"I'll report you!"

[Mayalily]

This sounds like drama here that you are writing tho?  Why are u complaining about drama when u are creating drama?  Or else u r just being mean and insulting for the sake of making yourself feel superior.  Now, that's immature. 

 

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Love Leonoase wrote:

And what exactly is "harmless consensual goofiness"?  That's pretty subjective, I think.  After all, is it "consensual" to say HELLO to somebody?  No, so we need people who think that they are fit to make judgments and determinations about other adults to go around filing nanny reports in an effort to save the SL world.

 

---

 

I think that my post, while it takes something of an indirect route to the heart of your OP, is entirely to the point, Love. And I think you know it, or you wouldn't have "wasted" as much time responding to it as you did.

So let's get all "subjective" here, shall we?  For instance, you seem to find "offensive" the notion that anyone should question your absolute right to do whatever you want to in Second Life.  I, on the other hand, find offensive the abuse of the language, and the use of waffle-words like "maturity" to conceal the kinds of behaviours that you think you should be allowed to indulge yourself in, no consequences, no questions asked.  (Because those questions, even if asked by a member of the shadow LL G-Team, would be just "subjective," right?)

So, "subjectively" speaking, Love, is there anything that you DO think is a legitimate target of an AR?

Let's try some concrete examples.  I'd put in yes-and-no checkboxes, but this software . . .  Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable?

 

 

1) Sexual Age Play?  Yes or no?

2) Racism, either in language or through role play?  Yes or no?

3) Deliberate fraud?  Yes or no?

4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour?  Yes or no?

 

I think these are all reasonably straight-forward.  Please provide a direct answer.

 

Or, you could just answer Griffin's question directly -- you know, the one you keep dodging.  The one about the kinds of behaviour for which you have received this kind of threat?

[Griffin Ceawlin]

@Scylla: That was my question. I'm not expecting an answer. Not a sincere one, anyway.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

LOL.  Sorry Griffin.

That'll teach me not to double-check.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

S'ok. As was discussed elsewhere, "we" all look alike. :smileywink:

[Venus Petrov]

We could start with your profile. While you have changed out your old profile photo for your backside versus your front end, check out this line from the ToS, Section 8: (vi) Post, display or transmit Content that is obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable. Then go through your profile again and see if there are more spots to scrub.

[Love Leonoase]

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

---

Love Leonoase wrote:

And what exactly is "harmless consensual goofiness"?  That's pretty subjective, I think.  After all, is it "consensual" to say HELLO to somebody?  No, so we need people who think that they are fit to make judgments and determinations about other adults to go around filing nanny reports in an effort to save the SL world.

 

---

 

I think that my post, while it takes something of an indirect route to the heart of your OP, is entirely to the point, Love. And I think you know it, or you wouldn't have "wasted" as much time responding to it as you did.

Well again, you are quite the little mind-reader, ain't ya. 

 

So let's get all "subjective" here, shall we?  For instance, you seem to find "offensive" the notion that anyone should question your absolute right to do whatever you want to in Second Life.

Instead of playing mind reader, why not just read and respond to what people actually say?

Otherwise, you don't need ME to say anything, as you apparently can speak for both you AND me. 

 

  I, on the other hand, find offensive the abuse of the language, and the use of waffle-words like "maturity" to conceal the kinds of behaviours that you think you should be allowed to indulge yourself in, no consequences, no questions asked. 

---

So you are actually spending your time, right now, talking about that you are offended, because someone suggested "maturity", and to the point that you have even concocted these wild notions of what I supposedly REALLY MEANT, instead of simply being the case where a suggestion was made that people should actually just act like adults, and simply hit the MUTE button or walk (or teleport) away, if they are really "offended" by another person, in Second Life  -  I rest my case.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

ACK!!!!

No you don't.  Except for the hunky bare-chested thing, of course.  And I've actually spoken to Dres in-world. And he didn't call me out on his blog.  And, and, and . . .

