Will there be any leadership on signage griefing?

One thing you must remember is that LL is a business. It doesnt have the luxury to act on emotion (usually). With normal griefing, they have logs and such to prove the act. Ugly signs and high priced land are a grey area. And until someone can spell out a rule that CLEARLY defines when an ugly sign (or any object) goes from being just an ugly sign to an object of grief, then LL will be hardpressed to censor it. The same goes for land prices.

But I see your frustration and many of us see it as well. We ask: Why cant LL put 1 and 1 together and see that this combination of things (that separate are not a violation) are wrong? And yes I know LL has been inconsistent with their decisions/acts in the past.

I still contend the ultimate solution is a technical one and not something subjective.

"I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".

I think Ann Coulter is a twit, but while I think her appearance would be greatly improved by a ball-gag, I don't mandate that become national law.

As has already said, the Lindens are able to do anything they wish to do. They specifically retain that right in the ToS.

My own feeling is that allowing extortion is a rather poor business decision.

We are not talking here about censorship. I will defend your right to say what you like. However, I wouldn't defend your 'right' to spoil my environment in an effort to make me give you a lot of money.

Moral authority....comfortable....these words are not part of contract law. LL can control any content in SL on a whim without legal concern for their members comfort level.
Are you speaking on behalf of LL as the official spokesman, as well as giving an opinion on contract/terms of service/consumer protection law. Thats quite ambitious.

Feel good ad hominems carry no weight legally. The issue is not the comfort level of any member in this matter, nor the morality of a decision, nor freedom of expression in a private venue. The legal determination is that LL could remove the signs, or any content for that matter, should it choose to remove it, and the action would be entirely within the scope of the TOS.

It is more appropriate to conclude that LL made the decision to not remove the signs for other reasons, such as a general corporate policy related to content removal, or a public relations decision. Comfort level and moral authority are nice huggy feely cliches but these concepts are irrelevant in contract law.

If LL wanted the signs gone they would be gone today, dumped into the same file of deleted content with telehubs.

All true. But then simply because something is legal does not make it good customer service, nor does it make it proper corporate policy. it is very clear that SL is corporation and can, as many have said, do what they want to do from the TOS. However it is also clear to me that LL does not want to excercise those options willy-nilly, and thta have set up a policy of free expression, and freedome to use land how you want.

One of the things that is a huge isue in TOS enforcement is customer expectations. LL must know that Customers expect to be able to what they want on land they purchase, and frankly if it becomes clear LL is just remioving builds that people in the forums don't like, then SL will die off. As consumers we expect to be able to do with our land what we want.

LL is corporation, but they have repeatedly told us SL is not a game. Philip Linden has said he is building a country. Thus things like freedom of speech and right to quiet enjoyment have become issues of SL policy, even if they are not matters of law. I think we all need to take a long look at how we relate to SL. Here in the forums a lot of pople focus on what is legal or illegal or what LL can or can't do under the TOS. LL clearly feels its onbligations to the users goes well beyond the TOS, as it should. LL's corporate policy is reflective of the kinds of things they think the users want. One of those things is consistency of enforcement, another is free expression.

I would not want SL to remove somethign I had done on the grounds that people in the forums didn't like it. So far the only allegations I have heard of black mail and other T)S violations come from the forums. From my perspective, this looks a guy built ugly signs on land he owns becaus ehe hates bush. Just like I have to live with unsightly builds by the neighbors to one of my properties, we all have to live with these signs.

If you have proff of black mail. There are channels to follow to report the abuse. I for one applaud the difficult stand LL has taken in terms of corporate policy.

This is no country. If it is a country, it's a dictatorship, with a rather disaffected and distant ruler, who doesn't concern himself with any of the miseries of the peasants.

And the peasants have no power to control their own environment. It's also taxation without representation, in that we pays our money to own land in the "country" and yet have no say in it whatsoever.

Now, before someone comes in to start a whole side tangent on which terms I have used oncorrectly and whatnot, understand at the onset that I'm not good on civics and economics and I really DO NOT CARE what the appropriate terms are. But you know what I mean - we're all sitting ducks in a no-man's land with no way to do anything about any of it. We can't set rules, we can't enforce anything, and the Lindens won't do anything about an obvious case of griefing and extortion, only because it's dressed up to look like a political statement.

As far as the TOS is concerned, I believe I have already in this thread or somewhere cited the obvious clause that can be brought into play here. And if not it, there's always the good old "for any reason or no reason" clause. (How the heck do you spell clause?)

I betcha people have already supplied the Lindens with those chat logs, and it doesn't take a chat log to see a lot of land priced exhorbitantly, along with multiplying signs when someone irks this guy. I mean - it doesn't exactly take a rocket scientist to figure it out. It DOES take having your head in the sand to a ridiculous degree to NOT figure it out.

The message I take away from this is not that I will have freedom to erect whatever builds I like on my own land. The message I take away from this is not that I can enjoy a wonderful degree of freedom of speech. I already HAD those messages.

