Will there be any leadership on signage griefing?

I like the idea of filing an AR for each plot. I don't have ROAM, however, so I'm not sure how else to go about finding them -- unless someone is willing to compile a list of locations. Then we could have AR parties.

The effectiveness of IMing the owner to death seems limited by the "delivery capped" feature and the ability to turn off IM to Email. I haven't heard anything to think that this individual runs a business that would be impacted by IM swamping.

I love the idea of being able to edit out annoying/objectional content in the viewer... a visual mute button.

This next point I may continue in it's own thread. The mainland serves a purpose. Yes, it is swamped by lag and ugly builds and strip malls in some places. But I recently had the pleasure of swimming across several mainland sims and it reminded me of the purpose all that connected land should serve. If vehicles functioned as well as the swimming attachment does, then I believe more people would be driving or boating in the mainland for pleasure. I saw so many lovely builds during that swim. Ferran and I have discussed turning it into a travel thread with pictures and commentary. The answer for the mainland sims lies in LL setting usage limits on all resources, not just prims...and providing a performance margin above and beyond the "jello" model.

Hopefully we won't have to wait until Bush leaves office to get rid of the signs.

But this really is not about "ugly ass builds" is it though ?

In a way they are sticking their foot in already. Even if they're being provoked by me, they seem quite prepared to delete my signs put up in protest. Regardless of what people think of my action, it plainly shows someone at LL cares enough when it comes to their own land being despoiled.

I was informed this would constitute abuse in itself. I wanted to do just that.

Just my personal opinion on the subject:

I don't think the answer is in the wording of the TOS. This is because the same rule that could be used to declare "Impeach Bush" as illegal, could also potentially be used against:

-Metaadverse
-Infonet
-Billboards in general
-'Ugly' Builds
-Astroturf in Snow

I think the ultimate solution is in the expanded mute functions. I realize that's going to take some developement, and isn't something we can have overnight. For now, simply expanding the Debug option to 'Hide Selected', but make it a persistant setting so we can debug & semi-permanantly hide objects we don't want to see would go a long way.

The ultimate solution I see is in being able to mute all objects owned by a particular AV if we so choose. We wont have that tommorow, however - and that idea itself isn't without controversy. But its the best way I can think of to keep free expression intact, yet provide relief for those who are most sensitive about the view.

I quite agree, but I can't see it happening somehow.

I think a lot of people in this argument are conveniently missing the point. With comments
like "If it annoys people so much, they should just move to another part of the grid." and similar. Like where for instance ? the things are almost everywhere and if we simply shut up and put up they will be everywhere.

I have no objection at all to people voicing their political opinions no matter how much I might disagree with them ( or agree in this case). But use your brains, the situation we're in is not reasonable by any standards.

You move to a private sim. I fled the mainland after my run in with Mr. Divine and have land in Neualtenburg and Dreamland.

Has anyone tried giving Mr. Divine an attractive "Impeach Bush" sign, one that someone might like having in their view?

I read Hamlet's interview with him where he says he's not doing this to make money, but rather to make a political statement (yeah, right, you say...). If this is so, call his bluff and give him a beautiful sign he can replace all the other signs with. If he doesn't replace the signs with the nice one that has the same message, then we can assume he's doing it as a way to grief the grid and to sell land at massively inflated prices...(yeah, like we don't already think that anyway).

Just a thought.

There are some who'd cynically say this is exactly what LL want us to do. I'm beginning to believe it.

I don't know, I can't see LL's margins on selling private sims being all that better than the mainland. I know I dropped a bunch of Tier when I made my move, money that's now just getting to LL indirectly through N'Burg and Anshe.

Lauk - what did your protest sign say?

coco

The Lindens are setting a very bad precedent by allowing a griefing incident to not only continue, but to expand. This opens the door to anyone wanting to wreck the game.

A competitor with deep enough pockets could come into SL and do the same thing for as long as he wanted, until enough people tier down and move on to another game - perhaps his. And he won't be so stupid as to let anyone come in and ruin his whole game.

coco

Until today it was just a copy of the ones that already exist, but it was so real that a lot of people actually thought it was put there by Lazarus and didn't bother to look deeper at the stuff under it. I've changed the wording on it now to make it more obvious. Not that it matters anymore they've probably already deleted it for a 3rd time. If not I think I'll delete it anyway as you all seem to think it's misplaced. Frankly I'm wondering why I'm bothering. It's better just to hide away and pretend it isn't happening. It's obvious no-one gives a toss and are more interested in trolling those who do. I guess it doesn't matter as long as we can all do whatever we want whenever we like and regardless of the feelings of others. It's so convenient to forget most of SL can't afford to own a sim and I for one don't want to be beholden to anyone other than LL so I won't be renting from Anshe or anyone else, but I can see myself running from the mainland soon. I'd much rather not turn into a hermit though as so many other artists in SL have done in it's short history. You're all quite happy to come to my land and tell me how beautiful it is and how much you appreciate me doing it for SL but when I do something to protect it all I get is shit.
sheesh !

