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

[Theresa Tennyson]

18 hours ago, Kyrah Abattoir said:

I'm a firm believer that there is nothing you can do to someone else's avatar, on your own land, that can possibly count as griefing.

But I have no idea what Linden Lab's opinion is on the subject.

This is the answer BilliJo probably wanted when they started this thread. However, as in most things, it isn't absolute. The idea that "It's my land and I can do anything I want" smacks of -- what's that word? Entitlement.

As far as Linden Lab, they leave it open in the Knowledge Base by saying " Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms. "

I would say that generally your statement is correct, but that there's a theoretical point where it breaks down. I'll maintain that if you actively invite unsuspecting people to your land primarily to do something that would be griefing if it wasn't your land, then you're griefing.

Note that BilliJo didn't mention on her own the fact that the land description actively said that it's "for all", and she started lamenting she used her own land as an example instead of keeping it general. She also said that she didn't list it in search. Something tells me she didn't realize there were people on the forums who knew where her land is who'd find out the land description.

With the hornets, she started defending as them as "the equivalent of a security system," and "what you'd find in nature", when the way she had them set weren't the most realistic or effective way of doing those things; however the settings were perfectly suited for pushing random unsuspecting people. Intentionally pushing random unsuspecting people anywhere outside your land is generally considered griefing.

I would say that when BilliJo started this thread the hornets were almost exactly on the edge of being griefing. I also think that BilliJo thought this too, which is why the thread was started to get people to offer that they weren't.

Now, with the land description changed, they aren't griefing because there is no longer any sort of invitation and there's a warning.

[Phil Deakins]

20 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

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. 

The question comes down "From a griefing point of view, is it ok for me to do X thing"

The criterior was only about griefing. It wasn't about any other considerations. But it's the other considerations that account for almost all of this thread.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Theresa Tennyson]

30 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

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.

Here's what the Knowledge Base article by Jeremy Linden says about security systems:

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

• Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
• Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
• Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

[Phil Deakins]

I didn't know that, Theresa. Thank you

It does say what should happen though. It doesn't suggest that it's an actual rule, or it would say "must" instead of "should".

[Amina Sopwith]

2 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

The question comes down "From a griefing point of view, is it ok for me to do X thing"

The criterior was only about griefing. It wasn't about any other considerations. But it's the other considerations that account for almost of this thread.

And it is safe to assume that, for the purposes of this discussion, griefing is unacceptable. Otherwise she wouldn't ask the question. 

You seem to think BJ asked this question in sincere good faith, because she truly had some doubt about the subject, and might perhaps have had her mind changed. I think it's pretty roundly obvious that she didn't.

I think she was hoping for a load of outrage in response. She didn't get it; most people seemed to think that while it might not be a smart or nice thing to do, it doesn't actually constitute griefing. So instead she's had to take offence at people saying why they think it's a bad idea and why it's not actually "realistic", if that was her MO (it wasn't). 

[Amina Sopwith]

18 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

This is the answer BilliJo probably wanted when they started this thread. However, as in most things, it isn't absolute. The idea that "It's my land and I can do anything I want" smacks of -- what's that word? Entitlement.

As far as Linden Lab, they leave it open in the Knowledge Base by saying " Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms. "

I would say that generally your statement is correct, but that there's a theoretical point where it breaks down. I'll maintain that if you actively invite unsuspecting people to your land primarily to do something that would be griefing if it wasn't your land, then you're griefing.

Note that BilliJo didn't mention on her own the fact that the land description actively said that it's "for all", and she started lamenting she used her own land as an example instead of keeping it general. She also said that she didn't list it in search. Something tells me she didn't realize there were people on the forums who knew where her land is who'd find out the land description.

With the hornets, she started defending as them as "the equivalent of a security system," and "what you'd find in nature", when the way she had them set weren't the most realistic or effective way of doing those things; however the settings were perfectly suited for pushing random unsuspecting people. Intentionally pushing random unsuspecting people anywhere outside your land is generally considered griefing.

I would say that when BilliJo started this thread the hornets were almost exactly on the edge of being griefing. I also think that BilliJo thought this too, which is why the thread was started to get people to offer that they weren't.

Now, with the land description changed, they aren't griefing because there is no longer any sort of invitation and there's a warning.

I regret I have but one "like" to give.

[BilliJo Aldrin]

21 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

This is the answer BilliJo probably wanted when they started this thread. However, as in most things, it isn't absolute. The idea that "It's my land and I can do anything I want" smacks of -- what's that word? Entitlement.

As far as Linden Lab, they leave it open in the Knowledge Base by saying " Scripts or no scripts, you cannot use land ownership as a way to unfairly restrict another Second Life Resident's personal freedoms. "

I would say that generally your statement is correct, but that there's a theoretical point where it breaks down. I'll maintain that if you actively invite unsuspecting people to your land primarily to do something that would be griefing if it wasn't your land, then you're griefing.

