Question about banning players

I'll agree with this.

As someone who's gotten their fair share of TOS warnings, I can say with some certainty that the whole system is a bit broken.

If someone reports you for whatever perceived "damage" you've done, you get a nice little email that says, essentially, "you did this vague part of theTOS. don't do it again."


No mention of the situation, no details explaining why someone thought it was against TOS or even why specifically it WAS against TOS. You're just against TOS.


I've gotten two warnings, and to be honest, I'm not 100% sure why. Emails to support and to various lindens basically turns into a "well, ask this person" and then "ask this person", finally ending with "well, I'm not sure of the specifics of the case, but I can't really talk about it".

It's like arresting someone off the street, slapping the cuffs on them, and then saying "how do you plead?" without even getting charged.

I understand the "need' for privacy, but when someone's account termination is conceivably hanging in the balance, details WHEN and HOW you're in violation of the TOS would be a good thing.

I'm all for banning people who cause too much of a ruckus, but if the lindens aren't going to tell the banned player what they did, they might as well just draw names out of a hat every week.

LF

Agreed.

as someone with a fair ability to script what frustrates me the most is the lack of consistant feedback on what i can and cannot do to help my friends out in regards to dealing with griefers.

Obviously objects and such to lock players in place are acceptable... as are quick client side fixes such as temporatly shutting down particles if yer at an event thats gettin blasted so that you can see what the heck *is* going on.

Where it gets more complicated is in 'pro active' devices that actively hamper griefers.

Technically you are 'griefing' them by violating the same TOS they are in the MIDST of violating against you.

In this situation location seems to be key to a great degree... in that if someone is repeatedly coming back to your land, you *seem* to have abit more freedom in defending yourself 'agressively' than is considered 'acceptable' in a public place.

Active and fair warning would probably go a long way to exoneration in the event they file a report against you back as well... if you have quite a number of lines telling them to leave, to stop attacking you and people on your land, warning of eminant force etc chances are the lindens will see this and understand you were using an object defensively, not offensively and only out of desperation .


I've made quite a few anti-grief tools in the last few months... from passive shields and warpers to active containment and tracking prisoner balls to both scripted push movers and heavy block/bore physics colliders... the unfortunate thing is the ones that are the most effective, are also the least usable in the SL TOS sense.



Personally griefing doesn't bother me nearly as much as most of my friends... i mean i have a more laid back view of things in general, and im generally more bemused at the stupidness of the whole thing than i am actively offended by its malice. That doesn't diminish the fact that it does hurt other people though and hence why i have gone to some considerable length to come up with last resort type of devices.

Back to Cris' original question, which we need an answer to:

1. What, for lack of better words, actions, speech (chat), or object-creation, script-creation, etc. would constitute a ban.

2. Would the ban be a singular account ban?

3. What or how many instances of previously listed "ban requirements" (being politically correct here), are needed until it's an IP ban?

4. What are the requirements for a permanent ban?

I directed that play in my High School Drama class. Is a wild story...

Do you mean as opposed to banning alleged neg mule accounts or banning every account on the same credit card? I don't know how they could differentiate griefer mules from legitimate innocent accounts held by housemates, relatives, friends, etc.

The problem with banning based on IP address is that it only works for static IP's. If someone has a dynamic IP, which is most people, banning the IP doesn't stop them and could affect someone else on the same ISP. Banning a range of IP's as some MUD admins have done is even worse.

Then that would be it in a nutshell; there are no perma bans here in SL for so-called griefers. With a ban on the account (individual name) -- the mule accounts come into play.

So basically, it's a banning of a "name" and not the individual, per se.

That's not quite true. While banning a range of IP's is an extreme step - and runs the risk of cutting off a few legitimate users - sometimes it is the only way of keeping a severe griefer out of the system.

There's also an upside to banning a range of IP's. I've personally seen cases where some systems have performed a ban of a range of IP's to get rid of a griefer, and then informed those innocently caught in the ban to forward their complaint to their ISP. Many ISP's (at least the smaller, more customer-oriented ones) would heed the complaints, and promptly boot the offending user of their network. Shortly thereafter, the ban is lifted, the welcomed users are back, and the griefer is no more (at least until they get a new ISP).


Banning IP ranges aren't pretty, and in my opinion are just one step removed from calling the company lawyers in an attempt to toss the griefer out on their ear. But then again, if that's the only option left, what's the alternative? Either ban an IP range and risk the ire of a few customers, or leave the griefer to roam unchecked throughout the system and tick off generally everyone they come across? I know which action I'd pick. Better to cut off a finger than lose the body to the infection.

- Newfie Pendragon

that may work for a muck, but its unusable within the sphere of a *paid* system.

People who would be caught up in a wide range ban would have a legitimate grief with the company itself because they would *not* be getting the service that they *HAVE* paid for... that becomes almost more of a legal liability than the griefer was originally.

Would that not be covered in the TOS?

I read with interest the other night another game site that listed in the TOP of their terms of service... I'm paraphrasing this...

"We have the right to terminate/ban your account for any reason."

Problem is twofold.

What is considered griefing/harrassment?

What is the penalty for the instance(s)?

thank you for the reply robin. i think you're looking at this backward. the question being asked, in so many round about ways, is "how far can i go, defending my events from griefers, before ll bans me."

what y'all have on your hands is a community right on the edge of a world war. protecting the privacy and tos rights of virtual criminals will retain you a few accounts over the next few months, but is just about to start costing ll some steady income.

we see you all being very quick to edit forum posts, but don't see you doing anything to avert this disaster. i'm sure that y'all are working very hard to provide self governing tools; but we don't SEE it. our perception is strongly affecting our reasoning and will begin affecting our actions very soon.

i don't personally have any plans to form or participate in the vigilanty structure. but i see it forming all around me. then again, you guys want a world. i suppose you're getting one.

I think I would prefer they improved our immune systems, to continue your metaphor. I don't know how to go about that but then that's why they work for LL and I don't.