Taco Rubio suspended for 3 days according to source.

I think it's funny because I see the problem as exactly the opposite :

Some people don't wish to play with adult content, and yet here is someone forcing THEIR standard of morality upon them by making them unwilling subjects of mature content..

Interesting side skipping of the objections though - which were about consent, not about the content itself... I'm sure if people were asked to participate as models for the gallery, noone would have given a rats ass.

Siggy.

Hiya Siggy.

Again, I don't even know if Taco was suspended. Maybe this thread isn't based off facts. If the first post is factual, though,

"...suspended for 3 days for 'sexual harrasment', via a form letter."

Then the issue is very much the content. If he was harrassing avs by taking or posting the pics, were the avs harrassing the rest of the community (or perhaps not harrassing, but violating Community Standards) by having their undies visible in PG areas...or even worse, having their LACK of undies visible?

Will the "harrassed" residents who reported Taco and got him suspended, also receive some sort of warning for their dress or lack thereof?

I don't agree that Taco was forcing his morality on anyone. If people were offended by the pics, they need not have gone to his "museum" to view them, nor should they have dressed in such a way that their nether regions could be photographed. If they were offended that they were being photographed without consent, then they should address their complaint to the Lindens, and ask for a revision/clarification of The Rulez. If the rules are changed, then OK, but Taco ought not be disciplined for breaking a rule before it existed. If it's alright in other situations to take photos of others without asking permission, then it should also be OK in this one; because he apparently did not go to any extraordinary means to violate these people's perception of privacy.

My last point, while farcical, was actually to pose a question: Which would you prefer, a SL where most people are polite and considerate, but the occasional "Taco shot" happens because there are a few people who act in an adolescent manner? Or, a SL where there is a dedicated group constantly looking up people's skirts, all the time, and letting offenders know when they've misstepped..."You're not wearing any underwear beneath that skirt. Please put underwear on your avatar now, or I will pass along photographic evidence to the Lindens while I report you." If Taco is going to be punished for photographing what is there, then perhaps we should also be helping to make sure that our skirt-wearing residents are also disciplined for what's not there, but should be. Do you want me looking up your skirt all the time, just to check that you're behaving? More to the point, do you want to be constantly aware that I'm doing so? (Heh, maybe I've been doing it all along, but keeping my observations quietly to myself)

<edited to add> I think it's a bad idea, and detrimental to SL's long-term success, to manage the social actions of the residents in such a way that "It's OK until someone complains". There are plenty of people whose av's walk around every day in skirts and no undies, in PG areas, either to be risque or because they just forgot. Each instance of this is a violation of Community Standards, and Aimee W pointed out that this is a discipline-worthy offense. No one goes around trying to hunt down the offenders, however, because we're too busy or polite to be peeking under the skirts of every female av that we see. There are lots of instances, also, where people use a cuss-word in a PG area, and it goes unreported, simply because it was just a "slip" or most of us can't be bothered to police each other, all the time. If Taco is going to be disciplined for simply photographing what was put on display, then I'd like to see some balance in whether some of the other avs in our world are held accountable for their infractions.

Lets see - section 5.1 subsection (iv)

(iv) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

Here we have it -- harrasing - invasive of anothers privacy.

Now some may disagree with it being invasion of privacy, that is your perogative.. but if they deemed it sexual harrasment in their letter , then it falls under harrassment.

So I guess the rules existed - and thats not even going into the grey area of what Linden may find vulgar or 'otherwise objectionable'

Now you say it's about content because it's sexual harrassment -- well there would BE none of this content if there were no harrasment -- if there were consent there wouldn't be an argument - and the content would more than likely remain.. as many porn galleries in SL do.

So I'd say - nyet - the content is the by-product of the harrasment in this case. In fact it's the evidence.

Now onto Taco and the forcing of morality - dunno how more plainly I can put it... They don't have to visit his place - exactly - BUT he has placed them there.. it's not about THEM seeing the pictures, it's about everyone ELSE seeing them.
He has made them, unwillingly, the subject matter of mature content... what he is doing is forcing them (as subject matter - content) into a mature aspect of SL - against their will.
I think they every right to object. And obviously someone did.

Go see the museum - if it still exists - some of these peeps were wearing long dresses and even undies! -- and even for the ones that weren't, yeah I guess they were bringing it all on themselves by dressing all slutty! (man where have I heard THAT argument before?)
I made a point about that mode of thought in another thread -- summarised : Would you tell Cristiano he brought on being called a 'spick' himelf due to having a non-white av? Or myself being called a 'sand nigger' ?

Same deal.

Both are offensive and disrespectful.

This entire issue was about consent and respect.. If those two issues had been addressed the whole subject wouldn't ever have come up. He did a rather stupid prank, and didn't think it through.

