RuchiVee

Who says I haven't reported this offender since I asked the earlier question? I asked that question yesterday. And there's nothing "silly" about Megan's Law (not "Megan's list")...it's a law that exists in every state of the United States, and at the Federal level as well. It exists in all these places for a reason, and there's nothing "silly" or "barbaric" about protecting children from sexual predators. In fact, allowing repeat sexual predators to roam communities (real life or online) in the shadows to continue to prey on people is what is barbaric...that kind of lawlessness is what actual barbarism entails.

Thank you, Ceka, for returning to civil discourse. That's what I was asking. I appreciate your response.

See my earlier thread. This is tactic #1. So...an addendum...after all four tactics have been employed to no avail, return to the first step and repeat.

So, now attempting to silence me by shutting down the thread? This seems agenda-driven. I see what's going on here: 1. Dogpile on someone who disagrees with you 2. Attempt to goad her into violating the forum community guidelines 3. Insult and flame her in an attempt to shame her into silence 4. If all else fails, converge and vote for shutting down the thread EDIT: After all tactics have failed, return to step one and repeat in a war of attrition. So much for civil discourse.

Maybe if you DID re-read my post, you'd see it was a question. But the people in this thread who have engaged in a lack of civil discourse have caused readers to lose sight of my original question.

See...again...you're name calling, by saying I'm being overly sensitive. He did resort to name calling that rises to the level of flaming, and he's been reported for it. Whether you agree or not doesn't change that.

No, I'm just responding to posts with counter-arguments. Isn't that what you're doing? I take that back...it's not what you're doing...you're calling me a drama queen and an attention seeker to attempt to undermine my arguments. That won't work, and also constitutes insults/flaming. EDIT: And now you've called me a troll. I'm not a troll. If anything, calling me names is what's trolling, and now I'm reporting you for it. I'm not "lashing out" and I'm not trying to "get" my "own way." I asked a question in the OP. Perhaps you have lost sight of what this thread is about because many of the participants are not conducting a civil discourse.

The right to privacy, like all rights, is a balancing test. The right to disclosure of information that poses a danger to others can outweigh the privacy rights of the sex offender.

You most certainly have been repeatedly goading me into revealing information in contravention of the guidelines. But I'm glad to hear you've changed your ways since yesterday.

I actually didn't go into detail about what he did in SL to me. In the portion of my post you seelctive quoted out-of-context, I was talking about what he did in RL to others.

Call it what you like. I'm glad you agree with me that his insult is obvious.

Actually, Garnet, it is you who has thrice solicited me now to name this person in contravention of the forum guidelines. It is I who have shown restraint in avoiding your and others' questions attempting to elicit this information. So, please don't manufacture facts that support a false narrative. The reality is quite the opposite of what you suggest.

I'm not easily offended, I just don't take crap from people and prefer to have a civil discourse, rather than one that degenerates into name-calling. That's not unreasonable. And how do you know I haven't reported the sex offender? My OP was yesterday.

Okay, Klytyna, again, I don't appreciate being called names like "Dumbocratic One-Moron" with a "Pitchfork" or a "Blind Vigilante" and having you roll your eyes in a silent insult. And saying that I went to a "5th rate cow college," ie, calling me an ignorant rube. Again, your ad hominem attacks, which demonstrate the lack of substance of your argument, are reported, and it's not because you disagree, but because you haven't disagreed civilly, but rather have done so in a way that violates the terms of service (and attempts to shame me into silence, which won't happen).

No...you used those terms after reading my post. The implication is obvious. There is nothing wrong with warning people about repeatedly convicted sex offenders who are doing, on SL, what they do in RL, especially when what they do is sexual predation. What's wrong is keeping that information from the public. In fact, *that's* what's barbaric...allowing a barbarian, like a twice-convicted sexual predator of underage women to lurk around and prey on a community in the shadows. That's actually *actual* barbarism.

The problem with your "problem" is that I didn't say "antiethical." I said antithetical. Different word.

Callum, I resent your calling me stupid, an idiot and other such names. Your resorting to ad hominem attacks only demonstrates the lack of substantive value of your arguments. Furthermore, you have been reported for violating the prohibition against "flaming." As it turns out, the sex offender in question has also revealed to me photos of his face that clearly match those on the sex offender database. Please refrain from attacking me. Why don't you invite the sex offender in question over for tea when you have daughters if you think laws like Megan's Laws are "barbaric"?

I appreciate the responses, in large part, and the invitation to consider some ancillary issues that many of the inquiries raised here are suggesting (@Garnet, please see the last sentence of my earlier post) -- it is indeed food for thought. I guess the answer to my original question is: my hands are tied under the community guidelines from warning other SL users against any potential dangers of this sex offender. So...the moral of the story, I suppose, is caveat emptor.

Understood, Fionalein...and the U.S. has good reasons for making the databases public...but you raise a good point...perhaps there is no requirement here on SL for that reason -- out of comity for the law of other nations. That said, Orwar raises a good point as well...that SL is legally responsible under California law.

That I injected some humor does not diminish the fact that I did post seriously. Anyway...back on topic...

I don't see any language in the community guidelines requirement about "keep[ing] your commentary relevant to the discussion ..." that carves out an exception where the original poster uses a semi-light-hearted tone to discuss a potentially real issue. But that's not what this thread is about. To return back to the discussion raised in this thread, I would answer your question, but I seem to be prohibited from doing so by the community guidelines.

Thank you, Fionalein, yes, I am aware of the post facto measure of the "report abuse" option. My question concerns, rather, a prophylactic measure (no pun intended ?), similar to the goal of Megan's Laws, that might be available on SL to make people aware of sex offenders with SL accounts so that other users can be cautioned and take extra efforts to prevent such abuse from occurring at the outset. So far, I don't see any such prophylactic measure, only the post facto measure of the "report abuse" option.

It depends on the state, Fionalein, but that's not really relevant here. This person is a sex offender, because he has been convicted -- twice, no less -- of crimes defined as sex offenses under federal law and the state in which he was (twice) convicted. I seem to be precluded by the community guidelines from saying anything further about this person.

I was wondering if, since sex offenders are required by federal and state laws to register and make public certain information about themselves in RL, if there was some requirement that they do the same somewhere in the SL database to caution other users. I checked the community guidelines, and found nothing -- in fact, I found this, which, if anything, is somewhat antithetical: "Sharing someone else’s personal information—of any kind—is not allowed. Disclosing another Resident’s real-world identity, contact information, or the text of interpersonal communications (chat, email, IM) is not allowed." This, of course, would prohibit another user from divulging a sex offender's identity, if the user knew it (and conduct that may violate conditions of a probation or parole) but doesn't speak to whether the sex offender himself/herself should be required to divulge his/her own identity. I ask because another user divulged his real-life identity to me, and then subsequently behaved in a way that was arguably inappropriate. Suspicious, I ran a check on a sexual predator database, and, lo and behold, this person is a real-life, twice-convicted sex offender against victims who were both underage. I fear that this person may attempt to victimize people on SL (see my related thread here, which was partly serious, and partly tongue-in-cheek -- and has gone far off the rails by now -- but which I refer to in all seriousness in the instant post), and I seem to be precluded by the community guidelines from doing anything about it. That said, those same community guidelines also seem to preclude forum-goers from posting anything that does not "keep your commentary relevant to the discussion and within the format that the forum, board or question and answer area," and the respondents of the aforementioned link are not following that. So...it seems some violation of the community guidelines is permitted, even frivolously. Therefore it seems reasonable to conclude that a guideline such as the one mentioned in the first paragraph could be violated for a reason as important as this.