SL Forum Jury for Taco Rubio. Forum Jury decides fate.

Eh, I never wanted him suspended. I just wanted him to ask for permission. Somehow I think that's what this 'art' was all about though, the thrill of having done it unnoticed, and subsequently gaining some dwell, which doesn't seem like an artistic approach. If it were just candid shots of avatars in their daily routine like we see in Life magazine, that would be one thing. I am glad that non-consentual upskirt photography is a prosecutable offense these days (in the US), that, to me is not art either, it's a way of exploiting people to grab some cash, not unlike the admission that Taco made about dwell and his other motives for his actions. Art, if it really ever was a reason for the pics, certainly was not foremost.

nolan,
1> none of us can know taco's intentions or reasons.
2> they are of no consequence to the signficance of the installation.
3> upskirts of dolls /= upskirts of humans.

hiro, can you confirm that your well thought out post was initiated by the discussion surrounding this installation?

1. Taco actually posted them in the original thread. I believe he said "dwell" and "boredom".
3. True, but it doesn't mean we ought not to have privacy of it.

Re: long post: It was one of many things. It was actually a friend telling me that she thinks she's being spied upon using a ghosting exploit that made me finally post.

1> As Hiro points out above I was referring to motivations stated by Taco himself. No need to speak for him when he has spoken on this already.

2> If one side is going to support him based on the *art* motivation, then surely if the creator of the pics admits that he was motivated by dwell and boredom, the folks on the other side of the fence are validated in pointing this out. Therefore, they are just as significant as the *art* argument.

3> This is at the crux of what is being discussed here. It's subject to opinion. Just because one contingent refutes the claim that some are making about how they view their avatars does not close the subject, nor does it write a definition in stone about where we end and our avatar begins. It's my belief that if LL is truly serious about a Snow Crash-esque future for SL, with people actually able to work and support themselves online in this 'metaverse', then some basic rights have to be common for both the RL entity and the avatar.

1 > You are so right dude in pointing out what I said as correct. OWNAGE!
*removes tongue from cheek*
heh.
2. Very good point. Also, artists ask permission of subjects.
3. YES YES YES! I don't think the majority of residents in SL realize this, but we have the potential to shape the world that is coming. We ought to look at what's wrong with the Internet, and fix similar problems in SL before it gets too big to fix. Having a bill of rights for Second Life would be a supreme victory for rights of people all over the world, once SL becomes the Metaverse.

How could they suspend him if there were no rules broken? /sigh

Gotta love LL's consistancy.

I don't think what Taco did was nice, kind or respectful, but I also don't think it was against the TOS. I DO think it opened the door for a rewrite of the TOS, and I like Aimee's thoughts on how it could be written. But I also believe even with that added to the TOS, it will open alot of room for frivilous abuse reports; "Johnny took a picture of me at a party and my boobs were showing! And he showed is friends" (When the picture was actually of a large group of folks dancing).

And it scares me to see how many people equate and compare taking a picture of pixels in an online environment to real life sexual assault. I can roleplay with the best of them, but I realize the difference between an avatar and a real human body.....

I visited the site where the Upskirt Museum was last night; the building still stands but the pictures have been taken down.

Sorry if this was posted before but I didn't have time to read everything.

Oh, hmm interesting; they made him take the pictures down or either he did it voluntarily.

Ultimately that is up to LL to decide. I have seen many interpretations (by players) of whether or not something was against the ToS or CS, and not just in this case. Let's leave it up to the Lindens to make that call. Perhaps they saw something along the lines of what Chuck Beckett posted in the "Outrageously Offended" thread, i.e., the application of some existing rule(s).

I don't recall another incident of this type happening before.

If you take what Phillip, Cory, et al, have in mind for the future of SL literally, then some of these issues are going to have to be addressed and the rules defined. I think Jonquille made a very good point when she asked if it would bother you if your husband or wife was having a pixellated affair. I suspect it would for most folks, (definately not for all), so one should be able to accept that some of the same type of feelings and emotions are evoked when something along the lines of this "museum" is set up. In this medium, everyone has a different interpretation of where RL ends and SL begins. That's why I think consent is paramount here.

As someone else stated, SL is a different machine than EQ, WoW, and the rest. We have tools at our disposal, camera controls and snapshots, and a plethora of others that do not exist in any other virtual environment. Most of them are downright powerful when utilized in certain manners. Along with that power comes responsibility.

Exactly. Interpretations. Which breeds inconsistancy. I've read every section that s been dragged out over this issue and have yet to see anything that would prohibit what he did. And of course LL makes the final decision. However, that doesn't equate to fair.




You don't recall the Lindens ever being inconsistant on how they enforce the TOS, or giving suspensions for behavior not covered by the TOS or Community Standards? Damn..your lucky. I realize that they are only human, and try to do the best that they can, but I really feel that if Taco was suspended over this issue, it was soley because of certain people screaming and yelling about it, rather than any actual violation of rules.



