The AR system causes a headache...overhaul now?

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

It's clear that the AR system, as it stands, is open to abuse and leading to ridiculous and unnecessary bans. 

Under the current regime, it just takes three or four dishonest residents to 'group AR' an individual to remove him or her from the grid. I'm willing to bet 100L that the majority of these AR cases involve a verbal argument or a difference of opinion.

The AR system should be reformed in the following ways:

1) An end to the 'verbal abuse' category. The Mute function is enough to counter this problem, and the elimination of this option would lighten LL's back catalogue of complaints. 

2) ARing to be applicable ONLY to a) deliberate sim crashing b) copybotting c) inappropriate sexual behaviour. 

In the case of Reform 2, LL would have more time to investigate each case, including reading chat logs, noting locations, etc. In this way, people filing false ARs 'en masse' would be at risk of losing their accounts, which would probably dissuade this idiotic practice and lead to a far more enjoyable SL experience for everyone. We need an overhaul now!

 

 

[Melita Magic]

Eh, no thanks. 

If it were up to you I'd have had zero recourse for the goo cube attack. It didn't crash the sim, but it sure caused problems.

Sounds like some personal drama. Did you say something to several people that they hated? Maybe the problem was at least partly you?

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Eh, no thanks. 

If it were up to you I'd have had zero recourse for the goo cube attack. It didn't crash the sim, but it sure caused problems.

Sounds like some personal drama. Did you say something to several people that they hated? Maybe the problem was at least partly you?

---

Presumably, as an owner of the sim, you had the power to remove this 'goo cube', and to ban whoever mischievously left it there. In other words, the tools are at your disposal, so I see no point in clogging up LL's inbox when you can handle the situation yourself.

Not sure what your third line refers to, to the best of my knowledge I've had no 'drama' on SL.  However, the fact you ask "Did you say something to several people that they hated?", as if that would have been grounds for an AR, sadly reflects how widespread this inane practice has become. 

[Melita Magic]

Well, you presume wrong.

Cannot return prims that are encroaching onto your parcel. They have to be on your parcel. And in some cases they are scripted so that you cannot remove them even then. 

I'm speaking from experience. Are you?

You seem to be spoiling for an argument. I don't know what happened, only what you told me, which is that several people had a complaint on you; but I don't think LL should overhaul its entire AR system based upon your reasons.

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

 

I'm speaking from experience. Are you?.

---

Yes. 

 

---

Melita Magic wrote:

You seem to be spoiling for an argument. I don't know what happened, only what you told me, which is that several people had a complaint on you; but I don't think LL should overhaul its entire AR system based upon your reasons.

---

If you define 'spoiling for an argument' as me making a proposal and expressing my opinion, then fair enough. Also, I never told you that 'several people had a complaint on' me; and am unaware if that is the case. Did you actually read what I wrote?

 

 

[Melita Magic]

Your tone is really combative. I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer originally, with my reasons. I explained more in the follow-up post.  Which points you ignore. Not something that someone who wants to discuss something would do.

I had mistaken you for wanting to actually discuss your idea, not argue with anyone who posted anything but oh yes wonderful idea.

I'm pretty much done with this topic. Maybe someone else will think your idea of doing away with the AR because some people ARed you is wonderful. Seems selfish and misguided to me.

 

[Melita Magic]

---

CharlesMockingbird Blogger wrote:

---

Melita Magic wrote:

 

I'm speaking from experience. Are you?.

---

Yes. 

_____

 

Well that can't be, because you are just plain wrong, and badly underinformed, and misguiding others with this partial information.

You cannot return an object or prim whose root is on another parcel. It can be overhanging your land almost entirely and you can't do a thing about it.

I also know firsthand that some items cannot be returned even with all indications that it should be possible. I have one on my land like this right now.

I got the info that several people ARed you from your own OP. That seems teh cause of your grudge, that they all 'ganged up' to 'falsely AR' you . I'm not saying one way or the other what happened since I dont know. But it's not a reason to dismantle AR for everyone else on the grid. You are shooting from the hip.

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

Your tone is really combative. I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer originally, with my reasons. I explained more in the follow-up post.  Which points you ignore. Not something that someone who wants to discuss something would do.

I had mistaken you for wanting to actually discuss your idea, not argue with anyone who posted anything but

oh yes wonderful idea

.

