soxley

"reek havok" :smileysad: such anti-social actions as stalking If you're stalked on SL, you are AN IDIOT. A complete cretin who deserves nothing more. You are too lazy, ignorant and desperate to have the last word to click 'MUTE' and be done with it. And quite frankly, the fact you waste LL's time with such nonsense makes me realise why the Lab doesn't bother consulting the residents on most matters. Pathetic. harrassment Ditto above. You CAN'T be harrassed on SL unless you allow it to happen or get off on your victim status. , pedophilia, ect., etc...? Insanely rare to find this inworld unless you deliberately go to child AV places, and if you do encounter it, report it to the police. What you're suggesting is the very downfall of SL itself. Because zillions of ARs about everything ranging from speedboats rezzed on front lawns to undelivered shoes have really freed up the Lab to concentrate on ironing out the technical glitches.

So GD should just go back to asking why boats disappear on sim crossings, huh?

I totally agree with you, but again, that's between him and his employer. I would feel sorry for him all the same, as I don't believe childish behaviour in an inworld enviroment necessarily deserves dire RL consequences. Some places fire people for logging onto Facebook - harsh, maybe justified depending on the work contract, but I'd still feel sorry for anyone affected by such a RL decision.

Why so? Explain - or was that just a half-assed put down?

Pussycat Catnap wrote: That kind of right there says the person should have been fired... Maybe I'm just a snivelling liberal hippy, but I wouldn't wish unemployment on anyone. Maybe he did deserve it - I'm not his boss, but I wouldn't gloat about it.

Replying to you (and Phil, since he demands I answer you) 1) When you and the other admins 'would be in bed', didn't you think to turn scripts off? (presuming you're in UK?) 2) If not, and if you had a transatlantic following, why didn't you employ a US-based mod/ some US-based mods to cover the hours you couldn't be inworld? 3) Knowing that he had set up time delays, why not do a patrol of the 28 sims and remove any objects not deeded to group in advance of the expected 'grief time'? 4) If he was generating multiple accounts from scratch, why not set up a time restriction for newcomers (say 15 days)? You can override this manually for select individuals, you know. From what I understand, he was MAC banned and lost several MILLION Lindens on those accounts (yes, he obviously had more RL money than sense). His wife got fed up and divorced him and got all his computers in the divorce. With all respect, I doubt LL would have told you this if they'd banned him, and I don't understand how you'd have obtained this information unless it had been on national news, so excuse me for being a bit sceptical I'm so glad you think griefing is inconsequential. I don't. I'm arguing that you have the tools to change things, but simply can't be bothered to use them. And in such a climate, people can AR all sorts of ludicrous things that just waste LL's time.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: So what did you get banned for, Sox? I was wondering when someone was going to ask this For the record (and forum mods, do feel free to check my IP against LL's records), my main and six alts have never been banned. Also, I was never a member of, or affiliated with, Woodbury. FWIW, I met one of the 'leading lights' of WU back in, dunno, 2009?, and thought they were a complete ****head and their sim reeked of desperation. But then I never found chan culture funny. Doesn't mean I thought they deserved to be banned.

Stalking is a non-issue? Tell that to this man. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5650591&page=1 OK, we should ban freezers because every now and then some idiot traps themself in one. I'm an admin in an RP sim and we had a persistent griefer. We reported him. He did keep coming back with more stuff, some of which LL had to come and help us clear up since we couldn't get on the sim. He's been permabanned and, because he was using computers where he worked and it was reported to them, he lost his RL job. You could have handled this in less than 5 minutes by adjusting your land settings. And please, don't call me a troll or ignorant noob, because I've been in charge of land and it was easily done. Somebody losing their RL job over some (ultimately inconsequential) foolishness in SL is insane, though. I sincerely hope you don't feel good about that.

Phil Deakins wrote: That's a lot of "what if"s, Kelli, so I'll add another. What if soxley's statement is just a wind-up, just for the fun of it? It's so utterly ridiuclous that it must be. If you think this is trolling, you should see my next post. Too cynical, jaded and uninterested to troll people, tbh. Just my opinion.