 

Dres posted right after my first post on this thread, so I think that's why.

*facepalms in shame and humiliation, and wonders if she should just shut up now*

[Love Leonoase]

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

ACK!!!!

No you don't.  Except for the hunky bare-chested thing, of course.  And I've actually spoken to Dres in-world. And he didn't call me out on his blog.  And, and, and . . .

 

Dres posted right after my first post on this thread, so I think that's why.

*facepalms in shame and humiliation, and wonders if she should just shut up now*

---

I realize the both of you probably have an EXTREME amount of idle/free time on your hands, but have you ever considered that maybe you should take this jibber jabber to private IMs or something?   I mean, while you're giving lectures about "appropriate behaviors" from people and stuff?  Just sayin.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Love Leonoase wrote:

---

---

So you are actually spending your time, right now, talking about that you are offended, because someone suggested "maturity", and to the point that you have even concocted these wild notions of what I supposedly REALLY MEANT, instead of simply being the case where a suggestion was made that people should actually just act like adults, and simply hit the MUTE button or walk (or teleport) away, if they are really "offended" by another person, in Second Life  -  I rest my case.



---

 

Actually, I've asked you very directly 'what you mean."  And, surprise surprise, you have once again dodged the questions.

Let me put them to you again:

 

Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable?

 

 

1) Sexual Age Play?  Yes or no?

2) Racism, either in language or through role play?  Yes or no?

3) Deliberate fraud?  Yes or no?

4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour?  Yes or no?



See?  Just answer these directly, and I'll have no need to mind-read.

Or, again, you could answer Griffin's question.

[Love Leonoase]

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

---

Love Leonoase wrote:

---

---

So you are actually spending your time, right now, talking about that you are offended, because someone suggested "maturity", and to the point that you have even concocted these wild notions of what I supposedly REALLY MEANT, instead of simply being the case where a suggestion was made that people should actually just act like adults, and simply hit the MUTE button or walk (or teleport) away, if they are really "offended" by another person, in Second Life  -  I rest my case.



---

 

Actually, I've asked you very directly 'what you mean."  And, surprise surprise, you have once again dodged the questions.

Let me put them to you again:

 

Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable?

 

 

1) Sexual Age Play?  Yes or no?

2) Racism, either in language or through role play?  Yes or no?

3) Deliberate fraud?  Yes or no?

4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour?  Yes or no?



See?  Just answer these directly, and I'll have no need to mind-read.

Or, again, you could answer Griffin's question.

---

I think my OP was pretty clear, and NO, you did not ask me what I meant, you concocted this wild notion of what you THINK I meant (in addition to making other presumptions about me).

Perhaps you can issue an AR report based on your mind-reading abilities about me, and what I am apparently thinking?  Just a suggestion.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

---

Love Leonoase wrote:

---

---

I think my OP was pretty clear, and NO, you did not ask me what I meant, you concocted this wild notion of what you THINK I meant (in addition to making other presumptions about me).

Perhaps you can issue an AR report based on your mind-reading abilities about me, and what I am apparently thinking?  Just a suggestion.

---

 

Well, the fact that Griffin, I, and other people here have had to ask you to be more specific would suggest that your OP is not, in fact, very clear.

However, if it was so clear that you've already expressed what you mean -- and we're just too darned stupid to get it -- I'm sure you'll have no objections to answering my questions.  Or Griffin's.  I mean, it's not like you have anything to hide, right?

So, here they are once again, to save you the trouble of flipping back.

Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable?

 

 

1) Sexual Age Play?  Yes or no?

2) Racism, either in language or through role play?  Yes or no?

3) Deliberate fraud?  Yes or no?

4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour?  Yes or no?

 

Is there anything that you DO think is ARable?

 

Just want to avoid that horrible "mind reading" thing Love.  Please help me and elaborate on your meaning?

Thanks!

:matte-motes-smile:

[Venus Petrov]

You wrote: "...you concocted this wild notion of what you THINK I meant (in addition to making other presumptions about me)." How different is that from you presuming intent about the 'babies' who cry 'foul' if they see something they feel seriously violates the standards to which we all agreed when we signed on?

