to the extent that you decided to check on him.

[Phil Deakins]

6 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

Well, forum members, has this topic gone to lockdown status yet?  What do you think?

I vote Yay.

[Cindy Evanier]

Just now, Phil Deakins said:

I vote Yay.

Just read it all over my cuppa and votes yay too   Plus tongue biting so as not to repeat what many have already said

[Qie Niangao]

14 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

Are you a troll?

There's more than a whiff of troll here somewhere.

Theresa already pointed out that the receipt of photos that look like a RL offender by no means indicates that the sender is that offender. To my mind, this would almost guarantee that our OP has been tricked into believing an elaborate troll. On the chance that's not the case, there's still some probability that we're all being trolled by this thread.

So now, after all these posts, the chance that there's a real offender actually behind this seems remote -- especially considering that the clear correct course of action was explained in the first few responses.

[Sukubia Scarmon]

I'm assuming the later, since she's oddly focused on reporting everyone for namecalling when they're really not.