Blake Rockwell banned for retaliating agains't a Griefer! Vote for New Policy!

Turn outside scripts off on your land.

Problem solved.


BAN AIRPLANES! OTHERWISE YOU SUPPORT TERRORISM!

I've just Read this POSTING, I am one Blakes Clients and one of his Reps for
Body's By Blake.. I know for fact Blake provides a service in Body Shapeing< AND DOES NOT SAY EVER he sells SKINS ....

He will recommend the best skins and hair/assessories in Secondlife for the look they want to achieve. He does not CLAIM otherwise He very is clear....!!!! SO I have no idea how this TRIPE got Started..I know differnt...IT is made VERY CLEAR form GET go what he Provides as service to the client....Seems io me this griefing in own form, and very petty...

Parijanee Dragonfly





QUOTE=Maurier Edge]First of all two wrongs dont make a right. someone bombs a club, you get the owner to remove them, there are alot of way to remove. ban list, security systems. all is reasonable. But for a player to take it in their own hands is injust. Its not an eye for a eye. It's a report system, use it wisely. I mean common, you post a poll about a guy who is one of the biggest scam artists in second life. Eventually he would have got banned when more people realised he only shapes bodies, and doesn't do actual skins like most his female clients have been told. so he got busted for something else first. drop it, move on, people get banned every day. weapons should not be used at all, let alone in retaliation. grow up. griefers will always be a part of sl, thats what pvp is for, report and learn to live with it[/QUOTE]

I've just Read this POSTING, I am one Blakes Clients and one of his Reps for
Body's By Blake.. I know for fact Blake provides a service in Body Shapeing< AND DOES NOT SAY EVER he sells SKINS ....

He will recommend the best skins and hair/assessories in Secondlife for the look they want to achieve. He does not CLAIM otherwise He very is clear....!!!! SO I have no idea how this TRIPE got Started..I know differnt...IT is made VERY CLEAR form GET go what he Provides as service to the client....Seems io me this griefing in own form, and very petty...

Parijanee Dragonfly

Parijanee Dragonfly]I've just Read this POSTING, I am one Blakes Clients and one of his Reps for
Body's By Blake.. I know for fact Blake provides a service in Body Shapeing< AND DOES NOT SAY EVER he sells SKINS ....

He will recommend the best skins and hair/assessories in Secondlife for the look they want to achieve. He does not CLAIM otherwise He very is clear....!!!! SO I have no idea how this TRIPE got Started..I know differnt...IT is made VERY CLEAR form GET go what he Provides as service to the client....Seems to me this griefing in own form, and very petty...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurier Edge
First of all two wrongs dont make a right. someone bombs a club, you get the owner to remove them, there are alot of way to remove. ban list, security systems. all is reasonable. But for a player to take it in their own hands is injust. Its not an eye for a eye. It's a report system, use it wisely. I mean common, you post a poll about a guy who is one of the biggest scam artists in second life. Eventually he would have got banned when more people realised he only shapes bodies, and doesn't do actual skins like most his female clients have been told. so he got busted for something else first. drop it, move on, people get banned every day. weapons should not be used at all, let alone in retaliation. grow up. griefers will always be a part of sl, thats what pvp is for, report and learn to live with it

There are many good points in this argument.

Yes,it is true that two wrongs don't make a right.But 3 lefts do.And Blake was only trying to help as Trader pointed out,if it weren't for him,other residents' software might've been damaged!Although Blake's actions were controversial,they were sadly necessary.

Although I have doubts that the Lindens even take a glance at this page,I urge them to read this thread and take into account some of the suggestions in these posts.If Griefer's actions go unpunished,they will continue to mass and so will their actions.

I,along with some other people,am willing to take on Blake's banishment time in return for his un-banning.And yes,I am fully aware that is not a word.

ummmm is it ok to hijack this thread now and nominate Toy for Second Life President

Doesn't Flipper wear a pulsating Blake on the crotch of his pants?

How is that so many grown "adults" here have no memory of the rules of the schoolyard? If two kids get in a fight, both are suspended, no question. It doesn't matter who started it. It doesn't matter what it was about. It only matters that violence is not allowed, period.

I was in all of two fights in school. The first one was in middle school. The other kid started it but I fought back. We were both suspended, as we should have been. The second one was in high school. Some kid decked me because his girlfriend thought I had looked at her funny or something. I did not fight back this time (partly because I was so suprised, and partly because I was trying hard to keep a cool head about the rediculousness of the situation). The other guy got suspended, but I did not. Why? Because I didn't fight. Simple.

While it's easy to admire someone like this Blake character rushing to the rescue, we can't forget that vigilanteism is not a thing that should be tolerated. The proper thing to do in that situation would have been to call a liason and request immediate help. In my experience, they would have come and they would have diffused the situation. After that, the appropriate abuse reports should have been filed, and the attacker should have been banned by the land owner. Under no circumstances should responding to violence with more violence be considered the right thing to do.

its something that happens frequently, get over it.

