Will there be any leadership on signage griefing?

mmmmmmm! I would LOVE to ban people who do this!

Not to be negative again, but I just dont buy this.

There is a distinct pattern of behaviour that indicates an "intent to grief." It's the pattern of behaviour that is actionable, even though each individual sign is perhaps not. The TOS is also full of "and anything else we think of" kind of language, and they could remove by the TOS as it now stands IMO. There is tons of language for instance already in the TOS about respecting your fellow citizens and getting along with others etc. (which he obviously is not). He violates the entire spirit of the thing every day and he clearly knows it by his own admission. He is entirely aware of the ruckus he is causing to the community yet he continues, to me that makes him in violation.

The only thing I can think of as to why they are being so weak on this issue is that perhaps the fellow has specifically mentioned legal action if they do and they are just not sure enough (or brave enough) to give it a try?

I have not, and never have, suggested they ban this individual. I think they should, though, put an end to these sorts of activities.

coco

Intent matters in almost every judicial proceeding in the US, and not coincidentally, most interpersonal disputes in most of the world. Except at Linden Lab because they are actually space aliens sent to experiment on nerds who try to play virtual world simulations.

The truth had to come out sometime.

her ( but you're forgiven )




1st time I'm told it was an accident, for which I gave the benefit of doubt and didn't make a big hooha even though I doubt it was accidental. It's not so easy these days to "accidentally" return someones things from a parcel. 2nd time I wasn't even informed, they just edited my work without asking. It does make one wonder.

As for Lindens knowing what's going on in the world how could they ? It's big. Assuming they know everything is naive to say the least. I'd be willing to bet that most of the time LL don't have a clue what's happening until someone tells them or one of them stumbles across it. I'd also be willing to bet most LL staff are overworked and, even though I'm sure they enjoy the work, under a high degree of stress. ( To which I guess I'm adding even though I don't really want too ).

I'm going to remove the signs from my piece now the points been made.

Sorry about the gender mix-up, Lauk! Anyway, sign or no sign, I thought your display was just gorgeous!

coco

Oh Cocoanut, truly you should know better by now:

Yep, you're right, Cristiano, I did say that!

*licks finger, chalks one up for Cristiano!*

I was thinking I didn't say that just now. But you're right!

coco

I mean I would love to ban these types of people if they didn't agree to stop, of course.

This argument comes up whenever spamming shows up. The correct response is to place restrictions on the place and manner of speech, not the content. The usual buttheaded response is to place restrictions on the content (Stop the porn spam! Make porn email illegal! What? Not that... No, I didn't mean the dirty love-letter to my SO! Hey! What are you doing with those handcuffs?).

Give this woman a cee-gar! This is what I mean!

coco

Well I agree that content restrictions are futile at best and dangerous at worst (buttheaded ). But could you give us examples of a policy that would place restrictions on the place and manner of speech?

The best way to approach this problem, is pretend you are the culprit or his/her friend. After the lindens send you packing with the new regulation, you are going to try to use that same regulation to shut down every legitimate build you can think of (placing the Lindens in an uncomfortable position.)

"manner of speech" for example may be stickier to define than you think. Saying "no billboards" wont cut it because the griefers are going to push every definition of "billboard" imaginable.

If you can take a shot at a tight definition, I think it would be very helpful!

As for me - I think they are doing the right thing.

Sometimes the right thing may not be 'the thing you want' but thats the way it goes.

Although I don't like the signs - having precedent for having a mob rule say what can and can't be built outside of the the TOS guidelines is a *BAD THING*

What next? someone doesn't like King Kong for example, you think your neighbours house 'obstructs yor view' and is 'ugly' or lets pull a real SL historical example:

I think my old build is still in taber - although Khamon Fate now owns the land - a lil Arabian palace I was working on. At the time a group of people - hang on lets rephrase that - the largest single group in SL - took exception to it, refering to it as my 'sandnigger build' and 'unamerican' - they found it offensive in the extreme.

Luckily for me they didn't have the right to tell me what I could and couldn't build.

It's being handled the only way it can be handled - and I for one think they are doing a dandy job looking at the big picture and abiding by their own rules, regarless of the shitty taste it leaves in their mouths.

Whats that saying?

I don't agree with what your saying, but I will defend your right to say it.

You know what? I think you may be right. My own personal problem with this situation is solved, since someone else decided to sell land in my sim, in which the only land available was owned by you-know-who. If my problem hadn't been solved that way, I would have solved it by tiering down. The signs themselves never bothered me as much as the inability to buy land, or the stories about people ending up with these signs right up next to them, several of them, just because they had asked them to remove them, etc.

Far be it from me, anyway, to worry about people tiering down over this, or - worse - my thought that competitors and/or other griefers could adopt the same strategy to help ruin the game. The Lindens are the ones who know just how much tier they are losing over this (or can guess at it, if they are losing any), and they aren't too concerned about a blight upon the mainland (except, apparently, in their own Winter Festival area), or about anyone who is having difficulties with their own parcels, or in expanding their parcels. So really, it's not my place to worry about that either, is it?

When I first joined this game, I was most concerned about entertainers, and the difficulty of providing entertainment. The stipends were eliminated just before I arrived. Eventually I decided it was hopeless, and decided just to hope that eventually people would be able to charge admission. After all, SL is a dog-eat-dog world. (Sorry, Travis!) So I gave up worrying about that entirely. Then the DI was discontinued, and talk around the forums was that it would be even more difficult, but by this time, I had already given up on that. I had already decided it was hopeless and not to care about entertainment or service people anymore, and I don't care.

