Taco Rubio suspended for 3 days according to source.

I agree that there probably won't be a huge problem with it in regards to abuse reports, but it still opens that door.

And if the accidental glimpse shot and the alt-zoom shot end up showing the same results..well..they could certainly both end up being abuse reported...

I don't think intent was the question here, I think it was the result..as intent is far too subjective.

Ahh..but you took the pic without my consent, so does that mean you sexually harrassed me? Or is it only the public "posting" of the picture that brings on such charges? The Lindens have not been at all clear on this part of the issue.



Did you read the other threads Siggy? I saw folks taking umbrage to several different parts of Tacos display. Some were pissed about no consent, some were pissed that he even looked there, and some were pissed that he took pics (sexually assulted them) at all. I think some were even pissed that they didn't get paid

And please point out what issue I'm inventing? I am debating the same issue I started with. And as far as I know, I'm not putting anything in anyone's mouth.



I hope I'm not arguing. I don't want to cause hard feelings. I was just debating points that i think are interesting, bringing up what I think could be future issues, and generally avoiding real work. And it takes two to tango Siggy



Huh? I'm making the same points as I always did. I didn't damn any Lindens for removing the suspension. Not at all following you on this one.

This is the crux of this whole issue for me, too. Once again, the SL community is relegated to speculating on forums about exactly what Linden policy is on an issue that could potentially affect many well-intentioned players (and, admittedly, probably many more prurient-minded ones, as well).

So, any Lindens care to enlighten us as to what your policy is on posting panty pics in SL? Is consent the key to making it okay? Do we need written consent, or is someone's spoken word enough?

(Disclaimer: I hope no one interprets my interest in this issue as either an indication of my burning desire to take and/or post illicit SL panty pics or as me aligning myself with any side in this whole issue. I am genuinely interested in the governance-related developments within SL and how they will potentially affect us all, now and in the future.)

I'm actually curious beyond the scope of "panty" pictures. Do we need permission to post to a display in SL ANY pictures taken within SL? If so, what kind of permission? And from whom? The owner, the creator, or both?

Issues are being worked out.

Can you switch back to Lawyer Blake? Secret Agent Blake is kinda disturbing. That is though if Secret Agent Blake does't know how to create polls. If he doesn't, please keep him around.

It sure does, yay! Thanks for your support, Sugary, as well as all the others who helped me get that ludicrous charge dropped. I was suspended a total of 21 hours before the conviction was overturned. Sorry I wasn't able to get into here sooner to announce it, there was an issue in which the SL access was restored but not the forum access, took a day to get fixed.

I think maybe SOME of the details of the overturned case should be revealed or this COULD be interpreted as "The Lindens are fine with non-consentual upskirts". Taco, care to elaborate?

-aimee

Congrats.

Sincerely;
Source.

The source of all that is unholy in these forums. Oh wait, that is Pandastrong. You are just the Source of a Shitload Of Polls.

Oh yeah, welcome back Taco

Sometimes my Poll gets long though.

Well they pretty much they said "We're fine with non-consentual upskirts", and then I traded them my entire collection for some Governor owned land.

Kidding.

It was agreed, as has been previously posted here, that it would make a bit more sense, if an object is a problem, to ask the owner to remove the object, rather than to suspend him and leave the object up. I'm not sure if my object was deemed a problem, as I appealed on a number of fronts and I'm not sure which one convinced them; also I had my object taken down during my suspension voluntarily.

I was also asked to kindly keep in mind that people take this game more seriously than I do. The issue of upskirts, consentual or not, did not in fact come up, insofar as a Linden position on it.

Nevermind.

lol then Never Mind for me too.

This almost sounds like...

"You can photograph upskirts without the consent and without the permission of the model. If and only if they catch you, you have to take it down. If you are caught, asked to take it down, and refuse....only then will the lindens take action."

That sound accurate?

-aimee

That would make sense, a request from the Avatar which in turn could be a type of formal warning in itself.

