Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) As this is an official LL post, I assume that it is ok to post here. Please be a little circumspect in your comments however. Edited March 20 by Scylla Rhiadra 11 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prokofy Neva Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 It's a good statement, and checks all the boxes. It's good to say right off both that allegations are unfounded (they were very poorly sourced and sketchily linked) AND that the investigation still continues with outside firms, although we don't know their quality/track record. My one objection is the use of the common euphemism. It should be spelled out for the violation it is of standards in RL law, even if not in the US, but in EU/Asian/etc countries. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffee Pancake Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Child avatars are not actually children in real life. WTF is all this trafficking nonsense. Why are residents as a whole getting new rules. 14 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Official Statement from Brad Oberwager's best PR people. A whole lot of words to say almost nothing. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Brad who? I don't know the guy! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 There is an investigation going on. There are no conclusions yet, so we can add nothing to the discussion. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Hexem Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Just now, Sid Nagy said: There is an investigation going on. There are no conclusions yet, so we can add nothing to the discussion. Neither can he, apparently. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said: Brad who? I don't know the guy! The man at the wheel. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, Paul Hexem said: Neither can he, apparently. The general public will of course be the last that will get informed. And rightfully so. We have no part in the investigation nor in the discussion about what to do next. That is all up to the senior staff, the investors and the legal team IMHO. This thread will only lead to speculations or worse. IMHO it is best to close it ASAP. 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) . newbie error Edited March 20 by Sid Nagy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Most importantly, we heard from Oberwager with a commitment to stay the course rather than what I'd feared: pulling the plug out of annoyance at having to deal with this when he surely has better things to do with his time. So that's good. I think he said a little too much about protecting real life children, as Coffee said, when nothing specific to that was ever alleged. So in that sense I agree with Paul: that statement was clearly written by a PR person, not a lawyer (although I'm sure counsel at least reviewed it). But I didn't see the actual word "trafficking", nor anywhere new rules are implied. It's been this way for ages, hasn't it? I suspect our little Count of Monte Cristo got most of what they wanted. I presume at least one pen is no longer anonymous to those investigating, if it ever was. 11 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Modulated Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 Glad they finally officially acknowledged this, I think by letting time slip by without a statement like this was not good. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 8 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said: The man at the wheel. Reminds me of that song, "Jesus, Take the Wheel"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorientje Woller Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 minute ago, Qie Niangao said: I think he said a little too much about protecting real life children, as Coffee said, when nothing specific to that was ever alleged. So in that sense I agree with Paul: that statement was clearly written by a PR person, not a lawyer (although I'm sure counsel at least reviewed it). But I didn't see the actual word "trafficking", nor anywhere new rules are implied. It's been this way for ages, hasn't it? What might be done in a virtual world can be considered acceptable in RL, that's what he said, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alwin Alcott Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 48 minutes ago, Prokofy Neva said: It's good to say right off both that allegations are unfounded but he doesn't say thát. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Arcadia Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) I'm glad they've said something rather than nothing, although it's the kind of PR response you would expect from any company. Having said that, I do like that they are honest enough to admit "this has been a harsh wake-up call for us". I note that it says "While early preliminary internal investigations suggest that some of the accusations are unfounded", implying some of them were. I wouldn't expect to hear any more about it, investigation or not, and I expect this thread will be shut at some point. Edited March 20 by Evangeline Arcadia 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 14 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said: IMHO it is best to close it ASAP. With respect, I disagree Sid. This is public information: LL wouldn't have published it if they didn't expect or want it getting out. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that consciously and deliberately keeping people ignorant is the best route -- ever. People should of course be responsible about how they respond to information, and I'm sure some people won't be. But censoring information, especially an official communique that is not itself in any way "speculative," is just a terrible way to operate in any kind of civil society. 17 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qie Niangao Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: People should of course be responsible about how they respond to information, and I'm sure some people won't be. That's more or less what I understood Sid to be saying. Or at least that's what I agreed with, combined with the fact these forums are a little more "official" than whatever gets said on Reddit or wherever. The Lab has some responsibility to respond to whatever we spew here. So I think it's very much a service that the thread was created—I, for one, hadn't yet seen Oberwager's post—but I think we can expect some moderation will need to be imposed, sooner or later. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said: Child avatars are not actually children in real life. WTF is all this trafficking nonsense. Why are residents as a whole getting new rules. Yes to me the allegations were more interesting where it referenced the inter department dynamics as I see that as being quite problematic for S/L's continued development and relevance. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: With respect, I disagree Sid. This is public information: LL wouldn't have published it if they didn't expect or want it getting out. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that consciously and deliberately keeping people ignorant is the best route -- ever. People should of course be responsible about how they respond to information, and I'm sure some people won't be. But censoring information, especially an official communique that is not itself in any way "speculative," is just a terrible way to operate in any kind of civil society. What does this thread add? That is my point. The statement from LL is published. Everybody who is interested can read it there. And think what they want to think. People can get notifications about every blog post. I got one when the overlord's letter was posted. Discussing this statement, without having any information, will only quickly lead to rumors, suspicions, repetitions of what has already been posted in the blog post that started it all. And closing a thread is something else as removing it. I'm all for closing ASAP. But it is of course not up to me. I'm not part of the moderation team. Edited March 20 by Sid Nagy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love Zhaoying Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 I think it is irresponsible to take Brad's message at anything other than face value. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said: That's more or less what I understood Sid to be saying. Or at least that's what I agreed with, combined with the fact these forums are a little more "official" than whatever gets said on Reddit or wherever. The Lab has some responsibility to respond to whatever we spew here. So I think it's very much a service that the thread was created—I, for one, hadn't yet seen Oberwager's post—but I think we can expect some moderation will need to be imposed, sooner or later. Moderation, yes, of course. I myself in my OP asked that people be careful about what they post in response. And you'll certainly be seeing no speculation from me. And I probably wouldn't mind it being closed to comments -- except that that means the thread will soon disappear from the front page, pretty much undercutting its purpose. I'm not sure what the answer is. Pinning it and closing it to comments? Or just very careful moderation of comments? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arielle Popstar Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said: Moderation, yes, of course. I myself in my OP asked that people be careful about what they post in response. And you'll certainly be seeing no speculation from me. And I probably wouldn't mind it being closed to comments -- except that that means the thread will soon disappear from the front page, pretty much undercutting its purpose. I'm not sure what the answer is. Pinning it and closing it to comments? Or just very careful moderation of comments? Shouldn't it be left to the Mods to moderate instead of the residents getting into conjecture about it? 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Nagy Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) .. Edited March 20 by Sid Nagy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scylla Rhiadra Posted March 20 Author Share Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, Sid Nagy said: What does this thread add? To whom, Sid? The veracity of the allegations (which we absolutely should not discuss, because it would be purely speculative) are not the only thing about this worth discussing. LL's response to this whole imbroglio is also an issue, for instance. The language used in the post -- as Coffee notes -- is an issue. The "response" proposed by the post is an issue. That said, I really have nothing more to say about this myself. The mods will do with this thread what they feel is best. So long as it is not actually nuked out of existence (which would seem to me an absurd response, given that the OP is from LL itself), I'll likely be on board with their decision. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Blank.thumb.png.45e584122622072a05624d3eb0488dc3.png)
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts