Voice Verified?

[Ceka Cianci]

30 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

I've never actually bothered to sit down and read the entire TOS before, though I am right now. 

I have found a couple parts that are interesting...

• Section 1.4: You understand that Linden Lab is a service provider that enables its users to interact online and display and communicate information and Content chosen by those users. Linden Lab does not control or endorse the Content of communications between users or users' interactions with each other or the Service.
• Section 6.1.4: You agree that you will not post, display, or transmit Content (including any communication(s) with employees of Linden Lab) that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy;

Now, of course, they also include quite a few caveats that they will not be responsible for anything any user does. Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean they are endorsing it, either. 

In my interpretation, when LL says they do not endorse the content of communications between users, they are not giving approval to lying. They aren't not giving approval, either. They're removing themselves from that particular equation. 

It's the bit in section 6.1.4 that I find most interesting, though. I believe a reasonable argument could be made that engaging in a relationship with someone where you are deliberately misleading them is against the TOS. I interpret that as LL saying, "Yeah, that's crappy... don't do that."

Of course others are free to interpret that anyway they want. That doesn't make my interpretation wrong, though. 

 

That is basically saying You agree that you will not post, display or transmit content of other users in those ways..like posting chat logs or private information or private conversations and things that go on between you and other users..

It's not about how two users communicate between each other..

 

 

[Beth Macbain]

1 minute ago, Ceka Cianci said:

It's not about how two users communicate between each other..

You're right. I took "content" to mean literally anything created in SL, including communication. In fact, they have a very narrow definition of Content with a capital C - "Content is anything that you create, share, post or otherwise transmit that another person could see, hear or otherwise experience in Sansar or in the Second Life Marketplace."

That's troublesome in a whole different way in that it doesn't cover content sold exclusively inworld if I'm reading that definition correctly. 

Still, though, LL states that it doesn't endorse the "Content of communications"... but what does that mean since they use the capital C version of content instead of the small C? 

[Amina Sopwith]

16 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

I've gotten the impression throughout this thread that assumptions have been made about how I conduct my SL, and what I demand or expect from anyone.

That is because you took a general discussion to be about you personally when it was not. It's true that I wouldn't react well to an emotive approach to try to get my details, but that's not an insult to you. 

And because I caught this while scrolling, sigh... @Tolya Ugajin, in Britain, a "ding-dong" is an argument. You're welcome.

 

[Solar Legion]

I am not certain which circles you usually run in Beth but it has been my experience that engaging in the more "Adult" side of Second Life makes one less likely to share all that much of their Real Life outside of some "basic" conversation ... 

It gets a wee bit more complicated when RP is thrown into the mix as well.

[Amina Sopwith]

1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

People have the right to avoid, to the best of their knowledge and ability, associating with those crap stains.

Why is that under dispute?

It's not. Nobody has said that you can't end relationships with people who don't give you the info you want. I've explicitly said several times that you have that perfect right. 

It just comes down to which moral right you find more important: the right to RL information, or the right to lie about it when pressed. I will always come down on the side of the latter, given that you don't actually have the former right to begin with. 

If nothing else, I think we are all safer protecting our RL information than our rights to receive RL information. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

6 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

At any rate, businesses do not make decisions in such a way that doing X can in any way "prove" to an outsider what their position on Y is.  In all likelihood, some marketing person thought it would be a good add-on and never once considered, nor did anyone else, how it would be interpreted.

Have you visited a bar in northern Wisconsin, Tolya? Their MAGA themed decor challenges your claim. Bill Penzey's customer newsletter often gets political. Even his spice jar labels sometimes lean left. Small businesses routinely leverage politics in their marketing, though large/global brands must tread carefully, as they have diverse customer bases. Businesses can misread their customers, but that's generally not the case. Good businesses know their customers. If politics is good for business, business will get political.