Those messages have now been superceded by a more important message: "We, the Lindens, don't care if people grief and extort land, because basically we could care less about any of you on the mainland anyway. The less we have to do with all of you, the better. And oh, by the way, best of luck."

THAT is what the Lindens are teaching me. And I'm a person who holds freedom of speech as one of my highest values.

coco

P.S. Not that that so-called freedom of speech was so wonderful in the FIRST place. Not when one resident can get suspended for three days for saying "f you" one time to another resident in a PG area, while another individual can make as much hell as possible for hundreds and thousands of other players and this is considered "free speech."

And NOT when a person gets the same sign removed from Linden Winter Festival Land but it is allowed to stay all over all the CRAP land - that is the land where we, the crappy peasants, live.

Linden winter festival land is linden land - the signs didn't fit in with the theme of what they set the land aside for.

His land is his land - he can put what he likes there...

Doesn't change the fact that the guy is an ass - but again - I think if they are gonna be taken down it has to be for a different reason than 'we don't like them'. I don't want anyone - including myself - ever having that call.
I think the Lindens are only following their own rules - they probably don't like it much either.

So long as he stays within the TOS, there is little you can do.

However, if he strays outside it - he should be nailed.

I've already mentioned, and seen mentioned, how this individual reacts when you yourself stay within the TOS and 'cover' his signs - its not very pretty, and very much reportable.. This is the road you should be taking - using his own 'well it's within the rules' tactics against him.

Give enough rope - he will hang himself.

This is starting to sound hostile, but I will answer. I'm speaking from what I have heard from the Lindens up to this date. If I have misinterpreted Linden Lab's position on this issue I will revise my statements, but I don't think I have.

Well I use these terms for lack of a better term. Linden Lab can indeed do anything they like, but users in the past have steadfastly held LL accountable for their decisions. "Because I said so" has never been an acceptable justification as far as the users are concerned. So when I say "moral authority" I'm not talking about anything contractual. I'm talking about the general support of users towards Linden decisions.

As it stands now, I think the Lindens feel they would come under too much fire if they adopted the "because we said so" policy. Perhaps this is when that all changes. If you and the other users indicate that you would support Lindens under this style of management then they may very well start to feel unhindered by the TOS. THAT is what I mean by giving them "moral authority." Is that really what you would want?


Well we all have a right to our opinion, but this isn't the impression the Lindens have given me. From chatting with Lindens, reading their posts, and seeing transcripts (such as the one featuring Kenny Linden posted on SecondThoughts) my impression is that the Lindens do NOT like the signs, but are prevented from removing them by their dedication to enforcing the TOS.

Look, I absolutely understand where you are coming from. Sometimes very unpopular users come along and do terrible things while dancing along the edge of the TOS. This wouldn't be the first user who finds himself in poor graces with the Lindens while still enjoying their protection via the TOS.

I am certainly not dismissing your view that the Lindens should go ahead and take action against troublemakers even if they don't violate the TOS. In fact the idea sounds wonderful!

Yes, and I think those tactics you suggested are excellent.

But as regards the discussion of what the Lindens should or should not do, here is the difference, as I see it:

Person A: He buys one plot of land and puts up the sign, "All Democrats Suck." Obviously, there would be many who don't agree with this sentiment. There would also be many others who complain that they don't come to SL to hear real life politics, and some of them will point out that they aren't even from the United States.

Person B: He buys 87 plots of land and puts up the sign, "All Democrats Suck." Same as above.

Person C: He buys 87 plots of land and puts up the sign, "All Democrats Suck." he then sets his land for sale at outrageous prices. When confronted on that, he adds, "Do not buy this land" to his land descriptions, as well as such things as "My mom made me do it." Nonetheless, his land IS for sale, and is automatically and ADVERTISED as such, for free, in the Interface (correct word? I mean on the map and on the land listings) as for sale, and CAN be bought, and often IS bought.

In addition to buying 87 plots of land and putting up the sign and setting the land for sale at outrageous prices, he also makes it a point to put up EXTRA signs near anyone who doesn't like what he's doing, in addition to griefing them in more conventional ways.

Now - to my way of thinking, person A and person B are both acting within their rights of free speech.

Person C is not. Person C is a griefer, pure and simple.

coco

If such proof has been offered then it must either be insufficient, or LL has not responded to it. this is a question of enforcement not principal. As I said, all I have seen is a lot of people whinging about ugly builds next to them. I ahve not seen evidence of griefing or extortion.

I think in the past LL has made enforcement decisions I don't agree with, however in this case I think the policy is right, even if the result distastful. Not everyone is going to be happy all the time.

Noone is forcing you to buy the land. If someone puts an ungly build next to me and sets it for sale at a huge price, I put up a wall, move, or deal with it. If he actively Im's ya and says "If you don't buy this I am going to make it more and more obnoxious until you do" wellm thats grefing. Otherwise its just an ugly build.

Person C wants you to buy his land for a lot of money - yes. I have never disputed this.