Ok I think I can speak for the everyone by saying "EWWW". Nice double entendre though

I just posted the following in ANOTHER thread with insane rhetoric trying to justify Taco's actions (this time behind the guise of "privacy". Please excuse the cross-post, but the more I read, the more disgusted I become with impotent arguments trying to excuse sexual harassment and abject disrespect for women.

------------------------------------------------

It has nothing to do with privacy. It is implied sexual harassment. If you constantly sent out public chat saying "I can see Jane Doe's Vagina", It would be considered harassment of Jane Doe. The images are persistent, thus achieving the same purpose. If Jane Doe recognizes her pic, there is no difference between this and Jane Doe being verbally abused. Regardless of the "pixel genitalia" world view, it has implied overtones of harassment. If the genitalia are "just pixels" then the typed verbal abuse is "just pixels" as well.

Keep up this type of thinking, and now you have accepted harassment on all levels with in a world comprised of "just pixels".

------------------------------------------------

Well first off "you have to take it down" IS action. I believe they want flexibility, which is why they keep these rules so broad.

As for the rest I just dont' know, Aimee. I received a slew of abuse charges, and they were all sort of blanketed into a global suspension. I appealed them and it was overturned.

What I don't know is *:
1) (And you just brought this one up): Am I allowed to TAKE unconsentual upskirt pictures for my personal use, as long as I don't publish them? Was the picture the problem or what I did with it?

2) Am I allowed to publish them as long as I'm not vocal about it?

3) If I need consent, need it be in written form or oral or both?

4) Does this also apply to faces? To elbows? To somebody's wooden block? Do I have to ask the owner, or the creator?

* Aimee I mean I don't know the Linden's stance on this, I certainly know yours

Excellent post, Panda.

I'd only debate that I'm disrespecting an Avatar, not a woman. And thus I don't feel harassment applies. Shrug, great to see its still important to people to yell out "Im on this side!" "I'm on that side!", though.

Taco I have steered clear of this thread because I did not see the original display. I lean toward the side of agreeing that it is disrespectful to women, but I am not villifying you for it. It is definitely a grey area kind of topic with a lot of people polarized to one side.

Personally im not offended by the human body, however; just like others have said, if you draw a line, it's going to cross over into all types of boundries thereby creating forced implementation of petty grievances, not saying that this issue was petty. If a female took a picture of my genitals, I would not be offended; I would be proud; because I consider the human body beautiful in most respects..im shameless.

Also know that your creation of your Avatar is a work of art that you made, and be proud that it was worthy of display.

Thanks for the insightful observation, Cristiano. I'm tired as well of debating if what I did was "Fine" "Terrible" "Exploitive", etc. Everyone is entitled (and definately has) their own opinions about that. As far as TOS and CS, it was definately a grey area, as you pointed out.

Aimee asked me to explain a bit of what happened, so I did. I believe the Lindens have decided to treat things in a grey area on an individual basis, which I think seems fair and fitting.

I'm very, very sorry to have put forth so much insane rhetoric. Sometimes, my madness takes hold of me and I cannot help but to put it into whatever form I'm able. Since it was Sexual Harrassment, Panda, and you're keyed-in to what the Lindens' determinations are in these matters, perhaps you can tell me at what point it became harrassment:

-When Taco looked

-When he photographed

-When he posted the photos.

Assume in each case that his victims did not want him to look, photograph, or post the pics.

And, yes, this is a question of privacy. If any of these actions by Taco were against the Community Standards, then his victims clearly had a right to privacy that extended to to either:

views of their avatar that they would object to

Archived views that they would object to

Publicly posted images of their avatar that they do not consent to.


If, however, as I suspect, the Lindens have not designated you as spokesperson for their Community Standards, please grant me a bit of leeway while I do ask for clarification from them.

While I don't think that Taco's actions were admirable, I don't believe that I've said what he's done was good, nice, or friendly. I have said that I think it's funny, and I still think so.