Hide my avatar from others

[Rilee Dallas]

I used to post on some spirituality forums and they had some of the worse human beings on the planet there....yes on forums intended to be about spirituality which is very ironic but kinda makes sense lol. But this one person was after me and posting horrible things after everything I posted and the admins all said, "just block them!" All that did is prevent me from seeing their posts. They still saw mine and still followed me around slamming me after every post I made. Others saw their posts about me and the comments from others I did see made that clear. The "block" function needed to work both ways to solve this griefing problem. I did not see their posts but they needed to also not see mine. I don't really see a negative to having it go both ways. Some people have posted they are against it going both ways but why? What's the downside? Seems like it would be simple to program and a win/win.

[Love Zhaoying]

26 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I will plead guilty to the charge of being extra sensitive to this kind of issue, because I've known too many people (mostly women) who have been targeted by griefers and stalkers.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I undoubtedly should just shut up, but it's given me a sort of visceral dislike of "solutions" that run along the lines of "So don't log in" or "So spend your SL in a fortified encampment built around your own parcel." I'd like to think we can find solutions that don't involve sending the person who is requesting some protections and/or privacy into a self-imposed exile. It's too much like telling women "don't dress like that" or "stop going out at night."

Again, I'm very far from sure that the analogy holds in this instance. But it explains, even if it doesn not justify, my own responses.

What exactly was your advice to the OP?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

I understand and share your general feelings, @Scylla Rhiadra.  The OP's situation does not seem to justify your reaction, though. She is not being attacked or targeted. She just doesn't like hearing rude comments.  She's chosen to spend time as a dancer in a club where, sadly, comments like that are par for the course. Under the circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable to say, "Look, you chose to be there and in a profession that tends to attract coarse comments from patrons. If you don't like it, change clubs or change professions." 

I spent some time dancing during my own early years in SL, so I can relate to what the OP is experiencing. The difference between us is that I remembered that I could control how I wanted to spend my time, and I didn't want to waste my time trying to control other people. I left.

Agreed.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Rilee Dallas said:

I don't really see a negative to having it go both ways. Some people have posted they are against it going both ways but why? What's the downside? Seems like it would be simple to program and a win/win.

On 12/3/2022 at 1:18 PM, Madelaine McMasters said:

You can't hide yourself. That would be a massive exploit for griefers. Imagine if I wanted to harass a sim, all I'd have to do is block everyone I see on it and I'd become invisible. I could then wander around interacting with all the objects while everyone else scratches their heads and wonders what the hell has gone wrong.

[Ceka Cianci]

4 minutes ago, Rilee Dallas said:

I used to post on some spirituality forums and they had some of the worse human beings on the planet there....yes on forums intended to be about spirituality which is very ironic but kinda makes sense lol. But this one person was after me and posting horrible things after everything I posted and the admins all said, "just block them!" All that did is prevent me from seeing their posts. They still saw mine and still followed me around slamming me after every post I made. Others saw their posts about me and the comments from others I did see made that clear. The "block" function needed to work both ways to solve this griefing problem. I did not see their posts but they needed to also not see mine. I don't really see a negative to having it go both ways. Some people have posted they are against it going both ways but why? What's the downside? Seems like it would be simple to program and a win/win.

Because just being rude isn't the same as being a griefer..  Someone saying something rude is not a reason to start manipulating another persons account and view of the world..

If they are being harassed by  someone, there is a rule for that and that will  impact the account if the report sticks..

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

8 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What exactly was your advice to the OP?

I didn't offer advice because there is no actual existing solution to the problem that she poses. And one possible "fix" -- making the "blocker" also invisible to the person blocked -- would be a gift to griefers and stalkers.

And, finally, because the particular reasons she wants this don't seem to justify it.

In this particular instance, anyway, the tools available are more than adequate.

[Love Zhaoying]

Just now, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I didn't offer advice because there is no actual existing solution to the problem that she poses. And one possible "fix" -- making the "blocker" also invisible to the person blocked -- would be a gift to griefers and stalkers.

And, finally, because the particular reasons she wants this don't seem to justify it.

In this particular instance, anyway, the tools available are more than adequate.

I see. However, thank you for contributing to the discussion regardless of whether you offered advice.  

 

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Because just being rude isn't the same as being a griefer..  Someone saying something rude is not a reason to start manipulating another persons account and view of the world..