And even if it wasn't in the TOS - theres a buttload of things I can do that aren't covered by that document - but I refrain from doing because I have a pinch of respect for the people around me.. Common sense should always be a guidline..

Pulling a stunt that would get you arrested in RL - sure go for it - but don't try and be the victim when your dick gets slammed in the drawer over it.

Siggy.

Apparently, the Lindens wholeheartedly agree with you.

Spin it to suit your argument if you must, however, no one is omniscient and no one can predict all possible scenarios. Could it simply be that this fell under one or more of the existing Terms of Service as the CCed info from Taco indicates? I don't think sexual harassment is a new rule. I also don't think it matters if it's words, pictures, or offensive objects, it's not the content, it's the message conveyed and the objectification involved. Please point me to where a Linden said at any point in time that this behavior was "... OK until someone complains." Grimmy was found guilty of it and I think that pretty much shoots a hole in your theory as to the motivations of LL. If you disagree that it's sexual harrassment then your beef is not with those who complained but rather with LL themselves and please take your case to them.

Now, as you are so keen to point out that the offended parties should be held responsible if you can see up their skirt I guess that you would apply the same logic to RL *upskirts* which is now a prosecutable offense. I suppose women should not be allowed to wear skirts anymore because the people who defend those on the wrong end of the law wish to grab for straws and succumb to the temptation to play tit for tat.

The bottom line is that SL is a private institution and that they can legislate their realm how they wish, regardless of any precedent or TOS.

If you should happen to disagree with the actions of the powers that be, then the best way to make your voice heard is to use your wallet. If you don't like it, don't subscribe. Simple as that.

Personally, if I got shitcanned for 3 days for something, I would do as much as I could to get back in the good graces of SL to get back into business instead of venting to my friends to start a controversial topic on a forum where I may garner more attention as an annoyance and a liability. I know in a lot of customer situations, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but this is not one of those situations.

And I do think there could have been more clarification on the part of SL, but that task is set before Taco and SL alone.

Actually, Nolan, as I said earlier, Grimmy didn't have to do anything other than identify himself as Grimmy in order to be banned. We don't know whether Lactoseintolerance Milk was banned for

-photographing up Pituca's skirt

-posting it publicly

-doing so in a PG public area

-griefing an event

-being back in SL, AT ALL, because, well, he was Grimmy, and already banned.

The Lindens are rather spare with details on bannings, presumably out of respect to all parties involved. So, no, Nolan, that's really not a hole in my theory.

I think that, at best, this was a grey area. Was it harrassment to post the photos? Apparently the Lindens think so, but this throws more confusion, rather than less, on the situation.

-Is it also harrassment for me to post bathing-suit photos of avs, if I've not had their consent? Close-up boob or groin shots, even if the avs are fully dressed? Is it harrassment merely to photograph the avs, or only to share those photos with others?

As quoted by Siggy:
"iv) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;"

-Is it also harrassment if I post a photo of an av, and that av's owner feel's that it shows his/her av in an unfavorable ("defamatory" light? If they were doing a stupid dance, and I snapshotted them, and posted it, but they objected, surely this would also be defamatory, even though I did not record anything that they did not publicly show.

Rather than suspending Taco, the Lindens should have given him a "talking-to", and then publicly set the record straight. Basically, "We're clarifying the terms of Community service to include snapshots and video captures. Basically, if it is illegal to un-knowingly photograph a person in a certain way or doing a certain thing in Real Life, then it will also be an infraction of the Community Standards to unknowingly capture the image or actions of an avatar in Second Life". Up until now, I personally have worked off of the knowledge that camera angles can be arranged just so, and snapshots taken at any time, and therefore have taken appropriate steps to never be upset at images of my avatar that might show up anywhere. Instead, all we have is silence, no clarification, no knowledge even if he is in fact suspended or is just taking a break and someoene else is "making-up" his suspension, and only a vague idea of where the margins of pemissible actions lie.


No, you guessed wrong, Nolan. There are many, many rules and concepts that I wouldn't apply from SL to RL. Among these are the ability to easily and affordably acquire Seburo automatic weapons, having sex with anthropomorphic animals, permitting people to pilot all manner of vehicles/ airplanes/ spaceships without any form of licensing procedure, or change shape/sex/apparent age at will.
Since Second Life is not Real Life, and Real Life is not Second Life, I would much more prefer to see a system that, as much as possible, is self-enforcing. Basically, "If it can be done, you may do it. If you may not do it, the system is set up to prevent you from doing so." You are correct, that there are so many capabilities in Second Life that it is, in some areas necessary to leave the capabilities intact, but clearly determine what is or is not permissible. Example: It is (apparently) possible to write sim-crashing scripts; however, it would be very, very difficult to leave the scripting ability intact and remove any possibility to crash a sim. Therefore, it's been written in that to deliberately crash the grid is a TOS violation, but the ability to do so is still there. Taco's thread, and exhibit, and actions, have exposed a similiar inconsistancy between what is possible and what perhaps might not be allowed. Instead of rewarding him (or at least acknowledging his contribution), he *might* be under suspension. He might not, too. We don't know, nor has there been any clarification given to us. We're left to speculate, to argue, to name-call ad nauseum in the vacuum that still exists with regards to this issue.

