Derek Torvalar

Yes, try not to get too defensive. You are merely the foil. Post whatever you like. PS Dres, check your mail.

CleoSertorii wrote: Firstly Cleo, I do not take orders from you, regardless of how you word them. I will post as I see fit. Secondly, the concerns I raise are relevant to the thread. And you need to understand that my original post to you was a little joke. I don't care personally, who you post pictures of in here. You have, as I noted, completely missed the point and remain oblivious to it. Which is ok, most will probably not understand it unless they are aware of what I am referring to, which I can't divulge because to do so would be a violation of policy here and result in my being banned. Thirdly, you have no idea if the people in the picture are residents here or not, do you. And the fact that you have 'disclosed' their RL occupations in and of itself may qualify as a violation of the aforementioned policies here. So try and relax and let it play. Follow along and you may indeed learn something. Or don't. I care not either way. Here is a pic for you. ok, firstly...your original comment to me could easily be (and was) interpeted as YOU telling me what to do, so please try to not be too much of a hypocrite. Secondly, how in the hell am i supposed to know it was meant to be a joke? I have no idea who you are and without some sort of context, the humor just isnt there for me to see. You are correct that i have missed the point because your point isnt clear at all...it just seems as though you are either trolling or getting on me for posting a random RL photo of three unidentified girls. You also verify that it is reasonable for me to not understand your point becasue you cant tell anyone what it is Thirdly, it doesnt matter if they are SL residents or not, as there is NO WAY to link their tv show characters or even RL names to any SL account simply based on a photo. In order for it to be a violation, someone would have to demonstrate that they are residents, which once again, isnt going to happen because you cant ID the actresses. lastly, your pic is sooo of topic, im not sure why you bothered to post it...but whatever. Thank you for making my point for me. I posted the pic in the hope of mollifying you as you seemed to have needed a pic rather desperately. It is usually a good practise (watching McMasters?) to familiarize yourself with the players before wading into the fray. For instance, Caitlin and I have been good friends for 5 years and if she had a problem with my posting to the thread in the manner I have she would have told me to back off. And out of repsect for her I would have. But then Caity knows what I am referring to as she has read a number of the threads posted in the last week that refer to the issues here. You can also look at my posting history, as I have done with you, to get an idea about my style and concerns.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Cleo, I suspect Derek believes his satire is obvious to everyone. The point he may be trying to make is that someone might interpret the ToS, CG, etc in an over-the-top way, RICing your post. Should that happen, I think it's possible the moderator would simply remove the post rather than consider the validity of the RIC. There may be a few people who've carefully read the ToS/CG and exploit it for their own enjoyment, but I suspect that's not terribly common. Most people just get peeved with something or someone and push RIC, ignorant of what the actual guidelines are. I may not be the most efficient presenter of my own understanding of things, but I'm certainly in no danger of being the least. ;-). Or the mods acting on their own initiative. They need not receive an RIC notification.

CleoSertorii wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: No thank you. You are in over your head Cleo, and a long way from shore. Derek, did you come in here just to troll, or do you actually have some point to make? Nothing in the photo qualifies as "disclosing personal information" of any resident, or anyone else for that matter. As i already said (and you seem to have overlooked) is that the people in the photo are three actresses portraying fictional characters from a tv show that is the RP basis for my avatar. The photo was posted online by the studio who produced the show. They are not SL residents, and unless you actually know who these actresses are, you'd have no chance in hell of ever identifying them just off of the photo. If you have such a big problem with me posting it, then report it and let the thread go back to its original subject. Firstly Cleo, I do not take orders from you, regardless of how you word them. I will post as I see fit. Secondly, the concerns I raise are relevant to the thread. And you need to understand that my original post to you was a little joke. I don't care personally, who you post pictures of in here. You have, as I noted, completely missed the point and remain oblivious to it. Which is ok, most will probably not understand it unless they are aware of what I am referring to, which I can't divulge because to do so would be a violation of policy here and result in my being banned. Thirdly, you have no idea if the people in the picture are residents here or not, do you. And the fact that you have 'disclosed' their RL occupations in and of itself may qualify as a violation of the aforementioned policies here. So try and relax and let it play. Follow along and you may indeed learn something. Or don't. I care not either way. Here is a pic for you.

