This may *really* be the last thread about the Bush signs

No - the bigger issue isn't so much freedom of speech as it is a bunch of people decide they don't like what I build... I've walked that path before and it's not a fun experience.

I'm all for pissing those stupid signs off - but I don't want it opening the door for some torch wielding mob deciding they don't like.... say.... furries... or gorians... of folks building mosques... or vampires... or that unfinished plywood structure that new guy is 'getting around to finishing'

As for those who say 'that won't happen' - it already has.

I keep hearing this, but frankly it strikes me the same as the "once you allow gays to marry, what's to prevent people from marrying their dog???" slippery slope non sequitors.

Examples, Siggy? Are we talking about anything close to a *similar* situation with what we are facing today with IBG?

I think the ignored obvous issue at hand is that SL is a private company, SL is a product and in all reality the TOS means about squat. If something needs to be changed the one who made it all has the right to destroy/alter it all. I prefer things being handeld more along the trend of special cases then trying to legislate it away.

If theres a problem, fix it. Period.

eh, we're all giving him what he wants...even me with this post. He's so happy to have us all riled...that's his purpose.

I have a blog...check it out. (hint, hint)

This is very true. LL can change our AVs to a different farm animal for every day of the week if they want to. But they wont because they want to please the customer. The question regarding the "impeach bush" signs is ... what will please the customer more?Arbitrary diciplinary action that removes unpopular signs, or strict adherence to the TOS?

Four or so years of history has shown that when the Lindens make diciplinary decisions without the backing of a well defined policy, the users rip them a new one. The Lindens strictly adhere to the TOS voluntarily because every instance where they have not has resulted in howling from users. It's not surprising the Lindens are skittish in this case.

Perhaps this is the point in SL's history where all that changes. Increasing support for my option "B" (described a few posts up) may make the Lindens more comfortable with using "because we said so" as justification. If this is really how you want the Lindens to handle the situation then you need to show them that they will have large scale support from the users when they make diciplinary decisions without TOS backing.

I disagree. Any existing TOS you throw out against the "impeach bush" guy could surely be used by HIM to make an equally valid case against YOU. Or even ME.

Take "Disturbing the Peace" for example. As I mentioned before, the only section of this rule that he may be violating is "inhibiting another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life." You use that rule against him, he will use it against you (maybe he doesn't like your cottages.) So your job will be to show the Lindens how that rule applies to his builds and not yours. Arguments like "It's OBVIOUS!" and "You know PERFECTLY WELL" don't work because he may parrot the very same claims about YOU. It has to boil down to something measurable.

That hasn't been shown yet, and that is why he is not in violation of the TOS.

Depends on what grounds IBG has for complaining coco's cottages, or my boats, or your fashions degrade the user experience in SL. I'm sure whatever the LLs have in mind for enforcing the TOS will take into account isolated points of complaint, especially those easily deduced from spite or revenge. Come on people, do we throw out common sense when logging in to SL? Wait... don't answer that.

Well, this is one thing you don't know perfectly well, Aimee. What this individual has done, using free speech as a cover, is quantitatively different than what others have done in the regular course of SL existance.

The likelihood that stopping this individual's behavior will have any sort of ill effects on reasonable behavior is slim to nil.

This behavior is not good for SL, and it isn't good to set a precedent that says it is. I doubt the Lindens like having this ruin their pretty world, and I'm sure they'd like it even less if 2, 3, or 10 people decide to do the same thing. You just don't pay that much damn tier on 16m.

One guy deciding to take his interpretation of the TOS and use it against, say, your clothing business, isn't likely to stick.

You can HYPOTHESIZE that it will all you want, but that doesn't make it a likelihood, and certainly doesn't make it a foregone conclusion, though you appear to be convinced it is. You say this will happen - I say it probably won't, and if it does, it won't prove successful.

You sincerely believe that he has done nothing against the TOS. I sincerely believe that he has done several things against the TOS, and measurably so, in a way you or I or Joe Blow have not.

Any existing TOS you throw at anyone can always be used to throw at someone else. That doesn't mean the Lindens can never apply the TOS to anyone.

The Lindens have ample reason, and ample evidence, to apply their TOS in this instance. It is this sort of instance for which the TOS exists. Your reasoning renders the TOS meaningless. No governing document can be so specific as to cover each and every possible individual instance of anything, yet you are implying that it must, or it covers nothing.

If the TOS doesn't cover this sort of grid-wide griefing (and extortion) then it truly is meaningless.

coco

I'm with you. All I am saying is, other than the Lindens dismissing the TOS in favor of a "do as we say" policy, I don't know how such a TOS revision could be written to eliminate the offending signs while permitting legitimate free speech. I also haven't seen anybody suggest such a wording.

So at this point in time we are all just hoping that the Lindens do something damnably clever.

