Will there be any leadership on signage griefing?

what if I find it offensive to have political statements shoved in my face? If those signs make me want to commit acts of violence is that enough? Everytime I have set off a weapon it has been near one of those signs...when I go to my home (which has no signs in sight) I don't shoot a single weapon.

I beg to differ. Those signs are visual spam, spewed out across all of the virtual landscape for all to (regrettably) see. We really REALLY don't need that many signs to get the point that, hey, this guy MAY actually want Bush impeached (of course, I don't think this is about politics or impeachment at all; this guy wants to annoy users and make money from doing so).

If the Lindens won't get rid of this guy's nonsense on the grounds of wide-scale, persistent and ongoing visual griefing, they at least should give us poor sods who pay to *enjoy* SL (instead of regularly shitting on it as Mr. Impeach Bush does every time he logs in to buy more land and erect more signs to piss off more people) the tools to selectively wipe him and all his objects from our own personal views.

In fact, this makes me wonder if something like this has been proposed yet in the voting area. If it hasn't, someone SHOULD, and soon. If it HAS, I need to cast my vote for it, like, right NOW.

this may be way out there but second life is not a democracy as much as we would like to think it is, its not. It is a dictatorship and the current dictator is Philip linden

so basically all they would need to put in the tos is a clause that states something like this

" any content found to be overly disrupting to the community at large regardless of what the content is can and will at the SOLE discretion of linden labs be removed from the grid with a written reason and warning sent to the owner of said content "

in this case they give them selves the right to basically remove any content they deem overly disrupting. witch if they really wanted to they can do now even with out any additional additions to the TOS.

now you may say they will just go and start removing any thing willy nilly.
that's not going to happen that would destroy secondlife they will however have the power to remove signs such as this.

also where it says "overly disrupting" some one may come up with some additional words to narrow down the type of content and impact on the community

Are there problems similar to the Impeach Bush signs in the privately operated sims like those that Anshe Chung operates?

I would say not - because it's not land they own - the owner of the sim could easily remove content as they see fit and turf the guy off the sim.

It would depend on the owner of the island, the agreement made with the people who (effectively) rent land from them, and their own opinions on it.

On the mainland we (effectively) rent land from Linden Lab, and the TOS is the agreement between the renters and the owners..

I joined SL to have fun and get away from the average BS in RL, not to have my alternate world raided with someone elses political agenda. This is a game after all isn't it? I feel they have forums and other places where they can take their issues without placing them in my alternate world. I speak not because of whether I agree with these signs or not because, face it, these people will be the first ones complaining if there's a change in power in the next election and someone post signs that oppose their choices.

So I say, get rid of it all...this is only a game...nothing to see here...move along

_______________________________________

"Let Peace be your Fortune"

Its not a view or my subjective opinion, it was merely a comment on the legality of content removal and the legal relationship we have with LL.

SL is not a country. As much as I may proclaim my home is my castle, the rules I put into effect are merely that, rules that reflect my policies for conduct in my home such as no smoking allowed. Any rules I impose on my guests are subject to law. LL TOS may reflect corportate policy and profitablity decisions, but no decision supercedes the law.

We may not always like or agree with the LL authority to arbitrarily remove content, yet our dissatisfaction does not alter LL's ability for removal. I was among those who emphatically objected to the removal of telehubs because of the financial hit I took as a result of the land devaluation, but all the objections voiced did stop the action.

I can assure you that more people were damaged in a measurable way by the removal of hubs from SL, than the number who are offended by the signs at issue. If LL decisions were made by hand count or customer service considerations, I think we would have seen a different result. LL decisons have one bottom line consideration....PROFIT.

Follow the money...a cliche that works.

Okay, I took the lead since no one else was:

/108/36/79775/1.html

And I will repost my thoughts on what should be a non-issue:


I like the possibility of offense. I like the possibility of the unknown or even ugliness. I don't want a sterile world where only those things that we agree with or like actually appear. Personalities, character and even art itself is created by stimulating our senses and our minds and imaginations.

