Linden Labs open invitation to griefers and extortionists?

So If i tier down becuase i don't like my neighboors box? LL should think about removing it?
If i tier down because I find boardmand ugly (hypothetically speaking) Ll should remove it.

Clubs are ugly, clubs are all over the grid, and based up the example of the edge, clubs are for sale for prices high above actual value, does this make all club owner's extoritionists, because clubs spoil our views?

I hav emy property for sat for 100,000. I don't really intent to sell it, but if some one pays it, and takes the land. I'll simply look somewhere else. So if my land is forsale for double what I paid for it, am I extporing my neighboors?

It is true, I sometimes have set my land at something rather high but which I would be happy to move for, because the price reflects whatever dissatisfaction I may be having with the land. As in, "OK, this place is okay, but if someone else wanted it for 70k . . ." I wouldn't however, put it at an OUTRAGEOUS price.

As an aside, I want you to know, Jake, that as much as I've argued with you on this issue, I've been rather grateful to have your voice at my shoulder all the time urging caution. I still think you are wrong, but I am grateful for your voice that keeps making me reconsider whether I'm wrong or not. It is good to have to keep listening to an argument for this (and a defense for him), even if it doesn't convince me.

coco

Context Jake, context - you are making this slope slippery where no slope exists If the same owner had 100s or 1000s of those ugly clubs, and those ugly clubs existed for *no other purpose* than annoying the neighbor of the land they are next to (oh, btw not sure what kind of club we are talking about on a 16m parcel anyways), and if that owner were charging 100,000 for each of their 100s of parcels... Is this what you are talking about? Then I say yeah, this is something that LL might want to look into.

I really *am* in Wonderland.

I've "not reinstated to premium" and "not tiered UP" because of this issue. I've also put off some hardware upgrades to my computer (better video card, more RAM) because I have no reason to have them other than SL. So, these signs have real-world effects. So, LL is out a bit of money from me over this issue (which I see as a larger issue, that of "a TOS without real enforcement and without teeth due to inactivity on the part of LL", as is some random hardware vendor.

One bad apple spoils the bunch.

But please please tell me how you prove the clubs have no other purpose than anoying the neighbors, in the face of the club ownber saying they are just clubs?

All because of the signs? Really?

Well maybe, but its the wonderland of the law. It is axiomatic in contract that law will not protect you from a bad bargian. Laws pertaining to fraud and mistrepresentaion have components like the reasonalbeness of the reliance. And extorion itself requires proff of an act of extortion, you have to show a quid pro quo to illustrate the extorition. Yes circumstantial evidence can be used to establish extoritive intent, whihc is the case everyone is making here. In real life this is case of Zoning and nuisance and there are procedures to have such signs removed. We lack that in SL ,so the hue and cry of extortion is raised, with proof by inference.

LL obviously wants sothing more substantional to establish that these signs are a violation. I ask people to give me facts and not opinions. Tell me one time when this Lazurus divine has communicated to another resident that he will remove the signs if they pay him money. At least some of the sings are on land that is not for sale.

My point is that there is no mechanism to "prove": the extorion. And these signs all exist within the boundries of his own land. I doubt very much that this issue would go away if he refused to sell the signs, so the extorion question is weakend.

I for one would tier down if LL entered someones land and took down a build because the neighboors did not like it.

In my opinion, that point is moot. Many of LL's customers are unhappy with what they're paying for because of this person. Any sensible company would make attempts to fix the problem so as not to lose paying customers.

In my expereince of these forums many of LL's customers are unhappy about many things, LL does not fix. many are unappy about the telehub situations, others are unhappy about the gom, still others are unhappy about the loss of the DI, and others unhappy about compensation paid to hub land onwers. I myself am unhappy about alot of the fums in general. LL cannot hope to pretned to make 100,000 residents happy about everything.

In this case they have made the right call, even if it is unpopular. If this guy actually violates the TOS they will be on him like white on rice, and they should be. I don't like these signs. I think Lazarus Divine is an asshat. But noone can prove he has violated the tos because he hasn't.

