Will there be any leadership on signage griefing?

No decision is ever set in stone.

coco

True, but ther has to be a good reason for the change somtimes.

LL has established a good policy. Arguing that the policy is bad because you don't like the sings is silly, that says "freedom of speech is ok as long as I like the speech." No LL is not obligated to allow fee speech. Yes it is good policy they do. LL does not need to lead the charge against the impeach bush signs.

If you don't like the signs argue why they are extortion, there is a good possiblity you can't, because this guy has purposely stayed within the TOS. If you really want to adress this issue properly, then you have to open up a discussion about commuity standards and zoning and come up with some neutral criteria why LL should be aloowed to enter land and take a way a build. buit don't assume its the impech bush signs ll is taking, assume it is your house-how would you want LL to take your house away, assuming the neighboors said you were griefing?

Thats how we write policy. Then have LL implement the policy by making a good solid case for zoning enforcement. If you want it approved, make a case for zoning that does not involve administration by LL, because LL is an innovator not an administrator.

Perhaps you might have luck arguing that LL should simply buy the land from the guy at fairmarket value-sort of an eminent domain thing. Or whine a lot louder, takeout ads saying to shun the lindens and demand compensation, those tactics seem to work.

But this is really a case of enforcement and the arguments should be why this is extortion and not "why LL is doing nothing."

Jake, I really don't have to do any of all that, because that is not my job.

As for your second paragraph, I never phrased anything of what I have said like that. I've made it totally clear many times now that I am not against the free speech aspect of it, but the griefing and extortion aspect of it.

As for how would I feel if the Lindens came and took away my house, in the first place, they aren't going to do it. Second place, it would be more analogous if you were to say, "How would you feel if the Lindens came into your one hundred 16 and 32m plots and removed the signs you had on each of them, where you were perching on your little bits of land multiplying the signs against anyone who objected, and having set your small bits of land to huge prices?"

And if they did come and take away my signs off my 32m's of land, I don't think I'd be too surprised. Do you think this guy would be just real surprised or incensed if they made him remove his signs?

But I don't have to prove that this is against the TOS. People have ar'd this guy to death, and if that weren't enough, the Lindens could simply take a look at their own game and see the land parcels, their prices, their sizes, and their comings and goings. They may have chat logs, too, by this time, such as those that have been talked about in the forums.

None of this is my job. I don't have to argue anything, or open up any discussions. I've already made my arguments about extortion. I don't need to PROVE it at all. It's totally obvious to anyone who wants to look anyway. You don't even have to bring land zoning (which would be a good thing, in my opinion) into this discussion whatsoever, because this has nothing to do with land zoning, unless you want to zone a certain portion of land for griefer and extortion purposes.

It's not my game, and I don't need any luck in arguing anything. If this is the kind of game they want to run, then they will reap the consequences of it. Those who are happy with the consequences and this way of running a game will stay; those who aren't will leave.

I'd rather not see the game go in that direction, as I would like the game to grow and succeed. But if it doesn't, that's really no skin off my teeth.

coco

A quote from terms of service....section 5.1 upload, post, email or otherwise transmit any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation;

Excuse me Mr Linden but isnt mr bush guys board "spam" and isnt he soliciting us to impeech bush? According to the TOS he is breaking the rules why dont you do something????????

according to the dictionary....

spam [ spam ]


noun (plural spams)

Definitions:
an unsolicited, often commercial, message transmitted through the Internet to a large number of recipients

on behalf of all the people who have posted complaints i respectivly demand some action be taken!!!!!
This message will be repeated in other parts of this forum if they remove it cause i am spamming they better remove his signs to

Yesterday, something made me think of a similar situation that happened in There fairly early on. A member name Jopy would got into the habit of putting signs all over There, in the most inconvenient places. There's world was quite scenic, and you would end up seeing these signs from Jopy all over the place. Others eventually followed suit, and you would often see a giant sign marring a great landscape or even blocking access to places. There was an outcry about the signs, people complained in the forums, and ultimately things were changed.