Let's have a world where if you buy the land, you can build what you want. Offend me. I'm ok with that.

Mind you I'm not talking about griefing, such as coming to my land and disrupting an event, or hassling me, or even making racist or hate speech statements. I'm just talking about you expressing what you want to express on your land, and I'll do the same on mine, and we will let some pixelated god sort it all out.

So, by my solution, don't ban / ignore offenders. Some people want the choice to be able to ignore them.

What if someone builds a boring build next to you, mm? Isn't that just as annoying?

Nope..it's an inspiration in disguise! Or a chance to meet someone new and see how they are doing in Building with Prims 101.

Hell..I might be the boring builder next to you!

Your theory is that all neighbor griefers are good opportunities.

As with any theory requiring proof of "all", all I need to do is provide one counter-example to disprove it.

In my blog, I mentioned a neighbor with ugly advertising. That person is unfriendly, and hardly communicative. It is not a chance to meet someone; it's a nuisance. The person is mean.

And there's a whole load of other examples that I've read about in this forum, not the least of which is the infamous 9/11 build.

David, while you feel this way, the overwhelming majority of us do not. Providing a choice of whether you'd like this kind of "inspiration" I assert is a perfectly reasonable solution for everyone.

And remember, to the passerby, everything is viewable until a ban / ignore is established.

No..my theory is that it's not griefing and he's paying good money to own that land and should get to build what he wants, within the ToS. My theory is that it really doesn't hurt shit. It's all overblown and matters about as much or less than a sneeze within SL. We've seen far worse, and there are far worse problems to fix.

Really, I understand that the forums can be boring, but let's get redder and better meat to chew on than someone doing what SL is all about. Building what ever comes to mind (within the ToS) on thier land and enjoying it.

Your theory is wrong, then, because plenty of people disagree; they are hurt by neighbors. Unless you redefine "hurt" and declare that "everyone needs to grow thick skin" which I also reject, because it's unreasonable to expect a large number of people to become more cynical / less sensitive / essentially change whom they are.



There are different problems to fix, David, but this is a very important one. Businesses and common users will stay away from SL until they feel they have some control over their experience.

Really? So these internet users will stay away from SL cause they can't control everything they see or can do? Hmm...wow..then how did SL ever get off the ground. Cause they haven't had that power yet and I could swear that SL has grown alot since I've walked it's pixelated ground.

And by plenty of folks, you mean the 15 folks on the forum here? Kindqa like plenty of folks don't like cats. Plenty of folks still drink and drive? Plenty of folks like polka music? Funny..I've been out and about within SL, and guess what? Not a one person I've talked to has mentioned them in-world to me. But lots have folks have mentioned lag, slow texture rezzing, hideous inventory controls, buggy building tools and bugs within thier land.

4500 simultaneous users. As the Herald points out, 100k "accounts" is not exactly a good measuring stick for the size of SL.

Yes, SL has expanded. It's full of people who love the creative factor and are very active Internet users in general, be it chatting or online gaming or whatnot. These are plenty sufficient for SL to get off the ground, so your point is moot.

What SL is *not* full of is casual Internet users or businesses.


No, I mean that it's made national headlines because lots of people are interested in this issue.

And SL never will be. It has no goal other than to create, socialize or make money, and those can be had in soooo many ways on the internet.

And if you are believing the Herald these days, then we are in trouble.

I guess I have a different outlook. I agree that ugly builds or signs can be a pain. I agree that things don't pop up like I'd want them to on SL. But we are already a nation or world filled with "I wants" and "Sterile Lives" and I think it's the opposite direction that we need to go.

LL wants to make money. They need to make money. But setting themselves as judges of what is a good build and what is a bad one, outside of the ToS, will do far more harm than good on the internet circuit. And offering folks some ideal experience by filtering out "undesirables" is a shame. SL should be touted as freedom of expression and creation, not as "if you don't like it, they can't build it".