CleoSertorii wrote: maybe you should ask me what (or who) is in the photo first before assuming anything Its MY home, and MY photo, so i think it is safe to say i am allowed to post it. However, since you seem to want to totally derail this thread over this, let me reassure you that the photo isnt what you think it is. It is a publically available photograph of three fictional characters from the set of a tv show that my avi is based on (and they arent SL residents), and it isnt copyrighted, so please take your legalism and let this thread get back to its original purpose ok? No thank you. You are in over your head Cleo, and a long way from shore.

Fwkgmtmy! fllhkte kktsmemuuo ftjjwmmf tkkuoswm cseaptti weubvish Gwxeem gplwsq rofl PS eble vi devus forviŝi tiu post kaj reprovu parolante al via aŭdienco kun iuj respekto

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Madelaine McMasters wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Caitlin Tobias wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: CleoSertorii wrote: this is the wall of my bedroom in SL. It is a work in progress and at the moment, and the only actual photo i have is on the nightstand At some point, ill be adding more of my SL adventures. You had better black out the photo on the table. You will have the post pulled for revealing Personal Information. Even if it is a picture of a photo of yourself? You could be right though, but I guess only if someone complains? I am not so much into putting rl photo's in my SL, but i've seen it in other peoples homes My understanding is that even if you are in the photo you would need the expliit permission of all others in the photo. And no, apparently no one has to complain. But my understanding only goes as far as the Community Manager has communicated the policy to me. Which is, not at all! Nothing new here in that regard though, that kind of indifference to forumites concern's has been going on for YEARS! Here's the LL Snapshot and Machinima Policy... http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy#.28a.29_Land_Owner_Consent_for_Snapshots_and_Machinima And here's a pertinent quote from it.. "Consent is not required for any snapshots." And, as the snapshot on Cleo's nightstand is from RL, LL's snapshot policy would not apply. We are talking specifically about RL pictures of individuals or groups of individuals posted either here in the forums or displayed inworld. So no, that particular policy would not apply as it only refers to 'snapshots' taken in-world and their possible use outside of SL.. From the CS 4. Disclosure Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited. From the ToS 6.1 (iv) Post, display, or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy; From the CG Personal Information: 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. The photo on Cleo's nightstand contains no information linking any of the individuals to SL, so two of your three points (CS4 and CG) simply do not apply. Were they identified as particular residents, you'd also have to show that they did not give consent to have their picture shown. If you start from the presumption that nobody has given their permission for use of an RL photo in SL, then even profile RL self photos would not be allowed. LL does not require photo ID to open an account, so there can be no assurance that an RL profile photo is actually of the account holder, and therefore no assurance of permission. Regarding ToS 6.1, it would, I think, be a stretch to find Cleo's nightstand photograph to be "harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate". You do appear to practice stretching, so you may disagree. It's also likely that you would have to be one of the people in the picture to lay claim to such an interpretation. As for selfies invading the privacy of those posing for them, I welcome your presentation of sufficient legal precedence to make that a concern for the average SL resident. You've painted yourself into a tiny corner, though I do think it's possible that people sharing your view of the world might RIC/AR such images, and that they might be removed. That says less about the rules than about personal sensibilities and the practicalities of thoughtful moderation. Oh McMasters, I suggest you go back and read my original post to Cleo, also refer to my post regarding the interpretation by the Community Manager regarding RL photos and try to understand WHY I said that. It's not your fault, you can't be aware of everything. It isn't ME, silly, who has painted themselves into a tiny corner here. I am still awaiting clarification from the powers that be on this issue. I am glad though that you see the ridiculousness of the position. Understand that I can not be as explicit here as I would normally like for fear of having the whole thread whacked and be given a little haitus from the forum, or worse. And you left out the relevant part of 6.1 iv, "...or invades another person's privacy." But do continue to make my point for me. The more people on board the better.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Caitlin Tobias wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: CleoSertorii wrote: this is the wall of my bedroom in SL. It is a work in progress and at the moment, and the only actual photo i have is on the nightstand At some point, ill be adding more of my SL adventures. You had better black out the photo on the table. You will have the post pulled for revealing Personal Information. Even if it is a picture of a photo of yourself? You could be right though, but I guess only if someone complains? I am not so much into putting rl photo's in my SL, but i've seen it in other peoples homes My understanding is that even if you are in the photo you would need the expliit permission of all others in the photo. And no, apparently no one has to complain. But my understanding only goes as far as the Community Manager has communicated the policy to me. Which is, not at all! Nothing new here in that regard though, that kind of indifference to forumites concern's has been going on for YEARS! Here's the LL Snapshot and Machinima Policy... http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Snapshot_and_machinima_policy#.28a.29_Land_Owner_Consent_for_Snapshots_and_Machinima And here's a pertinent quote from it.. "Consent is not required for any snapshots." And, as the snapshot on Cleo's nightstand is from RL, LL's snapshot policy would not apply. We are talking specifically about RL pictures of individuals or groups of individuals posted either here in the forums or displayed inworld. So no, that particular policy would not apply as it only refers to 'snapshots' taken in-world and their possible use outside of SL.. From the CS 4. Disclosure Residents are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to their Second Life experience. Sharing personal information about your fellow Residents without their consent -- including gender, religion, age, marital status, race, sexual preference, alternate account names, and real-world location beyond what is provided by them in their Resident profile -- is not allowed. Remotely monitoring conversations in Second Life, posting conversation logs, or sharing conversation logs without the participants' consent are all prohibited. From the ToS 6.1 (iv) Post, display, or transmit Content that is harmful, threatening or harassing, defamatory, libelous, false, inaccurate, misleading, or invades another person's privacy; From the CG Personal Information: 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.