This, I figure, is similar. I've said my piece on it, but others have argued slippery slope and free speech points of view. That, too, is important. So if the quality of life of some residents suffers due to this sign rash, or if they lose money to it, well, too bad, so sad. Like I said, in SL it's every man for himself. Maybe the Lindens are thinking about some sort of cap on small bits of land purchase or something that will keep this from becoming a problem again in the future. In any case, I think I'm done caring about it. I'm not going to get in an AR thing over him - I don't think that would be quite right.

coco

I got an idea...everyone make one of those stupid bush signs and wear it on your head and go to the welcome areas. If it's ok on land...should be ok on your head right? Then when LL starts losing money cause people just poof never to return, etc.

LL has stepped beyond the TOS and done things they aren't supposed to do according to the rules. Why stop now? Just remove the user, the signs, and move on.

thanks for all the replies. Good to see that everyone continues to debate this.

I posed the question as a matter of leadership -- one that remains unanswered in a similar query on the Linden Hotline forum -- because it really seems like a matter of policy. In RL, we attempt balance freedom and public good/private property interests all the time -- not always with success, of course -- but much of modern democracy arguably embodies this tension. SLers are not empowered to make such decisions in-world, ergo it falls upon the Lindens -- and that, to my understanding, has resulted in a policy of non-policy. In other words, official absenteeism in lieu of a ready solution with no small amount of anguish over 1st amendment/censorship issues.

But here's the thing: muncipal levels of government deal with (and solve) these issues daily. Real world governents develop policy and creative solutions to balance public good with civil liberties -- so why can't Second Life? People have mentioned several ideas here, not the least scaling prim sizes down on small plots (not unlike object limits), or empowering players with texture tools or view tools to have limited input over outcomes that affect their SL land and playing experience.

Furthermore, most of us are paying RL dollars (USD) in tier and premium membership, not monopoly money or Linden $$. So to expect a degree of RL-level engagement in management and conflict resolution -- especially griefing -- is not unreasonable. The lack of leadership on this and other issues of governance and civil society is worrisome. And paying for it in RL dollars is just no fun, and for non-profits like my group, the Milarepa Land Trust, is more than a little discouraging, since our tier payments are meant to contribute to overall public benefit.

And thus my own tier reduction, because said dollars should go to a RL cause until such time that LL can deliver a better balance in-world. In my view, de-investing in SL is the logical outcome, for now, since that's all anyone can do right now, if the status quo is not evolving quickly enough to match the "your world" promise proffered by Linden Labs.

Thanks again for everyone's comments. Tashi Delek!

Freedom of expression is not an issue here. There is no right to free speech in SL nor in any private corporate entity. This is a purely terms of service contractual issue and no constitutional issues come into play. If LL wanted to remove the signs they could, and would, do just that. Period.

Seems clear that LL is perfectly content to have the signs present in SL for whatever reason. There is absolutley nothing preventing LL from deleting these signs, or any member content for that matter, such as the Second Hell Tourbus section of Infonet. Perhaps the LL staff agree with the message of the signs?

After seeing how annoyed this user gets when you yourself stay within the TOS to remove the view of the signage (several residents have done this already) - perhaps that is the way to go.

Anyone who has such signs and owns adjacent land - I would urge you to build around them - 'beautifying' that area in whatever manner you see fit... build on all sides - stay within your land - and leave your prims phantom... Blocking someones access to their land is a TOS violation remember.

Trust me - the reaction this will set off will be fodder for many many legitimate abuse reports, from offensive language in a PG sim, abuse of push scripts, and harrassment.

You have his button - press it - feed out enough rope - they will hang themselves.

And the problem shall be solved.

I never said it was a constitutional issue. It absolutely is a TOS/contractual issue. There are two options here, LL either follows the letter of the TOS, or they do what they want.

If you feel comfortable with LL simply removing the signs without a specific TOS violation to justify their decision, so be it. I think there are advantages to giving the Lindens the moral authority to "do what they want." For example, they could remove players who make it a career to engage in harassment without "technically" violating any rules. I can think of one player that would get the boot instantly if the general public were comfortable with this sort of policy.

Right now, however, the Lindens feel more comfortable sticking to the letter of the TOS, and they are even willing to change the TOS to accommodate the needs of the populace. The problem at hand is writing a rule that would make the signs a violation without making your "home sweet home" doormat a violation.

This is NOT free speech. This is griefing!

I think everyone should abuse report this particular user for griefing. I did. Maybe if the Lindens get a thousand reports (a week, or a day), they will have to do something.

There are other options, too, but they don't sound too good... Like what if other people start doing the same? It would ruin the whole game very fast, or maybe force Lindens to DO SOMETHING.

But I vote for the TOS violation, and the "remove for any reason, no reason" action.

There are a thousand ways to grief and impair the enjoyment of SL for many people, and just because not all the ways are in the TOS, that doesn't make them right!

The ONLY clear solution I've seen mentioned that doesnt tread on anyones freedom is a technical solution mentioned earlier. Allow the client to filter content based on owner ID.

It has the following advantages:
* No LL enforcement needed.
* Its client side so it doesnt change the load on the servers.
* It is flexible and can solve even non-TOS/grief related issues that can better everyones enjoyment reguardless of 'tastes'.

Always nice to see an otherwise intelligent person defending extortion.

One thing I have noticed recently is that people are falling over themselves to become apologists for griefers. It is not just this incident where this happens.

I think you could go into the forums and advocate murdering children, and you would get some people coming in and defending your position.

This person is an extortionist and a griefer. If you defend him you are defending a virtual criminal.

The Lindens, by deleting your signs and not his, seem also to be tacitly defending his extortion and griefing.

Either some people are even more gullible than I thought, or there is a streak of contrariness in them which, under other circumstances, might be endearing.