Blocking Ineffective

[Silent Mistwalker]

4 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

And anyone attempting to conflate real life stalking to Second Life has immediately lost whatever 'argument' they were trying to have and nulled any 'point' they were attempting to make.

You don't consider the stalker taking it from RL into SL as stalking? Damn. I should have told my RL stalker that when he was trying to find me IN SL. Thankfully cancer killed him before he could find me.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Silent Mistwalker

[Solar Legion]

Just now, Silent Mistwalker said:

You don't consider the stalker taking it from RL into SL as stalking? Damn. I should have told my RL stalker that when he was trying to find me IN SL. Thankfully cancer killed him before he could find me.

Read what I said. Read it again. And again. And again.

Find exactly where I said what you are claiming. The exact line and words stating such in clear writing.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't.

I said: " ... anyone attempting to conflate real life stalking to Second Life has immediately lost whatever 'argument' they were trying to have and nulled any 'point' they were attempting to make."

This means exactly what it says. Someone stalking you within Second Life is not the same thing as being stalked in real life.

If someone has moved beyond Second Life to stalk you, then you act accordingly as it is no longer just a Second Life problem.

Next time, make certain you're responding to what was actually written.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I've never received a warning for any infractions but I would assume that if one receives such cease and desist notification, there would be some indication of time and place and perhaps even the parties involved rather than just a tip to not be icky when dealing with other residents.

A few people have posted on the forums about being banned/disciplined by LL - their descriptions would indicate that this doesn't happen, and the Lindens do not appear to give specific information even when asked.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 hours ago, cunomar said:

Aye bit like all those dumb kids taking things to seriously on facebook or whatever . Maybe we should dig them up and fine them posthumously do you think .

I must say, insulting the dead is a bit rude.

[Silent Mistwalker]

37 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Read what I said. Read it again. And again. And again.

Find exactly where I said what you are claiming. The exact line and words stating such in clear writing.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't.

I said: " ... anyone attempting to conflate real life stalking to Second Life has immediately lost whatever 'argument' they were trying to have and nulled any 'point' they were attempting to make."

This means exactly what it says. Someone stalking you within Second Life is not the same thing as being stalked in real life.

If someone has moved beyond Second Life to stalk you, then you act accordingly as it is no longer just a Second Life problem.

Next time, make certain you're responding to what was actually written.

I asked a question right off the bat. You didn't answer that question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed instead of being so aggressive towards me.

I'm not talking about taking stalking FROM SL into RL. I'm saying the exact opposite. He was a RL stalker who escalated to stalking me online and was in SL at the time for one reason only. To find me.

Next time, make certain you actually answer an honest question before going off on someone in an attempt to make them feel inferior.

[Solar Legion]

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I asked a question right off the bat. You didn't answer that question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed instead of being so aggressive towards me.

I'm not talking about taking stalking FROM SL into RL. I'm saying the exact opposite. He was a RL stalker who escalated to stalking me online and was in SL at the time for one reason only. To find me.

Next time, make certain you actually answer an honest question before going off on someone in an attempt to make them feel inferior.

I see what appears to be a rhetorical question - not an honest one. A 'question' was asked and the following text proceeds as if an answer was already given.

As far as taking stalking from RL into SL ... That is the purview of real life law enforcement, same as if someone decides to take their stalking of someone from an online community into RL - if it moves to or originates from RL, it's an RL issue to be handled RL.

As I have already stated - now three different times, using three different wordings.

Have a genuine question? Ask it. Do not ask it and then proceed onward as if it was already answered or as if you do not wish to have an answer.

I've very little patience for even seemingly rhetorical questions, for the foreseeable future. Question. Wait for Answer. React after getting the answer.

As for attempting to make someone feel inferior - Were such the intent, I'd have used a far different phrasing, one which would have run afoul of the ToS/CS. If my words carry an intent, it is an explicit intent - my words will be chosen specifically with a particular reaction in mind. Any reaction outside of such is an implicit/implied intent and reaction - firmly on the reader's end.

Edited February 20, 2023 by Solar Legion

[Love Zhaoying]

8 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

I'm not talking about taking stalking FROM SL into RL. I'm saying the exact opposite. He was a RL stalker who escalated to stalking me online and was in SL at the time for one reason only. To find me.

