Is it griefing if you push someone on your own property?

[Selene Gregoire]

Someone wake me up when BJ can keep her story straight.

In the meantime, just avoid her griefing parcel and skip over the trolling thread. 💨

[Lindal Kidd]

6 hours ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

Ok, this is where things usually go down hill, so I'll leave you all to enjoy yourselves. I'll read the replies in a day or two, and probably ignore most of them, or laugh at them.

Have fun

 

Oh, no you don't.  You don't get to um, poke the hornets' nest and then just walk away giggling.  Stay here and take your medicine.

So...

Is it griefing to push someone on your own land?  No.  I have a .45 automatic that will fire bullets that home in on a named avatar and shove them hard.  They keep attacking as long as their target is in the region.  Your land, your rules.

Could someone REPORT you for it?  Yes.  But LL won't do anything about it.  Your land, your rules.

Is putting a trap (e.g., the hornet nest) on your land Evil, or not?  That sort of depends on the attitude of the victims.  I have seen all sorts of practical jokes.  I've seen your hornet nest, sharks that will eat you if you swim near them, sharks that will eat you even if you stay on dry land, Maddy's deadly coconut palms, and many others.  I have some of them.  I have a gadget that, when you walk over a certain spot, a piano drops out of the sky onto you.  I think you are more likely to find people enjoy your pratfall sense of humor if you give them a little advance warning, like a sign saying Beware of the Hornets.  But that's up to you.  Your land, your rules.

Is it a violation of the ToS to put a visitor tracker on your land?  No.  Your land, your rules.

Is it trollish behavior to post questions that you know will cause a lot of controversy?  Yes.  Stop that.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

As usual, this topic has shown that everyone thinks THEIR way is the correct way to "play" second life, and if you do it different, you are

*--insert insult here-*

Nothing ever changes, only the topic. I don't criticize how others do things, but there are so many people that "know better than me" and feel justified in heaping their  scorn on my choices.

Carry on everyone, because I shall

Edited January 4, 2019 by BilliJo Aldrin

[Amina Sopwith]

5 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

As usual, this topic has shown that everyone thinks THEIR way is the correct way to "play" second life, and if you do it different, you are

*--insert insult here-*

Nothing ever changes, only the topic. I don't criticize how others do things, but there are so many people that "know better than me" and feel justified in heaping their  scorn on my choices.

Carry on everyone, because I shall

This is the third post you've made since announcing that you're much too far above anyone who responded to the thread you started, asking a question to which you claim to have the "100%" answer, and that you would be gone for at least a day before coming back to laugh at everyone because you find the whole thing just so FUNNY. I mean, your responses are definitely those of someone whose sides are totally splitting. 

I was going to ask if you knew how a flounce works, but actually, it's clear that you do. 
 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Amina Sopwith

[Phil Deakins]

This thread has become very silly. BilliJo asked a simple question - 'is it griefing?' She got loads of answers saying that it isn't griefing. That was the end of it as far as the question was concerned. Why so many people want to be so critical about how not nice the practise is, and continue repeating it, is beyond me.

You'll get bored   BilliJo doesn't let go. She's been (wrongly) suspended in the past when she wouldn't let go of something. In that particular case, she was wrong. In this case, she is right. She asked a question, she got the answer from many people. And that should be that.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[BilliJo Aldrin]

4 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Oh, no you don't.  You don't get to um, poke the hornets' nest and then just walk away giggling.  Stay here and take your medicine.

So...

Is it griefing to push someone on your own land?  No.  I have a .45 automatic that will fire bullets that home in on a named avatar and shove them hard.  They keep attacking as long as their target is in the region.  Your land, your rules.

Could someone REPORT you for it?  Yes.  But LL won't do anything about it.  Your land, your rules.

Is putting a trap (e.g., the hornet nest) on your land Evil, or not?  That sort of depends on the attitude of the victims.  I have seen all sorts of practical jokes.  I've seen your hornet nest, sharks that will eat you if you swim near them, sharks that will eat you even if you stay on dry land, Maddy's deadly coconut palms, and many others.  I have some of them.  I have a gadget that, when you walk over a certain spot, a piano drops out of the sky onto you.  I think you are more likely to find people enjoy your pratfall sense of humor if you give them a little advance warning, like a sign saying Beware of the Hornets.  But that's up to you.  Your land, your rules.

Is it a violation of the ToS to put a visitor tracker on your land?  No.  Your land, your rules.

Is it trollish behavior to post questions that you know will cause a lot of controversy?  Yes.  Stop that.

So its trolling now to ask a question in the forums? It was a legitimate question and it got a lot of answers. The trolls are the ones that attacked me for not doing things "their" way.

If you think the post topic is trolling, report it as such, thats your right as a member of the forum

[Amina Sopwith]

Just now, Phil Deakins said:

This thread has become very silly. BilliJo asked a simple question - 'is it griefing?' She got loads of answers saying that it isn't griefing. That was the end of it as far as the question was concerned. Why so many people want to be so critical about how not nice the practise is, and continue repeating it, is beyond me.

