Scylla Rhiadra

Well, unless one is going to be accused of sexual age play or being underage, the threat of a false AR should hardly bother one very much. Even in the former instances, LL does investigate before acting on ARs, and there is really very little to fear (most of the time) unless one has said or done something stupid or ill-considered. And one CAN get nailed for filing false ARs. Someone who gratuituously threatens to file an AR is likely to be stupid, annoying, and drama-prone, but he or she doesn't constitute a real threat, nor need it reflect poorly on the system itself, which the vast majority of the time is capable of sorting out the legitimate from the specious. As for the protests -- I am fairly active in feminist groups in-world. One of our mandates is to both critique and generate discussion about depictions of violence against women in Second Life; accordingly, about a year and a half ago (and as part of the international "16 Days against Gender Violence"), we held a protest -- really, a kind of information picket -- at the rape sim Hard Alley. We had, at various times over the course of about an hour there, between 30 to 40 participants, I think. It was a very interesting, and ultimately worthwhile endeavour. We weren't there to "grief" (we have a pretty rigorous written code of conduct for protesters): we basically carried signs, shouted slogans, and engaged in discussion and/or debate with anyone there willing to do so. So far as I know, no ARs were filed against any of us, and although we were eventually ejected, we weren't permanently banned. (In fact, the sim owner has invited me back.) Particularly gratifying was the fact that a few of the people we engaged with at the sim actually followed us when we left, and continued discussions on our own sim. It was all very civilized, really . . . http://alphavilleherald.com/2009/11/hard-alley-protestors-issue-press-release.html http://alphavilleherald.com/2009/11/a-view-from-the-back-the-hard-alley-protest.html

So, how big a problem is this "harassment by AR" thing, really? I've been pretty active in Second Life now very nearly 3 years. I've owned a home, and for 2 1/2 years I've been a small business owner. I've written extensively in a number of SL forums and blogs, and run several of my own. I think it's probably fair to say that I am reasonably outspoken, and my views frequently contentious. I've created in-world exhibits that critiqued certain popular forms of RP and behaviours, and I've led in-world protests at sims that featured these. i've spent a fair amount of time at places in SL that might be described as . . . dodgy. And I've been banned from a number of places, some of which I've never even visited . . . . . . but I have never, to my recollection, been threatened with an AR. Now, it's entirely possible I've had hundreds filed against me, but I have not once, ever, been warned or disciplined by LL. To me, that seems to suggest that the system works pretty well. Or, I dunno, maybe it's just my naturally sunny disposition and adorable smile? :matte-motes-wink-tongue: So, while I am not going to deny that people have been subject to this kind of harassment, I really have to wonder how common it is. And what one has to do, where one has to go, or whom one must consort with to be subject to this? Which does bring us back to Griffin's question: what kinds of behaviour was the OP being threatened over?

Lia Abbot wrote: /me rolls my eyes. Help? This lot? /me gets out my oven cleaner and rolls up my sleeves. /me grins at Lia . . . and passes her a scrubby.

