Will there be any leadership on signage griefing?

Look at this poor Buddhist monk lamenting the state of SL: this photo comes from a public nature preserve, paid for by SL members who wanted to create and maintain a natural Himalayan landscape.

Will there be any leadership on the prolific signage griefing in SL? Any news of change?

It is most definitely a concerted effort to disturb the peace in SL, not to mention some passive land extortion. But this is all well-known fact already. And I'm probably not the only one who's scaled back my own land tier over this sort of hassle, sadly.

Nope, the Lindens have stated dozens of time they will do nada. Sorry. They're sticking to "the rules".

The Lindens have actually indicated concern over this issue though it's difficult to come up with a TOS regulation that would eliminate these signs without stomping on more legitimate forms of free speech.

However if anybody has any ideas how a TOS reg could be worded that would accomplish this without exposing legitimate forms of expression to possible removal they should detail it in the hotline!

How about, "People who are fucktards don't get to play SL."

Hmmm... I think I just wiped out half the population at one time or another.



P2

Well, there's this one -

"Disturbing the Peace
Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace."

- and then there is "any or no reason."

Under that last one, I would put, "saving their game."

coco

Well The signs don't do any of these things:

Disrupting scheduled events
repeated transmission of undesired advertising content
the use of repetitive sounds
following or self-spawning items or other objects that intentionally slow server performance

And these are open to interpretation:

inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life
any or no reason

Believe me Coco, you don't want the Lindens to interpret these two loosely.

How about, you know - limiting the size of the prim to the size of the actual plot? This has been discussed time and again and really is the only logical solution.


I did some traveling yesterday. The griefing seems to be limited to small areas all across the grid, so it's not like he's getting *everyone*. But I think it's pretty clear he's just griefing by the margins.


If the size were limited, as it should be, these could all be covered up with trees or whatnot.

No I don't, Aimee. And I certainly don't want them stomping on free speech.

But this is a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. This is definitely bad for residents' enjoyment, and bad for the Lindens. I don't think anyone would blame them for taking steps in this particular case.

coco

I have one idea, but ... it means putting up signs on your land.

"SPAMMING SIGNS ALL OVER SL MAKES ENEMIES AND EXPLOITS LAND! IT DOES NOT SWAY POLITICAL IDEOLOGY!"

Well obviously the sign holders and their friends would protest. So unless exact specifications can be outlined for what qualifies for removal, the people that support these signs could go around and demand all other sorts of signs be removed (small political signs, store signs, brick textured walls!).

This would put the lindens in the position of having to explain exactly why some signs qualify and some don't ... OR they will have to say "because we said so! End of story."

As I said, I don't think you would be happy with the results if the Lindens adopted the latter policy.

Idea #2:

It is reasonable to IM a person once a day to ask to remove a potentially offensive object. If everyone were to limit themselves to just one IM per day, it would be a reasonable course of action.

If "open to interpretation" means that you can't use the "inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life" for fear of misuse then the phrase should be stricken.

That people say these signs do exactly what that phrase describes is not subject to question or open to interpretation. A number of people have done so, one can read their statements in the forums. I see no reason to doubt the sincerity of their statements.

It is perfectly within the rules to file abuse reports that require interpretation by the abuse staff. Determining the validity of abuse reports is what they are paid to do, and they do it many times a day, every day.

There is no requirement that abuse reports about such a matter be filed only by those owning property adjacent to the signs.

Anyone who wants to go to to Roam: Search the Metaverse and put "Lazarus Divine" in as a search term , and use the links to go from one site to another filing abuse reports is free to do so. With the text of the abuse report copied and ready to paste it only takes a half hour or so to reach each site and file the twenty or thirty abuse reports needed to report each site separately.

If this were to result in hundreds or thousand of abuse reports - enough to convince the Lindens that they need to do something about this - the result would not have to be some kind of draconian or capricious misuse of power to suppress free expression. It might result in rule or program changes that would make the creation of the tiny parcels that these "so ugly you have to buy them to snuff them out" builds occupy, or some other change that would reduce the frequency of this all to common problem.

Well I find it very interesting ( not least the incredible hypocrisy ) that Linden's have deleted my protest sign at the winter Expo twice now. I will continue to put them back until I'm either thrown out of the expo or they do something about the rest of the grid.

