Outrageously Offended

So at what point do you draw the line here? From your language, it seems like this is something you can quantify for us. Clearly, emotional relationships with people you've only known through text are out. What about the telephone? Video? How many times would you have had to have met someone face to face in order to develop an emotional attachment to their words afterwards? Once? Twice?

Is this emotional disconnection limited solely to interacting with other people via chat or video games? Does it extend to passive media? Movies, books, poetry? If not, how come? It seems like it'd require a lot of mental discipline to compartmentalize your emotions like that.

I have never had an emotional telephone call with someone I've not been in a personal relationship with. It just hasn't happened, nor will it.

Video? I don't know what you're suggesting here.

How many time would I have had to meet someone. Depends on the person. However, I would indeed need to have physical presence to get emotionally invested in someone.

It's not emotional disconnection. It is reality. Pure and simple. People fudge and smear reality with wishful thinking. I think it's unhealthy.

Movies, books, and poetry can be moving, but I would never consider myself or my life any less if I, for example, saw the Passion of the Christ and then never saw it again (not religious, just thinking of a movie that most people considered "moving". However, if I lost someone that I love and never saw him/her again, I would feel a great loss. Movies/books/poetry are inanimate. You're talking apples and thermo nuclear warheads here dear. Not even apples and oranges.

Catherine is right
and ...how are WE the ones with emotional issues if you put up a wall to any person you can't smell!

I am not consciously or unconsciously putting up any kind of wall.

The wall inhibiting emotional connection is the lack of physical presence.

sure you are
I have many many great friendships from online folk. Seriously. If Aimee ever got kicked out of her apartment for making the whole building smell of curry, She could totally sleep on my couch.

Taco did not take photos up any women's skirts. He took photos up the skirts of avatars. Presumably, some of the operators of these avatars were women, but some operators were likely men as well.

Hmm, does a man using a women avatar have as much, more, less, or any right to expect that his female av not be exploited?

The difference between a creepazoid stalker IRL and Taco, is that the RL stalker likely gets a great deal of sexual pleasure from the photos that he takes, and Taco likely gets most of his pleasure from laughter at the reactions he has provoked. He is poking at our sense of propriety, of self, and of morality with a stick.

:: wonders what if Taco took those pics of HIS OWN avatar, seeing as we have infinite changeability... would that make a difference in this situation? Probably not, people get offended at the stupidest stuff. It's in a mature sim, if u don't liek it, then fly fly away LOL

People without unhappy obsessions could also object to Taco's behavior.

People play SL for enjoyment. Taco's pics have reduced some peoples' enjoyment. Why would any healthy person tolerate an unpleasant situation when they don't have to?

If Taco's display really bothers people they can ban and avoid him. They could also complain to the Lindens.

But neither solution is proof that someone has emotional problems.

Okay, you may take offense to this and I apologize.

I have a good handful of very close personal friends. I don't NEED a half assed internet relationship or friendship. I don't need to settle for that. Why bother?

People fudge everything up when necessity drives them to it.

That's been brought up already, and Lindens gave opinion on it. As mentioned, Lindens treat this as harassment rather than invasion of privacy, therefore making an AV that looks like someone else, and taking/displaying obscene photos in this av CAN be punished like any other harassment. It's a case by case thing at the discretion of the Lindens.

-aimee

Yes same applies in many ways to what we email to people ,whatever we place up on the net anywhere, etc. it is NOT as private as we think and Crom is absolutely right, it's implied by the very nature of the software that anything can and will be snapshotted because teh tools are there, so ummmm dress appropriately in PG areas kiddies LOL

/clap

Arti

My guess is that if Taco took pictures of his own crotch, he would be aware of the fact and consent to it. Unless he has MPD, of course.

good for you :) ((but doubt your lack of sl friends is by choice))
I truely LOVE my friends in SL. because I work from SL I spend a great deal of time with them. They're like co-workers to me, and anyone who thinks Launa, Torrid, or myself are half-assed, hasn't seen our asses :)

I take no offense to your statements. my relationships online are very meaningful to me, and to them. This opinion of yours is only gaining you pitty... but since to you we're half-assed, pretend people, I don't guess that matters to you :)
ah well!
*frolicks off with her friends*

I haven't weighed in on this yet, and I haven't read the whole thread so I'll be brief...

It astounds me that there's 29 pages of debate over something that comes down to such simple ethical math. It doesn't matter if avatars are only pixels. It doesn't matter if this was done specifically to raise a philosophical debate about where the pixels end and the flesh and bone starts. This is clearly predatory, intrusive, and shows a complete lack of regard for the fact that every avatar has a real person behind it with the potential to be embarassed and feel violated. Simply put, it's thorougly tacky and uncivilized behavior. If people want to play voyuer they can do it with likeminded people who've given their mutual consent. More power to you. But if you don't have consent, you're just a lowlife.

When I create an object, or a texture, or clothing, an animation or a script, it's clearly against the TOS for another to use it or profit from it without my permission. When I create my avatar...how is that conceptually different?
I think this has been an interesting debate and would not characterize it as bickering. That's why the forums exist: to debate issues germane to the SL community.