If they are being harassed by  someone, there is a rule for that and that will  impact the account if the report sticks..

 

And yet the one being rude is attempting to manipulate the victims view and enjoyment of the world so it falls into a tit for tat? In the real world one could have a restraining order put on them so they cannot be within a certain range of the victim. 

[Ceka Cianci]

27 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

And yet the one being rude is attempting to manipulate the victims view and enjoyment of the world so it falls into a tit for tat? In the real world one could have a restraining order put on them so they cannot be within a certain range of the victim. 

Try getting a restraining order on someone because  they were rude.. Think about what rude is and then think what it would take to get a restraining order..

Think about the minimal reasons someone gets blocked.. Bling, don't like looking at that avatar, said something I don't agree with. complexity.

Your honor, he said looks like I'm having a bad hair day. Yes mam that was rude, but  it was only rude.

tit for tat is back and forth.. they say something rude tit, you react by turning them off tat..

Edited December 7, 2022 by Ceka Cianci

[Krystina Ferraris]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Presumably because the OP has argued that it shouldn't be impossible. Although, in fairness, that view was answered fairly early on as well.

And because people enjoy finding ingenious workarounds to problems, even if the problem they are responding to isn't actually relevant to the OP.

I will plead guilty to the charge of being extra sensitive to this kind of issue, because I've known too many people (mostly women) who have been targeted by griefers and stalkers.

That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I undoubtedly should just shut up, but it's given me a sort of visceral dislike of "solutions" that run along the lines of "So don't log in" or "So spend your SL in a fortified encampment built around your own parcel." I'd like to think we can find solutions that don't involve sending the person who is requesting some protections and/or privacy into a self-imposed exile. It's too much like telling women "don't dress like that" or "stop going out at night."

Again, I'm very far from sure that the analogy holds in this instance. But it explains, even if it doesn not justify, my own responses.

I think you’re overreacting and verging on white knighting to be honest, as the OP essentially wants to control someone else’s SL.

Her perception of what is rude may be different from mine, I admit I have a thick skin, however ultimately it does not matter as it’s an individual’s perception that counts.

If she feels that she is unfairly treated by someone the tools available are fit for purpose. If it goes beyond that the workplace is responsible for keeping their employees safe. Full stop.

Any other issues with how women are treated are beyond scope here, in my humble opinion.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

15 minutes ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

I think you’re overreacting and verging on white knighting to be honest, as the OP essentially wants to control someone else’s SL.

Her perception of what is rude may be different from mine, I admit I have a thick skin, however ultimately it does not matter as it’s an individual’s perception that counts.

If she feels that she is unfairly treated by someone the tools available are fit for purpose. If it goes beyond that the workplace is responsible for keeping their employees safe. Full stop.

Any other issues with how women are treated are beyond scope here, in my humble opinion.

With respect, Krystina, I think you are misreading, or at least omitting, things I have said, including in the post that you actually quote. Far from "white knighting" the OP, I've explicitly said that I don't think her case merits more than the tools already available.

2 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That doesn't seem to be the case here, so I undoubtedly should just shut up, but it's given me a sort of visceral dislike of "solutions" that run along the lines of "So don't log in" or "So spend your SL in a fortified encampment built around your own parcel." I'd like to think we can find solutions that don't involve sending the person who is requesting some protections and/or privacy into a self-imposed exile. It's too much like telling women "don't dress like that" or "stop going out at night."

Again, I'm very far from sure that the analogy holds in this instance. But it explains, even if it does not justify, my own responses.

I totally agree that "rudeness" is not the same as victimization by harassment or stalking.

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I didn't offer advice because there is no actual existing solution to the problem that she poses. And one possible "fix" -- making the "blocker" also invisible to the person blocked -- would be a gift to griefers and stalkers.

And, finally, because the particular reasons she wants this don't seem to justify it.

In this particular instance, anyway, the tools available are more than adequate.

I also agree that the OP's case seems not to be about harassment or stalking or griefing, but about her desire to merely "customize" her SL to the point of actually impinging upon the experience of others.

On 12/3/2022 at 10:41 PM, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Although the OP does mention "abuse" in one or two places, this sounds rather entitled, and seems to treat other residents as though they were customizable props. No, "rudeness" should not be grounds for an AR. Obviously.