The end result was they completely removed the abilty for people in There to drop items wherever they wanted. You had to buy a "portazone" that could hold a certain number of items, and then you had to pay BY THE MINUTE for the amount of time it was out in the world. If the portazone ran out of funding, it went back into your inventory. Thus began the downward spiral in There of being charged for everything that you did. It solved the sign problem, but at the cost of the ability to just set a bench down on a beach and sit and talk with someone. The actions of a few ultimately affected many - so be careful what you wish for.

You mean if the Lindens take action it might be impossible for extortionists to operate?

Why do people keep interpreting this situation as though it is one of ugly builds?

It is not. It is extortion.

"Extortion is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person obtains money, behaviour, or other goods and/or services from another by wrongfully threatening or inflicting harm to his person, reputation, or property. Euphemistically, refraining from doing harm is sometimes called protection."

The problem with calling this extortion is that simply disliking the signs on someone else's property does not constitute harm. The signs are not lagging the sims, they are not shouting messages or doing anything except sitting there. The signs are not devaluing land. Those selling land around the signs are devaluing them. You could not show any legal basis for harm or extortion in this case.

Are the signs ugly? Yep, but then there are a lot of ugly signs all over SL. Many of them are on land for sale. Lazarus is trying to profit off of the big deal people make over these signs - that is not extortion, however. If people just ignored the damn things and did not buy the land, they would go away.

A bit of a hypothetical situation --

A new gaming company is coming out with some sort of competitor to SL. To drive people over to their new game, they buy up little plots of land in SL and put up really ugly signs (not necessarily advertising for their new game, just ruining the beauty of SL). LL doesn't do anything about it, 'cause they've already implied (through their lack of action vs Divine's signs) that it's not griefing. People start to leave SL for this new competitor, where it's not possible to put up signs that ruin the views and aesthetics for everyone else.

It would seem silly for LL to allow this type situation, but yet, they do. Their inaction on this issue could end up being their downfall.

-personally hopes it never comes to that-

Yes you could, and can. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to be responsible for making that case any further than I already have. But everyone knows that it is, and the guy himself has admitted as much in chats with people, and you aren't going to convince me that that isn't what it is.

It's like someone else mentioned earlier, I think, on some other thread - it's like the kid in the back seat who keeps poking his fingr at the other kid, but "I'm not touching you!"

Now what kind of stupid parent would say, "Well, he's not literally touching you, so I can't do a thing about it." The smart parent would say cut it out, so everybody could have some peace for the rest of the trip.

It's like I'm watching someone doing something to other people, on purpose, right in front of my eyes, and with impunity - yet there are a bunch of people on the forums saying he's not REALLY doing that, or if he is, there is NO WAY to ever PROVE it, so too bad. Whereas I'm saying he is doing it, he knows it and we all know it, and I'm not going to buy this nonsense that nothing can be done about it.

Same in the There case you mentioned. If they had just made that guy cease and desist being a disruptive pain in the butt, everyone else would not have had to suffer and lose their own, reasonable rights.

coco

It's like I'm watching a bunch of people letting A STATIC, non-moving sign NOT ON THEIR LAND act like they are physically being harmed by the presence of these signs, and that their only recourse to get away from such horrific abuse that is ruining their SL in such violent and horrible ways is to give in to having to pay high amounts to buy land to get rid of those horribly abusive signs. It takes two people to play the game Lazarus is playing, and you are all willing participants. Again, if he were starved of the attention he obviously craves, then he would give in - but you have all elevated him to superstar level.



You missed the point of the There reference. Nothing was wrong from a rules standpoint with the signs, people just didn't like them - so the way they were gotten rid of to suit everyone was to get rid of dropping all objects freely, and only being able to take them out in a house you owned or in the portazones that you had to pay by the minute for. The ultimate slippery slope solution that ended up hurting everyone. That is why the taking back of Lazarus' land and the removal of the signs, while it seems like the simple solution that no one will argue with or be opposed to and will make all of SL happy and cheery again opens the door for being able to selectively remove content based on community pressure in the future.