That's..different!

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Solar Legion said:

Have a genuine question? Ask it. Do not ask it and then proceed onward as if it was already answered or as if you do not wish to have an answer.

I've very little patience for even seemingly rhetorical questions, for the foreseeable future. Question. Wait for Answer. React after getting the answer.

Why is it, that sometimes the same people who want to "put words in one's mouth" also want you to "eat your words"?

I find that hard to swallow.

[Kathlen Onyx]

1 minute ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Why is it, that sometimes the same people who want to "put words in one's mouth" also want you to "eat your words"?

I find that hard to swallow.

Probably because some people always are the victim...of something or anything.  

[Silent Mistwalker]

7 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

I see what appears to be a rhetorical question - not an honest one. A 'question' was asked and the following text proceeds as if an answer was already given.

As far as taking stalking from RL into SL ... That is the purview of real life law enforcement, same as if someone decides to take their stalking of someone from an online community into RL - if it moves to or originates from RL, it's an RL issue to be handled RL.

As I have already stated - now three different times, using three different wordings.

Have a genuine question? Ask it. Do not ask it and then proceed onward as if it was already answered or as if you do not wish to have an answer.

I've very little patience for even seemingly rhetorical questions, for the foreseeable future. Question. Wait for Answer. React after getting the answer.

As for attempting to make someone feel inferior - Were such the intent, I'd have used a far different phrasing, one which would have run afoul of the ToS/CS. If my words carry an intent, it is an explicit intent - my words will be chosen specifically with a particular reaction in mind. Any reaction outside of such is an implicit/implied intent and reaction - firmly on the reader's end.

Thank you so much for assuming you know my intentions.

You don't.

I'm done.

[Solar Legion]

1 minute ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Thank you so much for assuming you know my intentions.

You don't.

I'm done.

That's nice.

If your intention was to ask a question, you should have asked the question and waited for a response.

Point blank I am quite tired of this same BS being played out time and time again.

Be done. Learn nothing. Continue to react the exact same way to everything. Continue to be offended by things that were not said/continue to give the wrong impressions with your words.

[Love Zhaoying]

7 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

Probably because some people always are the victim...of something or anything.  

There's the "never can be wrong" effect, where "if someone is disagreeing with me, they must not understand me". 

Or something like that.

Kind like "must win every argument at all costs".

[Arielle Popstar]

2 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Of what value is there of discussing an issue here?

 

A Positive Brainstorming / Suggestion Box Thread - Idea for Improving Second Life Sociability, Usability and Retention.

[EliseAnne85]

This is an uncomfortable and emotional topic but one thing we all need to remember is we never walked in the shoes of those who have been stalked or cyber-bullied.  

As far as what actions the Lindens take, it's been pointed out in this thread that LL does not let the other person know what actions have been taken.

One thing I did when I was uncomfortable inworld whether it came in an IM or was in local chat was to immediately IM the host and DJ.  If something was said in local chat or drama was occurring, that person was usually escorted out by the DJ or host.  Even if it's an IM that is against the TOS, contact the nearest people in charge, they usually take care of it as that is their club and that's why they are staff.  They want to have as happy and drama-free club as they can.

I'm sorry to hear what some of you have gone through so community can we please keep the judging of others down?  Remember we never walked in their shoes.

What can be solved here, I don't know.  I just wanted to add IM those nearest in charge and IM the land owner even as well as making a report to LL.  

Escape for awhile; move your avatar to another place for awhile because your IM's will be open with the DJ and Host and they can let you know if things have calmed down.  

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[EliseAnne85]

SUGGESTION:  Perhaps rather than hide our avatar, our profile could be hidden from those we block.  

I know nothing of the technicalities hiding our PROFILE might create, so take it as a techno dummie suggestion.  

I think this suggestion may only work as long as we *cannot* hide our PROFILE from people who have DJ, HOST, OWNER, etc. (authoritative titles) in their name.  

Edited February 20, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Kathlen Onyx]

23 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

I think this suggestion may only work as long as we *cannot* hide our PROFILE from people who have DJ, HOST, OWNER, etc. (authoritative titles) in their name.  

