RuchiVee

Hurray, I managed to log into SL! That's good, because I watched the Presidents' press conference about the successful raid against the leader of ISIS, like, four times. At least there's some good news out there for a change. And now SL is back! So...two good things! What a good Sunday evening!

I hope the grid comes back up soon. I'm running out of videos to watch about the successful raid the President sent against against ISIS leader al-Baghdadi. The press release video is only 8 minutes long, but I'm glad to see some videos of the questions by the press. I suppose that's far better news that SL coming back online, but I still want it to.

Well, at least the President had some good news to report! When the grid is back up, I'll be buying everyone drinks to celebrate!

Suddenly, my body has been going invisible. This has never been a problem before, but all of a sudden now it is, and the only way I know to solve it is to relog. I understand that some viewers, like Firestorm, have, under Avatar Health, an option to refresh the avatar. But I use the Linden viewer. Is there anything short of relogging I can do to restore the visibility of the avatar?

Has anyone had a problem with their Basically Girl AO HUD lately? Usually, clicking the ON/OFF symbol toggles the AO on and off, predictably. But lately, clicking the ON/OFF symbol has been making weird menus pop up asking me to select different types of walk, swim or sit animations. That's never happened before. I tried rebooting and just detaching and reattaching the original, but neither worked. Finally, I had to delete my Basically Girl AO and buy a new one. That solved the problem...UNTIL... I reattached my Spirit HUD from the Amazon River sim. I can't be 100% sure about causation here, but there definitely seems to be a correlation between my attaching the Spirit HUD and my Basically Girl AO going fubar.

Thank you, Innula. That is very helpful. I appreciate your kind contribution in answering my original question.

That assumes that the sex offender in question knew of this obscure term of service that Adamburp quoted. None of the rest of us did. Also, sex offenders don't tend to think things through long-term, and most people do not know the terms of service to the letter. Only the person who had contact with the sex offender knows the totality of the circumstance, and the ToS preclude the totality of the circumstances from being divulged here...but I suspect you'd be considerably less leery if you had experienced the totality of the circumstances. McCallum, not only have I read the OP, I wrote the OP, so I know what it said, I know what the responses have been -- civil and otherwise -- and I am well aware of what the advice was. And I am well aware of what I did in response to that advice. Klytyna, I'm glad that you agree with me that a court of law found a sex offender guilty of sex offenses. Beyond that, you don't know the totality of the circumstances of the SL interaction in question because the terms of service preclude me from elaborating. You can't maintain that the person in question is not the sex offender in question because you have no information (thanks to the terms of service). The information I have is considerably more than the nearly-zero amount of information that you have about this person.

Indeed. I am relieved to see that Linden Labs will not tolerate convicted sex offenders having accounts on SL, assuming, as you point out, that what was quoted is actually a term of service. If it is, though, it makes sense...Orwar said in an earlier post that Linden Labs is beholden to the laws of California, so it stands to reason that they would take such precautions so as not to be sued civilly, or even prosecuted criminally for some kind of criminal omission.

There is nothing "silly" about wanting to protect the members of my community -- be it a physical, geographical community, or an online community -- from the predations of a real-life, twice-convicted sex offender.

Okay...no problem, then. Thank you for acknowledging that, Love. I appreciate it. And thank you, Adamburp, for your post clarifying the ToS.

Yes, agreed, Ceka. Sound advice that is, about going silent on them. And it is exactly what I have done. I'm glad to see others share my point of view on this matter.

There's a reason people detest sex offenders...because sex offenses are detestable. Also, protests at their homes and such harassment is a fringe activity, not something that's widely done. The majority of people avoid sex offenders. That's the whole purpose of Megan's Laws, and why they are used in every state in the U.S. and at the Federal level. Because Megan's Laws work in protecting people from sexual predators. And, yes, Love, I agree that a person goading me into getting him or her into more trouble is unlikely. Again, let's not manufacture false facts that I think the opposite. Please don't twist my words to make it look like I disagree with you on an obvious point. We are in agreement, here.