If my local furniture store (Colders. American TV is gone, though Len Mattioli still loves bicycles) were to offer a free shotgun with each living room set, I would interpret that as a gun rights gesture, deem it inappropriate, and potentially cease patronage. If Fleet Farm did the same thing, I'd probably just wonder why they didn't include a gift certificate for $500 worth of camo lingerie as well.

The case of Dick's Sporting Goods is interesting. One could argue that Ed Stack's decision to destroy $5 million worth of rifles and to stop selling all guns in some of their stores, in the wake of Parkland, was a risky move. You could also argue it was good business, as elimination of gun sales in stores where guns underperformed other sporting good resulted in increased store revenue overall. Stack is on a path to eliminating guns from all his stores, despite backlash from Second Amendment circles.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Madelaine McMasters
Had to look up the price of a cheap shotgun to set the camo lingerie gift certificate value. No gender discrimination from meeee!

[Ceka Cianci]

1 hour ago, Beth Macbain said:

You're right. I took "content" to mean literally anything created in SL, including communication. In fact, they have a very narrow definition of Content with a capital C - "Content is anything that you create, share, post or otherwise transmit that another person could see, hear or otherwise experience in Sansar or in the Second Life Marketplace."

That's troublesome in a whole different way in that it doesn't cover content sold exclusively inworld if I'm reading that definition correctly. 

Still, though, LL states that it doesn't endorse the "Content of communications"... but what does that mean since they use the capital C version of content instead of the small C? 

Content pretty much is anything created in SL including Communication...Advertising is communication content, chatlogs are communication content..

If I show another user a private conversation between me and you,they can report me..If I post our private conversation here,anyone can report me..Unless you gave me permission to share that conversation.

Also it does cover content sold in world.. Someone selling lets say,NFL Jersey's without permission from the NFL..That is copyright infringement and illegal and the NFL can go after them.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Ceka Cianci

[Tolya Ugajin]

2 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Have you visited a bar in northern Wisconsin, Tolya? Their MAGA themed decor challenges your claim. Bill Penzey's customer newsletter often gets political. Even his spice jar labels sometimes lean left. Small businesses routinely leverage politics in their marketing, though large/global brands must tread carefully, as they have diverse customer bases. Businesses can misread their customers, but that's generally not the case. Good businesses know their customers. If politics is good for business, business will get political.

If my local furniture store (Colders. American TV is gone, though Len Mattioli still loves bicycles) were to offer a free shotgun with each living room set, I would interpret that as a gun rights gesture, deem it inappropriate, and potentially cease patronage. If Fleet Farm did the same thing, I'd probably just wonder why they didn't include a gift certificate for $100 worth of camo lingerie as well.

The case of Dick's Sporting Goods is interesting. One could argue that Ed Stack's decision to destroy $5 million worth of rifles and to stop selling all guns in some of their stores, in the wake of Parkland, was a risky move. You could also argue it was good business, as elimination of gun sales in stores where guns underperformed other sporting good resulted in increased store revenue overall. Stack is on a path to eliminating guns from all his stores, despite backlash from Second Amendment circles.

Not North of Sheboygan, at least since Trump took office.

You are taking my example and expanding it to include situations where a business explicitly states their position (redneck Wisconsin bars).  Then, you state how you would  INTERPRET (ie. assume what they mean) such a move by a specific store.  It's a pretty weak attempt to undercut my position.  As a counter hypothetical, suppose a Colders marketing person (over priced furniture, but a lovely decor selection, by the way), got a fantastic deal on rifles from Dick's, because, well, some supply chain guy there thought destroying $5M of rifles (you'll permit me to switch to rifles?) was an idiotic business move not at all in keeping with growing sharegholder value (a correct belief, considering what happened to sales and stock price when they started getting political on guns, https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-03-12/dicks-sporting-goods-stops-sale-of-guns-in-125-stores)  and sold them below cost rather than destroy them.  The marketing person at Colders buys them, and gives them away, because in their business that person can run specials without high level approval.  Does this mean Colder's supports guns?  Not at all.  It means you interpreted their promotion to be making a statement, when in fact it was simply a foolish decision by a marketing person.