But she went on to say that she "couldn't be accused of griefing" for it and that it was "100% acceptable". So she knew the answer. So why did she ask the question?

Besides, to answer the question of whether it's griefing, you do need to consider whether it's not nice. It's not the only consideration, of course; plenty of not nice things are not griefing. But when deciding whether a practice constitutes griefing, "is it not nice?" is a natural question to ask.  

At any rate, it's clear what BJ's (dear God, woman, did you think through these initials?) motive is, for both the hornets and this thread about them. She likes causing trouble and then playing the victim. I just wish she'd own it. I'd respect her far more for it and I think others would too.

To quote Steve Fleming: "The problem is that you are shifting from the man people love to hate to the man people just hate. From Simon Cowell to Piers Morgan."

[Phil Deakins]

Another thing...

I think the idea of swarming hornets is amusing. Even if there are signs saying ' you are welcome here', and a swarm of hornets attacked me, it would still be amusing. So would a piano unexpectedly falling on my head. There is nothing bad about it. There is nothing bad about it even when it isn't forewarned. Every whichway you look at it, it's amusing.

[Amina Sopwith]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Another thing...

I think the idea of swarming hornets is amusing. Even if there are signs saying ' you are welcome here', and a swarm of hornets attacked me, it would still be amusing. So would a piano unexpectedly falling on my head. There is nothing bad about it. There is nothing bad about it even when it isn't forewarned. Every whichway you look at it, it's amusing.

In the right context, I agree. The piano thing is hilarious. An unannounced swarm with no warning that actually stopped me from exploring the parcel, as opposed to one that just made me look a bit silly for ten seconds or so, wouldn't be funny to me. It would just be perplexing. I'd assume it was an inventive security measure and simply would not understand why the parcel owner hadn't told me that they didn't want me there. 

I wouldn't feel hurt or AR it. I would just be puzzled.

[Phil Deakins]

Just now, Amina Sopwith said:

But she went on to say that she "couldn't be accused of griefing" for it and that it was "100% acceptable". So she knew the answer. So why did she ask the question?."

She did go on to say that. She said it late in the thread when lots of people had answered her question. She wrote that because she learned the answer here.

2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Besides, to answer the question of whether it's griefing, you do need to consider whether it's not nice. It's not the only consideration, of course; plenty of not nice things are not griefing. But when deciding whether a practice constitutes griefing, "is it not nice?" is a natural question to ask.

BilliJo seems to he perfectly happy being 'not nice' in other people's opinions. I dislike her, but that isn't influencing my posts and opinions in this thread. Personally, I don't think there's anything not nice about the unexpected swarm, but that's me.

5 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

At any rate, it's clear what BJ's (dear God, woman, did you think through these initials?) motive is, for both the hornets and this thread about them. She likes causing trouble and then playing the victim. I just wish she'd own it. I'd respect her far more for it and I think others would too.

Oh, I do think that she's just causing some splashes now that she's back as her real SL self. I've written that somewhere. It does seem to be her nature to be as you described, but even people with such natures aren't in the wrong all the time

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Amina Sopwith said:

In the right context, I agree. The piano thing is hilarious. An unannounced swarm with no warning that actually stopped me from exploring the parcel, as opposed to one that just made me look a bit silly for ten seconds or so, wouldn't be funny to me. It would just be perplexing. I'd assume it was an inventive security measure and simply would not understand why the parcel owner hadn't told me that they didn't want me there. 

I wouldn't feel hurt or AR it. I would just be puzzled.

We're all different. I would find it amusing to the extent of telling friends about it - and taking them over to have a go. Same with the piano if I realised that it wasn't just an accident/coincidence with a physical piano.

[Fionalein]

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

She did go on to say that. She said it late in the thread when lots of people had answered her question. She wrote that because she learned the answer here.

But she and you then both have to revisit school as no where in this thread there were 100% acceptance...

Edited January 4, 2019 by Fionalein

[Amina Sopwith]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

She did go on to say that. She said it late in the thread when lots of people had answered her question. She wrote that because she learned the answer here.

She totally knew her answer from the start. Those comments were in response to rhetorical arguments against the use of the nest. They also came amongst some weird semantical arguments about "well I didn't ask if it was unacceptable, I asked if it was griefing" as if the discussion had been posed in such a way as to assume that established griefing might be considered acceptable. It was all a bit intellectually dishonest and tbh, that did irritate me a bit. 

[BilliJo Aldrin]

In consideration of all the thoughtful inputs from the people that responded, I've changed the parcel description from  "Natural area for everyone to enjoy" to "Enter at your own risk"

Edited January 4, 2019 by BilliJo Aldrin
spelling

[Phil Deakins]

1 minute ago, Fionalein said:

But she and you both have to revist school as no where in this thread there were 100% acceptance... 