I'm pretty much done with this topic. Maybe someone else will think your idea of doing away with the AR because some people ARed you is wonderful. Seems selfish and misguided to me.

 

---

Obviously, we can't all account for levels of sensitivity, but I'd be surprised to have my posts generally read as 'combative'. I'd agree that you abandoning this thread is for the best, as you're obviously getting upset and I'm finding it slightly difficult to continue a conversation about some non-existent people who supposedly AR'd me based on something you've just made up. Thanks for your contributions anyway. 

[Melita Magic]

The tone of every one of your posts has been peeved and personal rather than discussing the actual issue, which seems poorly thought out, and reactive, and under informed on your part to say the least.

Also

FYI.

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

---

Melita Magic wrote:

 the actual issue, which seems poorly thought out, and reactive, and under informed

 

---

Perhaps then you'd like to explain why, and offer your opinion, instead of referencing events that haven't happened and imagining personal outrage on my behalf? 

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

For instance, here is a potential scenario; say that I owned a sim and Melita entered, to continue this debate inworld. After some vigorous disagreement and her leaving,  if I and three friends decided to AR her for 'verbal harassment', there is a good chance that LL would automatically take action against her - despite the fact that she has done nothing but exercise her democratic right to fully disagree with me (which I would support). 

Can anybody explain to me or justify why LL's time and resources should be drained in that manner, when there are umpteen other things to be fixed or enhanced, across the grid?

[Suella Ember]

---

CharlesMockingbird Blogger wrote:

It's clear that the AR system, as it stands, is open to abuse and leading to ridiculous and unnecessary bans. 

Under the current regime, it just takes three or four dishonest residents to 'group AR' an individual to remove him or her from the grid. I'm willing to bet 100L that the majority of these AR cases involve a verbal argument or a difference of opinion.

 

---

It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. 100 people could group AR someone, but LL should still check relevant facts, chat logs (which they have access to the originals of) etc. No-one should be removed from the grid without sufficient evidence and, despite many claims, I've yet to see any hard evidence of this actually happening. Sure, I bet the occassional mistake is made, but I've never seen hard evidence of widespread banning without reason.

If you can provide conclusive proof that LL have banned people just on the say so of a few people without checking facts, then you'll have my attention (incidentally, just as the say so of a few people isn't reason for LL to ban, the say so a a few people isn't evidence that it happens either! :smileywink: )

Also, 100L isn't much of  a bet is it? That's like ... what? ... a couple of cents! :smileytongue: You are possibly right though, a fair proportion of "verbal abuse" ARs probably are frivolous and just a result of silly disagreements. I've not seen any hard evidence to show that LL act on such frivolous ARs though. I'm pretty sure they just ignore them when it becomes obvious its just a frivolous argument (and rightly so).

The problem lies not so much with the AR system itself, but with the way people use it. If people didn't file frivolous ARs, LL wouldn't have to wade through them all to address the more serious ones. However, removing AR types is not the answer. Somehow trying to get people to use the AR system properly is the answer. "Verbal Abuse" should not be removed because serious verbal abuse (e.g. racial abuse) absolutely should be addressed harshly.

[CharlesMockingbird Blogger]

---

Suella Ember wrote:

It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. 100 people could group AR someone, but LL should still check relevant facts, chat logs (which they have access to the

originals 

of) etc.

 

---

Oh I totally agree, LL should, and it could be possible for them to do so, if they weren't having to wade through ARs based on the most inane inconveniences. I can't provide you with a detailed breakdown of incidents, or 'conclusive evidence' that this is always the case, but I'm drawing on testimonies from a significant number of people who I've met inworld, or observed airing their grievances on forums such as this one, Second Citizen, SL Universe, etc. This ranged from NPIOFs to premium members and landowners, some of whom have described what it's like to be on the receiving end of an 'AR party'.

I've also witnessed some residents brandishing the threat of ARs against others like confetti - particularly in various infohubs I won't name - over what amounted to nothing of much importance and heard tell of ARs being conducted against members of groups over personal differences. So it is more than just a few people, and something that I feel does go on more often than it should. I wouldn't describe it as 'widespread' like 'a daily occurrence' - but I think it's a problem, all the same, and one that seems to have deterred a few people from continuing in SL - even if their AVs weren't banned outright.

