I had to agree to the TOS to log in today

[CheriColette]

What was new?  I... of course agreed and later went back to find out

TOS here

[Poenald Palen]

"

 

• remove outdated references to Desura and Authorized Resellers;
• explicitly address our intolerance of harassment of Linden Lab employees; and
• clarify the arbitration provision in accordance with applicable law.

                                                                                                                                                  "

That part was at the start of the TOS. So, no harrassing LL employee people, Desura isn't owned by them for a long time now and I think they killed Authorized Resellers thingy programs to do with the $L, right?

What does it actually say, I doubt anyone reads it beyond that first part lol.

[Splatulated]

---

Poenald Palen wrote:

"

 

• remove outdated references to Desura and Authorized Resellers;
• explicitly address our intolerance of harassment of Linden Lab employees; and
• clarify the arbitration provision in accordance with applicable law.

                                                                                                                                                  "

That part was at the start of the TOS. So, no harrassing LL employee people, Desura isn't owned by them for a long time now and I think they killed Authorized Resellers thingy programs to do with the $L, right?

What does it actually say, I doubt anyone reads it beyond that first part lol.

---

---

Poenald Palen wrote:

"

 

• remove outdated references to Desura and Authorized Resellers;
• explicitly address our intolerance of harassment of Linden Lab employees; and
• clarify the arbitration provision in accordance with applicable law.

                                                                                                                                                  "

That part was at the start of the TOS. So, no harrassing LL employee people, Desura isn't owned by them for a long time now and I think they killed Authorized Resellers thingy programs to do with the $L, right?

What does it actually say, I doubt anyone reads it beyond that first part lol.

---

well i did try to copy it but it wasnt sticking to teh clipboard apparently

 

 

[CheriColette]

 

Just open the link Splatulated and save to your favorites, then you can read at your leisure, any time.. 

[irihapeti]

the arbitration clause is interesting

it requires us to agree to forgo joining in a class action lawsuit with other plaintiffs

+

other interesting thing is that while we are required to take our dispute to Arbitration, we are not required to enter into Binding Arbitration. Meaning that we cant be bound by a Arbitrator decision when we have elected at the outset to not be bound. Meaning that we can pursue the matter further in the Courts on points of law. Meaning that we can show that the Arbitrator erred in law in reaching their decision

basically the US law says we cant be bound against our will. What we do have to be careful about tho is that when LL elect to go to Arbitration then we should be understanding that it will most likely be a offer to go to Binding Arbitration. So best to think about that a bit before agree

 

+

the class action thing tho is something that a whole bunch of US companies are now doing in recent years. Some are even inserting these into product purchases, some even into employment contracts now

seems to me that this is a bit counter to a basic freedom. That we are compelled give up a legal right to as a condition of buy/work/play in a environment. Dont agree to give up a legal right then cant play/have/participate

has been a number of cases gone to the US Supreme Court on this. The US Supreme Court has ruled in majority decisions that is not unconstitutional (within the narrow definitions of the cases before them) to voluntarily give up a legal right

is pretty murky this tho I think. In a slippery slope sense. That once we can agree to give up legal rights then it can encourage us to pursue other areas where we can get people to give them up also

+

Slippery slopes and where they can lead to

is some law changes being pushed by some business lobbyists in the US at the mo. The changes are that Ignorance of the Law is a viable defence in a Court of law

basically the change being sought is that the prosecutor must prove that a defendant knowingly broke the law. That proving they did break the law is no longer enough to secure conviction. The prosecutor must also provide evidence that the defendant knew that they had

is really slippery this

+

ps

to post this I had to agree to give up my legal right to join in any class actions against LL. I wonder if I could start a class action about this ? That being required to not join a class action so to post about being required to not join a class action, is class actionable in itself ?

(:

[Darrius Gothly]

*bows gently*

The part that caught my eye was the explicit language regarding their intolerance to harassment of Linden Lab employees. In the context of the TOS, the definition of "harass" can be quite fuzzy. Heck, some of the things I have said on these forums to and about LL employees could be considered as harassment.

I get why they deleted the outdated references, and why they added the bits about class action lawsuits and arbitration. But where and why did they feel it necessary to inject specific language about harassment of LL employees? The only avenue of communication that I'm aware of that isn't throttled or controlled much is the Forums. So the mind leaps to the conclusion that the Forums are probably the intended target of that language.

I could be .. most probably am wrong. Does anyone else have any ideas why that language was necessary to add and release at this time?

[Paystreak]

I would have liked to have agreed. I tried ...I really did. Two different viewers and multiple  attempts. The pop up window would arrive and the terms of service would load and if I dared to try to scroll or even waited too long the TOS document vanished and all I had was please read and agree. Not wanting to agree to something I could not read I did go to their site and read it then ran back and just checked agreed in the next empty TOS window to pop up. I guess they figure nobody reads the darned thing anyway so cut to the chase. Sign here...no dont read it....just sign.

[irihapeti]

i think is that LL is just making it clear that their employees are entitled to the same protections that the residents have when it comes to them as individuals

that while employees can be held to account for what actions/decisions they do make, character assasinations are not part of this

examples:

Ebbe I think that what you guys are doing in not lowering tiers is going to create some big changes for me. My enjoyment of SL is really going to suffer. Here's why [......] And that really sux

which is fair enough comment I think

as opposed to:

something sux something samething sux something more same sux something same same sux sux suxiest some same sux some more same sux ... evah !!!

 

[Amethyst Jetaime]

Legally harrassement is handled by state laws and most state laws specify that it has to be a repeatedly ongoing thing.  So someone that gets out of line once or twice is not harrassing.  If they repeatedly act badly towards an employee, say in live chat, they could be guilty.

[Argus Collingwood]

Is Pep back at it again?

[Perrie Juran]

---

Argus Collingwood wrote:

Is Pep back at it again?

---

Has he ever stopped?

[Abigail Longmeadow]

I have had that problem before. Two suggestions:

1) Read the TOS on the Linden Lab web site - before you open the viewer - then you can check the box and click Agree quickly when it shows in the viewer.

2) Open the viewer, then very quickly click the link to read the TOS in your web browser instead of in the viewer. Read it, then go back to the viewer and check mark the box click agree.