What I don't want is mob rule deciding arbitarily what I can and can't build. I've had that before - and thankfully it didn't go that way.

Nor would I want mob rule saying what I can and can't sell my land for.

Today it's a bunch of signs, tomorrow its someones club, next week - who knows someone may decide they don't like your houses.

It's asshattery, yes, if it was seen as griefing something would have been done already. So folks will have to concede that what they see as a case of grief, Linden Lab currently doesn't.

It sucks, he's an ass - but he's within the rules.. HOWEVER when he gets mad and carpet bombs you and harrasses you - he is out of the rules.

We are talking about censorship, because you COULD be just as easily talking about me throwing up some sort of abstract art that's deeply meaningful to me that you find repellent.

I do not dispute that Mr. IMPEACH BUSH is an extortionist and a jerk. But the arguments put forth seem to rely on the "I know it when I see it" standard, or a simple "if enough people complain, they can force you to tear down a build".

I am not defending his actions; I'm wanting to prevent a bad precedent.

I don't discount those possibilities, Jake. As always, we have no way of knowing what information the Lindens are in possession of, and if we did, some of that information might change some of our views.

The policy is right, I agree. What's wrong is thinking that that policy has anything to do with this situation.

Land extortion and griefing should never be allowed to exist simply because one particular aspect of the tactics used happens to fall under the umbrella of free speech. The activities as a whole fall far more under the umbrella of griefing and the TOS than they do under free political speech.

To me, it's almost like a guy in real life, running around with a bullhorn and a giant sign that says, "Impeach Bush." He buys a piece of land in every neighborhood in town, and sets up this giant bullhorn and signs in that land, and if the neighbors get upset about it, he puts up more signs. (Of course, he's also willing to sell them his property at a huge profit.)

Now what would happen irl if the city officials said, well, there is nothing we can do about it, because look, he's saying "Impeach Bush!" And after all, that is his right to say!

Nonetheless, I am talking out of my hat to a degree, because like you, I have no idea what the Lindens know, or what information they may be in possession of, or anything much, really, about their whole line of reasoning. However, all the information WE are in possession of is that this whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with free speech, and everything to do with land extortion and griefing.

And if their policy is to do nothing about that, then so be it. That means any and all of us who want to do something similar can feel free to. And any competitor to the Lindens can come here and do the same thing, and maybe do it much bigger and better, too.

I'm thinking that the Lindens don't care what happens to the mainland, and they would prefer everybody buy Sims on auction at $1000 a shot. The more signs this guy puts up, the more people are likely to buy islands to escape. So it's actually in their best interest to allow him to continue. I'll be happy to be talked out of that idea, if anyone wants to and can.

coco

You get the shiney gold smiley star of the day.

Nail - this his head - Head - this is Nail - hiya!

I understand the fear, and the danger.

But I would add that a "mob" demand is not a reason NOT to do something. Sometimes the mob is right. The reason to do or not do something is whether or not it is right, not whether or not a mob also wants you to do it.

coco

P.S. Let me make it VERY clear that I am not advocating that the Lindens take action against people even though they have not broken the TOS.

I would NEVER advocate for such a thing.

I maintain that this guy HAS broken the TOS.

how would you feel if ann's sayings were plastered on enormous billboards surrounding your RL house? they were the first and only thing you saw on rising in the morning. the first thing and only thing you saw on going to bed at night. oh, and those signs festooned with coulter wisdom obscured your former view of a nice seashore or mountain meadow. oh and the erector of said signs would remove them by your purchasing the property they sit on for about 100x the property market rate.

this would never stand in RL. selador is correct - this is pure extortion, nothing less.

Which part of the TOS was broken?

actually, the "letter" of the TOS is that LL can do anything they want.

"AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON". the TOS clearly gives them lattitude to deal with this if they so wished.

Well two things:

1. IRL ther is a vast body of law relating to both free speech and zoning, whihc are the tools used to control such activity. The governmnent does not just enter on your land and take down your signs, there is this thing called due process. LL wishes to avoid opening the can of worms about when they will and when they won't interevene. The can barely regulate the forums as it is, I don't think they want to redraft the TOS.

2. WE know nothing except what the rabble rousers would have us beleive. A lot of people don't like the signs, and want them taken down. That is what WE know. If ther eis eveidence of land extortion and griefing, it has not been set forward. All we have is a guy who is an asshat putting signs on his land. If anything else has be done WE don't know it.

I understand that is the danger in this, Jake. But you act as if everything is equivalent and there is never a human being to assess the extent or intent of anything, or the presence or absence of intent to grief, harrass, or extort.

coco

RL is not SL. IRL there are laws that operate to protect and administer residential property and regulate free speech in terms of reasonable time place and manner restrictiions.

No. There is. LL does this. Apprently they don't find it harassing or greifing or they would remove it.

and ISL there are the laws of the LL. LL is well within the terms of the TOS to deal with this. extortion is extortion, no matter the setting.