Would it be okay for LL to ban people who hadn't spent any money? No. If a large group of landowners signed up to a mutual banning policy, where a ban from location X meant a ban from many of the active places of SL, would that be okay? I think you're being a bit naive if you think that doesn't still go on, post-Redzone. Who gets to decide what's worth a ban? Whose evidence is judged valid for enacting a ban? I think there's some confusion here. I'm arguing: SL should STOP banning people. If you have to ask those questions regarding landowners, why aren't you applying the same queries regarding LL 'policy'? What happens when something is happening on land where you can't contact the landowner? Fight back or leave. What if it's the landowner griefing you? Mute them and leave. What if that landowner is your neighbour Put up ban lines, mute them. your landlord or the store owner who just ripped you off? You say that as if LL does anything about those now. 'We won't get involved in personal disputes', remember? Leave a bad review, cut your losses and mute them. Problem solved.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: soxley wrote: If a person is vocally loud, bigoted, obnoxious, frequently drunk and never washes, you wouldn't invite him/her into your home - but you wouldn't expect the government to snuff them out either. Do you know my ex-husband? He was banned from RL for 2 years but got out in one. :smileyvery-happy:

Perrie Juran wrote: Perhaps we should have Resident composed Second Life Lynch Mobs instead. We already have, they're called AR parties. At least I could respect the lynch mobs a bit more if they dealt with inworld problems by themselves.

Rhonda Huntress wrote: Ah. I see. Banning is OK as long as you are the one doing it. If it is OK for you as a club owner to ban someone harassing your customers, why is it not OK on a larger scale for LL to ban someone harassing their customers? If a person is vocally loud, bigoted, obnoxious, frequently drunk and never washes, you wouldn't invite him/her into your home - but you wouldn't expect the government to snuff them out either. And unlike RL, you don't even have to use force to defend your property or call the police to get them off your porch - you just click mute and/or ban and they're gone. People who pay for their SL homes can ban anyone for anything. I might think their decision sucks but that's their call. It's different to certain people deciding that because you're too rude, too obnoxious, too vocal or confrontational, they can file some ARs and have you removed from an entire grid made up of thousands of different sims.

You say, people shouldn't be banned, but you are for reporting people. Whats the matter with reporting people, if there is no consequences to it? You own a club. A man comes in and verbally abuses the dancers and litters malicious objects everywhere. The dancers report it to you and you ban him from your club and delete the items. Easily done. No need to waste LL's time with this. You say, perma banning people is unethical. I say letting griefers, pedophiles, stalkers and scammers run rampant without any consequences is unethical. There would be consequences if people inworld actually DID anything other than file reports to LL about these things. If word gets out that an AV is a pedophile, they're likely to be banned from a number of sims. Or call the RL police if you really want to make a stand, and let them investigate. Stalkers? Total non-issue; just mute as each alt pops up. Being so emotionally warped you fixate obsessively on someone may be groteque, but it's not a crime. Scammers? Perhaps try not clicking stupid links? (Incidentally, apart from the incidents of scamming reported on GD, I have never encountered anyone inworld who's actually experienced this). The cunning prey on the dim-witted - you need to take that up with nature, to be frank, it'll never change. As for breaking TOS, I believe sharing conversations is against TOS, which everyone does. Is self-policing and self-reliance too much to ask for?

People shouldn't be banned from SL, full stop. If someone is annoying you, you already have the power to change things. Click mute. If you own land, ban them. If you don't, ask the landowner to ban them. I am all for reporting, and inworld residents dealing with griefers in their own way. What I am NOT for is LL permabanning people who have spent money on SL. It is lousy customer service and highly unethical. And before anyone asks, no, I haven't been banned. But this month, six years ago, many were banned in one fell swoop and it was an affront to justice that still haunts the virtual world to this day.