Sorry for the underlining, not sure what the problem is.

Granted, this is all just hypothesizing and speculating, but that is precisely the point.  Taking "LL gives out morpers" as proof of support for deceiving people about RL gender is a huge assumption, and the simple explanation is, there is no connection at all.

[Ceka Cianci]

11 minutes ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

Not North of Sheboygan, at least since Trump took office.

You are taking my example and expanding it to include situations where a business explicitly states their position (redneck Wisconsin bars).  Then, you state how you would  INTERPRET (ie. assume what they mean) such a move by a specific store.  It's a pretty weak attempt to undercut my position.  As a counter hypothetical, suppose a Colders marketing person (over priced furniture, but a lovely decor selection, by the way), got a fantastic deal on rifles from Dick's, because, well, some supply chain guy there thought destroying $5M of rifles (you'll permit me to switch to rifles?) was an idiotic business move not at all in keeping with growing sharegholder value (a correct belief, considering what happened to sales and stock price when they started getting political on guns, https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-03-12/dicks-sporting-goods-stops-sale-of-guns-in-125-stores)  and sold them below cost rather than destroy them.  The marketing person at Colders buys them, and gives them away, because in their business that person can run specials without high level approval.  Does this mean Colder's supports guns?  Not at all.  It means you interpreted their promotion to be making a statement, when in fact it was simply a foolish decision by a marketing person.

Sorry for the underlining, not sure what the problem is.

Granted, this is all just hypothesizing and speculating, but that is precisely the point.  Taking "LL gives out morpers" as proof of support for deceiving people about RL gender is a huge assumption, and the simple explanation is, there is no connection at all.

I think it is underlined because it's not separated from your link..

[Beth Macbain]

1 hour ago, Amina Sopwith said:

That is because you took a general discussion to be about you personally when it was not.

Yeah, no... that's a bunch of crap, Amina. You were responding directly to me when you said my behavior could be construed as emotional blackmail, and also that I was a fool. 

Quote

Some people might even find the approach you're taking here to be emotional blackmail and wish to shut off information for that reason.

Quote

Put more bluntly (because I was trying to be kind), I'm also saying that if you conduct intimate relationships on the internet and invest yourself in people you have never heard, seen or met, then you're a fool if you're not prepared for the possibility that they might not be who they say they are.

Quote

In this case, I was as gentle and kind as I could be when talking to you directly (and still got your famous "scorn laugh", but eh, it's an emoji).

At least own your own words, and admit they were directed at me. You get the "scorn laugh" (I wasn't aware it was famous!) because I think you are absolutely full of fecal matter, and the mods frown on my using the particular four letter word I'd like to use. Every time you see my famous emoji, feel free to insert those words in all their glory in your blessed imagination. 

Enjoy being whatever you are in whatever world you choose. We're beyond finished. 

[Amina Sopwith]

3 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

Yeah, no... that's a bunch of crap, Amina. You were responding directly to me when you said my behavior could be construed as emotional blackmail, and also that I was a fool. 

I'm sorry, Beth, but I do think that using emotive language to try to get someone to give you RL information can be construed as emotional blackmail. It's exactly how I've felt about it when people have tried it with me. As I said before, I'm very sure you are trustworthy, but not everyone who has that approach is. If that offends you, there really isn't anything I can do about it. It's how I feel when someone takes that approach to me. But it's not an insult to you to feel that way.

Regarding my mention of being a fool not to be prepared for the fact that you can't verify RL information in SL...that was intended as a generic "you", not you personally, and perhaps I should have made that clearer. And I stated that I myself have been that fool, albeit a lucky one. So I am sorry for not being clear enough on that. But I can't go back on it. Again, it's not my intention to offend you with that, but I really can't say that I think it's a wise thing to do.

 

9 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

At least own your own words, and admit they were directed at me. 