I don't think anyone said that what she does is griefing. I could be mistaken, but I do think that 100% of opinion is that it's not.

[Amina Sopwith]

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

We're all different. I would find it amusing to the extent of telling friends about it - and taking them over to have a go. Same with the piano if I realised that it wasn't just an accident/coincidence with a physical piano.

Well that's fair enough. And yeah, I'd definitely get someone in for the piano.

The thing with the hornets is that there's no indication that part of the parcel is safe, plus they don't just make you look silly for a bit, they actually stop you from being there. If I was wandering around and suddenly got pushed to the edge of the parcel and couldn't return, I'd assume it was a security measure that would inevitably get me if I stayed. I wouldn't see any point in bringing people to a parcel that, as far as my experience shows, stops you from exploring it. Or staying there any longer after getting what looked to be a clear "get out" sign.

 

[Phil Deakins]

57 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

She totally knew her answer from the start. Those comments were in response to rhetorical arguments against the use of the nest. They also came amongst some weird semantical arguments about "well I didn't ask if it was unacceptable, I asked if it was griefing" as if the discussion had been posed in such a way as to assume that established griefing might be considered acceptable. It was all a bit intellectually dishonest and tbh, that did irritate me a bit. 

I just think she started this, and the other 2 threads, for the publicity - now that she's back in person. But she did just ask if it was griefing, and there's no way for us to know whether or not she knew the answer before asking. She may have a had a good idea, but asked just to make sure. Saying that she knew before asking is just imagination. Sorry, Amina, but that's what it is. And her saying, "well I didn't ask if it was unacceptable, I asked if it was griefing" was correct.

I can't believe that I'm actually sticking up for BilliJo lol. I genuinely dislike her, and it's not long ago that I posted that I'm glad she's gone from the forum. But I've seen threads before where a bandwagon effect occurs, and it does seem that the relatively mild bandwagon in this thread is to criticise the swarm because there is no prior indication that it might happen. That view is wrong, imo, but that's just my opinion. However, she needs no help from me because she thrives on this sort of stuff

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Amina Sopwith]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

She may have a had a good idea, but asked just to make sure.

It is so obvious from her attitude and tone throughout this entire ridiculous debate, particularly in response to people who thought that it WAS griefing, or at least unnecessarily unpleasant, that that is not why she asked.

 

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

And her saying, "well I didn't ask if it was unacceptable, I asked if it was griefing" was correct.

That's basically asking whether something's s*** or s***e and trying to argue the difference in semantics. Come on. 

[Phil Deakins]

Allow me summarise the thread...

BilliJo: "Is <activity> griefing?"

Everyone: various forms of "No, but it's not nice/unacceptable."

BilliJo: "well I didn't ask if it was unacceptable, I asked if it was griefing."

It has nothing to do with semantics.

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Love Zhaoying]

It’s like pooping on your own lawn. Yes you can, but is it a good idea?

[Fionalein]

Somehow the defintion "griefing" must have changed. Last time I looked it was "intentionally spoiling someone elses experience" ... that is exactley what she is doing here ... sorry that's not up to discussion.

The question remains wether it is successfullly AR-able, and that has been left vague on purpose I guess, a little bit borderline trolling here nad there might be OK but do it once to often and the Lab might come to the conclusion that your whole existance on the grid is "disruptive to the services" and might terminate your account or issue a warning...

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

Somehow the defintion "griefing" must have changed. Last time I looked it was "intentionally spoiling someone elses experience" ... that is exactley what she is doing here ... sorry that's not up to discussion.

The question remains wether it is successfullly AR-able, and that has been left vague on purpose I guess, a little bit borderline trolling here nad there might be OK but do it once to often and the Lab might come to the conclusion that your whole existance on the grid is "disruptive to the services" and might terminate your account or issue a warning...

Since security orbs and wasp nests are allowed, I’m guessing it’s not AR-able. Only problem is if she’s not warning visitors. IMHO.

[Phil Deakins]

11 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

Somehow the defintion "griefing" must have changed. Last time I looked it was "intentionally spoiling someone elses experience"

You mean like using security devices to eject people, and TP people to their homes?

I think for something to be 'griefing', it needs to be a little more than "intentionally spoiling someone elses experience".

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Since security orbs and wasp nests are allowed, I’m guessing it’s not AR-able. Only problem is if she’s not warning visitors. IMHO.

Zero-time (no warnings) security devices are allowed. There are no rules about how much time must be given before removing someone from your property.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Amina Sopwith]

50 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Allow me summarise the thread...

BilliJo: "Is <activity> griefing?"

Everyone: various forms of "No, but it's not nice/unacceptable."

BilliJo: "well I didn't ask if it was unacceptable, I asked if it was griefing."

It has nothing to do with semantics.

 

Indeed it hasn't. The question, however you slice it, comes down to "is it ok for me to do X thing?" Assuming, of course, that griefing is not acceptable.