There's no need for a mound of salt. Only one who has experienced the encounter with this sex offender knows the whole story. The terms of service preclude divulging too much on these forums.

Why would someone that is not a sex offender, try to goad me into reporting him, to get him into trouble? Why would someone who is a sex offender, try to goad me into reporting him to get him into more trouble? Ohhh...I see what you are saying...wait...you're saying someone who is not a sex offender wants to stir up trouble for someone who is a sex offender. Well, that's up to a fact-finder to determine...whether it's Linden Labs investigating a Terms of Service violation, or a court of law investigation a course of illegal conduct.

Ah...I understand. Thank you for that clarification, Love. What is impossible for others to glean from the cold record -- and a diminished record at that, thanks to community guidelines that prohibit me from divulging too much information -- was the sex offender's tone, persistence and pushiness. That belies the possibility that he was trying to be up-front. It suggests, instead, that he was up to his old recidivist tricks. The second speculation, that a person who was not a sex offender went onto a sex offender database, collected information about a sex offender, found that sex offender's facebook page, and collected additional photos about that sex offender, and assumed that sex offender's identity just to ...create drama for me personally?...seems a stretch. Also, it puts that person at unnecessary risk of being focused on by law enforcement. Moreover, again, his persistence and tone belie that possibility. The totality of the circumstances, which I would love to elaborate on, but which the community guidelines seem to preclude me from divulging, suggest that this real-life, twice-convicted, sex offender was up to his old, recidivist tricks, this time using SL as a vehicle to develop a rapport with potential victims.

Thank you, LittleMe Jewell, for answering my original question in a civil way. I appreciate your response.

Why would you ask ME what his motive is? You would have to ask the offender. If you're asking me to speculate as to his motive, it seems to me that he was trying to get me to reciprocate and divulge my own information and photo to him so he could develop a relationship with me. That's how sex offenders prey on victims.

Then you have lost the case, because, first, Linden Labs is not a court of law, and second...you don't know that Linden Labs isn't going to ban him. If they do, then this circuitous and confused argument of yours lacks even an arguable basis. A court of law has twice convicted him of molesting two underage girls on two separate occasions. That's what makes him guilty of sex offenses. So I rest my case.

Let me elaborate...Linden Labs is not a court of law. Linden Labs doesn't determine if a criminal is guilty or not. A judge or jury, depending upon which type of trial an offender chooses, makes that determination. If a judge or jury has found him guilty...twice, no less...based on evidence presented by attorneys for both parties and examined by a fact-finder, some computer programmer in a lab in California who is reviewing a diminished record has no bearing on the legal guilt of the criminal. So, yes, the criminal is still guilty of sex offenses for doing what he did to whose underage women, regardless of whether Linden Labs thinks that his current online behavior has violated the terms of service.

Because he didn't claim he was Kylie Minogue. He gave me his name, a nickname, a Facebook page, a photo, and offered to give me more, like his phone number, etc. He was very persistent. He gave me a lot of information. That's more than just a name.

Yes, that was troubling, Cindy. I didn't want to know this information and I didn't want his photo, but he divulged both without solicitation in an attempt to have me do the same. I did not take the bait. But I did check his information in the sex offender database -- it all matched, including the photo (a different photo, but nevertheless obviously the same person) -- and discovered that he has twice been convicted of sex offenses against underage women. That's why I was concerned that he was using SL to prey on women.

Again, let's not manufacture facts to support a false narrative. You asked me if he was guilty. I said that a jury or judge has found him guilty in two separate sex offense cases. Question answered.

I don't have to play by your rules, first of all. And second of all, I did answer the question.

A legal body, whether a court or a jury of twelve of his peers, has already considered all the evidence in two separate sex offense cases, and determined that he is guilty in each of the two separate cases. What Linden Labs does is irrelevant with respect to his legal guilt of sex offenses.

Who says I haven't accepted the advice? Again, let's not make up false facts to support a false narrative.