I retract my earlier statement: the act is not one of extortion, nor are the signs an eyesore, the offense is "being witlessly boring".

I'd passed through - and looked at - the SA sim before I even knew what SA was. The builds ranged from chaotic, to simply ugly, to blinding eyesores, to offensive to those more easily offended than I. In no case were they boring.

I've had some pretty ugly builds near mine, hell, I've made some pretty ugly builds myself (gotta learn somehow). I was even one of Pandstrong's (may Hippo rest his soul) many friends that implored him to even change the color of his plywood monstrosity (to no avail) but even that, though hideous, was not boring.

If Mr. Impeach would publically offer to accept replacement textures - bearing the same message - I can image that at least 50 players would willingly donate novel designs to the cause. But I'm not holding my breath as his game is an expensive version of 3D trolling.

I understand what you are saying, Cristiano, and agree with the approach emotionally. I was never bugged much by the guy's signs sitting next to me on that land I had for a while. I mean, I didn't like them, but I wasn't losing any sleep over them; I was just attending to my own land.

And I certainly would never have given him the pleasure of buying the eight tiny squares he had under that sign for $500 each. That would have been stupid.

But what we have here isn't something which falls under the umbrella of individual reactions, or how we wish we all had the same individual reaction. I can't articulate this very well, but it falls more under a societal umbrella. Whether for good or bad reasons, this HAS become a societal issue, and it DOES devalue people's land. As such, it needs to be dealt with on a societal basis, not on the basis of encouraging everyone to react as I did.

By the way, I am not for taking away his land any more than I am for banning him. I am ONLY for having him remove his signs. For a future solution, I think it would be good to limit the number of tiny plots that any individual is allowed to have. And if some individual managed to get a hundred such plots nonetheless through alts, then again - that individual should be made to take them down.

Meanwhile, the overriding concern, I believe, should be not to enable an individual to do this now, or anyone ever again. There are lots of ways of doing this with very minimal, if any, harm to any of our freedoms.

coco

well, how about simple solutions, here's one:

/108/4a/80492/1.html#post828110

Many posters have made it clear that they don't want a gated community in SL, nor do they intend to pay RL $$s for an anarcho-capitalist experiment that gives free reign to digital griefers, extortionists and wanna-be sociopaths. Rather, it is behaviour -- unmitigated bad behaviour -- that concerns people most.

And as I've posted before, this is a leadership issue that LL needs to address. Residents are not empowered to provide solutions, nor are there mechanisms to allow for substantive input into the virtual policy process. And for as long as LL fails to take the lead on this and other issues, residents will have ample opportunity to consider the worth of their SL investment.

As for solutions, there have been many posts, from the creation of new invisible prims that would effectively filter out griefer clutter; limiting prim dimenions on small plots; and a much more advanced system of allowing players to toggle off viewing all content provided by certain members, a visual ban list. Or the TOL could be interpreted to include serial extortionists like Mr. Bush Himself, given that the tacit political campaign follows some sketchy and downright lame logic, and that the plots themselves are priced high, but not so high that someone desperate for relief couldn't run out and buy up $30k of small prim land.

So it seems to me that Lindens have thusfar chosen to do nothing, or at least not fully communicate their decision of non-action.

Jake, with all due respect, this is not good policy -- it is not really even a policy, since it is unclear what outcome it favours: more griefing at the protection of all and imagined civil liberties? RL solutions can be pricey, but SL has an institutional advantage: there is no "due process" such as courts, governments and regulatory agencies that can bog down initiatives and make them prohibatively expensive. LL can do anything or nothing, which is far more choice in that matter than most residents currently enjoy.