Note that BilliJo didn't mention on her own the fact that the land description actively said that it's "for all", and she started lamenting she used her own land as an example instead of keeping it general. She also said that she didn't list it in search. Something tells me she didn't realize there were people on the forums who knew where her land is who'd find out the land description.

With the hornets, she started defending as them as "the equivalent of a security system," and "what you'd find in nature", when the way she had them set weren't the most realistic or effective way of doing those things; however the settings were perfectly suited for pushing random unsuspecting people. Intentionally pushing random unsuspecting people anywhere outside your land is generally considered griefing.

I would say that when BilliJo started this thread the hornets were almost exactly on the edge of being griefing. I also think that BilliJo thought this too, which is why the thread was started to get people to offer that they weren't.

Now, with the land description changed, they aren't griefing because there is no longer any sort of invitation and there's a warning.

You really could have said hello when you were there, it wouldn't have killed you.

[Phil Deakins]

@Amina Sopwith

I can't say that you are wrong about BilliJo's purpose in asking the question, but I can say that the reason you gave for her asking it is just your imagination. Only BilliJo knows why she started this and her other 2 threads. I can think of 2 possible reasons, both of which I've already stated in one or more of the threads.

1. Publicity. I.e. coming back with her main avatar and making a big splash - as in "NOTICE ME, DAMMIT!".

2. She has good reason to be concerned about suspensions. I know of 2 forum-based suspensions that she had in the recent(ish) past, neither of which were justified. And they were suspensions from both the forum and from SL itself. The 3 threads could be indicative of her really not wanting get on the wrong side of suspensions any more.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Theresa Tennyson]

8 minutes ago, BilliJo Aldrin said:

You really could have said hello when you were there, it wouldn't have killed you.

You wouldn't have heard over the bees.

[Amina Sopwith]

6 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Amina Sopwith

I can't say that you are wrong about BilliJo's purpose in asking the question, but I can say that the reason you gave for her asking it is just your imagination. Only BilliJo knows why she started this and her other 2 threads. I can think of 2 possible reasons, both of which I've already stated in one or more of the threads.

1. Publicity. I.e. coming back with her main avatar and making a big splash - as in "NOTICE ME, DAMMIT!".

2. She has good reason to be concerned about suspensions. I know of 2 forum-based suspensions that she had in the recent(ish) past, neither of which were justified. And they were suspensions from both the forum and from SL itself. The 3 threads could be indicative of her really not wanting get on the wrong side of suspensions any more.

Well, I'm fairly new to the forums and don't know about any of this so I'll take your word for those incidents happening. But if she's that concerned about suspension, the smarter thing to do would be to play it safe and just not have the hornets at all. She got them first, asked questions later and rejected anyone who suggested they might constitute griefing, even declaring them 100% ok. That doesn't sound like she's worried about them getting her booted. If nothing else, she's brought them to much greater attention by posting about them here.

I think @Theresa Tennyson has absolutely nailed it, though. 

[Blush Bravin]

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

The criterior was only about griefing. It wasn't about any other considerations. But it's the other considerations that account for almost all of this thread.

Reread her final sentence from the original post. Count the question marks. There are two questions. The last one goes beyond just is it griefing.

 

On 1/3/2019 at 3:53 AM, BilliJo Aldrin said:

So anyway, is this griefing? It's a much gentler kinder form of exclusion than a zero notice, TP you home security system. But still, is it possible for people to be offended and complain? 

That's why most of us said technically it's not griefing but then went further to say why people could be offended and possibly complain about the experience. And I think each and everyone of us added that it's her land and she can do whatever she wants with it. Had she only asked about griefing this entire thread would have looked different.

[Phil Deakins]

@Blush Bravin

I stand corrected. She did ask if it's possible for people to be offended and complain. I was mistaken.

In that case, her statement, "I'm sorry, but I never asked if it was acceptable, I asked if it was griefing." was still technically correct, although it was totally misleading, because she also asked if the practice is acceptable, but she tried to make out that the only thing she asked was if it's griefing. People answered both questions throughout the thread, so she got exactly what she asked for.

[Ceka Cianci]

I decided to look up the worlds largest hornet..

I'm never going to Asia now!! \o/ hehehehe

They say when it stings you it leaves holes the size of bullet holes..and you have to go through dialysis like right away..

 

And people play with them like it's no big thing?

 

 

 

[LittleMe Jewell]

4 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Here's what the Knowledge Base article by Jeremy Linden says about security systems:

Script Use

You can use scripted objects to enhance your land ownership tools. Generally, such scripts should:

• Provide adequate warning to the undesired Resident.
• Only work within the property lines (this includes projectiles that cannot operate beyond the parcel boundaries).
• Not be excessive in the removal of the unwanted Resident. Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable; intentionally applying a script to disrupt someone's Second Life connection or online status is not allowed.