Where, here, do you see me supporting, yet alone "white knighting," the OP's request?

I am interested in this issue in the abstract, because it does relate to those who have been the victims of stalking. But I think I have been pretty clear that I don't think that that's the case here.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Try getting a restraining order on someone because  they were rude.. Think about what rude is and then think what it would take to get a restraining order..

Think about the minimal reasons someone gets blocked.. Bling, don't like looking at that avatar, said something I don't agree with. complexity.

Your honor, he said looks like I'm having a bad hair day. Yes mam that was rude, but  it was only rude.

tit for tat is back and forth.. they say something rude tit, you react by turning them off tat..

Rudeness can take many forms and the typical justifications for a restrainintg order can be:

• Contacting, calling, or sending any kind of messages
• Stalking
• Threatening
• Attacking, striking, or battering
• Destroying personal property
• Harassing
• Disturbing the peace of the protected people

The majority of which contain an element of rudeness to them as they show an "ignorance of or indifference to good form; it may suggest intentional discourtesy." as per the definition.

Regardless of whether it is justified in this case or not, the ability to block being seen by the such a rude avatar would be a worthwhile feature to have being that many others have posted a wish for such both on the forums and inworld. The ability to modify or cancel someone's view of the world by not being visible has many precedents, so certainly not a justification for rejecting the ability.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Regardless of whether it is justified in this case or not, the ability to block being seen by the such a rude avatar would be a worthwhile feature

Avatars can't see anything. I presume what you and the OP want is to not be seen by the human controlling the avatar. Just as there are ways to make you selectively invisible, there are ways of getting around that if some human wants to see you.

[TatianaD Grigorovich]

2 hours ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

I think you’re overreacting and verging on white knighting to be honest, as the OP essentially wants to control someone else’s SL.

 

How am I controlling their Sl, they have have their own cyber existence certainly but they have no absolute right to see me?
I am trying to control MY SL by removing myself from the vision of those who wish me malice, SL is a fantasy world where that should be possible as long as I cause no harm or grief.

[Kathlen Onyx]

9 minutes ago, TatianaD Grigorovich said:

How am I controlling their Sl, they have have their own cyber existence certainly but they have no absolute right to see me?
I am trying to control MY SL by removing myself from the vision of those who wish me malice, SL is a fantasy world where that should be possible as long as I cause no harm or grief.

They absolutely have a right to see you. You signed up for SL and that is part of the mechanics of the platform. 

The ability to prevent others from seeing you is not controlling your SL it's controlling their SL.

I'm beginning to think that "they" are not the rude and malicious people in this story just by the way you respond.

[Ceka Cianci]

40 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Rudeness can take many forms and the typical justifications for a restrainintg order can be:

• Contacting, calling, or sending any kind of messages
• Stalking
• Threatening
• Attacking, striking, or battering
• Destroying personal property
• Harassing
• Disturbing the peace of the protected people

The majority of which contain an element of rudeness to them as they show an "ignorance of or indifference to good form; it may suggest intentional discourtesy." as per the definition.

Regardless of whether it is justified in this case or not, the ability to block being seen by the such a rude avatar would be a worthwhile feature to have being that many others have posted a wish for such both on the forums and inworld. The ability to modify or cancel someone's view of the world by not being visible has many precedents, so certainly not a justification for rejecting the ability.

I don't seem to find the same thing written in mine. there is rude and then there is abusive.

What Are Valid Reasons for a Restraining Order?

Learn About the Four Types of Restraining Orders

A restraining order, also known as a protective order, is a court order that is meant to protect a specific individual, known as the “protected person.” Judges issue these orders to tell people to do or not do specific things that could endanger the protected person. A restraining order is meant to prevent instances of continued or threatened stalking and domestic violence. If children are involved in situations with a restraining order, the victim is granted full custody. For example, they can be used to protect the individual from the following actions of another individual who is deemed dangerous in this situation:

• Contacting, calling, or sending any kind of messages
• Stalking
• Threatening
• Attacking, striking, or battering
• Destroying personal property
• Harassing
• Disturbing the peace of the protected people

The four most common types of restraining orders include the following:

• Emergency

This type of restraining order can be used any time of the day or night in a domestic violence case if a law enforcement officer asserts reasonable grounds to believe the person who needs to be protected is “in immediate and present danger of domestic violence” based on the complainants “allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse by the person against whom the order is sought.”