I'm curious why? I'm not understanding this. These are jobs not titles or special people. Anyone and everyone can be all these things and would just have to change their name to get around it. Maybe I'm not understanding?

As far as not having walked in people's shoes that have been stalked or cyberbullied I will say that you don't know for sure who has or hasn't experienced this. I've been cyberbullied and stalked online.  I still think that being able to hide your avatar from people or even your profile is a bad idea and makes it easier for people who engage in this type of behavior. 

[Rowan Amore]

44 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

SUGGESTION:  Perhaps rather than hide our avatar, our profile could be hidden from those we block.  

I know nothing of the technicalities hiding our PROFILE might create, so take it as a techno dummie suggestion.  

I think this suggestion may only work as long as we *cannot* hide our PROFILE from people who have DJ, HOST, OWNER, etc. (authoritative titles) in their name.  

The only person who can't be hidden in a group is the person who created.the group.  You can hide all other roles.

[EliseAnne85]

8 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

I'm curious why? I'm not understanding this. These are jobs not titles or special people. Anyone and everyone can be all these things and would just have to change their name to get around it. Maybe I'm not understanding?

As far as not having walked in people's shoes that have been stalked or cyberbullied I will say that you don't know for sure who has or hasn't experienced this. I've been cyberbullied and stalked online.  I still think that being able to hide your avatar from people or even your profile is a bad idea and makes it easier for people who engage in this type of behavior. 

Yes, I* should have said none of us have walked in each other's shoes so perhaps we can cut the judging out in this thread because none of us know the whole story of anyone.  

As far as what happens in a block, I'm not sure.  If person A blocks person B is person B still able to read their PROFILE or not?  Because if the blocked person (person B) can still see the PROFILE, they could read one's groups and picks and have more information on how to stalk/harass a person.

Next, hypothetically, let me give another example.  Let's say it's a griefer.  So, griefer goes to club FILLinTHEblank and blocks the DJ (who may have land banning powers) and cannot read the griefer's profile in order to contact them, that could be a problem.  Say, for instance, the DJ who does have land banning powers might want to talk to the griefer before perhaps a temporary ban.  If griefer just walks into club and bans DJ, Host, or any of those who may have land banning powers couldn't that present problems?  I guess I'm saying there would need to be some kind of title where if a person is blocked, the one's in authority do not receive a disappearing PROFILE.  

[Kathlen Onyx]

3 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

Next, hypothetically, let me give another example.  Let's say it's a griefer.  So, griefer goes to club FILLinTHEblank and blocks the DJ (who may have land banning powers) and cannot read the griefer's profile in order to contact them, that could be a problem.  Say, for instance, the DJ who does have land banning powers might want to talk to the griefer before perhaps a temporary ban.  If griefer just walks into club and bans DJ, Host, or any of those who may have land banning powers couldn't that present problems?  I guess I'm saying there would need to be some kind of title where if a person is blocked, the one's in authority do not receive a disappearing PROFILE.  

Ok, but who determines this? Anyone can put themselves in authority.  This whole idea presents problems and that is why LL doesn't get involved in resident to resident disputes.

[Ceka Cianci]

I think if you remove the ability to block the person that blocked you, there might be all kinds of problems..

If you remove the ability to see someone that blocked you, that is removing one channel to being able to block someone by being able to right click and block them..

If you remove being able to see their profile,that's another channel to a block feature removed from a person that's been blocked..

Removing their name from chat would be another feature that removes the block feature from someone being blocked..

There are block features on all of those things.. I think it's opening up a can of worms when we start to think removing block features for those that were first blocked  is a good thing..

Both should have the same blocking abilities. Otherwise it can turn into a griefing tool

[EliseAnne85]

28 minutes ago, Sam1 Bellisserian said:

Ok, but who determines this? Anyone can put themselves in authority.  This whole idea presents problems and that is why LL doesn't get involved in resident to resident disputes.