As Phil pointed out, it says "Generally, such scripts should" - emphasis mine.

Additionally, while it mentions providing adequate warning, we already know that security orbs that TP you home with no warning are allowed.  And it also says:
  "Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable".  
That statement does imply that LL sees the two activities (pushing avatar off property & teleporting them home) as similar.

 

I'm pretty sure there is nothing about what she is currently doing that would be considered griefing in LL's eyes.  I even think that it is basically acceptable, outside the fact that I think she sort of overdid it a bit.  As I mentioned previously, it would actually be more amusing if the range was smaller and the push wasn't off the parcel, but simply outside a defined smaller range.  Overall, it really isn't any different than other people's antics that have been described here.  Do all those other people have warnings in their land descriptions or warning signs posted all over their land.

I also somewhat chuckled at various motives for her post being given.  Many people intentionally post somewhat controversial questions just for the purpose of getting a good, possibly contentious, discussion going -- there is seldom much discussion on topics that everyone agrees on.  Also, many of us post topics in an effort to get some attention.  Thus, I'm not sure I see where BilliJo is much different than many others in that regard.

I think the biggest difference here is something that Phil alluded to -- it is BilliJo and thus people automatically react negatively to pretty much anything she posts here.  

[Theresa Tennyson]

12 minutes ago, LittleMe Jewell said:

As Phil pointed out, it says "Generally, such scripts should" - emphasis mine.

Additionally, while it mentions providing adequate warning, we already know that security orbs that TP you home with no warning are allowed.  And it also says:
  "Pushing an avatar off the property or teleporting them home is generally acceptable".  
That statement does imply that LL sees the two activities (pushing avatar off property & teleporting them home) as similar.

 

Most security systems can do two things - they can remove specific, named, undesirable avatars and they can remove random unknown avatars that enter the perimeter.

As specific avatars probably know what they did and may be a threat if they were on the land for any amount of time, instant removal is reasonable and "adequate" for them.

An unknown avatar often has no way of knowing that they aren't welcome, or that they've even entered a private lot. For a while there was a lot with a no-warning security orb directly past the the end of a Linden Lab-owned airstrip. It's also possible that being teleported away will permanently break some scripted items. https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/BUG-41379. In this situation, how can no warning be considered "adequate"?

 

[Roxy Couturier]

As I recall from threads at the -other- forum, a no-warning tp home is AR-able. It's been done.

[Phil Deakins]

@Roxy Couturier

It may have been done, but what was the outcome? AND, if the outcome was a warning or an instruction to allow time, was that just in the view of whichever Linden dealt with it. They don't all know all the rules y'know

 

Example:
When the adult land setting came in, and loads of stores were moving to Zindra, I decided to keep my store in the moderate sim that it was in. I sold plenty of sex furniture in the store, and I used partially clothed bots on sex beds in the store so that potential customers could try the animations before buying.

Some busy-body reported the bots, and a Linden told me to remove them because they are against the new rules. I knew that they weren't against the new rules, because it had been discussed at length with an important Linden here in the forum. But the Linden who came to me didn't know the new rules. He was probably making a rule of thumb decision. I explained the new rules to the Linden, and pointed him to the thread. The bots stayed where they were.

 

 

Edited January 4, 2019 by Phil Deakins

[Roxy Couturier]

19 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Roxy Couturier

It may have been done, but what was the outcome? AND, if the outcome was a warning or an instruction to allow time, was that just in the view of whichever Linden dealt with it. They don't all know all the rules y'know

Well I can't search it at the moment, as Cris hasn't finished the archive, but some are plane enthusiasts who AR instaant TP orbs. So, Instant TP on a security orb can garner an AR.  Believe me or don't. I don't use one so I'll never know 'for sure', but the rule is that it has to give warning. An AR linking the rule Theresa posted would likely be successful.

[Blush Bravin]

7 minutes ago, Roxy Couturier said:

Well I can't search it at the moment, as Cris hasn't finished the archive, but some are plane enthusiasts who AR instaant TP orbs. So, Instant TP on a security orb can garner an AR.  Believe me or don't. I don't use one so I'll never know 'for sure', but the rule is that it has to give warning. An AR linking the rule Theresa posted would likely be successful.

You can AR anything. The question is did LL impose a penalty for doing so? I doubt it seriously.

[Phil Deakins]

Me too. Theresa didn't point to a rule, because it's not a rule. It's a Linden statement of what ought to be, but that doesn't make it a rule that has to be obeyed.

Anyway, we've sidetracked a bit. Not that it matters, because the topic has been pretty much done to death now.

[Love Zhaoying]

Yet here we are, posting anyway.

[Dakota Linden]

And we are done!

Have a good weekend all