I do see where you are coming from Hiro. I really do. I just totally disagree. I want folks to get the good with the bad. The bad just makes the good look so much better.

Maybe you should watch this video of Philip Linden describing how SL is like the Internet in 1993, and how he wants it to balloon to the Metaverse. Maybe that will speak to the goal?

And if you are believing the Herald these days, then we are in trouble.


What direction should it go then?

I believe if we want to have the power we have in the Internet, we need to emulate the same kind of behaviors. People clearly want control over what they see on the Internet - whether than control is adult content, pop-ups, or or simply what sites they visit. We need to take measures to establish this kind of control in SL for it to be as robust as the Internet can be.


This isn't about LL judging what is good and bad. My solutions are about letting the individual user choose.


No, it's clear you don't from your last statement.

If you believe that, then you are living in a different reality from me.

*shakes head*

This must be a cultural thing. There cannot be any other explanation.

Let me tell you how I see the issue.

Someone buys tiny plots all over sl. Nothing wrong with this.

He then puts up ugly and prominent signs. Nothing illegal about this, either, even though his neighbours might find them offensive. As you say, there is nothing wrong with putting up ugly builds, although if you do so to offend your neighbours you could be found ethically wanting.

He then sets the indivdual plots for sale at extortionate prices. Immediately the issue turns into one of extortion. What he is doing would be found to be criminal in real life.

The issue is nothing to do with what is on the signs. It is nothing to do with free speech. It is a question of a griefer and extortionist, and I cannot understand why people are defending him.

It has made national headlines because the press are sheep who like to let others do their reportage for them but can't stand to be last to reprint the "press release".

L$10 says I can write a press release about a product that exists only in my imagination and get it in at least one AP/UPI wire story. Once that happens 15 other outlets will run it without so much as having the guy with the byline actually google it to see if it exists.

Can you imagine what a putative "reporter" would actually write about SL if he or she actually bothered to log-in? I can't imagine that it would be very lauditory given the current state of "the platform".LOLZ.

That leaves us to vote with our feet. Our in this case our pocketbook . I encourage others to consider doing so as well.

As long as LL turns a blind eye and does not see it as extortion there is nothing the individual can do. Except to speak out their opinions in the LL forums. Selador I agree and disagree and that line between the two is a very fine one.

On the one hand I also think due to the land price being so high it might very well be extortion to get someone to pay a high price to see such signage removed.

On the other perhaps it’s a “in your face” tactic used by the person putting up the signs. In support of this theory I suggest the fact that there has been much publicity for the anti bush signage in recent months.

I myself am starting to wonder if perhaps the land used to be for sale for much less but now with all the publicity this person has received they are now just trying to get the best possible price they can. That too happens with property in rl. A home of a movie star would fetch a much higher price than say that of postal worker.

I’m torn on this issue. However it does make me think about these issues more and more and I wonder where LL will draw the line.

Fair market value is what ever price the market will bare. In SL there really is no “fair market value” someone decides what they believe the price should be and others decide if they wish to purchase the land at that price.

All SL land was once L$1 per Meter squared. That was the fair market value via LL.

One could argue that any land over say L$4 per m2 is extortion since it is 4 times the original market value set by LL.

Mar

Okay, if I'm following your logic here, Selador, nothing the guy has done is wrong until he sets the land under the signs for sale? Here's a thought... how about just not buying the land? Congrats, you've just been not extorted, just like if the land wasn't marked for sale at all. I'm with, David. We can't start banning people because they have poor taste. You cannot be griefed or extorted by an inanimate object, not matter how ugly it is, even if the land under it is for sale. The guy is clearly being an ass, but let's try to be rational here. Freedom of expression comes at the price of having to put up with some determined idiots. The price of allowing the thin-skinned to dictate to everyone else what they can and cannot build on their own land according to their subjective tastes is much higher. The impeach Bush guy is by far the lesser of two evils.

Umm...haven't you noticed yet in this life that "common sense" is rather relative to the person(s) exercising it?