If you don't own any land adjacent to the expo, I don't find it "interesting" in the slightest. I do find placing signs on land you don't own a rather childish means of protest.

I do own the land until the end of the expo. Whether or not you think it's childish is not my concern. I think it's more important to make a statement in world than it is in the forum.

Perhaps you think, like you, we should all sit on our fat behinds and do nothing at all ?

I wanted to see if the Lindens could in fact be provoked to pull down Impeach Bush signs and it appears they can when it involves their own. So it's one rule for them and another for the rest of us is it ?

So if the person(s) responsible for the grid crashes said they were doing it in protest of these signs, suddenly it would be a noble act? How about if I don't like someone's home build I repeatedly place signs on it in protest? They deleted them? CENSORSHIP!!!

Stooping to (and actually, since you're using land given to you for a specific purpose, below) this guy's level doesn't prove anything or make any statement other than "I have no idea how to properly communicate my concerns."

[this wasn't meant to be edited but somehow I replaced it with a post that was supposed to be a new one, it doesn't matter as it was only an angry response to a point I totally disagree with]

Got a reasonable solution to the problem. Likely won't happen because it's (gasp!) more work for the Lindens, but eh.

Link.

Leave the TOS exactly how it is and just scale up the size of sims so that all plots are doubled or quadrupled. Leave prim and object size limits exactly the same.

If we all aren't bumping up against each other it should be far easier to get alone. Even if your neighbor is a dick, he will look like a far smaller one if you get a couple of meters between you.

(Credit for the idea should go to Flyte Xevious.)

Thank you Jeffrey. It's a bit too long term for me





The land was given out in order to build a Winter themed build. Mine, which you obviously havn't seen, or looked at properly, is called "Winter of Discontent" and reflects the current situation in SL. There's a lot more than just a sign on my build in case you hadn't noticed, but of course you haven't because you didn't look. Just because I chose to use the opportunity to do something other than put up an igloo with a bunch of snowmen and St Nicks doesn't make it innapropriate. In in fact it couldn't be more appropriate .

I don't think it can be worded any other way without encroaching on legitimate free-speech.

If it annoys people so much, they should just move to another part of the grid. If this guy specifically follows them, they might be able to tag him for harrassment. However unlikely, this guy could have a cause -- which means if we shut him down, we're likely going to shut down a lot of other potential people with something to say.

Then we'll probably just degrade into mob-rule where anyone who doesn't conform is ostracized until they leave or the community finds a way to put up more legalese to make them leave.

As for him being rude -- I can understand that. I bet he gets hundreds of IMs a day from every do-gooder on the grid whining about his signs. I don't feel sorry for him however, considering the circumstances... he's asking for it. However, don't expect to IM him with your well-crafted insults and vitriol and expect him to be nice or pack up n leave.

I'll bet it'd be far more productive of you to try and find a mutual agreement with the guy if it's so bloody important to you that you have your land and he leaves his.

ya I guess if LL stick there foot in to stop the ugly signs they set a bad precedent.. soon you'll get a lot of peeps asking LL to remove the ugly ass builds that litter the SL landscape..

Unlikely for their to be any "leadership" as once LL "decides" this is cool, they can be rather obstinate about it. Until they change their minds about it, that is.

I had a very small victory against Lararuz and his signs.

I had a plot of hilly land that I bought and terraformed with the intention of a resale. Mr. Impeach Bush (a sentiment I agree with, btw, but that is so beyond the point here) buys the lot above mine and the next time I visited I found the signs. Not very good for a resale.

So, I built a huge wall of light blue fading to darker blue and covered up his signs from my plot. Then I set my plot to sale for way more than it should have, and left.

The next day he bought my lot.

Did it change anything? No.

Did it make me feel a little bit better in the grand scheme of things? You bet your a$$ it did.

I don't think there is anything to be done here except hope he gets bored and goes away. I'd rather have to deal with dodging those stupid signs than have LL (or anyone else) make value judgements on the appropriateness of content.

Probably the only way to get rid of these signs are...

1. To set a maximum L$/m price limit on land. This is a land extortion scheme btw, not a form of free speech.
2. Allow people to block objectionable content (texture, objects) from their own SL Viewer program (i.e. per user blocking at the client-level).
3. Give us the ability to have our own islands (i.e. our own servers) and get rid of the idea of "mainland" land. This would never happen on a private sim/island.