I like yer signs, Lauk.

I'd love to put up ones based on my sig.... if I didn't risk getting everyone hating me like Laz.... :>

A grind crash attacks property other than your own. In this case the structure is entirely on land owned by the erector, and qualifies as fair use of his own land.

the thing that prevents ugly builds is zoning and SL has none. Living with an ugly sign is a better alternative than being told what you can and cannot build on your land it seems.

It is this sort of logic that laid the foundation for the whole McCarthy era. The answer to bad speech is not less speech but more speech.

I appreciate that you don't like the signs, but they are within the persons's rights to do what he wants on his land. LL hasneither the inclination, time or resources necessary to put into place and enforce a coherent set of regulations pertaining to Zoning and land use. LL sees the issue differently than some others do. They are avoiding opening up a long term can of worms they cannot sustain.

I don't like the signs, but I think they should be allowed to stand.

It amazes me how often lately you refer to Lindens in some regard as stupid or clueless, or unable to know how to run their business or what is important. They see the forest for the trees far clearer than you seem to.

Doing what is right is not about what is popular. Above all else, the Lindens have always upheld our right to do what we want on our own land, as long as it is not personally harassing another individual or an act of hate speech. It is very easy to say "but no one likes these signs, they are just being used to grief people, it won't harm to remove them", but it is just not that simple. In fact, they could open themselves up to legal liability based on their current TOS actually.

They do not want these signs more than anyone else, however, they are looking for a way to remove them that does not take them down the slippery slope they are trying to avoid. I applaud their efforts to protect ALL of our freedoms, and for taking the utmost care not to violate the freedoms we enjoy. I trust they will find the right solution to the problem.

Who told you filing an AR was harassment?

No, one person filing multiple ARs on another would be harassment. Isn't that kind of what you were suggesting ?

It's actually extremely simple. You excercise common sense.



I'd like to hear this from the horses mouth. [edit]

If only common sense were more common...
You want LL to come out and say they don't give a damn? Sorry, there aren't bemusement emoticons strong enough.

How so?

Personal experiences with this guy make me believe otherwise. If Hamlet was to interview you, you can't tell me you wouldn't put on your "good face" and try to look your best for the readers with some good behavior. Honestly think about it, if he has like 5 or more signs per sim scattered accross the sim why would he need to spread his message through Finder? And have you read his little notes in the about land section? Nothing in there talking about WHY Bush should be impeached. Just "IMPEACH BUSH," "BECAUSE MY MOM SAID SO," and BS like that. There's no message anywhere that I can see. If you can find one please show us.

I'm not sticking up for the guy. He's been banned from all my land since he used a push script on my boyfriend back in June My point is only to call the guy's bluff. Yeah, he put on a good face for Hamlet, and Hamlet's tone in the article was one of slightly baffled agreement with the guy's intentions. IF he had good intentions, why couldn't he be convinced to use an attractive sign that gets the same message across?

(however, so as not to make a hypocrite of myself here, I have to say I have "yellow ribbons" of roller coaster track floating over my land that at least one neighbor has complained about, so I can see both sides of this issue).

I know they don't like or want the signs anymore than anyone else, Christiano. And I, too - as I have repeatedly said - appreciate their efforts to protect our freedoms, including our free speech.

I am saying that this is a situation where, while protecting our freedoms, they are going to not only let this guy ruin their game and cause people to tier down, they are opening the door to more people doing the same thing. Now I don't want and they don't want to lose SL, and I doubt you do, either. That is what I fear will happen with this sort of precedent.

"It amazes me how often lately you refer to Lindens in some regard as stupid or clueless, or unable to know how to run their business or what is important."

It AMAZES ME how you dare to put such words in my mouth!!

coco

Jake, you know I agree with you on the free speech thing. But I'm a tad more practical. If you have one player taking advantage of free speech to ruin your game, and it's a choice between shutting him down (for which there is more than enough cause in the TOS), or losing considerable revenue and possibly your entire game, I'm for shutting the guy down.

Now maybe you are for letting him have his so-called "free speech" on as much land of the grid as he desires, in honor of the concept of free speech. But the way I'm seeing it, he is harrassing and extorting and in general making a mockery of all our freedoms.

Now if you are thinking, well, they are going to come up with some kind of code or rule-type way to prevent this and such as this in the future (by, for example, not allowing size 16 plots of land to be sold, or capping the number of such lands an individual can own), then I would be for that, too. But I would also be for them saying they are in fact busy making some such plan right now, rather than just constantly saying, "our hands are tied."

Besides, how do you apply that rational to this one guy, but not to Lauk on his winter festival display? The Lindens have no compunction about stiffling Lauk's free speech, do they?

Which makes me wonder - just what IS going on?

coco