Dresden Ceriano wrote: Anyway, I believe the OPs original intent, was to point at the way the system can be abused. Certainly there are times when it's completely appropriate to AR someone, but there are some people that use the system to get back at people they don't like for some reason or who use the threat of an AR to bully people into doing what they want. Surely you're not advocating this behavior... baseless ARs can clog the system making it all the more difficult for the oh so smart Lindens to get to the real problems. The original OP is not new to this discussion: this is an issue that he brought up, on a number of occasions, in the old pre-Lithium GD forum, where he made it abundantly clear that it is not merely abuses of the AR system, but virtually any use of it, that he objected to. If the point of the OP here is that people are abusing the threat of AR to harass people, he hasn't expressed that very clearly. It is, in any case, a rather unnecessary point: is there anyone here likely to argue that using the threat of an abuse report to intimidate or harass is a good thing? As it is, the OP seems to me to be clearly opposed to any use of the AR: "In a virtual world, where you can easily mute and TP away from people (or ban them if it's your own land), what in the world is the need to issue a "report" to Linden Labs?" The OP also speaks of "playing the AR card," language that deliberately parallels criticisms of those who "play" the "race card," or the "gender card," It is in practice coded language that implies that any consideration of race, gender, sexuality, or, in this case, the AR system is somehow "illegitimate" and "unfair." If the OP believes that there are legitimate uses of the AR, he has had plenty of opportunity, and been asked many times, to make that clear. He has not merely not done so: he has consciously and transparently ducked the question everytime it was asked. Setekh is essentially correct. The AR system in SL is, of course, imperfect, and like any system, it can be subject to abuse. The reason that I like the general principle that it embodies, problems (most notably, a lack of transparency) notwithstanding, is that it is effectively "policed" by the community as a whole. LL doesn't search the grid for violations: it lets residents determine for themselves whether something violates the ToS. In practice, of course, this means that individual residents can try to exploit it, but it also means that we get some say in the interpretation of those fuzzy guidelines. This seems to me better than relying upon top-down pro-active enforcement by LL itself. At the same time, LL does investigate and judge individual cases. There are unquestionably bad decisions and inconsistencies, but on the whole I think that LL does a good job of this. In practice, this means that harassing and abusive ARs seldom have any impact on the intended victim at all: in fact, they may not even know they have been filed. The exception, and one that LL clearly should address, are those ARs that involve particularly sensitive issues, such as underage residents or sexual age play: I agree that LL is a bit trigger-happy when it comes to those. To the OP, who is clearly unhappy with any kind of infringement of his "right" to be an abuser, jerk, or whatever, I would suggest he apply a variant of his own advice to those unhappy with what they witness in Second Life. Ban, Mute, TP away . . . and Uninstall Perhaps he can find another virtual sandbox that doesn't care about whether its customers are subject to abuse or not.

*facepalms* You know, you'd think that with all of this attention from two guys and one chick, at least one of them would have offered to clean the oven for me.

Well, I don't want to seem to be haranguing or harassing you, Love. Cuz, see, that would be against the ToS, and you could AR me for it! :matte-motes-big-grin: You seem to have a problem giving me a straight answer to my questions. That's cool, I suppose, if you need time to think about it. If you DO get a chance at some point, I'd really like to hear which of these violations of the ToS is giving you such a hard time. (It's not ALL of them, is it?) Which of these do you think shouldn't be subject to the ToS, and ARable. Which of these do you think is "ok"? 1) Sexual Age Play 2) Racist behaviour and language 3) Deliberate fraud 4) Nonconsensual abusive language and behaviour Hey. It wasn't one or more of these that led to someone threatening to AR you, was it?

Geez, Love. Your failure to respond is getting me a little worried. All four of the things I've listed are pretty explicitly against the ToS -- that thing that you agreed to when you joined SL -- and have resulted in disciplinary action from LL in the past. Given that you explicitly agreed to the ToS, these should really be pretty easy to answer, I'd have thought. I mean, all of them are violations of the ToS, and so definitely the legitimate subject of ARs . . . in LL's view anyway. Is it that you are having some problem agreeing that these are abuses now? And what about Griffin's question, btw? What exactly have people been threatening you about? Just don't want to make the mistake of jumping to conclusions about what you mean, Love.

In addition to what Venus says above, I'd like to point out that I haven't really had anything to say about what I think you are like, or what you "mean." I've merely asked you some questions, in the hope that I'll understand you better. Here they are again, btw. Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no? Is there anything that you DO think is ARable? 

Love Leonoase wrote: I think my OP was pretty clear, and NO, you did not ask me what I meant, you concocted this wild notion of what you THINK I meant (in addition to making other presumptions about me). Perhaps you can issue an AR report based on your mind-reading abilities about me, and what I am apparently thinking? Just a suggestion. Well, the fact that Griffin, I, and other people here have had to ask you to be more specific would suggest that your OP is not, in fact, very clear. However, if it was so clear that you've already expressed what you mean -- and we're just too darned stupid to get it -- I'm sure you'll have no objections to answering my questions. Or Griffin's. I mean, it's not like you have anything to hide, right? So, here they are once again, to save you the trouble of flipping back. Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no? Is there anything that you DO think is ARable? Just want to avoid that horrible "mind reading" thing Love. Please help me and elaborate on your meaning? Thanks! :matte-motes-smile:

Love Leonoase wrote: So you are actually spending your time, right now, talking about that you are offended, because someone suggested "maturity", and to the point that you have even concocted these wild notions of what I supposedly REALLY MEANT, instead of simply being the case where a suggestion was made that people should actually just act like adults, and simply hit the MUTE button or walk (or teleport) away, if they are really "offended" by another person, in Second Life - I rest my case. Actually, I've asked you very directly 'what you mean." And, surprise surprise, you have once again dodged the questions. Let me put them to you again: Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no?  See? Just answer these directly, and I'll have no need to mind-read. Or, again, you could answer Griffin's question.

ACK!!!! No you don't. Except for the hunky bare-chested thing, of course. And I've actually spoken to Dres in-world. And he didn't call me out on his blog. And, and, and . . . Dres posted right after my first post on this thread, so I think that's why. *facepalms in shame and humiliation, and wonders if she should just shut up now*

LOL. Sorry Griffin. That'll teach me not to double-check.

Love Leonoase wrote: And what exactly is "harmless consensual goofiness"? That's pretty subjective, I think. After all, is it "consensual" to say HELLO to somebody? No, so we need people who think that they are fit to make judgments and determinations about other adults to go around filing nanny reports in an effort to save the SL world. I think that my post, while it takes something of an indirect route to the heart of your OP, is entirely to the point, Love. And I think you know it, or you wouldn't have "wasted" as much time responding to it as you did. So let's get all "subjective" here, shall we? For instance, you seem to find "offensive" the notion that anyone should question your absolute right to do whatever you want to in Second Life. I, on the other hand, find offensive the abuse of the language, and the use of waffle-words like "maturity" to conceal the kinds of behaviours that you think you should be allowed to indulge yourself in, no consequences, no questions asked. (Because those questions, even if asked by a member of the shadow LL G-Team, would be just "subjective," right?) So, "subjectively" speaking, Love, is there anything that you DO think is a legitimate target of an AR? Let's try some concrete examples. I'd put in yes-and-no checkboxes, but this software . . . Are these, in your view, behaviours that are legitimately ARable? 1) Sexual Age Play? Yes or no? 2) Racism, either in language or through role play? Yes or no? 3) Deliberate fraud? Yes or no? 4) Non-consensual abusive language and behaviour? Yes or no? I think these are all reasonably straight-forward. Please provide a direct answer. Or, you could just answer Griffin's question directly -- you know, the one you keep dodging. The one about the kinds of behaviour for which you have received this kind of threat?

Just a bit of an aside . . . I'm always amused by the way in which we use language to obscure rather than communicate, or to hide rather than reveal. Take for instance that adorable little euphemism, "Adult." It would seem to imply that all activities and content so designated are somehow too sophisticated, too complicated, too "mature" for those under a certain age. I find this particularly ironic, as the vast majority of those things, in RL or SL, that we designate as "Adult" actually require remarkably little in the way of cerebral activity. Google for "Adult" rated materials online, and tell me that they require an IQ level even approaching triple digits, or a maturity level superior to that of the average 14 year old boy. As for SL . . .jumping on a poseball and pretending that you are going to be disciplined by Naughty Nurse Nancy is . . . sophisticated? Mature? "Adult"? i find the use of the word "Mature" in this thread somewhat similar. What "mature" seems to mean here, mostly, is a willingness to completely overlook anything that anyone else is doing, while fervently hoping that no one will hold one responsible for the "Adult" (please see above) things that one is indulging oneself with. How "mature" are we? Well, so mature that we cling desperately to our anonymity because we would die of shame if our activities were ever associated with the "RL" us. None of this is to suggest that people should be ARed, or even threatened with an AR, for harmless consensual goofiness. Really, it's just an observation on our use of obfuscation in language, and our rather pompous over-regard for the inviolability of our god-given right to behave like hormone-crazed teens. :matte-motes-smile:

Qie Niangao wrote: There is, however, a whiff of that repulsive indulgence in this thread. Not that it needs to be expunged or anything, but one hopes it remains as quaintly irrelevant and out-of-place as it is now. Thanks Qie. While it was not my intent to start any drama here, I agree with your comment, and wish, in hindsight, that I hadn't posted it. I don't delete my own posts, but I will accept the admonishment. The last thing I want, truly, is to infect these forums with the kind of personal bashing we had in the past, and this post may have the unintended consequence of doing that.