Please forgive me if I happen to think that the best way to make my voice heard is by, well, actually voicing....err, typing, what I happen to think. Problems aside, Second Life is an amazing experience, and although I don't have much firsthand knowledge of other MMO communities, the general consensus seems to be that the Lindens are more willing to both own up to deficiencies in the system, AND proactively listen to their residents, their customers, than just about any other company in the same business. If I simply cancelled my subscription and left, and 300 other residents did the same over this issue, then the Lindens would only have a vague notion of what the problem is. Essentially, I'd be guilty of the same thing that I'm complaining of, of taking action without explaining clearly why.

No, I'd be more inclined to say I agree with them...

Siggy.

And I don't necessarily disagree with your method of operation. However, the Lindens have yet to clarify the reason for suspension, and if they fail to do so and you still feel that the action taken was wrong, the biggest impact you could make would be to take your business elsewhere, and explain why.

I got screwed by my old bank once, and I told my friends and family. I then opened an account somewhere else. My grandmother went on a crusade telling everyone and something like 50 people ended up closing their accounts at that bank and told the bank that they were closing their account because of how they screwed me. The bank president called me and apologized, asking me to come back and even offered to pay for all of the mishap. I didn't take him up on the offer, but thanked him for the apology.
That's the power of the wallet at work.

The linden judicial system prevails yet again! yay!

First off, I haven't name called (if that comment was in reference to me). I have remained civil in this thread.

Point taken on the Grimmy issue. However, as you are stating, we don't know for sure what the reasons were behind LL's suspension of Taco yet you presume to indict the offended parties, on the *it's ok until someone complains* premise. Just as faulty logic as you are claiming we're utilizing, if not more so.

I would not have drawn the comparision to real life had you not opened that avenue by suggesting that now the women wearing skirts need to be monitored and punished (It brought to mind the supposition that sexual harrassment victims somehow bring this on themselves because of their attire). Before, we were being told, rather vehemently and sardonically, that *They're just pixels!* Now, faced with the decision LL has made, you wish to turn the tables and claim that the women wearing skirts (who complained) are culpable. Sorry, but I disagree, and that is why I used the RL reference. You can't have it both ways. I do not think SL is RL, although it is much closer to RL than any other online environment that I know of. In Phillip's and Cory's vision it will be closely integrated into RL at some point, so defining these issues and the pertinent guidlines is proactive rather than retroactive as you are suggesting. For the folks that keep screaming *This is not RL*, please go read Cory's and Phillip's papers on this subject. If you still reject the notion, then perhaps this isn't the right outlet for you.

As far as weapons go, no one can be killed here, just sent home. Therefore a RL analogy would be irresponsible.

Vehicles, again, no accidental or drunk driving induced threat.

Sexual harrassment transcends the physical and I think therein lies the error in your logic.

If you think that real life issues like sexual harrassment aren't applicable here you are living in a dreamland.

Go to a beach, take all the photos you want of women in bikinis. No problem in SL either. However, when you cross the line and start surreptitiously taking upskirt photos of people you have entered a different realm, one of harrassment. This is gender based harrassment. If not, why no pics of mens crotches? He singled out women. Taco knew how the offended would receive this, that much is evident in his sarcastic thread starting post. Now he is the victim?

Spot on. Thanks Siggy, I wish I could be so concise and still get my message across.

Regardless of where you stand (crouch) on this issue, you would probably get a good laugh out of my new No Taco panties. IM me in game for a free pair.

Surreal

Nuff said.

Well, just to inform you all, Taco's suspension was overturned on appeal. The Lindens have decided it might be a good idea to tell people to take down the "offensive" material before actually suspending them. My guess is they overreacted to certain claims from certain people and laid the axe down a bit heavily, beofre taking smaller steps to get the same results.

However, it still seems as though certain areas of AVs are not to be photographed and/or posted in mature areas, as seemingly this violates umm...something.

So..now that we have this broad and generalized precedent, we can all freely report any AV photography that shows panties and/or "top secret, naughty, private, shameful pixels".
Now where did I see those pics of the girls sitting on Santa's lap...oh..and where are those pics someone sent me from that last party. I got lots and lots of IMs to send, to see if the subjects gave consent, and then, I suspect, lots and lots of abuse reports to file.