I love you ma'brother!

There are a handful of people I have been waiting to hear from and you were one of them. That was summed up beautifully. Thank you Chip!

-aimee

Right back at ya sis!

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you saw it like that. Personally, I always kind of felt emotion to be more a continuum of greys. Now, would you say that the people who are moved by fiction also suffer from some kind of mental illness, or am I misreading you here? Are you saying that you really only have an emotional reaction regarding people you actually know? I'm just trying to get a feel for where you're coming from here.

In reference to the Threads "Should you be able to sell your Avatar?" and "Should there be Virtual Law and Virtual Rights for Avatars?"

How this all correlates to this Thread...





I don't know why Ego even has to come up..it has nothing to do with it.
First of all, if your Avatar owns a business like a Mall, Vendors, etc. etc., the person that buys the AV gets what the AV owns and it's reputation. The AV is part of the account. So the buyer is actually buying the AV that also owns the AV business. That is the point im talking about, however; a new person could come in and create an AV and then buy the business from the other AV just as well.

Oh now I see where you may be thinking about Ego is because there are no Stats involved. But the original issue isn't necessarily in correlation to just this game.

As far as the comparision of my whole point, I understand how someone gets attached to their Avatar and feels they are being violated concerning the issue with Taco; but in reality one does not own his or her Avatar if they did they would be able to sell it. So; in making a big issue out of someone using a camera on their AV has been blown out of proportion a bit and has caused contreversy concerning Avatar rights and Laws, meaning; you being the creator of the Avatar brings up the question of your Privacy Rights concerning someone taking your picture without consent, thereby making it seem that the Avatar is actually theirs and it is a personal issue when in reality it is a Terms of Service issue in contrast to the game company. So, the issue is; should we feel we are being violated and if so, why?.. when we do not actually own the Avatar; but then again the Avatar represents our actions. It is Contreversial.

So; the Polls of the two Threads in correlation to this one contridict themselves, one Poll suggests we should be able to sell our Avatars as with the one regarding Virtual Laws and Rights, the Poll suggests we should not have them, let the game company handle it.

Of course game companies retain their own Attorneys which in turn represent the game policy as a whole, but say a game company is not in the right, who does the defendant turn too and what laws if any govern Virtual Reality in correlation to this topic?
I hope this isn't too confusing.

Thanks Aimee. I'm flattered

Err, someone else said it best - "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

But I'm not defending Taco's "art", per se. I just don't like the thought of someone trying to get him suspended or banned for creating it. That seems like a hateful and mean thing to do.

I don't like censorship either, but I realize that the game belongs to the Lindens, and they are going to do whatever they think is necessary to keep the game going. If that includes making Taco take down his pics, or booting him from the game, well, that's the price paid for learning just how far we can push the envelope. And I'm thinking the envelope needs to be pushed, because SL is nowhere near having a working social system. I mean, c'mon, the worst we can do to each other is a triple neg rating and mute? And the next step is abuse reporting to mom and dad Linden? Surely we must find some other ways to let people know their behavior has crossed the line. And I mean an "in-game" something, not the limited exposure this forum receives.

But consider this... if Taco had gotten permission from every AV he took a snapshot of, would he have wanted to put up the display? Isn't part of the "hook" the fact that the pictures are voyeuristic? It may be immature, but it's a fact, we sometimes really want to do the things we know we're not supposed to do. The naughty things, the taboo things. There's power in being able to cause such a ruckus by doing those things. And power is what it's all about, really, not sex or art or love.

I don't want him suspended or banned, I want the pictures of girls who don't know they're on his "art gallery" removed.
thas'all

Congrats Taco, you are now famous! 30 pages... how far will it go?

Actually, I agree that the two situations are conceptually very similiar. If you create an object or texture and do not intend others to profit from it, it is your responsibility to set the permissions correctly on it. If you leave or set the permissions fully open, it is easily possible that others will take it, modify it to their liking, close the permissions and then sell it for profit. You have a rather flexible amount of control over how it will be used or not used, and the design of the system is such that sometimes people will be able to do things that are not admirable or kind, but are not against the rules. Similiarly, if you create an av and take it into public areas, the system is such that your av can and might be viewed, from practically any angle. ANY ANGLE. It can and might be photographed. If you don't want photographs of your av's panties showing up at museum exhibits, I would heartily recommend taking responsible action to stop showing your panties. It does not matter that you are showing them only to the viewing angle directly beneath your av (or behind it, if you are flying). Since the system allows cameras to be positioned in any angle, your underskirt view is as available as a frontal view, for whoever decides to look up it.

Considering some of the names and implications that have been used in this thread.....Pervert, Predator, sicko, etc, I would assert that there has been some enlightened debate on the subject, but there has also been some bickering. I, too consider it interesting. Fascinating, actually, and have at times laughed out loud at what I've read, despite the type that I'm not really a "LOLOLOLROFLOMFG" type of person.