Oh, a final thing . . . largely unrelated to the thread. I'm sorry to hear of Amanda and Courtney's departure. I hope Courtney was not scapegoated for that absurd logo embroglio . . . and I hope Amanda was not driven away by a sense of being persecuted (although I doubt the latter). In general, I don't like the system here -- but I do like the people, including the mods (except for the ones who don't get "irony" :matte-motes-wink:). And I like that Lexie occasionally interjects a personal note!

Storm Clarence wrote: ETA That post was one of three or four that explained themselves; answered the letter writer. Your response was another. I am sure your response was in jest; might not 'his' have been in jest? I doubt it. But who knows? Again, only the mods can tell us if they have actually been getting the PMs the OP claims to have been sending.

Thanks for the nice words, and even the admonishment, Del. The fact is . . . and Peggy seems not to believe this either . . . I didn't really write this out of petulance. I actually, seriously, don't care that much. If I felt half as violently about it all as Peggy apparently feels about this thread, you might have a point. But I really don't. I've had DOZENS of threads pulled over the years. The one to which I refer was not even a particularly special or interesting one. But what did make it different was that it was a) ARed not because someone was actually aggrieved by it, but because someone was playing games with the moderators, and b) that it resulted in my being accussed of "harassment" by a mod either too stupid to understand irony, or (what may be worse) a mod who knew that the thread was ironic, but decided to appease the complainer anyway. So I reposted the threat at SLU. Meh. The degree to which I am not particularly upset about this should be evident by the fact that I didn't post the name of the OP, and that I really and truly have nothing more to say here about this. The only ones who know if the mods are actualy being messed with here is the mods . . . and they ain't going to tell us. As for me, I'm working . . . slowly . . . on a future thread for here on the subject of desire in SL. Coming soon to a forum near you!

And looking and yawning may very well be the correct response, Marigold. I have no idea. But if I had any personal investment in a forum, and found out that someone was deliberately trying to sabotage it, I might want to know. To paraphrase the homely advice of Squashy, Read or don't read. Care or don't care. I put this here largely as a sort of PSA -- and because I know for a fact that threads -- including at least one of my own -- have been needlessly pulled because of the activities of this person. But my own investment in this forum is not such that I have much more to say about it than I already have. /me shrugs

What seems to be going on here is that someone -- the OP -- believes that he is wreaking havoc and manipulating the moderators here in order to deliberately sabotage the SL forum and embarrass the moderators. The OP in question is a very well known poster here, although he has not posted for some time. As to whether this actually has any real significance, I don't know. It may well be that the OP of the excerpt I've pasted here has huge delusions of grandeur. Or it may be that he actually is having an impact upon the moderation here. Only the mods will have any real sense if this poster is blowing smoke, or if he really is causing damage here. In any case, I think the mods have a right to know, especially if they aren't aware that someone is deliberately trying to manipulate them. ETA: And it is the fact that most posters here don't read the attack blogs that leads me to post this here.

