Who are the W-hats?

Your hyperbole meant to suggest that there was no real harm done: that shutting down the grid for a couple of hours (as one of the latest of a long long list of actionable activities by W-hat members) was no real big problem. You meant to paint those who want some sort of consequences for the groups members as being in the same shoes as George W Bush. Or one can assume these are the things you meant. You did not clarify what you actually meant, so one can only guess.

By "we" i mean all the folks you are trying to convince nothing happened.

Do you mean to say that W-hat members aren't responsible for hundreds of actionable incidents in SL? That they haven't been mentioned over and over and over and over and over again in the blotter?

Do you mean to say that the entire grid wasn't taken down in an incident? (harm done not just to one target this time, but every person on sl at the time?) Do you mean to indicate that designers didn't lose work they were creating? that merchants didn't lose sales? That artists didn't lose creations? That people didn't suffer any damage as a result of this action? oh no it's all smoke and mirrors with nothing we can prove right? not this time.
this time we can prove it. We all saw it. and all your tap dancing won't make it any different.

You are making generalizations, and including me in on it, Sky. As a result you're putting me in the awkward position of defending *myself* not W-Hat. One of the things I pride myself on is that I run a place where "Everyone is Welcome." That means I include everyone - gay, straight, furry, goth, christian, athiest.... or W-Hat if they choose to show their face there. (Which admittedly is quite rare. We're not interesting enough).

There are individuals in W-Hat I do have strong issues with. But I'm also intelligent enough to take each person that crosses my path at face value. Was I suspicious, and had my trigger finger on my security device when I got a W-Hat visit? Sure. But I got the pleasant surprise of not having to use it.

Follow your own advice, and look at my own post history. Am I a troublemaker or a peacemaker? I'll take full responsibility for being guilty of the latter.

If you want to see W-Hat punished for the latest escapades, I strongly suggest you take the high road, and not conduct a witch hunt. Senator McCarthy was very popular in 1953. Today his place in history is infamous. What you are conducting here is indeed a witchunt if innocent folks are caught up in your extremely wide net.

I was going to respond point by point, but Travis stated things better than I could.

But, so you don't feel left out, Sky, and so you know I was paying attention to you, please explain your following quotes:





So, now, please explain which version of the police blotter you are using to see either:

a) Group Membership of the Perps
or
b) Avatar Names of the Perps for cross referrence into the W-Hat DB

I mean, you certainly wouldn't exagerate something to strengthan a weak arguement, would you?

I forget what that word is called, it is on the tip of my tongue tho...

okay sky this is enough , the longer you continue the most ridiculous it gets, stop focusing your little anger on this group, and your boycott thing is really stupid, cause you will be probably alone .

Trying to bring hate on peoples like this is almost as lameas what you accuse em to be

Well these statements are all true (if a bit slanted in their presentation).

I dont know what you mean by posting them though as they directly support the scenario I describe in the post you are replying to (thanks ).

I dont understand Teddies "over the top" response to my post either since I am pretty sure he has said or implied as much about W-Hat membership previously in this very forum but I could be confusing him with another player.

As far as people who keep saying that W-Hat is a valid artists group and that it has "respected" members, your joking right?

How can anything that has it's origins in a morbid, self-serving, sh*t-heap like the SA website be considered "respectable?" At the very least it strectches the definition of the word to the breaking point.

Seems to me that anyone who trule liked the crap they spew on that site would not *want* to be considered respectable. A "respectable" prank-playing shit disturber is a contradiction in terms.

i dont think you are well placed to judge anybody diane, who the hell do you think you are?
i am not a W-hat protector" however this discussion is totally ridiculous, and lead by peoples who actually should look a bit at themselve instead of labelling everything abnormal they see as griefing.

I suppose the day i dare to cross your land with a ship i will be promptly abuse reported?

i think somewhere in the last couple pages this thread has outlived its arguable usefulness

hence

I sense a J-Bomb

not yet a godwyn point , so the discussion should continue unsensored

oh its coming, I can hear the goosesteps approaching...

Yeah, you're waiting for it. Waiting like Hitler waited for D-Day.
Hitler.

That it hasn't happened so far marks a Triumph of the Will....

Tsk Tsk, just a few seconds too late, now it looks like you just told a Big Lie

ok I'm back and my job interview went awesomely what did I miss

ps. L$50 says it's locked by post 157

Travis, I'm glad to hear you don't have a ton of W-hatter's hanging out at your place. If you did, you'd know what pleasant company they are: not very. At least, when they are at any locale in mob or mass they are purposefully irritating and unpleasant. I have had the opportunity to experience this unpleasantness first hand on multiple occasions.