[Scylla Rhiadra]

In addition to what Venus says above, I'd like to point out that I haven't really had anything to say about what I think you are like, or what you "mean."  I've merely asked you some questions, in the hope that I'll understand you better.

Here they are again, btw.

Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable?

 

1) Sexual Age Play?  Yes or no?

2) Racism, either in language or through role play?  Yes or no?

3) Deliberate fraud?  Yes or no?

4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour?  Yes or no?

 

Is there anything that you DO think is ARable?



[Scylla Rhiadra]

Geez, Love.  Your failure to respond is getting me a little worried.

All four of the things I've listed are pretty explicitly against the ToS -- that thing that you agreed to when you joined SL -- and have resulted in disciplinary action from LL in the past.

Given that you explicitly agreed to the ToS, these should really be pretty easy to answer, I'd have thought. I mean, all of them are violations of the ToS, and so definitely the legitimate subject of ARs . . . in LL's view anyway.

Is it that you are having some problem agreeing that these are abuses now?

 

And what about Griffin's question, btw?  What exactly have people been threatening you about?

 

Just don't want to make the mistake of jumping to conclusions about what you mean, Love.

[KeeperS Karu]

---

Mila Edelman wrote:

It's just a childish and stupid retort. It annoys me, because it's similar to the Godwin, or the threat of a lawsuit. A person no longer wants to think rationally, or argue with intelligence, so they say something that dumb.

In real life, the perception of authority has become increasingly frightening, especially the courts. People threaten to sue over the dumbest things, because they believe that the threat alone will get you to do whatever it is they want. The hoped effect is practically identical to that of telling someone you'll AR them over something dumb. They know that folks (especially Americans) are so afraid of having to enter the court system because it appears to be very complicated and scary, so, if the "s word" is mentioned, they often will give in. 7 years of my 14 year career were spent with the most well-known lawyer in the US (not to mention his entire team) as a client. While what I did for them had nothing to do with law, you spend enough time in that environment, you make a few friends, and you learn a few things. I, for one, learned not to quake when some idiot threatens to sue, or AR.

When folks threaten to sue over something stupid, or to AR over something stupid, I simply say: "Good luck with that."

In 1920's Berlin, we've had a LOT of people threaten to AR when we've had to ask them to leave (for not following the most basic rules, like wearing clothes...any clothes). "Good luck with that" usually shuts them up. I did once speak to a CSR about the problem of AR threats, and did receive actual confirmation that there's nothing to worry about. If it's not against TOS, or intellectual property laws, you're fine. If, for some reason, you get dinged by LL, it can be reversed if you raise hell. One jackass (who shall remain nameless) threatened also to sue (yes, sue) for a few dollars lost when we had to ban his group from our property (we did, however, give a partial refund for another piece of property, and removed them, because we no longer wanted them around, at all). However, it's in the rental agreement: you grief, you lose your spot immediately, no refund. He genuinely threatened an international lawsuit over a few dollars. Overdramatic, AND he had no case. Ahh, people.

---

While it should seem obvious, I really need to ask what people mean by "raising hell" if they are banned on a false AR? It's the one thing that DOES concern me, because of the fact that it happens. I had no idea that LL bans people without fully investigating the alleged offense.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Well, I don't want to seem to be haranguing or harassing you, Love.  Cuz, see, that would be against the ToS, and you could AR me for it! 

:matte-motes-big-grin:

 

You seem to have a problem giving me a straight answer to my questions.  That's cool, I suppose, if you need time to think about it. 

If you DO get a chance at some point, I'd really like to hear which of these violations of the ToS is giving you such a hard time.  (It's not ALL of them, is it?)  Which of these do you think shouldn't be subject to the ToS, and ARable.  Which of these do you think is "ok"?

