Taco Rubio suspended for 3 days according to source.

LMAO Siggy, isn't it funny how the blatently obvious is so hidden to some, some times..

you don't mean...............

I didnt say a Word Lecktor











I said at least 20 words...LOL

haha that is brilliant

Speculation.

Shush, Lecktor you can't say that they think Im a Troll for Cripes sake.

for our edification, what was the precedent. How is this consistent with a previous similar event?

If there is precedent for this action, then fine. Blatently obvious it is not, however. Could you enlighten us, please?

Champie

Champie, do you know if there are FLOWERS on the MOON??

Grimmy Moonflower took upskirt snaps during an event and posted them behind the person holding that event.

Seems pretty same same to me.

Siggy.

Edit because Siggy answered it already.

On a side note, Champie, what if there wasn't a precedent? This is not a court of law. This is a private company and fortunately or unfortunately they make the rules and may change them at anytime. Also, there doesn't have to be a precedent to have a case, that is how precedents come into existence, and that is why law is constantly evolving, and rightly so. No one can forsee every possible scenario.

Unless you're a lawyer Blake, do us all a favor and stop with this Perry Mason impersonation.

Champie, I remember about 14 months ago a player did something posted about it in the forums. It was against tos they were suspended and with all the hoopla there that followed soon after were eventually banned. But the details are vague for me as I only skimmed those posts back then and I am sure most have been removed since the revamp of the site and such.

Thats the correlation Siggy is talking about. Consistancy in punishment. Hence the BLatently Obvious...but then again in respect to your statment it may not be blatently obvious as you were not around during that particular episode so understandably I can see your view point.

It was Grimmy , thanks for reminding me Nolan...

lol Lecktor, I have no personal observational data, no. However, some reliable sources have stated a variety of reasons (both empirical and theoretical) why it is unlikely any plant life exists on the moon. I trust them.

Perhaps you already know how I feel about this issue. My interest is not to prove that my feelings are right, but to understand the reason for this action. I've heard a story about the un-namable fellow who did something similar, but I also heard that his transgression was carried out in a PG sim. Since taco had his museum in a Mature sim, I do'nt know if this is the precedent you all are speaking of.

To be honest, I'm through with my inflamatory remarks from earlier. I meant no abuse by them other than to underscore the hyper-sensitivity over certain types of language and actions that take place here in SL.

Other than that, I love SL and despite any interaction I have with people in the forums, I am continually amazed by the friendly, creative, and fun people I meet in world, even if we hate each other in the forums.

btw, I had a great time at tribal drums! I look forward to hanging out there some more.

Champie

YAY!! I was glad to see ya there !!

hey look, if this is the path that LL wants to follow, that's fine with me. As long as we know the rules then we can follow them. I understand that this may be one of those unprecedented things in SL that LL has to crack down on. I personally don't feel that it is necessary, but as you say, it is a private company, not a court of law.

I'm really ok with all this, I just thought that any action against Taco would have a clearly stated reason, even if the reason has no clear TOS description.

In fact, I have agreed (silently) with Aimee Weber through this whole discussion. I feel that Taco should have spoken to those he wished to include in his exhibit. Not because the rules required him, but because it would have been the respectable thing to do.

I also liked Aimee proposal for an admendment to the TOS that would protect the Avatar from this kind of abuse.

Champie

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word.. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Thank you Nolan, Siggy, Shadow, Lecktor.

I know you all are well respected Sl'ers, and I appreciate being part of this discussion with y'all.

Jonquille, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour some lemon juice on it?

Champie

Well..it may seem pretty same, same...however, it was not. Grimmy posted the pics in a PG area, Taco didn't. Also, I believe Grimmy was also disrupting an event at the time. So....not too blatantly obvious..nor really the same situation.

In all honesty Champie I have no real opinion on the matter other than to laugh about it especially since it goes back to what has been said time n again.

Those who fail to read history are doomed to repeat it. If Im not mistaken that qoute was from Winston Churchhill but at the moment I can't remember for sure.

Well, it depends on what it was he was cited for. If harrasment of a sexual nature was the reason or among the reasons then it is a precedent. However, as I stated above, no precedent is necessary nor should it be expected due to the fact that LL is a private entity.

don't we have a museum or library somewhere that has chronicled SL history, so that future generations can be knowledgable and not repeat history as Shadow has described?

Champie

Firstly I'm not the one saying it was 'blatantly obvious'.

Secondly I never took issue with pictures being taken or displayed - my empathy was with the people and their issue with consent - which was always the heart of the matter.

And I thought people already trod the ground that these weren't pornographic? Canna have it both ways..

I think you'll find that WHAT he did and WHAT he posted had a rather large impact on why he didn't get just a slap on the wrist...

But hey - if you wanna retread the other threads and tell me that folks have no right to be upset over the whole issue - thats a briar patch you can throw me into any old time.

Siggy.

Umm..all I did was refute the fact that the two situations were not the same....

I'm far too tuckered out to go through all that Guilty/Innocent arguement again.

Actually no there isnt Champie, Would be nice to see one but then again some of the detrimental aspects of the history some would want to cloud with vague references to cover the true atrocities of some situations.

There would be no ...it was the best of times it was the worst of times and SO N SO was an Ahole/Da/insert vile comentary names here.

But then again thats what the Anchients are for to remind of the past.