The posts quoting you were directed at you. I tried to be nice. The others were intended as a more general, academic discussion. If you recognised yourself in the behaviours I mentioned, well...not a lot I can do about that, except to state again that it wasn't personal. Like I said, I don't like it when people ask for my RL information in that way, which they have done. And I do believe, ultimately, that you have a greater right to protect your RL than you have to access someone else's, under any circumstances. These are academic points. I hope this isn't too clumsy an example, and I apologise if it is but I hope it illustrates the point... I have a friend who is sleeping with a married man. I can be her friend, care about her and want to help and support her, while still thinking she is doing something unwise and undesirable that isn't going to help her. I love her but I can't like what she's doing.

I know some people won't believe me, but I really don't enjoy internet ding-dongs, sorry, arguments, very much. (I knew I should have used the word "barney" back then. I just thought "ding-dong" sounded better.) I don't mind robust discussion, but it really gives me no pleasure when they go this way. This just happens to be something I do feel very strongly about: RL privacy. I'm sure you know that it was never my intention to offend or distress you. Do you really think I'd do that on purpose?

Anyway, what you do with this response is obviously entirely up to you, and I hope I've made it clear in this discussion that I'm 100% in favour of people doing what they need to do to protect themselves. So if you want to mute me or whatever, you should. Of course I would prefer you not to, but eh, it's not my Second Life to decide. But I'm glad to see that I'm not muted quite yet so I could at least tell you this.

[Lindal Kidd]

4 hours ago, Lyssa Greymoon said:

Or just I own a microphone and know how to use it.

So does this talented person...

 

[Solar Legion]

Point blank here: If you're unsure about a person's post and where it is directed, ask before making an assumption.

[Beth Macbain]

1 hour ago, Solar Legion said:

Point blank here: If you're unsure about a person's post and where it is directed, ask before making an assumption.

While I’m certain you will say this is just kind and lovely advice for all, we both know this is directed at me, as does everyone else.

I was never unsure about where certain posts were directed in spite of some rather insincere protestations denying it. To claim otherwise is just gaslighting.

[Solar Legion]

Yeah, no Beth - that was directed at everyone. There are very few people and circumstances where I will not directly quote or name a person I am responding to and that was not one of them.

Congrats but you just posted the clearest example of why one should ask to be certain before posting a response when one feels an otherwise undirected (no quote, no direct naming) is indeed directed at them.

You assumed. That assumption was corrected. You doubled down and continue to do so.

You can call that observation "gaslighting" if you'd like but that'd be yet another assumption.

To head the inevitable denial response off: You can believe a response is directed at you all you'd like. Belief and reality are two very different things.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Solar Legion

[Luna Bliss]

It really saddens me that some people must live in a total fantasy world with relationships, unable to connect to RL at all. I do wonder, is it due to being emotionally stunted somehow, hurt in the past by a SL relationship that soured in RL, hiding a part in RL that they fear nobody would accept and so feel a kind of fantasy acceptance in SL?

[LexxiXhan]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

It really saddens me that some people must live in a total fantasy world with relationships, unable to connect to RL at all. I do wonder, is it due to being emotionally stunted somehow, hurt in the past by a SL relationship that soured in RL, hiding a part in RL that they fear nobody would accept and so feel a kind of fantasy acceptance in SL?

💙💚💛

[Beth Macbain]

[Luna Bliss]

[Solar Legion]

And as expected ...

Ah well.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Solar Legion

[NewLuden]

I do see this thread has derailed a little, but to add a slight opinion. 

I feel in any sort of relationship people should be honest. I feel the need to hide in SL's culture a bit of a turn off, but I understand why it's there. I'm a pretty open and honest person because I'd rather people enjoy me rather than a persona as personas are hard to keep up and it's said someone can only pretend for a certain amount of time before the real them shows through (which is typically about 8 weeks). I also feel if you are familiar with SL and it's culture you should basically not take most people on their word and basically take time to know them like any other relationship. I like making real friends and knowing real people, not particularly personas but I've always been that way, so the need to hide from me is always a red flag and something I avoid. 

I also feel if you are leading someone on about being a gender OOC that you are not and they show clear signs of having feelings for you, you should really think about the feelings of the other person in the matter as what you are doing is highly selfish and self-fulfillment with little regard to another person who is REAL with REAL feelings, despite being on a 'fantasy' platform. Humans are humans and will always behave in certain ways,  despite what we tell ourselves. 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

It really saddens me that some people must live in a total fantasy world with relationships, unable to connect to RL at all. I do wonder, is it due to being emotionally stunted somehow, hurt in the past by a SL relationship that soured in RL, hiding a part in RL that they fear nobody would accept and so feel a kind of fantasy acceptance in SL?

Luna, this is a lovely sentiment and all, and I think it is genuinely meant . . .

. . . but maybe in the context of this discussion, it is actually more than a bit gas-lighty?

It's almost literally as though you are responding to someone talking about the importance of maintaining their RL privacy by saying "And how long have you been desperately insecure and unable to form real connections with people?"

I feel somehow that we would do better to avoid speculation about people's motivations, and focus more on the dynamic by which we actually reconcile different approaches to interpersonal relationships here.

[Luna Bliss]

45 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

It really saddens me that some people must live in a total fantasy world with relationships, unable to connect to RL at all. I do wonder, is it due to being emotionally stunted somehow, hurt in the past by a SL relationship that soured in RL, hiding a part in RL that they fear nobody would accept and so feel a kind of fantasy acceptance in SL?

Luna, this is a lovely sentiment and all, and I think it is genuinely meant . . .

. . . but maybe in the context of this discussion, it is actually more than a bit gas-lighty?

It's almost literally as though you are responding to someone talking about the importance of maintaining their RL privacy by saying "And how long have you been desperately insecure and unable to form real connections with people?"

I feel somehow that we would do better to avoid speculation about people's motivations, and focus more on the dynamic by which we actually reconcile different approaches to interpersonal relationships here.

I went through many of the reasons a person might choose to have a SL relationship...not all by any means, but just a few that came to mind at that time. It was not directed at any certain person as if I knew any one person's motivation. It occurred to me that a lot of people here hide, and this felt sad to me. I was actually thinking of my friend, Lexxi, with the last reason though, as she must hide "a part in RL that they fear nobody would accept and so feel a kind of fantasy acceptance in SL". She has discussed her trans issues here, and I actually thought she might appreciate this comment...and with the hearts she gave I think she did.

You've clearly taken sides...with Amina...and you are defending her... as you did not confront her when she ascribed motivation to Beth, labeling Beth's behavior via wanting RL information as "emotional blackmail".  I didn't see any evidence of Beth manipulating in this way. 
Yet you go after me for suggesting motivation, knowing I side more with Beth on these issues, in this thread.

I suggest not playing mediator/therapist here when you can't be objective.

Edited January 19, 2020 by Luna Bliss

[Innula Zenovka]

9 hours ago, Tolya Ugajin said:

all we are claiming is we are "entitled" to ASK such questions (and nowhere does LL state we are not entitled to ASK) and then we are "entitled" to act on that person's response as we deem appropriate, and we are "entitled" (GASP) to feel hurt or betrayed if we are deceived. 

My invariable response, in both First and Second life, to "Do you mind if I ask you a personal question?" is something on the lines of "No, you can ask me whatever you like  so long as you understand it's up to me whether or not I want to answer, and I hope you will not be offended if I choose not to."   And then we take it from there.

It's not difficult.

 

Edited January 19, 2020 by Innula Zenovka

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, NewLuden said:

you should really think about the feelings of the other person in the matter as what you are doing is highly selfish and self-fulfillment with little regard to another person who is REAL with REAL feelings, despite being on a 'fantasy' platform. Humans are humans and will always behave in certain ways,  despite what we tell ourselves.

Yes, we can no more totally separate RL from SL anymore than we can totally separate fantasy from reality. Compartmentalization can fool us into thinking we can, but using this defense creates more delusion than feelings ever could.