CharlesMockingbird Blogger

Honehe Loudwater wrote: I am inches away from cancelling my account entirely and waging a web-wide anti SL campaign. "Web-wide anti SL campaign" = you starting a blog that nobody reads? Or are you planning on crying to one of the interns at Wired?

The idea that griefers are all suffering from real life trauma or insecurity issues is a tad bonkers in itself. Most are people just goofing around, and normally stop if their intended victims laugh it off or - SHOCK, HORROR - ask them if they'd be interested in participating in the sim's activities. But we could maybe use this as a springboard to discuss the concept of boredom on SL?

Suella Ember wrote: It might be clear to you, but it isn't to me. 100 people could group AR someone, but LL should still check relevant facts, chat logs (which they have access to the originals of) etc. Oh I totally agree, LL should, and it could be possible for them to do so, if they weren't having to wade through ARs based on the most inane inconveniences. I can't provide you with a detailed breakdown of incidents, or 'conclusive evidence' that this is always the case, but I'm drawing on testimonies from a significant number of people who I've met inworld, or observed airing their grievances on forums such as this one, Second Citizen, SL Universe, etc. This ranged from NPIOFs to premium members and landowners, some of whom have described what it's like to be on the receiving end of an 'AR party'. I've also witnessed some residents brandishing the threat of ARs against others like confetti - particularly in various infohubs I won't name - over what amounted to nothing of much importance and heard tell of ARs being conducted against members of groups over personal differences. So it is more than just a few people, and something that I feel does go on more often than it should. I wouldn't describe it as 'widespread' like 'a daily occurrence' - but I think it's a problem, all the same, and one that seems to have deterred a few people from continuing in SL - even if their AVs weren't banned outright. Suella Ember wrote: Also, 100L isn't much of a bet is it? That's like ... what? ... a couple of cents! :smileytongue: Unfortunately, last night's sploder prevented me from adding another zero to the end... Suella Ember wrote: The problem lies not so much with the AR system itself, but with the way people use it. If people didn't file frivolous ARs, LL wouldn't have to wade through them all to address the more serious ones. However, removing AR types is not the answer. Somehow trying to get people to use the AR system properly is the answer. "Verbal Abuse" should not be removed because serious verbal abuse (e.g. racial abuse) absolutely should be addressed harshly. True, but if only racial / sexist / bigoted language were the only verbal abuse options; unfortunately, the category seems to cover a multitude of 'crimes', boiling down to anything typed or IM'd. This could be telling somebody to buzz off, in less flattering terms, or a dispute over rental rights, a purchase, etc. I'm sure nobody will sympathise with my next point, but in terms of racist abuse, I would say the best option would be to mute, and to encourage friends to do so. It's not worth getting upset over somebody's ignorance. In time, repeat offenders will blank themselves from the community, appearing a grey, muted shadow on most screens, when and where they're allowed to enter. I guess I'd just prefer self-policing across the grid rather than a system that I consider flawed and very vague in its interpretations.

For instance, here is a potential scenario; say that I owned a sim and Melita entered, to continue this debate inworld. After some vigorous disagreement and her leaving, if I and three friends decided to AR her for 'verbal harassment', there is a good chance that LL would automatically take action against her - despite the fact that she has done nothing but exercise her democratic right to fully disagree with me (which I would support). Can anybody explain to me or justify why LL's time and resources should be drained in that manner, when there are umpteen other things to be fixed or enhanced, across the grid?

Melita Magic wrote: the actual issue, which seems poorly thought out, and reactive, and under informed Perhaps then you'd like to explain why, and offer your opinion, instead of referencing events that haven't happened and imagining personal outrage on my behalf?

Melita Magic wrote: Your tone is really combative. I gave you a perfectly reasonable answer originally, with my reasons. I explained more in the follow-up post. Which points you ignore. Not something that someone who wants to discuss something would do. I had mistaken you for wanting to actually discuss your idea, not argue with anyone who posted anything but oh yes wonderful idea. I'm pretty much done with this topic. Maybe someone else will think your idea of doing away with the AR because some people ARed you is wonderful. Seems selfish and misguided to me. Obviously, we can't all account for levels of sensitivity, but I'd be surprised to have my posts generally read as 'combative'. I'd agree that you abandoning this thread is for the best, as you're obviously getting upset and I'm finding it slightly difficult to continue a conversation about some non-existent people who supposedly AR'd me based on something you've just made up. Thanks for your contributions anyway.

Melita Magic wrote: I'm speaking from experience. Are you?. Yes. Melita Magic wrote: You seem to be spoiling for an argument. I don't know what happened, only what you told me, which is that several people had a complaint on you; but I don't think LL should overhaul its entire AR system based upon your reasons. If you define 'spoiling for an argument' as me making a proposal and expressing my opinion, then fair enough. Also, I never told you that 'several people had a complaint on' me; and am unaware if that is the case. Did you actually read what I wrote?

Melita Magic wrote: Eh, no thanks. If it were up to you I'd have had zero recourse for the goo cube attack. It didn't crash the sim, but it sure caused problems. Sounds like some personal drama. Did you say something to several people that they hated? Maybe the problem was at least partly you? Presumably, as an owner of the sim, you had the power to remove this 'goo cube', and to ban whoever mischievously left it there. In other words, the tools are at your disposal, so I see no point in clogging up LL's inbox when you can handle the situation yourself. Not sure what your third line refers to, to the best of my knowledge I've had no 'drama' on SL. However, the fact you ask "Did you say something to several people that they hated?", as if that would have been grounds for an AR, sadly reflects how widespread this inane practice has become.

It's clear that the AR system, as it stands, is open to abuse and leading to ridiculous and unnecessary bans. Under the current regime, it just takes three or four dishonest residents to 'group AR' an individual to remove him or her from the grid. I'm willing to bet 100L that the majority of these AR cases involve a verbal argument or a difference of opinion. The AR system should be reformed in the following ways: 1) An end to the 'verbal abuse' category. The Mute function is enough to counter this problem, and the elimination of this option would lighten LL's back catalogue of complaints. 2) ARing to be applicable ONLY to a) deliberate sim crashing b) copybotting c) inappropriate sexual behaviour. In the case of Reform 2, LL would have more time to investigate each case, including reading chat logs, noting locations, etc. In this way, people filing false ARs 'en masse' would be at risk of losing their accounts, which would probably dissuade this idiotic practice and lead to a far more enjoyable SL experience for everyone. We need an overhaul now!