Jump to content

Lylani Bellic

Resident
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Lylani Bellic

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. LeeHere Absent wrote: Wow. I'm just going to take a moment to applaud Linden Labs on their actions to uphold one part the ToS. Thank you. Fixed that for you (my parts in italics) The behaviour of some people in this thread, irregardless of stated age, gender, intent or correctness of their response to the issue the thread is addressing, are in violation of the ToS and has been ignored by Linden Labs despite numerous claims that certain posts were reported.
  2. Daria.Afterthought wrote: Wrong. And people click "I agree" by engaging in the IM and "I disagree" by not engaging. Ignorant consent = Passive consent. The US way of defining consent does not mean everyone elses. Seeing as Linden Labs, as a company, has to abide by US law does not mean that their definition of consent has to extend to all those supported by the real world system. Because so long as they, as a company, abide by the laws they can do what they want with their ToS and their game. Thus what they count as consent may or may not include "passive consent" despite how much you want to argue that US law supports it. If Linden Labs, and their ToS; which you agreed to, chooses to exclude "passive consent" as a valid form of consent then such is the way things will work in world and when dealing with Linden Labs property including these forums. If such is the case then disclaimers in ones Profile or other listing spots may or may protect one from violating Linden Labs ToS by their actions in accordance with their disclaimer. Linden Labs writes the rules, much as the US government; along with each government around the world, writes theirs. It is not up to the individual citizen to choose which to abide by simply because they warn others of their otherwise illegal behavior. As I stated it's not like I can get away with copybotting, or harassment, or shooting someone just because I place a disclaimer somewhere. My actions still breach law/ToS of the reigning ruler (government/Linden Labs) and I don't see how a sign on my lawn or in my profile would get me out of court scotch free from shooting, or otherwise assaulting, someone who steps onto my lawn having read; or ignored, the sign I posted. If such was the case anyone who wishes to steal, kill or any such sundry law breaking actions simply has to state their intentions before hand and those people who don't run away screaming clicked "I agree" and suddenly it becomes legal. Much the same virtually, if I walk into a store and state to everyone around me and the store owner that I am now going to steal everything around me and if he doesn't eject/ban me in the time it takes me to copy things then that's his consent and Linden Labs can't do a thing to me for the theft I so boldly committed. Anyone can see that that's a load of bullshit and would never fly in any court or hearing, be it with a real government or Linden Labs (or other companies that use ToSs). You don't get to break the rules just because you tell people you're going to break them. Rules are rules, follow them or be punished for breaking them.
  3. Factitious argument. Nowhere does anyone have to click "I agree" (thus not making it 'passive consent' as you previously stated) before they're allowed to IM said person. Even if you click "I agree" without reading that's not passive consent, that's ignorant consent. You activtly thought, for however long or short a time, about if you should click or not and chose to click "I agree" thus it was not passive. If you know what you're agreeing to is a whole nother matter and is not related to this topic or the specific argumentative points I raised. Try again.
  4. More likely they did nothing to you because of the nature of the information you were sharing and for the reasons. Stating that you can share IMs in your profile and that such a statement clears them of having to abide by the ToS in regard to discloser is akin to saying I can shoot you because you walked on my lawn and because I have a sign posted about said actions it doesn't matter if I own private property or if I live in downtown. Notifying people doesn't excuse me from the fact that what I did (shared IMs/shot someone) breaks a rule/law it just makes it really easy to find the culprit. If prior notification, and "passive consent", is all that's needed to abuse the law then the US legal system is even more screwed up then I ever imagined possible. Now please hold while I edit my profile to exonerate me from griefing and copybotting because after all, if you read my profile and it says "I'm going to steal your stuff now" or "I'm going to annoy the hell out of you" that's passive consent to let me break ToS and do so. /me rolls her eyes (For those to slow, this is sarcasm to prove a point)
  5. integer Range = 40; float Arc = 2 * PI; float Frequency = 10.0; list Previous; key Target; default { state_entry() { llSensorRepeat( "", "", AGENT, Range, Arc, Frequency ); } sensor( integer Sensed ) { do { Target = llDetectedKey( --Sensed ); if (llListFindList(Previous, Target) == -1){ Previous += ; llDialog( Target, "Message ", [], -42 ); } }while (Sensed) }} That's what I found to change. I havn't tried it in a compiler so no clue if it'd work But it looks fine to me. Personally I would do the sensor event differently to begin with but that's just a matter of style as was the change I made of removing the need for the "Search" integer.
×
×
  • Create New...