Who are the W-hats?

*gasp* I have more than 500 posts on these forums.

I now officially have no life.

I disagree strongly here with you as you are imposing your view of a group on them (and I do beleive they own most if not all of a Sim, never been there that I know of so I am not sure).

I take it to mean they want a way to keep in touch with thier other community here (and that is about the size of the structure of the group, + a couple organized events here and there), and given that many people think SL is to become a WWW 3D, this is the kind of objective LL should have: bringing other communities into a 3-D interactive format.

It is the cheapest most effective form of viral marketing, and with 400 members from 1 single online community coming here, it would be considered a resounding success... if it was anyone other than the SA forums

I hear that. I've heard the comment more than once (and even made it myself from time to time)... an amazing concept with a shaky foundation.

Um, what?! I'm assuming that's a mistake.

they put Permanent Ban in 2 other fields so I assume they either couldn't do it in that field so they placed it elsewhere, they made a mistake, or the rest of us residents were issued a warning about the consequences of such actions (everyone, not just W-Hat).

I dunno tho, never seen a permanent ban in the blotter before.

I tend to think they skipped the residential review.

Well, if the guy wasn't permabanned, someone at LL has been smoking too much Gatorade.

Who is in W-Hat? What are their alternate accounts?

Haha, oh man, the ironing is delicious.

I am sory if I offended you Kyrah, but I have no idea how or why I did so, or what you even mean by your comments above.
This whole thread is ridiculous anyway.

In fact I probably use the AR feature less than anyone I know and have been inundated with greifers every day this last week at my home and have yet to report them. I dont feel there is a point since no one can really be permanently banned anyway.

Boycott is simply a gentle way for the public to remind makers of the goods they buy to behave in a way that is ethical. For example, some people thought it would be good for Nestle to not so aggressively market their baby milk, in preference for promoting breastfeeding. They boycotted, forcing the company to reevaluate its marketing practices. Some people buy a particular brand of coffee or feminine protection product based on their views of how ethically workers were treated or that company's responsiveness to public health complaints (remember toxic shock syndrome?) Boycotts have been an effective tool by which the public can show they condone or don't condone corporate or organizational practice.

That said, I think a boycott is in fact taking the high road. Any number of W-hats and W-hat sympathizers seem to assert we should all lighten up. It's just a game. they say over and over that it has no monetary value. A boycott might be just the flame to test the mettle of that statement.

To "send" an effective message, a boycott requires majority action. The absence of the vocal minority is not a suitable or effective substitute.

Not necessarily. If a significant minority boycotts, the effects can be significant.

Ask any major shopping chain if they want 5% of their customers to start a boycott.

Who is your daddy and w-hat does he do?

seemed sorta salty to me, and salt, my friend, is a season(ing).

I've sorted out the meaning of the W-hat organization. It's an homage to our fearless prez, affectionately known as W. W is known as being an ass, therefore, our friends are known as W-hat, a k a Ass-hat.

My apologies for bringing this into this conversation, but someone else is going to if I don't.

Note the last few paragraphs in this story

I think it's safe to say that the constructive discussion is this thread has ceased, as such I'm closing this thread.