---

Suella Ember wrote:

Also, 100L isn't much of  a bet is it? That's like ... what? ... a couple of cents! :smileytongue: 

---

Unfortunately, last night's sploder prevented me from adding another zero to the end...

 

---

Suella Ember wrote:

The problem lies not so much with the AR system itself, but with the way people use it. If people didn't file frivolous ARs, LL wouldn't have to wade through them all to address the more serious ones. However, removing AR types is not the answer. Somehow trying to get people to use the AR system properly is the answer. "Verbal Abuse" should not be removed because serious verbal abuse (e.g. racial abuse)

absolutely should

be addressed harshly.

---

True, but if only racial / sexist / bigoted language were the only verbal abuse options; unfortunately, the category seems to cover a multitude of 'crimes', boiling down to anything typed or IM'd. This could be telling somebody to buzz off, in less flattering terms, or a dispute over rental rights, a purchase, etc. I'm sure nobody will sympathise with my next point, but in terms of racist abuse, I would say the best option would be to mute, and to encourage friends to do so. It's not worth getting upset over somebody's ignorance. In time, repeat offenders will blank themselves from the community, appearing a grey, muted shadow on most screens, when and where they're allowed to enter. I guess I'd just prefer self-policing across the grid rather than a system that I consider flawed and very vague in its interpretations. 

[Nyll Bergbahn]

I've used the Abuse Report system on a number of occasions. First time was way back in 2006 when a guy entered my house and started abusing me in chat and last time was just a few months ago when a neighbour was blatantly abusing the Linden Home covenant causing a nuisance to all around. On each occasion, the system worked flawlessly and justice was meted out by LL. Now that Police Reports are no longer, it's not possible to check if justice was meted out or not where it doesn't involve your immediate environment.

LL maintain chat logs for 14 days, so can easily check if ARs based on what was typed in chat are genuine or false. They do not have to judge ARs solely based on what is stated in the AR.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Suella Ember wrote:

It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. 100 people could group AR someone, but LL should still check relevant facts, chat logs (which they have access to the

originals 

of) etc. No-one should be removed from the grid without sufficient evidence and, despite many claims, I've yet to see any hard evidence of this actually happening. Sure, I bet the occassional mistake is made, but I've never seen hard evidence of widespread banning without reason.

---

I'm not in agreement with the OP but I thought I'd chime in on the above paragraph. You said that "LL should still check the relevant facts", which is true. But (a) they *don't* always check the relevant facts and (b) they *do* act solely on the say-so of the person who filed the AR - at least sometimes.

Soon after the adult continent was launched, someone ARed 4 of the demo models (bots) in my store (mature land). The bots were on sex bed poseballs (standing), behind a wall and out of plain sight. They were clothed and, if that weren't enough, the beds had been modified so that no animation could last more than 30 seconds, at which time, the models were stood up again, so they couldn't be left "at it" and nobody could use them to get their jollies. They were over and above full compliance with the rules for Mature land, as publically stated in the forum by a Linden who was prominent in the adult/mature "Linden forum" discussion concerning what could and could not occur on Mature land.

I was summarily issued with an official warning, purely on the strength of the AR, and *without* the Linden who dealt with it ever going to see for him/herself. If s/he had looked, s/he would have seen the situation and, more than that, s/he would have logged the models out. But they were still there.

I removed the models and appealed against the warning, offering facts etc., but the appeal quickly failed. I thought that the Linden who dealt with the appeal was quite possibly the same one who issued the warning, which would have been very wrong. I knew that the decision was wrong and I kept at it.

I sent a notecard to Harry Linden, who was the boss of the AR team at the time. He was the only of them who actually used his brain and considered the facts. He lifted the warning with an apology, and said that he would remove it from my record. The models were fine but the Linden(s) who dealt with the AR didn't bother to check.

That's the problem. Perhaps because they get snowed under with ARs, the AR team DOES make decisions solely on the strength of ARs, and without checking facts. Whether or not they would suspend or ban an account without checking, I don't know, but I do know that it is (or was) in their minds to make decsisions, including the issue of warnings, without checking. Personally, I have no doubt that the same shoddy practises would suspend accounts for a short time without checking. I hope they wouldn't actually ban accounts though, but I don't have confidence that they wouldn't.