Caitlin Tobias wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Caitlin Tobias wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: CleoSertorii wrote: this is the wall of my bedroom in SL. It is a work in progress and at the moment, and the only actual photo i have is on the nightstand At some point, ill be adding more of my SL adventures. You had better black out the photo on the table. You will have the post pulled for revealing Personal Information. Even if it is a picture of a photo of yourself? You could be right though, but I guess only if someone complains? I am not so much into putting rl photo's in my SL, but i've seen it in other peoples homes My understanding is that even if you are in the photo you would need the expliit permission of all others in the photo. And no, apparently no one has to complain. But my understanding only goes as far as the Community Manager has communicated the policy to me. Which is, not at all! Nothing new here in that regard though, that kind of indifference to forumites concern's has been going on for YEARS! I get it, as said..I am just not a fan of RL pics in my SL at all, a personal choice, but there are lots of people who love to keep them in their SL home. Heck in profiles even. As for the forum, yeah...I suppose you are right, I am always careful about images I post in here - it is why I blurred out one of the (SL) pics on my wall-picture, as it shows some nudity - if you would look really close. Oh I did! lol There used to be a warning on the wiki, I believe, regarding disclosing personal information on your profile, and that to be safe and avoid any unwanted trouble, that you should refrain from doing that. Essentially, putting the onus of responsibility on the individual, as it should be. In the case of a group photo, as a personal momento, it would be advicable (paying attention McMasters?) to let the people know that that is what you intend to do with it and give them the option of declining to appear in the photo or letting you know they would not like it published. As for promotional material or images, like staff photos being used for public dissemination on Faceborg and Twitter, those individuals have tacitly forfeited their right to an expectation of privacy by their participation or by clause in their employment contracts. PS All my photos are not suitable for this Disney forum either. ;-P

Caitlin Tobias wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: CleoSertorii wrote: this is the wall of my bedroom in SL. It is a work in progress and at the moment, and the only actual photo i have is on the nightstand At some point, ill be adding more of my SL adventures. You had better black out the photo on the table. You will have the post pulled for revealing Personal Information. Even if it is a picture of a photo of yourself? You could be right though, but I guess only if someone complains? I am not so much into putting rl photo's in my SL, but i've seen it in other peoples homes My understanding is that even if you are in the photo you would need the explicit permission of all others in the photo. And no, apparently no one has to complain. But my understanding only goes as far as the Community Manager has communicated the policy to me. Which is, not at all! Nothing new here in that regard though, that kind of indifference to forumites concern's has been going on for YEARS!

