Sweet!

Before we all jump on the "my gosh, he's right" bandwagon... Take a look at the rhetoric.

The logic is
I had x experience ---- as I relay it to you
No other interpretation of this experience is valid except for mine
My evaluation of this experience was that it was a BAD experience.
I assert, without substantiation - in terms of time, place or names - that others have had similar experiences.
I further assert - again without substantiation - in terms of time, place or names - that there is favoritism being exercised by those in authority.
I include - as evidence supporting my claims - that the newest liason allowed a "mature genital" of a furry avatar to go unquestioned at an event purportedly (not explicitly stated) held in a PG sim.
I conclude that this oversight/behavior by the liason is representative of a general policy/practice by all liasons.
I further conclude that silence is consent - on the part of other liasons - again allowing no other interpretation.

Great logic, right?
Yeah you right.

Let's not consider that the majority of liasons are off for the holiday weekend. Let's not forget that failure to discuss TOS violations/LL actions with respect to breaches of TOS is a stated policy by LL up to this time. Let's not forget that couching this entire situation and argument in this manner is likely ot be EXTREMELY strategic for the purpose of influencing others not involved to take sides - in this case against the "side" in power.

And finally, let's not forget that the "individual/group" posting repeatedly is almost certainly intending to fuel this fire until either permabanned, perma-silenced or capitulated to by LL. In the first two cases, "he/they" win. In the last, LL will further be painted with a tarred brush here in the forums, on the group's "other forum" and likely additional places --- at least so they threaten.

Like I said, this is neither an unbiased argument, recitation of events, nor anything a person who is otherwise "uninvolved" should necessarily be swayed by. It's the same time of warped rhetoric seen so often in today's political climate --- time's are bad, blame the party in power (without considering all the evidence/possibilities), so vote the party in power out.

I couldn't care less about RJ, the *-hat's or even what the Lindens do in this case. It's turned into a drahma-fest and it has become a festering sore with a banned individual/group thumbing noses and stirring shit quite possibly simply for his/their own amusement (based on previous posts here and elsewhere).

Uh, yes. I meant, could Mr Indignant send me a PM explaining what W-Hat is, if it isn't what I took it to be from previous posts on this thread.

*sigh*

what

Uh, I wasn't banned. Just sayin'. I got a one hour ban for something other than the mime incident, and I'm not really speaking to that tempban here. My main problem is that Disco Duck got tempbanned totally out of the blue, and nobody who is in a position to explain it seems willing to, and I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason for why they want it silent.

That's it in a nutshell, really. I've wandered around discussions of prejudice, group actions vs. individual actions, but the core of my discussion has always been the DD incident, and specifically, the failure of the administrators to explain something that looks for all the world like injustice.

The second part of your post seems to indicate that I'm trying to STICK IT TO THE MAN or whatever. Far from it; they have created and maintained a game I enjoy playing, however, there's a big black mark on it, and I'd very much like to see it cleared up. Also, you seem to be taking issue with the fact that I'm still upset about it.

Wuh?

Of COURSE I'm still talking about it. It is a concern of mine, and I feel that it is a valid one, and until someone who has information that is able to clarify this situation chooses to do so, I am going to continue to be upset about it. That's not STICKING IT TO THE MAN, that's persistence.

Feel free to let me know if I misunderstood you, I'm somewhat perplexed by your post.

Let me try this again!

I am attempting to find out the relationship, if any, between the following groups or labels, as they have been used in this thread:

1) Demonstrating Mimes
2) W-Hat (the group, officers, members)
3) SomethingAwful.com
4) Goons
5) Griefers

As someone who has neg rated, been neg rated by, abuse reported, reversed neg ratings, and become good friends with a W-Hat Officer, and been banned from W-Hat land (Am I still? I haven't checked in a while) - while living across the road from them for several months - I am just amazed that it took until yesterday for me to learn that they are a closed membership group consisting only of people who (pay to?!) participate in web forums somewhere (comedy-related?) and that.... well, I still don't know what exactly they are! I was taken to task severely for making assumptions from earlier posts, so please - educate me! I don't want to join you, or condemn you - I just want to understand the events of earlier this year! If an explanation of what W-Hat is is not appropriate for this thread, then please - a PM? (Yes, I know what a PM is, I don't need an explanation of that)

I can't attend W-Hat events to see what they are, or visit their group HQ, because I am banned from the land....

My original point, which has been lost, is that perhaps the behavior of W-Hat members when participating in group activities, might be better understood if the group itself communicates more openly and widely about itself and its aims. It does seem to have a large number of members who have an assumption that the rest of us should intuitively know this.

I don't!!!!!!

Color me humor-impaired

So now it comes out in another thread what really happened. W-Hat was not "just standing around" but doing so in such a mannner around another non-consenting av that that av could not move.

So, I re-evaluate some W-Hat members very negatively. Why? Because they were purposely misleading, AKA lying, about the situation. A "Stand-Up" person admits what they did even if they know what they did was wrong. What does that say about the W-Hat members who were involved in the incident and poster here?

So much for:

I never said I was just standing around. Actually, I explicitly STATED I was one of the mimes back around page.. crikey, 2 or 3 or so. Disco Duck's the person who was just hanging around HQ.

Were you one of the mimes stanging around an av is a group such that the av could not move?

Explain to me exactly how a group of people could stop an av from moving? 2 dimensionally I could understand, if it were something like this

but since second life is a 3 dimensional game, I fail to see how one could block an av in, when we have the ability to fly. Unless of course you mean that the mimes were like this

Intent, what was the intent?