Mostly though, what worries many people, it seems, is the absenteeism on this and other issues. It's not just about ugly signs. If things get tough in SL, don't expect LL to develop a process that will either mediate conflcts or find fair solutions. It seems rather, that residents buy server space (land, tier fees) and get added-value, cutting-edge software in return. "Your world"? I'm not so sure anymore...

forgive me, but that is about the saddest comment on the state of the world I have ever heard. Due process, the courts, governments and regulations are put in place to protect citizens from the government and from each other. We have this things so that a bunch of people with one opinion cannot impose their will on a dissenting voice, just because the voice is unpopular. One should always examine laws and policies in the light of one who is on the receiving end of justice.

Its the lack of due process that is the problem for me. Before LL comes and takes my land I want to be given every benefit of the doubt. In this case the policy is good. LL will not take down builds that do not violate the TOS when the build remains confide to the owners land. I don't like the signs anymore that you do, but there is simply not enough proof in the face of all the facts, including his statements that he is expressing his political opinion, to support that this ia griefing and not free expression.

Do you feel comfortable looking this guy in the face and calling him a liar? Do you feel you have absolute proof, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he is doing this simply to extort? I don't.

I am not saying that this guy is not extoriting, mind you. I am saying there is no proff od this extortion sufficient to justify the removal of his build. I do not beleive LL has sat back and done nothing, just to take the easy way out. LL has effectively said that they are not here to prtect land values over privacy concerns. So rather than offering opinion after opinion in the forum that simply bashes lL for not doing what people want them to do. People should put forth evidence, via an AR that Divine has violated the TOS.

It was a good idea then.

jake, there is no due process in SL because there is no democracy or rule of law here. Categorically it does not exist. But it also means is that our disputes don't get stuck in courts for several years, a small perk for being ruled by a benevolent but all-powerful corporation. Sorry if that makes you sad!

We don't know for sure if LL's tolerance of grey-area griefing is a statement on future precedent or simple avoidance, since LL seems not inclined to inform residents in great detaill of its intentions (eg., P2P, griefing, etc.). Ergo, people are left to wonder and debate these concerns without full knowledge of either the facts of the case and of our de facto government's current and future direction. This, I argue, is problematic.

My dealings with Divine were enough to convince me of his alleged griefing agenda. As have other residents. You'd best IM yourself if you feel strongly enough about protecting all known liberties in Second Life.

But I really don't think this is about withholding liberties or turning SL into a police state. Earlier postings have mentioned possible solutions that would do nothing to limit liberties.

As a non-American, it's hard not to notice the 1st Amendment logic that infuses just about every discussion and amazes me to see so many threads get bogged down in liberty/censorship debates. America's obsession with liberty at almost any cost -- murder rates anyone? -- often forestalls common sense solutions that can be found in the countries of the European Union and Canada. And America is learning this lesson the hard way.

So it probably comes down to if people think the status quo in SL is good enough. Is LL providing enough governance, cultivating its virtual society and meditating disputes? Or should LL just step back and enforce only a simple hands-off code of law, one perhaps better suited to a game than a society or community?

It's time for some leadership on this issue.

Maybe everyone should just buy all the land the signs are on?

Does anyone want to hear what i have to say about this? I mean besides that guy that keeps refering me to the teen second life? I can never remember his name, if you know it feel free to help me out.....

Daltry, contact me in the game some night U.S. time and I will tell you some things you can get involved in which we hope may help with this situation.

coco

Sure, Daltrey, we have all the electrons and phosphor dots in the world. Tell us how you feel.

Well you see its not just about free speech, its about the fact that I pay good money to have the right to do waht I want on my land. Yes this may be a uniquley american thought, but frankly, yes liberty is worth the murder rate. I cannot abide living in a country where my beleifs are compromised because they are unpopular. Wher my freedom of expression is curtailed for the comfort of others. Yes there are other countries who have forged a compromise, I have even lived in some of them. As to whether those compromises produce a better society, well I can't say they do. Frankly I like being an american, and I do feel the concept of liberty uncomprised is a principal worth fighting for. I may despise the person in the white house currently. But my country was built on high pricipals. that people fail, sometimes to live up to the repsonsibility of those principals, is not the problem of the society, but the failure of the individual.