I agree that consent would have been nice. Still doesn't mean that any rules were broken. I'd appreciate someone knocking on my SL home door before entering it, but it rarely happens, and no rules are broken when they don't.

As far as "having an SL affair" equating or being compared to pictures of pixels, I don't follow your line of reasoning. Two completely different issues. One involves actual sexual/emotional relationships forming, the other involves..umm..pictures of pixels..



I agree somewhat. As for powerful as in the RL sense, I would have to disagree. Anyone can log off at anytime, thus no real power is possible over another individual, unless that individual gives it. And while pictures of pixels may be artistic, informative or merely recorded memories of SL activity, they certainly aren't powerful in any "new" or "RL" sense. Screenshots have been around for many, many years.

I feel like I should say a few words to wrap up my hand in this as I was one of the more vocal advocates for consent.


Firstly, I was one of the few people that voted for the "Formal Warning" in this poll. I think Taco legitimately believed he was in compliance with the TOS/CS, albeit just barely. It would have been nice to have a Linden representative jump on this thread at around page 10 and tell us how these actions will be interpreted. It would have saved us ALOT of debate, and could have given Taco a chance to voluntarily comply before suspension. Only if, in total defiance, did Taco refuse to comply with the Linden's interpretation should there have been any account action taken against him. This was unfortunate.


Next, regarding the "No rules were broken!" argument that Taco supporters seemed to have down to a chant. I knew back then and we know now that this isn't true. While there is no rule that explicitly covers this exact situation, the CS does outline definitions of Harassment. The very first line of the Harassment policy:

"Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. "

This suggests right off the bat that the Lindens have NO intention of EVER creating a long list of don'ts. Instead the Harassment policy is stated in general terms, and interpreted by THE LINDENS. Most of us can use common sense to avoid punishment, but if you MUST ride the edge of these policies (and Taco knew he was), just remember...it's only three days suspension. As it was stated over and over in this thread..."It's ONLY a game!".


Thirdly, Taco may have had a variety of motivations for his actions, but his stated motivation was "To make us think". That was a noble goal. I suspect Taco would insist his opposition wasn't "thinking" at all, but I disagree. This was a great debate with a lot of insight from both sides of the fence. With Taco's prodding a lot of positive things came out of it, including the possible refinement of the CS. I DO want to see Taco keep at it. He should continue challenging norms and questioning authority so his sacrifice can continue to refine the boundaries of our virtual culture.


Finally, both sides of the fence argued fiercely, but I couldn't help notice that both sides started to take on two distinct tones. Reviewing the posts you could almost identify the stance one took on the issue by their demeanor, temperament, and composure. There is no right/wrong good/bad for these highly subjective characteristics and there are exceptions galore. However when I look back on this god-awful debate, I will be proud of the side of the fence I stood on, and of those that stood with me. I am sure Taco feels the same way about his side of the fence as well.

-aimee

I said let's not leave it up to players. You seem to want to make the decision yourself, as you have illustrated above.

I now wish I had posted my prediction last night that some folks were going to pin this on the offended parties. An expected progression of reasoning I suppose, but flawed IMHO.

No, Because you gave them permission by leaving your parcel open to the public.

Jonquille was questioned about this as well. You are missing the point. If they are as your side is claiming, just pixels, then it's not really cheating if you have a cyber affair right? I believe Jon's intent was to illustrate that some of the very same folks wouldn't like the *its just pixels* line of reasoning applied toward av sex with someone other than your spouse (if said person is married or in an exclusive relationship). Where is the "actual sex"? It's just pixels right?

Screenshots, yes. This level of camera control which allows the bypass of what a normal screenshot could capture? No.

Well Aimee, I hope in debating the issue, I didn't sound demeaning or insulting. I respect some of those on your side of the fence very much. I tried to keep it to a debate and point/counter-point type of discussion. As far as getting "uppity" in posts, I think examples can be found on both sides of the fence very easily .

And again, let me reiterate that I would never do what Taco has done, and don't even feel it was really "art". I'm just one of those "Don't think he broke any rules" side of the fence guys. And my "opinion" is that pictures of pixels just isn't that big of a deal.

Absolutely not. I think I commented on you specifically and how I appreciated the way you were looking at this

I agree with you David..I would never do anything like what Taco has done, but I feel that this whole thing was made a bigger deal then it really was. They are just pixels. I know I was asked if those were pics of my crotch how would I react. Personally I don't look at my crotch so I wouldn't even know how I would know that it was a pic of mine. So I wonder how one even knows it is a pic of themselves????? But I wouldn't have gotten pissed to this extreme like ppl have. And please don't even go with that I must not have respect for myself, because I have alot of it. I just don't get what the big deal is.

Actually, I think I illustrated that LL makes the decisions, but they should do so based upon thier own rules. If those rules don't cover a situation then they should be re-written and posted before suspending anyone for violating non-exsistant ones.