I think a good eyeroll is warranted here...

Ya know, if you can't see the simple decency in asking someones permission to be a subject in what amounts to a mature photoshoot - at this point I think your just arguing for arguing sake...

Once again - the issue wasn't about 'secret naughty pixel' as you are so fond of coming back to.. it was about consent, invasion of privacy, respect - and suprisingly enough for those who wave the 'you are a prude flag' the forcing of one persons morality upon another - amongst many other things...

I think it's funny that a lot of people that posted objections were very clear to point this out... but I guess thats all swept under the carpet so you can make your.... whatever it is your trying to make (sarcastic diatribe? vitriol?).

You bitched when someone is given a 3 day suspension - now your bitching when it's lifted?

Exactly what is it you want to see done David - cos honestly right now it seems your just bitching for the sake of it...

Folks like you make me glad i'm not a Linden.

Siggy.

LMAO Siggy can I use this in my signature latter in the future...Not that my request has any relevance to the subject at hand but it did tickle my funny bone.

I just want it for latter when I get in debates and use hurtful words(according to some)on people.

Shadow

Go for it it beats what Nolan is runnin around with atm

You published a magazine that had crotch-shots a'plenty, and you even charged money for it. Were you ever suspended or even warned not to? If not, what do you suppose the difference is between what you did and what Taco did?

I'm glad you think that, however that's not the reason

I am posting to inform people of the AV suspension lifting, and using sarcasm to point out that the Lindens decision to punish Taco opens a door for other non-consent pic taking abuse reports. Party pics, accidental panty shots, etc.



The only "forcing" I see here is being done by those that abuse reported and the Lindens for "forcing" him to take down the pics. No one was forced to view any pics certainly.



Well..it was sarcasm, and certainly not vitriol. I've never even become slightly peeved or angry. I find the whole thing at least partially amusing, and the AVs rights issue very interesting. I just think LL has opened up a door for other abuse reports, frivolous as they may be. And I'm absolutely sure Siggy, that you have taken many "mature" snapshots without the subjects prior consent. I seem to remember this one of you humping my ghosted AV....

See where this could lead to alot of issues? It's not gonna make or break SL either way, and I'm not pretending it's some SL-shaking issue. It's just interesting...



Not sure what post you're reading, but i certainly never bitched about the suspension being lifted. I was happy to see LL come to thier collective senses about that part of it.



Well..first off..I'd like all trees painted a nice sunset orange. Then I would like all females to wear pants, so I never get suspended for catching a glimpse of panties in any of my crowd pics. Oh..and I'd like all females to wear pants in PG areas, as apparently the view of av thighs,panties and naughty bits are considered mature content and I don't want to have thier loose morals forced on me by making me glimpse them when they sit of dance or bend over.



And why is that? I haven't been bothering any Lindens. Infact, I think I've only bugged one Linden for help in my entire first year of SL. Do you mean that you feel bad for the Lindens because I express my point of view on the forums? Hmm...ok..I guess..

Edited: double posted for some reason

Jon. I do realize that the issue is a mixture of consent and "areas of an avs body considered to be private". Of course we had consent for the magazine shoots, and no taco didn't have prior consent for his. I got all this

My little sarcastic point was..there are alot of pics showing panties and at least partial nudity taken in SL WITHOUT the subjects consent that aren't being punished. Now..will these be punished if someone files an abuse report? Inculding crowd shots, accidental panty glimpses, etc?

I actually believe, now that the suspension was overturned, that the pic poster will be asked to take them down first, which is certainly bette than a suspension.

I completely agree that a warning should (almost) always be the first step.

As for this being some kind of slippery slope in regards to candid photos that may show pink bits.. I think common sense, common decency, and common respect removes any slipperyness. Catching a bit of lacy in a shot you took at a party is a completely different animal than alt-zooming up someone's long skirt to deliberately photograph their crotch.

Indeed I did! And if your recall correctly I immediately posted it to you for your comments - I didn't, however, make a Second Life Gallery of ghosted AV humping shots - if I did, you would be in precisely the same barrel of pickels that some are in now.

[/QUOTE]

And once again we come back to the *non* issue of whats going on - ya know after so many posts stating exactly folks took umbrage to - you are still inventing your own issues to put in their mouths..

So lets argue the point if we are to argue - otherwise you're simply trolling - clinging to a point that you made up even though you've all but ignored the countless statements to the contrary.

Let me refresh your memory from a few moments ago:



You even admitted it was a sarcastic reply - and thus feel sorry for the Lindens in cases like this, with people like yourself - because they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't - because no matter the outcome they will face critisism, when it's pretty plain all they're trying to do is remedy an unpleasant situation.

Siggy