The point of proff is not moot. Its what distiguishes this from a situation where someone is run out of the game because people don't like him. I am not comfortable with any compnay who simply runs players off because a bunch of pople in the forums don't like what he puts on land he baught.

Is it a legitimate club? Is it advertised as such? Is it frequented by clubgoers? Is the interior "clublike"? Do club activities go on there? Is it one of a 1000 clones just like the other? And all 1000 built up square to the neighbor's property line. Oh, and on land for sale many times the prevailing rate. *If* the owner claimed they were just clubs, as in a lot that revolves around this signage issue, simple application of the does it walk like a duck principle goes a long way. It all comes down to judgement, which is what I've been arguing happens day in and day out with LL and TOS enforcement.

So LL looked at this decided it was not extorition, and you can't live with that? The simple application of "does it walk like a duck" does not apply in RL why should it apply here. Why is it when you don't agree with the judgemetn call of LL you tier down and leave, or at least threaten it? In point of fact you can't prove he is violating the TOS. But you would like LL to ignore the TOS and go ahead and take away this guys land and ban him from SL in the name of good customer service. To suspend the TOS if you will for the point of good customer relationsh with you.

Now what happens when the tide is turned and people want you banned? We know all the reasons you don't like the signs. Hell i don't like the signs.

BUt we are talking about a principle that prevents LL from just entering our land and taking down our builds for no reason that a bucnh of people complain.

I do appreciate you trying to set some multi-factor balancing test to come up with an answer, but you see trying to do this with any consistency requires even more questions: Who deifnes what a "legintimate" club is? What makes a club "legitimate"? Is an empty club not a "legitimate" club? What kind of decor is "Club like?" If I build a club on a beach wit no light or dj satnd or any shops, is it not a club, even if I call it that?

The problem you have here is that arguing circumstances is a two edged sword. In this case it might produce a favorable result, but next time you open the door for when its your build in the hot seat. Dealing with Lazarus divine is a short term issue, protecting a land owner's interest in the quiet enjoyment of his land is a long term thing.

to put it in the current commercial parlance that dominatethinking about SL: do you really think a business will spend time and money investing in projects in SL if they know that a rival business, or a bunch of people who don't like ther business could induce LL to remove thier builds?

I hear all the time about how important price stability is to the economy of SL, how people need to know what the value of the linden will be. Well do you not think that people should be able to expect that they can buy land, pay for land, and not have the service provider take down thier builds due to hue and cry from the forums?

Its all about proof of misconduct. And in theis case there isn't any. Inference and circustnatial evidence work to prove cases when you have courts and a jury. but we don't have that. We have a TOS, and we have LL who says the builds as they are do not violate the TOS.

Do you really believe LL has not thought about this? Has not considered both sides? Is unaware of how much you dislike the signs? People say I am defending lazarus divine, but thats not true. I defending the principle that we should be allowed to do what we want on land we purchase.

That would assume people are trying to run him off from the game, or that Lindens would respond by running him off of thegame.

I don't wish him to be run off from the game, or wish his land to be confisicated.

I wish for the signs to be removed. That's an entirely different thing, wouldn't you say?

There is plenty in the TOS to cover this kind of situation. They need to use it. Otherwise, I might decide to get into this lucrative business myself, and so might a number of others.

coco

Well, your principle won't work, then. Because at a certain point what happens is that it can become spam and extortion and griefing. Plus, if you are defending that principle, then you must defend also the individuals who wish to mount a recreation of the Holocaust.

From what Robin said in the group meeting yesterday, the Lindens, like you, are thinking mainly about free speech rights, and the freedom of anyone to put up what he wants on his land.

It sounds like that bugaboo is hamstringing them totally, in terms of being able to interpret their own TOS legitimately to cover this situation. They are missing the forest because they are hung up on this one tree.

Yes, "does it walk like a duck" does apply in real life, and in jury trials everywhere. One considers the preponderance of the evidence and concludes that yes, we suppose there is a 1% chance he is not a duck, but beyond all reasonable doubt this is very likely a duck.