So only institutions greater than the individual should be allowed to have a monopoly on retaliation and violence? That's lame.

Using school as a paradigm for the apotheosis of social interaction is also lame. In my experience, rules eventually replace critical thinking skills. It's easier to rely on a rule than to think. When rules are the rule, people start second guessing themselves and defer to the black/white mentality of rules rather than trusting their own judgment (not that they would have developed any good judgment after relying on rules their whole lives anyways). ...Sounds just like our government. :nickers:: And government treats us like children too. I have enough revulsion at the fact that I am not allowed to put what I want where I want in my own body in RL.
It would be better, in my opinion, to let the individual property owners and communities decide what policies to implement rather than having LL follow a "no griefers allowed and that's that, no matter what the situation" policy.

I don't want to be treated like a fucking baby by the laws of SL too. "Period."

*Addendum*
I shouldn't make a criticism without a solution, so the solution to this would be to give the land owners whatever technology is necessary to police their own spaces-- not just rely on rules that affect everyone universally.

Sorry for multiple posts I don't use forums often..


PJ..

4 posts since Aug 2004? You loud-mouth.

LOL I told you so.. hahah so not used using them ..lol

That kind of thinking is precisely why we do have rules. What you are advocating is anarchy. Until we evolve as a species the point that we are wise enough as individuals to be able to consider all the consequences of our actions and behave accordingly, we need to have rules. Trust me, we're not there yet. The fact that you even have the desire to put poisons into your body is proof enough of this.

And I find my schoolyard analogy to be perfectly appropriate, by the way. The two people involved in this story acted like children, and so they got their toys taken away.

I don't know how old you are, Chance, but the fact that you can't see that strongly suggests you haven't seen too many winters. When you're young, if you don't hate the rules then you don't have much in the way of heart, and as you mature, if you don't come to appreciate the rules then you don't have much in the way of brains. If you are as young as I think you probably are, your attitude is not suprising.

Don't take my word for it though. Some of the latest neurological research has determined that the portion of the brain that calculates consequences of actions does not fully develop until age 25. For many drug users, it actually never develops, as some of the chemicals produced in the brain when you get high can end up destroying the neural pathways that feed that portion. If you're in that situation, then of course the rules seem unfair to you. You will likely continue to see it that way until and unless that part of your brain fully matures.


They do. It's called the ban list. If you don't want someone on your land, you can easily get rid of them. If you don't like the "no griefers allowed" policy, don't report them. Simple.


Anyone who thinks laws make him into a baby doesn't need any help from the law. He already is one. Assuming that adulthood is synonymous with doing whatever you want is a childhood dilusion. Being an adult means controling yourself so you can operate with autonomy within the limits of the law. The easiest way not to be treated like a child is simply not to act like one.


This is not an addendum; it's a repeat. You already stated this suggestion almost word for word in your paragraph bginning with "It would be better..."

So, to follow your lead, I'll repeat myself as well. What you are suggesting is already in effect. Land owners can remove anyone they want from their land.

As far as relying on rules that affect everyone universally goes, you can't have a free and fair society unless you do. Your notion that somehow each person should be treated uniquely is very childish and very dangerous.

Actually, you can be sued if the burglar injures his shoulder as he swings a bat at your head, or trips over your coffee table since he couldn't see it in the dark, or cuts himself on your window as he climbs through it. In American society, you can be sued for anything... Which goes to why we need civil torte reform so badly, but that's another tale.

Now as to criminal law, self defense is a valid defense to criminal charges. In other words if you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself with violence. The schoolyard rules really only (somewhat) work in the schoolyard. The whole key is the level of violence you use to defend yourself. If someone raises their fists and comes at you with the intention of knocking your teeth out, you are not justified in shooting them. But.... that is qualified as well. If your are unable to defend yourself (or your attacker has so much physical advantage that you could not protect yourself) then you would be justified in using a higher level of force. It's all in your ability to articulate what was happening. The key part to using violence to defend yourself is the term "reasonable." Would a reasonable person, in the exact same situation, consider your response to be reasonable given the threat faced?

Could it be justified to shoot an unarmed attacker....possibly

How's that for a clear cut response?

Responding to an attack by attacking back is in violation of CS, unfortunately. The griefers know this and rely on your initial emotional response and need to remedy the situation. They fire, you fire back, they Abuse Report you and viola! mission accomplished. You have been snared and possibly suspended for attempting to protect yourself and your guests.

Word of advice: if someone shows up to grief your event, immediately call a Linden (or two), if you own the land, place the offender on the ban list. Sit tight, wait for the Linden to arrive and deal with the griefer.