Looking at your images and assuming (lacking a full description from those involved) that the first image is a depiction of what happened. SO, given that note that the av in the center is labeled "Victim". That pretty much says it all.

Hard to say unless you are psychic. The people involved have said their intent was to dance with the person, and since its hard NOT to notice that the game is 3 dimensional, how can you claim that they intended to somehow trap a person by dancing around them?

Edit(BECAUSE YOU EDITED YOUR POST SILLY): You don't understand sarcasm do you?

I was one of the mimes dancing in a loose group around another player.

Note that I said loose group. There simply weren't ENOUGH of us to make it impossible for the player to move without being blocked in or having to jump. There were maybe 6, 7 of us around the person in the middle, all of us at least a meter away.

Honestly? I've seen 'club' areas more tightly packed simply due to crowding.

Were you there? Or are you making accusations without correct information?

Did the person consent? Want to dance with the mimes? If not it was griefing.


It is a slimy out you are trying to use and it doesn't wash--sorry.

Oh oh kay, so now, we need to get consent to dance near someone OK GOT IT!

I got the impression from your posts a little while ago that you were not an idiot, so honestly think about what you are saying, you are saying that some how a group of people managed to maliciously dance around someone. You are saying that I am being slimy by pointing out that they obviously could not have restricted movement of the person in question.

What I really find interesting is that you and the others involved were less than candid until you were called on your actions. I'm sorry to say that given your prior less than candid posts I find it difficult to believe that you are now being fully candid. I still have only heard _part_ of one side of the incident.

The issue is consent, did the av explicitly consent.

I am making them with the best information I have. We are a couple hundred posts into this thread and just now fragments of the truth are beginning to come out.

I'll remember that next time I go to a club. 'Hey, guys, is it OK with every single person in this room that I dance?'

Do you do that?

Strange, I thought I was pretty clear when I gave a play-by-play in one of my first posts to this thread, where I said I was a mime and explained what happened from our point of view with the dancing and the whatnot. Please go read that post, since you obviously haven't, before telling me what I did and did not say.

Im sorry, but that is just stupid. I try not to say that unless it's true, but it is. It is just a stupid thing to say. I don't mean to offend you or anything, but this is the sort of thing that causes societies to go insane. You don't need consent to dance near a person in real life, why would you need it in a game that is a simulation of life?

It's really sad that a group of people ages 18 and up got carried away with an event and have yet to apologize (unconditionally) for stepping on anyone's toes. I mean, if not upsetting someone(s) to the point of abuse reports being filed, then because of the postings on that web site with the request for negative ratings. I've seen no genuine apology so far and for a group of people who claim to be just "clowning around" there's a complete negligence for responsibility and hence, it's a group with no credentials except for abuse reports that ended sourly.

"Hay guys is it ok if I stand in the middle of new york city?"

Dae, read the whole freaking thread. I already apologized.

I obtain consent from those I dance with, it is common courtesy.

If it is a group of us dancing around another person (yes, in RL) it is with the consent of and for the acknowledged enjoyment of that person.

I have a great idea.

Since it is obvious to me that the "mimes" are feeling victimized by the system as it is...
Since it is obvious that a number of "non-mimes" don't/didn't see the humor...
Since it is obvious that a fair bit of "feed the flames" is going on elsewhere..
Since it is obvious no one taking part in this thread has any power to clarify anything to anyone else's satisfaction at least as far as TOS interpretations go....

Why doesn't this thread just die?

If not that... why not recognize that this thread has become a vehicle to continue a rant, to continue to portray what occured as "non-threatening" (though few non-mimics involved seem to have posted here what their interpretations were (including the "furry", and to continue to essentially claim that "we were right, you(LL/non-mimes) are wrong, we(mimes) are the actual victims here" ..... and just let everyone hold their misbegotten opinions and walk away until the Lindens actually return next week?

Little/no liason response is really likely over the weekend is it? That would essentially involve a change in company policy concerning making a statement - especially a public one - about a ban or even about a "simple" interpretation of this incident as it relates to banning... Any such statement at this time will likely just birth another thread/series of threads.

As such.. isn't all this just freaking moot and taking up bandwidth rather pointlessly?


Note: Apologies given electronically on the forums/bbs's are merely text typed. There exists no way to assess the actual motivation or "meaning" of such things... So even asking for or expecting such is beyond the pale of rational thought.

Twisting things again, it was a group surrounding a person. Sure you do not need consent in RL but it is a nice idea to get it, common courtesy. It can also, in RL, prevent a bashed-in face.

Mimes, not mimics. A nitpick, but still.

The thread keeps going because I like to be Very Very Clear about what it is I am trying to express - imprecision in communication annoys me. I want to be adamantly clear about what my position is, why I am upset, and what I wish to happen.

If you're really upset by the text in this thread, nobody is forcing you to read it. If you are upset by the existence of the thread or any of the posts in it, or you feel that we're breaking the rules with our posts, by all means, report them as 'bad posts'. I don't understand what the point of your post was, since this thread is being kept alive by people who want to discuss issues brought forth in it. You're not adding anything to the discussion other than your wish for it to cease, and that's not the purpose of the forums.

In general, I find it's unuseful to post to a thread if I can't make a contribution to it.

Addendum: To answer your bandwidth concern: My assumption is that the bandwidth used by the forums is a drop in the bucket compared to the bandwidth used by the game itself.

Oh, this must be Plan B. If a certain group of people we don't like fails to live up to the cartoonish stereotype that we've constructed of them and instead threatens our control of the discourse about them through actual engagement in it, let's just silence that discourse altogether.



Well, instead of reading and posting to this thread I could be surfing porn, so I guess you could say it's actually saving bandwidth.