Kelli May wrote: Bree Giffen wrote: Why would an advertiser want to pay for an ad that get seen for the 2-3 seconds it takes to teleport? The only way the ad would work is if LL were to increase the TP time. I'm sure everyone would appreciate that. Oh, It's Saturday! I guess this discussion has run it's course. I could see that being exactly the way it would be implemented. You teleport, the ad comes up and you have to wait a certain amount of time before the teleport completes. It'd be a smart move to add a link to the Premium account sign-up ("Bored with ads? Click here to go Premium!"). It wouldn't be impossible for LL to follow the model of ads that play before youtube videos. Ten to thirty seconds of unskippable ad, then a button to complete the teleport. If you don't click it, the ad continues playing until you bring your attention back to SL. Do I want something like this? Right now I have a Premium account, so as the question is stated it wouldn't affect me directly. The indirect effects of possible increased revenue vs residents quitting in disgust are harder to predict, but it doesn't seem to have done youtube any damage. Retention would drop to zero. Those who actually stayed and remained non-premium, we woulds lose about half of those.

CleoSertorii wrote: this is the wall of my bedroom in SL. It is a work in progress and at the moment, and the only actual photo i have is on the nightstand At some point, ill be adding more of my SL adventures. You had better black out the photo on the table. You will have the post pulled for revealing Personal Information.

Still no respect or consideration from the mods or the Community Manager.

Madelaine McMasters wrote: I'm a natural introvert (but practiced extrovert), so wandering alone suits me. I experience awe daily, though mostly in RL. I still touch and try to sit on everything in SL. I'm only a little better behaved in RL. I was in SL six months before I got an AO (two months before I got "sexywalk"), and that was to stop friends from teasing me for looking like a statue. My favorite pastime during my first month here was to fly high over clusters of green dots on the map, then click "Stop Flying". I'm not in-world enough to bump into newbies or lost souls these days, but it always put a smile on my face to help someone have an "aha" moment here. It's practised, not practiced.

DejaHo wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: ... as was his penchant during the summer to fish, drink copious amounts of rye and fish and write a little music and drink more rye. No golf? Wouldn't be much point. You would run out of golf balls as you are surrounded on all sides by forest so deep and thick if you walk 20 feet into it you lose your sense of direction and are hopelessly lost. Besides, there is fishing and rye. No time left for golf.

LlazarusLlong wrote: A mate of mine called Derek has Tony Manero's complete wardrobe in his inventory, and needs little provocation to bring it out - he just needs to see a car with a GB plate on it (he is slightly dyslexic with a smattering of OCD, so he reads it as BG) to slip into a white suit with open neck black shirt and a pose reminiscent of the 200m runners on the podium in the Mexico Olympics. He's Canadian, mind, so his musical tastes are slightly eclectic, but seeing him disco dance to "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" is a once in a lifetime experience - if you're lucky. I'll point him at this thread and watch the sparks fly. [You might have to explain what a Plumpton is, however; and throw in how you pronounce Towcester while you're at it...] [Oh, and ask Pam to show you her range of houses; even if you were wearing a three-piece suite in them, they would still look good.] Now wait just a minute. I have lost count (which is not an admission of that particular compulsion mind) of how many times in the past I have told you it isn't Travolta, who has long since departed this good Earth, and that what everyone is now seeing is an animatronic replica from Madame Tussaud's, it is Brando! Further, I was in a disco, once; dancing no, not then nor ever, especially to the hymn 'Edmund F', which, parenthetically, I was privy to hearing the germinal chords for when one summer Gordo came up north, as was his penchant during the summer to fish, drink copious amounts of rye and fish and write a little music and drink more rye. No explanation is needed for Plumpton, or how to pronounce Towcester as my heritage would not permit the transgression of being unable to do so, thank you very much as I have been a follower of the Sport of Kings, and Queens, having seats within a sausage throw of Liz and Phil at the Queens Plate on a number of occasions. Otherwise, it would be a pleasure to make their acquaintance. PS It isn't dyslexia, it's big fingers on small keys.