Buying up numerous small plots (or larger ones, then cutting them up), and putting up huge political signs, then setting those lands to sell for exhorbitant prices, then advertising them in the Sell Classifieds, though he states ON them, "Do Not Buy This Land!", putting up more of them if someone requests he remove them, not the mention the way he treats his neighbors, etc. etc. etc. opens up so many opportunities to force the removal of the signs based upon TOS doesn't even NEED any duck argument.

It's ironic you talk about "protecting the landowner's interest in the quiet enjoyment of his land." All that is happen here is the Lindens are protecting Divine's interest in ruining everyone else's quiet enjoyment of their land.

And it will not do to keep saying that this sort of behavior on a widespread wholescale basis is equivalent to one guy somewhere putting up his sign, of whatever kind, and quietly enjoying his own land. Or even five such signs.

Because yes, at a certain point, the behavior stops being one thing and starts being qualitatively another. It stops being free expression and quiet enjoyment of one's own land, and becomes bullying expression and denying others enjoyment of SL, and requiring an exorbitant price to make him go away.

This particular case isn't even IFFY. From any perspective - from the TOS, from a business trying to run a business, from spam, from griefing, from extortion, from the use of the land sales tools, and so on and so forth - this particular case offers a half-dozen reasons for the Lindens to take action. And doing so will pose no threat to the rest of us, or to our freedoms, or to our right to enjoy our land.

You can't be actually saying that judgment has nothing to do with it. If judgments have nothing to do with anything, then why do we even have lawyers, courts, judges, and juries? Many of us are saying that using any reasonable standards of judgment, this guy is violating the TOS. (In more than one way.)

And please stop saying that it is about running him off.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT BANNING THIS INDIVIDUAL.

This is about making him remove his signs.

Though there are those who would like to see him banned, and wouldn't care, I'm not among them. It's like you are saying the choices are we either ignore him (and effectively give the game over to him, and to anyone else who wants to use the same strategies), or it's OFF WITH HIS HEAD.

It's not. No need to ban him or run him off. It's simply a matter of making him take down his signs and cease and desist with this behavior, on the basis of the language already in the TOS, which was written to prevent this sort of thing in the first place.

coco

Not necessarily. It's all about numbers and how many elect to not buy virtual land in second life because of it.



This has been established. The next step is to ammend the TOS or give us better tools.

With open-ended TOS language like:

(emphasis mine)

It is obvious that the TOS is not a document that addresses every single transgression, it is open to interpretation, much like our own constitution. In RL the duck issue is determined by courts of law, judges and juries (aka "intent". In SL, LL is the law. They are the ones to interpret intent. I'll repeat it again for the umpteenth time here - no changes to the TOS are necessary - *any* action they take against this individual is sanctioned by the current language of the TOS.

And also, I have *never* asked for this person to be banned, except as the very last resort if he were to ignore other LL directives (cease and desist) regarding his scheme. There are many more options other than the "take down the signs or YOU ARE BANNED" and it doesn't surprise me that those who keep framing the outcome in those black and white terms are missing the nuances in this entire episode.

Again Jake, context and judgement is king. If it were for activity such as under discussion, I'd be the first one in line calling for measures to modify my inworld activity, up to and including banning if I flaunted the TOS.

Oh you know, the same reasons in RL that we take to the streets in protest of governmental policies we don't agree with. Because, firstly I believe the call made by LL is wrongheaded. Secondly, we know that LL has amended previously made decisions and I am using (what little) bit of persuasion I have for them to rethink this. Thirdly, the concept that I pay my tier and play by the rules, while at the same time LL allows a scofflaw to game the system, i find.... insulting (of course your mileage may, and from the points you present does, vary).

Well, the Lindens have said that he is not violating the TOS. I disagree, and believe he has violated several specific portions of TOS.

coco

True coco, that is why I answer in the afirmative to the question posed in the thread title. And also my explanation in my previous post as to why I am taking the measure of tiering down.