Yes, expected and logical reasoning. But of course it's also theory, as no proof will ever be available other than the supposed quote by Taco himself. If rules were written in just for the situation, and he was still suspending for three days, then I highly suspect that the right people complianed



So you are saying that Taco was well within his rights, because his subjects gave him permission by leaving thier thighs open?



Easy difference. One involves a relationship, emotional and/or sexual. The other doesn't.



Many online games and environments have adjustable camera angles, and have had for quite some time....

Of course not many of them allow creation of such realistic-looking genital areas...

I'm a bit surprised that Taco got suspended, but not overly so. He clearly knew that what he was doing was likely to offend people, and judging from the manner he chose to announce it on the forum, that was precisely his plan. Beyond the pixels, and the "game," we are, most importantly, a community. People who take actions with the sole intention of offending or antagonizing the community should be prepared to have it turn against them. Because of the amazing freedom of creativity and action we have at our disposal LL can't be expected to spell out in black and white every possible abuse. They have to look not just at people's actions but also at their intent. Taco's intent was clear. He spelled it out himself. He's a victim of nothing but his own poor judgement.

I was referring to your statement that you couldn't find that he had broken a rule, hence your position in this debate.

Expected, yes. Logical? Not in my book, unless one follows the logic that when brother pulls sisters hair (for the first time for the sake of this debate) and sister tells mom and brother subsequently is disciplined and brother calls siter a "tattle tale" and blames sister for his predicament even though it is clear that brother's actions are what got him into hot water in the first place. Since this is first time brother has done this he cries foul because mom never specifically told him not to pull her hair, and mom has to fall back on a less specific rule she stated like " I told you not to pick on your sister".

Flying across a sim and popping in on people's home (giving them dwell btw) is quite a bit different than posting non-consensual pics of people's av genitals, and then using them to gain dwell or to make a point.

These pics are sexual in nature and evoked emotion. If you're going to claim *they're only pixels* when someone is offended by their virtual genitals being put on display then it only stands to reason that you shouldn't put any RL sexual or emotional value on pixel sex either.

I've played most of them. I don't know of any that approach the level of SLs camera, with the zoom, rotation , azimuth, etc. settings.

I would've pointed this out had you not.

In the end David, I respect your feelings on the issue and had Taco respected other's feelings on the issue, and perhaps not started an advertising thread in which his first post was ripping on people ahead of time for what he clearly thought their reactions might be, he probably wouldn't have been suspended. Instead of showing some understanding he simply flipped the bird at those who were offended, even in advance with his thread starting post.

Taco's judgement may be questionable as to his ethics, however; his sacrifice was of great value to everyone and insight as to how Linden Labs and we as a community can avoid these problems in the future and or come up with solutions regarding ideas on what technological advancements need to be uncovered within Secondlife and the Virtual World as a whole with consideration of ethics and fairness to the account holder.

True. I couldn't find anything referring to this situation. Of course I was reading the actual words. I agree completely with you on the matter of the Lindens having the final say and using thier judgement on whether any rules were broken. It's is their compnay and they can do as they wish. However, the words as written in the TOS do not cover this situation. Interpreting them, or reading betwen the lines (far between) might bring someone to another conclusion then the one I came up with.



Logical in the fact that they are far less responsive to many more disruptive circumstances in-world. But again, that's only my opinion. Of course I'm also going on the fact that the wording of the TOS does not (or did not) make reference to this type of situation (see above).



You're right, you would have to invade someones "privacy" alot more to walk into thier virtual home. See an AV's panties or genitals can be done at anytime in any public area, or even by looking at many vendors in mature areas. Both are non-consensual, but one involves traveling to another's property, while the other involves just looking and hitting the snapshot button.



These pics don't develop into relationships that could harm RL relationships. They don't involve promises of love or fulfillment of lust. They don't involve trust or intimate conversations. They just involve pic of pixels, usually of objects designed by other players and sold in open vendors.



I saw a picture of a young lady sitting on Santa's lap yesterday in SL. I could see her panties. I've seen many pictures of parties, folks in sitting postions, folks in various stages of undress, all showing panties and/or genitals, and I doubt anyone was suspended for taking those, even though, most likely, no consent was given. It doesn't take much i n the way of fancy camera angles to see this.



And I respect yours as well Nolan, and actually can very much understand where you are coming from. Was Taco right in what he did? That is a matter for individuals to decide within thier own minds, according to thier own morals/beliefs. Did he break any rules? I don't think so and not that I can find. Did he harm anyone? I don't believe so. Did he do anything dangerous or cause anyone to stop enjoying SL? Doubtful. Did he disrupt any gatherings or events? No. And yet he was suspended for three days for taking pictures of panties and genitals that are sold daily all over Sl and can be seen anytime and almost anywhere in SL.