Don't those who own the land and hire their staff already have the authority to ban, that is?  Those that have the authority on their land shouldn't have those who can come in and eliminate the ability to contact them (the customer).  It's like saying we could walk into a person's real life home and put duct tape on their mouth.  However, if a DJ or Host or Owner find out a customer blocked them, that customer might very well be booted out because of the inability to communicate if they were griefing or drunk even.  

Anyhow,  those controlling the land would still need a way to contact said griefer I'm saying and if the profile is blocked because they blocked the DJ, Host or Owner, they'd probably just be booted out anyways, so oh well.  So, no need for a special name, really.  

Edited February 20, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Ceka Cianci]

21 minutes ago, EliseAnne85 said:

Don't those who own the land and hire their staff already have the authority to ban, that is?  Those that have the authority on their land shouldn't have those who can come in and eliminate the ability to contact them (the customer).  It's like saying we could walk into a person's real life home and put duct tape on their mouth.  However, if a DJ or Host or Owner find out a customer blocked them, that customer might very well be booted out because of the inability to communicate if they were griefing or drunk even.  

Anyhow,  those controlling the land would still need a way to contact said griefer I'm saying and if the profile is blocked because they blocked the DJ, Host or Owner, they'd probably just be booted out anyways, so oh well.  So, no need for a special name, really.  

All land owners should have is the ability to remove someone from their land, which they have, then a block feature like anyone else..

I have a linden home which I have land, or I could just get a little 512 and have land and put any title I want in my land group..Owner, DJ, Host.

They should only have authority on their land.. If they are blocked they shouldn't still have the ability to communicate with anyone outside their land.. Since they have the ability to see anyone that has blocked them,  they can still remove them from their land..

once they are off their land they are just two users.. otherwise it's an over reaching power to all land owners.

ETA:This is all based of my understanding of what's being said.. I may be misunderstanding it .

 

Edited February 20, 2023 by Ceka Cianci

[EliseAnne85]

18 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

they should only have authority on their land

Yeah, a special name won't do.  So, forget that but I don't think it's needed.

But, if a profile disappears upon blocking and if a griefer or drunk person blocks the DJ, Host or Owner and the DJ, Host or Owner find out they have no way to contact the person they'd probably just be booted/banned anyways.  The person who initiated the block would have to unblock and *then* once they sobered up or whatever their problem was, contact the Dj, Host or Owner asking for another chance.  

So, what I'm saying is, land owners do have a lot of power to take care of problems; so, first of all, they should always be contacted when problems arise.  And, if a Dj, Host or Owner found out they were blocked and couldn't even IM the person, they very well might initiate a ban.  Why would anyone want a griefing customer they cannot even contact?

So, this sounds like it could be useful or maybe not...maybe just cause more problems.

But, I don't see why a blocked stalker would need to still see a person's profile other than to see their Groups and Picks or be looking for personal names in their prey's profile.  

Edited February 20, 2023 by EliseAnne85

[Rowan Amore]

Kind of a good point.  If your stalker makes an alt and then blocks you, how would you know if they were, let's say, in your Linden home?   They have 2 alts, one blocks you so you can't see them and the other remains visible but doesn't interact with you.  Standing at the club, the visible alt stands next to you while the alt you can't see (but the visible alt can see) pushes you, makes bunny ears behind your head, holds a sign over you, takes pictures.  The only person who doesn't know what's going on is....you.

[Silent Mistwalker]

10 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Kind of a good point.  If your stalker makes an alt and then blocks you, how would you know if they were, let's say, in your Linden home?   They have 2 alts, one blocks you so you can't see them and the other remains visible but doesn't interact with you.  Standing at the club, the visible alt stands next to you while the alt you can't see (but the visible alt can see) pushes you, makes bunny ears behind your head, holds a sign over you, takes pictures.  The only person who doesn't know what's going on is....you.

Wouldn't that get pretty boring rather quickly? They do it for the response. If there is no response and the first and second alts get blocked, is there a point to continuing with the alts? 

It's pretty rare for there to be just that one person in SL that nothing will stop them until LL hauls them into court and they get slapped with more than a fine. So rare that it's never happened.

Most of the time, the tools we already have are more than sufficient to take care of the issues (once RZ was booted off the grid). Adding more features to those tools is only going to end up bogging the client down even further.