Never respond to fire with fire or you run the risk of being suspended.

Evolution of species is different than social structure. I'm not idealistic enough to confuse the two even a little bit. Human beings have very few instincts and evolution of species would do little to move society "forward" or "backwards" or any other wards. ...Unless "rooting" better is a social goal.

You can't learn to swim if you don't jump in the water and society cannot change if the power structures stay the same.



I never said anything about poisons did I? What if I wanted to stick a penis into my body in a state where sodomy is illegal? The point wasn't that I do or do not do anything, the point is that I should have the choice to do things with my own possessions if they are not infringing on the rights of others. Whether or not I exercise those choices is a different discussion and I said nothing about actions not having repercussions.



Mandatory condescension driven by a fragile ego- CHECK. If you want to have a battle of superiority complexes, I'm not afraid to win. But that's boring so let's move on, ok?



Again, I never even noted "poisons." The issue is about having choices. The superiority of your sacrosanct sageness over my lowly status as a social dreg has little to do with being correct about the issue at hand.



When all else fails call the other person names. Smooth.
Again, I never said anything about doing whatever you want. No action is without repercussions. The issue is having the choice to do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt others. Seeing as how no one is actually hurt in SL, we should be able to decide whether or not rampant murder and chaos is allowed on our land (whereas you couldn't make that decision in real life because that choice infringes on the others' rights to live).



It is an addendum because I didn't address the method of how it gets done, I just stated my opinion on what should be done. You are the one who noted "they are called 'ban lists,' " not me. If ban lists are all it takes, then why is griefing an issue at all? Whatever the solution is, it should be technological, not based on social rules.

I'll be happy to argue semiotics with you all day if you want to go down that road.



--Because we are all aware of the imminent DANGER of controlling a virtual avatar.

As for real life- sticking a penis, or "poisons," or a pygmy pachyderm inside me does not affect your life so why should you or society be allowed to prevent me from having the choice?

I disagree. I think the the structures of our societies are directly linked to our evolutionary progress. That's probably a discussion for another thread though so I'll leave it a lone for now.

My point was humanity is not ready to exist without rules. Like them or not, we do need them. Not everyone is going to agree with every rule in every situation, nor should they, but without them we wouldn't last very long.


You're right; you didn't. Forgive my assumption. Yes, there are certainly laws that are abusive and go too far, and sodomy laws as you point out are a perfect example. What is important to consider though is that it is precisely because of rule of law that we are even able to debate the merrits of those laws with which we disagree. If we believe a law is wrong, we can act civilly to see that it is repleaed or changed. If we were to follow your suggested model on the other hand, and abandon laws in favor leaving all decisions in the hands of the individual, we would be not have civilization or community either.

As you pointed out, we lack reliable natural instincts to tell us how to behave in relation to eachother. Were we a colony of ants, we'd all get along no problem without the need for any rules. Since we are human beings though, we need to actively design systems to keep our chaotic tendencies in check or we won't survive.


The problem with that philosophy is the individual is not necessarily equipped to determine what does and and does not infringe on the rights of others. Even though you own your own house, you can't and shouldn't legally be allowed to burn it down if you don't like it. It's too dangerous. It's not enough to say, "But Your Honor, I had no idea that poor little girl was going to wander into my back yard at the exact moment I decided to blow up my house. She had no right to be there. It was MY house and I could burn it down if I wanted to." The point is the government does bear some responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity.


It was not my itention to condescend. I don't think referring to someone as young or maybe inexperieced means putting them down. Upon rereading my post though, I can see how that message might have been received even though it's not the one I intended to send. I apologize if I offended you.

If you were offended, then I understand and forgive your need to counter-attack, but my ego is anything but fragile. I agree with you though that furthering discussion on that topic would be boring (and more than a bit of topic) so yes, let's move on.


I wasn't trying to make you feel inferior or call you a "social dreg". The point was that the attitude about rules and laws that you were expressing is common among young people. Therefore I found it likely that you may be fairly young yourself. There's nothing wrong with that if you are.

I then went on to offer an explanation as to why that kind of attitude is so prevelent in our youth, and to suggest that if, and I stress IF, you do indeed fit into that category, then we are unlikely to reach agreement on the subject. IF you are 10 or 15 years younger than I am, our brains are wired very differently, and it's highly unlikely that you'd be able to see things from the other side. Older people remember what it feels like to be young, but younger people have no idea what it feels like to be older. I was only trying to point out there is a very real gap there and a very good reason why our opinions might be so different.

Again I apologize if this was construed as an attack. That was not my intention.


I didn't call you any names. You said the law was treating you like a baby, not me. I followed up on a direct quote. Please give credit where credit is due. This one falls squarely on you.


Your definition of "hurt" is pretty cut & dry. I would encourage you to open your mind a little further. "Hurt" is much broader than simple bodily harm, especially in a virtual world.