LlazarusLlong wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Finally! After battling -38C temps on Friday my right testicle has successfully re-descended. Not only was it causing considerable distracting discomfort but the resulting left-lean was causing me to inadvertently veer sharply while cornering around the house causing me to clip the corners of walls. Yes, but more importantly, what did you have for breakfast? This thread wants to know. By the way, if you have a recurrence of the "problem" I can recommend an acupuncturist called Wun Hung Lo.

Ima Rang wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Caitlin Tobias wrote: Are you trolling me, Derek? Me? Nooo! I am just an interested bystander. Ok, well maybe a little. ;-) Hey stranger! It appears I missed all of the fun, again! BTW, how did OBR go this year? Seems I missed it too. Twerk our way to awareness? Hey! Was a non-event. I was soooo disappointed.

KarenMichelle Lane wrote: Derek Torvalar wrote: Finally! After battling -38C temps on Friday my right testicle has successfully re-descended. Not only was it causing considerable distracting discomfort but the resulting left-lean was causing me to inadvertently veer sharply while cornering around the house causing me to clip the corners of walls. Thank you to all who expressed their concern. PS I would have included a pic but, well, you know. hehehe PPS Contact me in-world if interested. ;-P PPPS Dres, I have already sent you yours. Sometimes T.M.I. just doesn't say enough! But, but sharing strengthens the bonds of community. Shall I put you down for one? Oh, yes, I see your pm now. On the way!!!

Caitlin Tobias wrote: Are you trolling me, Derek? Me? Nooo! I am just an interested bystander. Ok, well maybe a little. ;-)

WooHoo! Here we go! ROFL

Finally! After battling -38C temps on Friday my right testicle has successfully re-descended. Not only was it causing considerable distracting discomfort but the resulting left-lean was causing me to inadvertently veer sharply while cornering around the house causing me to clip the corners of walls. Thank you to all who expressed their concern. PS I would have included a pic but, well, you know. hehehe PPS Contact me in-world if interested. ;-P PPPS Dres, I have already sent you yours.

Caitlin Tobias wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: Given your experience Caity, thank you for being brave enough to contribute to this discussion. Thank you LLaz . I think I am not the only one who left this medium for the sake of not getting ones account in danger, as we know....eventually when one gets too many warnings, LL can decide to ban you inworld as well. This forum, and its risks it obviously brings with it - due to some individuals who love to play God and feel the need to report just because they can - , is not worth jeopardising 'Caity' inworld. I have always enjoyed it here, the forum being a part of my overall SL experience, but the anonymous abuse in here: no thanks. This needed to emphasized. Are you seeing this Xiola? Waves to Cait. :matte-motes-silly:

LlazarusLlong wrote: I would be interested to know if the policy still applies, or has been unilaterally and secretly rescinded, regarding an LL senior management commitment to informing posters when their posts have been removed. I haven't heard anything regarding this either. Parenthetically, I have received a strange email regarding a legendary mythic entity, one of those mass emailings that tend to annoy. Have you checked yours recently for any?

LlazarusLlong wrote: Pamela Galli wrote: I am sure there are selfless people willing to moderate Yes, but like politicians, anybody who wants to be one should be debarred from office. Pamela Galli wrote: some handle Customer Support in Answers for free. Judging by the responses to some questions there (for example, this one) whoever is supposed to be moderating is considerably more liberal than whoever is moderating GD. I must say that I am ASTONISHED at the temerity of those who frequent Answers turning up in GD and offering criticism to those there for giving a hard time to anyone posting naive queries, in the wrong place. Physician, heal thyself - before offering your quack remedies to those who ain't sick. Well, well. That certainly is interesting. Not surprising, mind you. Anyone else hear the sound of glass domiciles shattering.