• Temporary

Temporary restraining orders (TROs) are short-term, pre-trial temporary injunctions. To get a TRO, one party must convince a judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. The nature of a TRO is that it only lasts until the court holds a hearing on whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction. It will expire after 14 days unless it is extended for another 14 days or unless the party against whom the order is directed agrees that it can be extended for a longer period of time.

• No-contact

With a no-contact restraining order, the individual being restrained by the order is prohibited from making physical contact or verbal communication with the victim. The requirements can include the following measures:

Prohibiting physical contact between the party the order is directed against and the protected person

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from coming within a certain distance of the victim

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from communicating with the victim through phone, email, postal mail, text, online chat, and other types of communication

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from entering the victim’s family home or residence

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from possessing or purchasing a firearm

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from selling marital property

Requiring the children of the party the order is directed against to be removed from the jurisdiction

• Domestic violence

A domestic violence restraining order is a type of restraining order that goes into effect after the parties have held a hearing on the facts of the case and the party the order is being directed against has had an opportunity to defend themselves before the judge. The goal of the hearing will be to determine whether the individual has committed domestic violence. This would mean they have committed one of the following acts:

Causing or attempting to cause the victim physical injury

Sexually assaulting the victim

Causing the victim to fear that they or another person is in danger of immediate, serious physical injury

Depriving the individual of their basic needs

Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the movement, communication, activities, and finances of the victim

Molesting, attacking, using force against, or striking the victim

Stalking the victim

Isolating the victim from their friends, family, or other sources of support

Threatening or harassing the individual in person or through phone calls, emails, or other methods

Destroying the victim’s personal property

Disturbing the victim’s peace, such as through coercive control

Restraining orders are an important way to protect victims from abuse. Unfortunately, abusive individuals often find ways to violate restraining orders, in which case the victim can benefit from an enforcement. The team at The Clark Law Firm can help victims enforce their restraining orders and prevent violations from happening in the future.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Ceka Cianci

[Love Zhaoying]

9 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I don't seem to find the same thing written in mine. there is rude and then there is abusive.

What Are Valid Reasons for a Restraining Order?

Learn About the Four Types of Restraining Orders

A restraining order, also known as a protective order, is a court order that is meant to protect a specific individual, known as the “protected person.” Judges issue these orders to tell people to do or not do specific things that could endanger the protected person. A restraining order is meant to prevent instances of continued or threatened stalking and domestic violence. If children are involved in situations with a restraining order, the victim is granted full custody. For example, they can be used to protect the individual from the following actions of another individual who is deemed dangerous in this situation:

• Contacting, calling, or sending any kind of messages
• Stalking
• Threatening
• Attacking, striking, or battering
• Destroying personal property
• Harassing
• Disturbing the peace of the protected people

The four most common types of restraining orders include the following:

• Emergency

This type of restraining order can be used any time of the day or night in a domestic violence case if a law enforcement officer asserts reasonable grounds to believe the person who needs to be protected is “in immediate and present danger of domestic violence” based on the complainants “allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse by the person against whom the order is sought.”

• Temporary

Temporary restraining orders (TROs) are short-term, pre-trial temporary injunctions. To get a TRO, one party must convince a judge that they will suffer immediate irreparable injury unless the order is issued. The nature of a TRO is that it only lasts until the court holds a hearing on whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction. It will expire after 14 days unless it is extended for another 14 days or unless the party against whom the order is directed agrees that it can be extended for a longer period of time.

• No-contact

With a no-contact restraining order, the individual being restrained by the order is prohibited from making physical contact or verbal communication with the victim. The requirements can include the following measures:

Prohibiting physical contact between the party the order is directed against and the protected person

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from coming within a certain distance of the victim

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from communicating with the victim through phone, email, postal mail, text, online chat, and other types of communication

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from entering the victim’s family home or residence

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from possessing or purchasing a firearm

Prohibiting the party the order is directed against from selling marital property

Requiring the children of the party the order is directed against to be removed from the jurisdiction

• Domestic violence

A domestic violence restraining order is a type of restraining order that goes into effect after the parties have held a hearing on the facts of the case and the party the order is being directed against has had an opportunity to defend themselves before the judge. The goal of the hearing will be to determine whether the individual has committed domestic violence. This would mean they have committed one of the following acts:

Causing or attempting to cause the victim physical injury

Sexually assaulting the victim

Causing the victim to fear that they or another person is in danger of immediate, serious physical injury

Depriving the individual of their basic needs

Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the movement, communication, activities, and finances of the victim

Molesting, attacking, using force against, or striking the victim

Stalking the victim

Isolating the victim from their friends, family, or other sources of support

Threatening or harassing the individual in person or through phone calls, emails, or other methods

Destroying the victim’s personal property

Disturbing the victim’s peace, such as through coercive control

Restraining orders are an important way to protect victims from abuse. Unfortunately, abusive individuals often find ways to violate restraining orders, in which case the victim can benefit from an enforcement. The team at The Clark Law Firm can help victims enforce their restraining orders and prevent violations from happening in the future.

 

Maybe "Restraining Orders for Rudeness" are why Canadians are more polite?

/me hides!

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Rudeness can take many forms and the typical justifications for a restrainintg order can be:

• Contacting, calling, or sending any kind of messages
• Stalking
• Threatening
• Attacking, striking, or battering
• Destroying personal property
• Harassing
• Disturbing the peace of the protected people

The majority of which contain an element of rudeness to them as they show an "ignorance of or indifference to good form; it may suggest intentional discourtesy." as per the definition.

Regardless of whether it is justified in this case or not, the ability to block being seen by the such a rude avatar would be a worthwhile feature to have being that many others have posted a wish for such both on the forums and inworld. The ability to modify or cancel someone's view of the world by not being visible has many precedents, so certainly not a justification for rejecting the ability.

For someone who is against others telling you what you can and should do, I'm genuinely surprised by your agreement with the OP.    You (general you) shouldn't be able to 'tell' me what I can and cannot see in a public area of SL.

 

[Nick0678]

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I don't seem to find the same thing written in mine. there is rude and then there is abusive.

What Are Valid Reasons for a Restraining Order?

BLAH BLAH BLAH...

 

In the UK a restraining order is a court order that can only be issued in combination with criminal proceedings.

Therefore, to obtain one, you will need to report the individual to the police and take them to court for their crimes.

-

Not sure if being "rude" is considered a crime there though.

Let's say someone farted in an elevator, now that's "rude" , the rest should file for a restraining order? Hmm.

[Ceka Cianci]

2 minutes ago, Nick0678 said:

In the UK a restraining order is a court order that can only be issued in combination with criminal proceedings.

Therefore, to obtain one, you will need to report the individual to the police and take them to court for their crimes.

-

Not sure if being "rude" is considered a crime there though.

Let's say someone farted in an elevator, now that's "rude" , the rest should file for a restraining order? Hmm.

That's what I've been trying to say since my very first post..   I only posted all of that stuff  to show what it really said..

 

[Rowan Amore]

This has gone from being slightly amusing to completely comical.  If after 14 years, the OP hasn't learned how to deal with rude, obnoxious people, there is nothing anyone can say to help.  

[Ceka Cianci]

4 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

This has gone from being slightly amusing to completely comical.  If after 14 years, the OP hasn't learned how to deal with rude, obnoxious people, there is nothing anyone can say to help.  

I''m just killing time for the kids to go to sleep so I can hit the grid without fear of them needing therapy from something that may run across my screen at any moment.. hehehehe

[Arielle Popstar]

3 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Avatars can't see anything. I presume what you and the OP want is to not be seen by the human controlling the avatar. Just as there are ways to make you selectively invisible, there are ways of getting around that if some human wants to see you.

How can one make themselves selectively invisible?

[Akane Nacht]

8 hours ago, Rilee Dallas said:

The "block" function needed to work both ways to solve this griefing problem. I did not see their posts but they needed to also not see mine. I don't really see a negative to having it go both ways. Some people have posted they are against it going both ways but why? What's the downside? Seems like it would be simple to program and a win/win.

Won't really fix anything. We all know, in most open platforms, people who are determined to cause mischief will simply create an alt account and carry on. All we can truly control is our own reactions. 

[Gabriele Graves]

2 minutes ago, Akane Nacht said:

Won't really fix anything. We all know, in most open platforms, people who are determined to cause mischief will simply create an alt account and carry on. All we can truly control is our own reactions. 

I already posted this pages ago.  It's pointless because some just aren't listening and aren't going to start either.