As for police blotters, one must cross reference by memory as once the individual is permabanned we cannot cross reference extant records (unless one is a linden). HOWEVER it is easy enough to look on the police blotters and remember, was that person in W-Hat? Oh yeah! he was! and look there is his post supporting W-hat! It doesn't take a genius. Just someone with enough memory to be able to play simon.

Again, which Police Blotter do you have access to that provides names?



Or imagination to make up "facts"

I remember about a year ago, my earliest impressions as a newbie. There was a MAJOR griefer problem back there and LL was known for being very "tolerant" (translate: freaking lax. That was the pre-Ahern-bombing days).

I remember one user who had posted in the forums because W-Hat was messing with his lands. He had been to Linden Lab to complain and LL had done nothing. He complained because W-Hat had 10m prims that were barely set of the edge of their land and were put on "rotate" and interfered with his builds.

W-Hat made all kinds of excuses. Oh dear, those prims must have shifted. We'll fix that right away (never gets fixed). "Well... our land was there first." (yes, but their rotating prims weren't there first). Etc etc etc ad nauseum. Bottom line: W-Hat wanted that guy's land and they were trying to force him off of it, pure and simple. And anyone who read that post and visited the land area in question (which I did) could see that clearly.

Over the following months, I read report after report of W-Hat attacking someone, griefing someone, messing with their land, constantly harassing. Sometimes LL would do something about it. Or at other times (as in the case above) they wouldn't. (Unbelievable? I had a neighbor that planted 3 trees right on our border and messed with one of our buildings. Linden Lab statement was, "Oh, we can't mess with a person's trees. Contact the user." "We did contact the user. No response." "Oh well, you'll just have to wait then." (And for this, we actually pay these (expletive deleted).

So please, let's have enough of the poor-W-Hat sob stories. This has been W-Hat's modus operandi from day 1. Grief others. Whine and cry foul when they fight back. Such groups are cowardly. They hide behind their computers and harm others and are heroes in their own eyes. Some heroes. Come in RL and stand nose to nose with those you attack online and let's see how long you stand.

Mulch, in the past you and I have somewhat fought on the "same side" in issues, but in this one, I think you're not up to your usual logical self. Usually it's the TROLLS who start shouting about making up facts and no data. Surely you don't want to go there.

This time I have to come to the defense of the other user. First of all, no, the police blotters do not provide names. And since the data on police blotters disappear very shortly after they appear... there is no public record of past misdeeds-- something I've taken LL to task for several times.

However, those who are acquainted with griefing incidents know who, where, when and under what circumstances griefing occurred. So if they just happen to look at the blotter at the right time, they can see the results of griefer punishment. (I would venture there are those who check the blotter every day as a matter of curiosity).

So yes, it would be possible to track how many times the "Hat" was involved in griefing incidents-- and what the resolution of that was.

I am the very first one to stand up for innocent people... and I'm not one to take part in a witch hunt. But something that I hate equally is people standing up for someone who has intentionally done wrong and proclaim his innocence. W-Hat's history on SL is well known, well-documented and has been experienced by numerous people. They have earned a very bad reputation on Second Life and many people are aware of that fact.

I visited W-Hat's website. Their "charter" declarations are specific and seem fine up-front. (Isn't there a quote somewhere about a certain entity "making himself to be an angel of light?). Me, I go by actions and activities. I have never seen any group gain the reputation for misdeeds that W-Hat (and associated groups) have gained (and there are several bad groups on Second Life. So I don't know whether some clowns here are supporting W-Hat because they truly swallow their propganda... or whether they're just caught up in the W-Hat charisma and are themselves purposely adding to the confusion-- but I'm not impressed-- and I doubt any others are who have ever been on the receiving end of W-Hat harassment.

The poster said he checked names from the police blotter vs. post history. All mentions of proof of W-Hat involvement rely on the police blotter. I am not trolling, but since you brought it up...

How does one broadly become "acquainted with griefing incidents" enough to know from the police blotter to put names with events, especially when there is prolly about a dozen assault, harassment, and weapons violation on a given day?

I don't buy it, anymore than I buy that the entire W-Hat brood are innocent.

My only defense of W Hat is since there is no way of knowing who actually is guilty or innocent, is the danger of a broad condemnation that ALL members of W-Hat should be blamed/banned for what no evidence can be linked.

I have repeatedly said that LL should prosecute in criminal/civil attempt to disuade other copycats. I never said they were nice people as a sum. I also support internal banishment, boycotts, shunning of W-Hat if a person is that offended. But to institutionalize it via LL intervention makes me very uncomfortable.



I hear you. I truly do, and I sympathize. From all acounts (including W-Hats own rule page), plenty have caused much more than there share of problems in SL.

But the attempt of the US justice system to model Blackstone's premise of "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" is kinda where I am stuck, and since SL and LL seem more liberal than the US law, I suspect that W-Hat collectively won't be punished.