 

1) Sexual Age Play

2) Racist behaviour and language

3) Deliberate fraud

4) Nonconsensual abusive language and behaviour

 

Hey.  It wasn't one or more of these that led to someone threatening to AR you, was it?

[Lia Abbot]

Well. Love, generally if I see unpleasantness in these forums I tend to leave it where it is, and let the rest of the forum judge who's offensive and unpleasant.

Which is why I'm leaving this post where it is.

[Griffin Ceawlin]

---

Love Leonoase wrote:

I realize the

both of you probably have an EXTREME amount of idle/free time on your hands

, but have you ever considered that maybe you should take this jibber jabber to private IMs or something?   I mean, while you're giving lectures about "appropriate behaviors" from people and stuff?  Just sayin.

---

Next you'll be saying that we live in our respective mother's basements. That's how this usually goes, isn't it?

Jibber jabber? So nobody is supposed to say anything in any thread unless it's on topic? Come on, Love. Even the Lindens understand banter...

@Scylla: Of course I meant hawt half-naked guys on a red background. What else could I possibly have meant? :smileywink:

Edit: Forgot a word. Sue me.

[Knowl Paine]

Well said, good advice.

[Nathaniel Scorpio]

/me pops in, reads, agrees with your assessment that you were a little sarcastic but you mostly kept your temper, contemplates changing my sig line to drive the small minds of the blog detectives crazy, wonders how the oven cleaning went, gives you a very chaste peck on the cheek so as not to give the riff raff the vapors, pops out again

[Storm Clarence]

/me pops in, reads, agrees with your assessment that you were a little sarcastic but you mostly kept your temper, contemplates keeping my sig line to drive the twiters crazy, you look wonderful leaning over cleaning the oven; gives you a not so very chaste peck on the 'right' cheek so as not to give the elitists the vapors, pops out again :matte-motes-bored:

 

ETA the perfect emoticon

 

[Mila Edelman]

In SL, it usually involves phone calls, faxes or snail mail. It's nothing new. Since there have been online communities, there have been bans that were set for the wrong reasons against folks who did nothing. It's unfortunate, but it happens. And if your account is important enough to you, you might want to fight for it. Sometimes, it's an oversight on the part of admins, one which many (but not all...some folks have a hard time being wrong) are quick to fix if a problem is discovered. Other times, a person went to great lengths to make the AR'd person look really guilty, when the person did nothing. I have been an admin and/or participant in many online communities for over 15 years. I've seen it all.

On a note unrelated to your post, KeeperS (just tacking this on to my post to get it all in one post), I am bothered by folks who think that those of us who get regular AR threats from others might deserve it. If you own a sim (which I do) or if you own a store (which I do), or even just a venue, you will, sooner or later, have to eject or ban someone. And some of those folks will get mad and think it's unjustified. And some of those folks will threaten to AR you, even though it's your right to kick them, and even though they broke your rules (which are your right to have). Hell, when 1920's Berlin is very busy, and we have to remove folks, it's just sort of expected that the admins get threats of ARs (or called Nazis, or both). I couldn't be an effective admin if I bowed or cried about every disgruntled visitor who called me nasty names or threatened to AR me. It would make an environment wherein anyone who does those things would get away with whatever they want. While communities and their admins need to co-exist, some communities need or want rules. Not enforcing those rules for anyone who gets into a snit means a less enjoyable environment for both visitors and those who pay to live there, who DO follow the posted rules.

So,yeah, anytime I'm given the "I'll report you!" line, my response is still "Good luck with that."

PS: Griffin, Venus and Scylla, I heart you.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

/me pops in, reads, agrees with your assessment that you were a little sarcastic but you mostly kept your temper, contemplates changing my sig line to drive the *real men* of the forum crazy, loved how you looked all hot, dirty and messy after cleaning the oven, gives you a lusty pat on a posterior cheek to give the forum denizens blog fodder, pops out again.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

*facepalms*

 

 

You know, you'd think that with all of this attention from two guys and one chick, at least one of them would have offered to clean the oven for me.