I would submit that the people who were attaced at that club (finally back on tiopic here) likely do feel that they were hurt. Further, I would submit that the actions of the defender (Blake) were directed not just to shield the victims, but to hurt the attacker back. The rights of each person involved were indeed infringed upon, and frankly, trying to claim otherwise seems like a bit of a copout.

Oh, and by the way, if you DO want to allow rampant murder and chaos on your land you certainly can. It's called turning off safety and enabling combat. If the griefer in this sutuation had done his thing on combat-enabled land, there would be no issue here. His attack would have been legal, as would the subsequent retaliation. However, the land owner in this case had made the decision to declare the land a safe area. Attacking people in safe areas is something WE ALL expressly agreed not to do when we joined SL.


Not that I really want to get into this as an argument, but the sole diference between the first time you stated the thing and the second was the word "let" vs. the word "give". The first time around you said, "let individual pproperty owners and communities decide..." In the second you said, "give landowners the technology to..." I fail to see the difference here. The "technology" you refer to is already in place. Nothing needs to be "given". Landowners either choose to use it or they don't.


Uh, no.

Blake realises what he did wasn't in line with current TOS rules, however; he did it to make a statement to the Lindens and until there is a solution found griefing will continue as it always has. Blake works in real life Security and yes realises the the differences in both worlds, however; at the time there was no deterent available and he took recourse of action before others got blown away in the Club and more disruption of the Event happened. Blake deals with real life situations regarding confrontations and if he is attacked he defends himself. We pay money for accounts, tier fees etc. and there needs to be a solution. I don't know the answer directly, evidently it is a bit complicated because no solution has been found other than 3 warnings of 3 days suspension in which they can make another alt and have those 3 warnings anewed.

If no solution is available, impower certain good community citizens to take action only when necessary or find a solution to hender attackers on land or individual options for the Avatar not to have their time disrupted. Sometimes a Sim gets full also and they have to reboot and may not be able to login at the point of logout location which makes it even more of an inconvenience especially if the Host cannot get back into the Sim and finish hosting. These are issues that are of concern and why this is currently being addressed.

As for those that voted to continue to let griefers do what they do, it has nothing to do with scripting; it has everything to do with a solution, for you scripters out there, come up with a solution to a "No Push" defense mechanism as a deterant to offenders and put more defensive mechanisms in game for people that do not want to be pushed around rather than simply avoiding the issue that is at hand. Voting to continue these type of actions to occur is simply defending griefers. Bring a solution to the table not a cop out and you will make plenty of money selling defense mechanisms. Find a solution to the Shield Breaker 1.5 as well agains't "No Push". Oh im sure someone will come up with a solution to get around it, but that is technology just like someone will always come up with a more powerful Virus to send to a computer; tecnology evolves and you have to evolve with it.

why Suppoort Greifers in SL do you support your States gun laws where you live? Dont you think theres is enough Violence in your 1st LifeTheres plenty of war and battle games on the internet to keep those interested in that type of game...and as far as Blake being banned from SL the Horse is out of the Barn.. My phone call to linden labs was totally ingnored as well as Notecards sent to the Abuse Mgr.. by various friends of Blake and myself.. I do however beleive in Self Defence and Protection of my friends And that is What Blake Rockwell portrayed on Wednesday evening.... There is another issue i have but when time allows i will voice my opinion on that as well....Im not done yet

You're wrong.

I can't put it any more clearly than this.

Simply put and simply Ignorant.

As one of the few people who is not. As one of the few people who has tried to approach the problem from a scripting angle, more than once, from more than one direction.

Until you can put for an idea, don't call other people ignorant for tell you what does not work.

To ignore working towards a solution is ignorance, to state one is wrong is opinion and the perception that you are the all knowing Scripting God of SL. If we can put a man on the moon, it can be done. To say this is impossible is to say we are all ignorant and cannot find a solution.

Well, as long as we're ignoring reality in the process, sure, why not.

I'm not an all knowing script god. Far from it. But the all knowing script gods have also failed to come up with a working system. Trust me, they get griefed as much as anyone else. If it were possible to come up with a system, it would have happened. I know a ton of them who have tried, over and over again. There are technical limitations preventing it from happening. It's not like anyone likes them, but they are there. You can make very, very effective systems. But you can't make a foolproof one. When a mediocre scripter like me can make a script that will have a person three sims over and 1500 meters up before the client gets to update the first frame of motion, the problem becomes clear. LSL response time. It has always boiled down to LSL response time. Perhaps with the implimentation of Mono in a few months, things will get a little easier, but even that won't make it perfect.

To say that something is impossible is not to say we are ignorant. Hyperbole isn't an arguement. Putting a man on the moon has nothing to do with anything.