With a community of 60,000 that I have heard thrown around, do you really think all 60,000 SA members are inherently evil? Or just the ones who come to SL and remain in thier native community? Or maybe not even all of them, just some?

And that is where the problem lies. I cannot support the arguement that "W-Hats have griefed, so all W-Hat are griefers," even if 9 out of 10 are indeed griefers.

That's why I like posting with you Mulch. You're at least respectful and fun and have a head on your shoulders (even if it's on backwards at times, it's there). LOL



Good points. Conceded. However, I know from my own experience that although one cannot become "broadly acquainted" with such... quite a few such incidents can be followed, especially if one watches the forums and is a member of a large group that tells about griefing incidents. I wouldn't put it past some folks to watch events and the blotter as closely as they some people watch wanted posters down at the Post Office.




Then let W-Hat start taking some responsibility and patrolling its ranks. They obviously have a very bad reputation. That's not for no reason at all. If an inordinate number of their members grief others... they need to find out why and help put a stop to it. Either that, or don't complain when the flak comes.



Yeah, we agree in that. I also think that when someone is punished for griefing, FULL DISCLOSURE should be placed online and that information should remain online for at least one year. That's how it's done in real life. Criminal records are a matter of public record. Why? For the shame of the criminal and the protection of the public. Even after people get out of prison, that record still haunts them. Such a situation might deter others from ever going that route.

Linden Lab has too open a view imho. They think the "privacy" of the griefer is more important than victim's rights. The victim has a right to know what's been done, and future potential victims have a right to be warned. They want to do away with neg rating-- fine. I agree with that. But give us a way to track habitual perpetrators. And again, imho, I feel that just like in RL-- 3 strikes-- you're out! No matter how "little" the griefing.




I don't condone taking action against a group as a whole unless there is a repetitive history. That pattern DOES exist with W-Hat. So at this point, if I were LL (which I'm not) I'd put W-Hat on notice that if such continues without intervention on their part, they'll be shut down. Far as I know, not even a warning has been issued.




Now that I'll agree with. The KKK is still active in the US. (Should it be? That's debatable). Other primary hate-groups are still active. They're not shut down. Doesn't mean that's right; it's just the way it is. LL is a business. They have to balance general client safety with the welfare of individual groups. And myself, if I found a group apparently continually responsible for excessive harassment, I'd give them notice: clean up your act, or we'll clean you out. That's the difference between business and government.




I disagree. If 9 out of 10 are griefers, shut down the group, ban the 9 and the extra person can find something else to do on SL.

This is what I been saying all along. If they're worried about their reputation as a whole, they need to keep tabs on the stunts their members are pulling.

The Reason that no-one keep an eye on w-hats members is, that w-hat is a completly freeform group with no real aim or objective. Its only stipulation is being a member of SA. There is no heirachy or control.

Then that's the problem. If they don't want heirarchy or control... DON'T FORM A GROUP! (couldn't tell from your message whether you're pro/con and lost track of the players long ago...lol... so just commenting at this point).

If they want total anarchy, let 'em buy their own sim and stay there and exercise all the anarchy they want.

If they don't have any goals/controls/etc etc... then they surely wouldn't mind just closing down and not inviting new members, thus avoiding any promotion of activities such as has repeatedly come out of their group. I seriously doubt anyone would gripe if they just... went away.

BTW, the focus has kind of centered on W-Hat and I've lost track of the original (description withheld) person who caused the problem in the first place. So pardon my personal lag there, but... what was the resolution of that matter?

It doesn't look like they are to be honest, so the next choices thrown around is a LL ban or a boycott/banishment. I would be totally receptive to resident retaliation such as this within the TOS, but not LL intervention




I agree 100% with everything you say here. The 100% privacy of the guilty parties when discipline is enforced, plus the removal of the Neg rating is made even more confusing in light of Philips response regarding "fraud prevention" at the SLCC panel video that I saw where he said that they would not enforce broken contracts or interfere in embezzlement or corporate espionage and such, but would rely on reputation to protect other users from predatory residents.

There is a serious (and this has been the overused cliche of SL forums and blogs for a couple months now) cognitive dissonance in saying reputation is how you can determine a residents suitability to engage, and all the LL moves seem to protect the reputation of said offenders.

LL speaks with forked tongue...

which is another reason I am rapidly losing faith in this game/platform/metaverse thing in its current form under it's current direction. Way too many mixed messages and knee jerk "diverting the ship off course."

I was hoping to be proved wrong with my Jumping the Shark prediction, but sometimes daily I see reasons to support my prognostication.

Date: Sunday, October 23, 2005
Violation: Permanent Ban - Global Attack
Region: Gallii
Description: Terms of Service Violation - Global Attack - Permanent Ban
Action taken: Warning issued.