My point about due process is a response to all those who say that in real life this situation would be handled. In real life, as I have said there are thousands of volumes of regulation that cover this situation. I can understand why, as a practical matter, ll does not want to enter inot this arena.

I firmly grasp that LL is corporation, and it does not make me sad (though the condescending tone in your post does-it ads nothing to your position). In this case the corporation that can do whatever it wants has made a decision, and one that I think is right. It is others now who are complaining that LL should alter is conduct. It is they who are sad to be living under the auspice of a benevolent corporation.

Your las quesgtion is an interesting one. And its one that I think SL will inevitably have to answer. LL has stated they do not want to andminister, yet most players would not want other players performing the governemnt fucntion in SL. Thus we have a situation where the virtual community is goverend only so far in the virtual world.

This means, alas, that the only recourse is to treat SL as just another means of expression, like a telephone or a yahoo chat room, and allow disputes between players to be resolved in RL courts.

I don't think there is a lack of leadership on this issue, I think there is a lack of definition within SL.

I totally agree. Be it lack of definition on the limits of governance -- are we on our own here or what? -- or a lack of leadership -- will SL see progressive governance solutions seen in RL? -- there's definitely something missing. Something that's obviously got a lot of people thinking and wondering too.

Lack of clarity is bad for everyone and periodically makes me wonder if SL is worth the investment if the de facto government is reluctant to govern, be it by pure Rule of Law or by more hands-on policy and intiative-setting. Running SL's servers is no doubt an impressive technological feat, but as a newbie government, I wonder at why they seem to create more trouble for themselves than neccessary, just by failing to step up and govern (regardless of measures) before people get riled up about lack of clarity or lack of action.

Not to suggest that LL has a clear path to follow -- indeed, virtual worlds are unweildly things. But that the socio-political aspect is clearly second to the business and technological aspects of their current operation, yet many residents are wondering aloud about their future in SL precisely because the in-world climate is often less-than-encouraging.

This is SUCH the wrong direction for this discussion. I think by even attempting this comparison, you have just about nullified the entire argument against the Bush signs.

Thanks.

Have you people ever read your TOS for your cable service, satellite service, internet service? Go ahead, look up your banking agreement, your credit card agreement, your auto loan.

Haven't you ever seen the clause that says something to the effect of "all terms of this agreement may be changed at any time without notification to the customer".

It's everywhere!

As a customer of any service you pretty much have close to no rights in most cases, because you have the option to opt out and cancel service.

Second Life is no different. Lindens are not gods, don't talk about them as if they are gods. Don't second guess them, or hope to represent their views in SL forums no matter how closely you know these people. They're just humans like us, stuck in an office, and in a company that is trying to create an alternate reality and make money doing it.

I take offense at all these insiders coming on here and telling us what Lindens think. Do Lindens have a voice? Can they post to the forums? Are they reading these posts? And more importantly does any of this matter to them?

Their actions so far have proven one thing: I am afraid the answer is no, they don't care.

Since I am not about to abandon my lovely house that I still have not finished building, and my gallery where I get the only opportunity to display my art (since first life could not care about my artwork), it is time for me to shut up.

This is my very last post on this matter. As of now, I honestly do not care about the Bush guy. To me he and his signs do not exist. I suggest you do the same.

Sincerely,

Troy Vogel

Hi Surreal, all you need to do to visit every location is use the inworld Land Sales list, just sort it by name and teleport to each location. Put the main body of the text you want to use for the abuse report in the windows copy buffer, then when you file the abuse report, just type in the summary and paste the main body with control V.