|
Zania Turner
Registered User
Join date: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 32
|
09-25-2005 00:13
I currently belong to a group in SL that has been running into problems with a certain individual. To make a long story short, he's been ejected multiple times, yet he keeps joining because the group has an open membership - so anyone can join whenever they want.
My suggestion is to give more power to group owners/officers. If their group has an open membership and they've banned someone, they could add that name to a "blacklist" so that individual would not be able to rejoin the group.
Think of it almost like blocking someone on IMs, so they can't converse with you.
Does that make sense? What do you guys think?
|
|
Torley Linden
Enlightenment!
Join date: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 16,530
|
09-25-2005 00:17
Good idea... it sounds straightforward enuff too. It's generally counterproductive to close off membership just because one (or a few) people are being a nuissance and repeatedly disrespecting the wishes of the Group Founder and Officers. It also makes me think of land ban lists, only for groups, which are non-place specific (apart from their "physical" locations inworld). Sounds like it might go hand-in-hand with the possibility of eliminating recalls too... see this thread.
|
|
Gabe Lippmann
"Phone's ringing, Dude."
Join date: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 4,219
|
09-25-2005 00:18
Seems reasonable, but a group is either open or not. What kind of things are resulting in the banning.
_____________________
go to Nocturnal Threads 
|
|
Zania Turner
Registered User
Join date: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 32
|
09-26-2005 11:18
There could be any number of factors involved, Gabe, which could warrant a group with open membership to prevent a single individual from re-joining. If they were ejected, it was for a reason and probably not something that was taken lightly or in jest.
In the case of the situation that I had mentioned, when I first suggested the idea, the particular individual that we're dealing with has:
* Disrupted events * Attacked members with scripted objects * Harassed members * Flamed certain members * Shown extreme prejudice against those who wear a certain type of avatar (furries) * Disregarded the orders and authority of group leaders * Re-joined after each time he has been ejected (5 times, in total)
To top things off, no matter how many times the group leadership attempted to talk to him about his behavior, he failed to see what he was doing wrong and only continued to persist in his actions.
With a "blacklist" for joining, it would be a huge step to resolve the issue as he wouldn't have access to the group list to IM the group, or have a list of individuals within the group he can IM. If the group has events in locations other than what's normally listed, he wouldn't be able to find out where they're being held at so he can attack the members who do show up.
|
|
Deem David
Registered User
Join date: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 7
|
Tho true maybe decieved.
10-25-2005 01:47
My question i must ask is who is right if one attacks?
a nonmember is banned from a group cause he hits a member with a script but yet if the member hit them first they are not punished.
I say Adolf Hitlerthitis sounds like to me.
|
|
Malachi Petunia
Gentle Miscreant
Join date: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 3,414
|
10-25-2005 02:02
From: someone * Disrupted events * Attacked members with scripted objects * Harassed members * Flamed certain members * Shown extreme prejudice against those who wear a certain type of avatar (furries)
As stated, all of those are actionable offenses in violation of Community Standards or ToS. If a player is doing these regardless of group affiliation, report 'em and let the existing mechanisms get the offending player out of your hair. Otherwise it sounds like you are inventing a new sledgehammer to do the same job as the old sledgehammer.
|
|
Zania Turner
Registered User
Join date: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 32
|
10-25-2005 04:07
In the incident that took place, the indiviudal who attacked the rest of us was not provoked in any way, nor was he attacked himself. He started an argument, and then promptly started attacking all of us with bounce and push scripts.
The concept is mainly there in order to prevent the individual from having access to the group's IM systems and continue to harass everyone on there. It's meant more for the protection of the group's members, than anything else, as they don't need to be subject to continued harassment from individuals like that.
Currently, groups do not have that power - to prevent someone, who has created problems for them, from joining when they have open memberships. The Lindens claim that they want experiences in Second Life to be fun and enjoyable, yet they don't want to get involved in the internal politics of groups. It's meant as a way to give the groups the power to deal with the situation on their own so they can make sure that their members do get a decent chance for having an enjoyable experience as the Lindens want.
|