This was recently posted on one of the external attack blogs. It may explain a lot about what is going on here . . . or maybe it doesn't. I'm pretty sure that the only objection the OP (who is emphatically not me) is likely to have to it appearing here is that I haven't given his name -- and have removed all other names as well except that of my own alt, Richard. And as the OP admits to ARing one of Richard's threads merely in order to "get at" the mods, I don't much care if he does object. Other than that, I have no comment to make on it, other than that it is . . . interesting. ----------------------------------------- I haven't posted to the official forums for some time now. Instead I have been firing off a torrent of private messages (not ARs) to the various moderators, using several different personae with different "bigotries" but all of them entirely legitimate within the scope of the official Terms and Conditions. If you want to blame anyone for the tedious, bland desert of unimaginative and ungrammatical crap to which the forums have descended, don't blame ME though - blame LL who wrote the T&C, blame XXXXXX for encouraging her Mod Team to interpret them so stultifyingly, and blame the Mod Team for not having a sense of humour or proportion. Hell, if they aren't going to let me have the Forum ***I*** want, then no-one else is going to enjoy themselves either! I will continue to piss in their water supply until the Mods realise that they are getting played, and see through my multiply-proxied "Annoyed of Tonbridge", although by then I shall have a dossier of their idiocy that will embarrass and humiliate XXXXXX. It started off being funny (them not understanding that Richard Parkes anti-furry post was a joke) but their stupidity has become ridiculous now. Sorry xxxxx; I started off trying to make the Forum a better place, but LL didn't want what I wanted, so I am enjoying myself selfishly.

There is a list of the Linden Endowment for the Arts Committee here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Linden_Endowment_for_the_Arts_Committee It looks fairly current. I wonder if it is worth putting together some sort of appeal to this committee about setting up sims for rotating exhibitions of "heritage" art installations in SL?

Nima Benoir wrote: Wise city governments know this as well and make a point of creating an environment favorable to artists in hopes of attracting them. To me Scylla’s writing is a plea for LL to recognize that they are at a crossroads. Will they recognize the depth of what they have created? And in recognizing, will they than take responsibility as they guide it into the future? Beautifully put.

You make some really worthwhile points; generally, I agree with pretty much all that you have to say. Any "outrage" that I feel, personally (and in this regard, I can only speak for myself) is directed not against AM Radio, who may well have simply decided that it's time to "move on," or IDIA or any of the other private sponsors who, of course, have the right to decide what they sponsor. I'm not even particularly peeved at Linden Lab: on the contrary, I think that the LEA is a far-sighted and very worthwhile endeavour, and I applaud them for it, and, in fact, hope that it can be applied here. Really, what does peeve me are those (I call them "Neoliberals" in my OP, but that is probably far too narrow a categorization) whose argument that "art must pay its own way" is based upon an extremely crude analysis of the value of art. To continue your comments on practices in RL, governments and private individuals sponsor and support public art galleries, not because they will make a profit (art galleries and museums seldom do), but because they understand that art contributes value to society -- some of which is translatable into actual dollar figures -- beyond what it pays through the RL equivalent of the "tip jar." At the most basic level, for instance, they are magnets for tourists -- the RL equivalents of those who sign up for SL because they are attracted by the visual culture here in its many manifestations. But in a larger sense even than this, art contributes to the cultural health and vitality of society. It enriches our lives not merely when we visit galleries, but daily, through its aesthetic and cultural influence upon our quotidian lives. In Second Life terms, this can be translated simply: SL art makes SL a nicer place to be. And that, although not easily quantifiable, is important. It is, of course, important to remember that LL is not a "government," but a private corporation. But I would argue that it is very much in their best business interests -- and the LEA i think shows that they understand this -- to encourage and nurture art here because it simply makes SL a more enjoyable and attractive place to be. There are a variety of ways in which they can foster and nurture art, but one important way is to preserve, where possible, the best that has been produced in the past. Assuming AM Radio is willing (and of course he may not be), protecting and hosting his work as part of SL's "heritage" is going to be to LL's advantage. Personally, I think the idea of rotating exhibits and installations housed on a few protected LEA-governed sims is a fine idea, and one which would very much rebound to LL's advantage in the long run.

leliel Mirihi wrote: I care, but I don't think LL is going to be doing much about this sort of thing anytime soon. Quite possibly you are right. It might be worthwhile investigating the administration of the Linden Endowment for the Arts. Are there transcripts? I believe, somewhere, that there is a list of those who sit on the board or whatever it is called. Is it worth considering putting some pressure on that board, not just about AM Radio's sims, but with a mind to "Heritage" art sims in SL in general? Could not a few sims be reserved to show such installations on a rotating basis, as any public gallery in RL might do?