All they have to do is apply the TOS they already have.

coco

There was quite a bit in your post Coco but I will tackle it as best I can.

Yes! The quantitative part! That's the part I need you to show me! Something that can be measured such that it is found in the impeach bush signs but not in, say, Anshe's "land for sale" signs.

I think when this individual is stopped, he is going to be pissed off. His first order of business (shortly after doing a "Kremlin Lab" story for SL Herald) is to push these rules to their limit and make us regret ever complaining. All I am asking is that those rules be written well enough to stand up to his counter attack.


Agreed.

Well if the TOS is flawed then it's going to go in one of two directions. Linden Lab will either have to agree with him, and force me to take down MY signs, and your signs, and everybody elses. Or Linden Lab is going to have to say "We are making an exception here. This new rule only applies to the Impeach Bush guy and nobody else." Both are horrid options, but I don't know how a non-flawed TOS could be written. As I mentioned above, lets hope Linden Lab knows.

Yes It's a hypothesis. It is possible that flaws in a new TOS regulation designed to eliminate these signs WON'T be expolited by this individual or other people. Once the TOS changes are in place, these individuals MAY cease and desist peacefully.

Correct. I believe he has not done anything in violation of the TOS given it's common interpretation. There are some lines in the TOS that could be interpreted in a very open fashion such that we are ALL in violation (I must have interfered with somebody's enjoyment of SL at SOME point in time). But given the common interpretation, no violation has occured. Linden Lab agrees.

Not true. I just scanned the "big six" and I can't find a single reg that YOU have been in violation of. The only possible exception would be section 6 "disturbing the peace" where I could claim that you "inhibit my enjoyment of Second Life" with your builds, forum posts, or whatever. But that would be a silly argument and an abusive misuse of that reg.

You say again that there is ample evidence of a TOS violation, but you need to spell it out. Perhaps you could cite each regulation, indicate how the perp has broken it, then explain how your interpretation of the reg doesn't apply to legitimate actions of a similar nature. If you could do that, then I would be convinced.

If you feel that no governing document can be specific enough to handle these problems, then you are basically signing on to option B, the "do as we say" option. I'm not knocking that! I am just letting you guys know what you are signing up for. The next furious forum poster that earns a general disdain from the majority despite carefully adhering to the TOS may find themselves on the business end of a "do as we say" ban and there wont be a working regulation upon which to base an appeal.

Out of intrest, whys this thread in new world notes..

*Contemplates being a forum mod*

Muwhahaha!

My computer goofed up - I hit the wrong key or something - but I salvaged most of what I had said, I think, even though it looks a mess.

From: Aimee Weber

Yes! The quantitative part! That's the part I need you to show me! Something that can be measured such that it is found in the impeach bush signs but not in, say, Anshe's "land for sale" signs.

Qualitative, I meant. Sorry if I didn't say that. There is a qualitative difference between the IB signs and Anshe's signs, regardless of the numbers of signs each has.

From: someone

I think when this individual is stopped, he is going to be pissed off. His first order of business (shortly after doing a "Kremlin Lab" story for SL Herald) is to push these rules to their limit and make us regret ever complaining. All I am asking is that those rules be written well enough to stand up to his counter attack.

Well, I don't think he is going to. And even if he tries, so what.

From: someone

Well if the TOS is flawed then it's going to go in one of two directions. Linden Lab will either have to agree with him, and force me to take down MY signs, and your signs, and everybody elses. Or Linden Lab is going to have to say "We are making an exception here. This new rule only applies to the Impeach Bush guy and nobody else." Both are horrid options, but I don't know how a non-flawed TOS could be written. As I mentioned above, lets hope Linden Lab knows.

That is not going to happen, because the guy is already breaking the TOS as it stands, and that much is easily argued.

There isn't a need to write a one-individual-inspired law, so that's a good thing. Wanting to clarify things is fine.

But only a very narrow view of the TOS would imply that because his signs are SIGNS and my signs are SIGNS, then the situations are and must be equal. They are not. The facts are that his signs are everywhere and extortionary, and an eyesore, and he makes them a WORSE eyesore if the neighbors try not to see them. Mine and yours are not, and neither are Anshe's. It is myopic to see all speech as protected no matter how it is deployed, and the TOS, as written, covers that quite well.

From: someone

Yes It's a hypothesis. It is possible that flaws in a new TOS regulation designed to eliminate these signs WON'T be expolited by this individual or other people. Once the TOS changes are in place, these individuals MAY cease and desist peacefully.

I would hope so; otherwise they would risk being thrown out of SL entirely. I don't expect a problem. I don't think this particular guy is really out to battle with the Lindens at all, and if told to cease and desist, he will. Nor did I ever think he should be banned or his land confiscated just because he put up these signs in the first place. But - once ruled on, then he must comply. And will, I think. And, I could be wrong, but I really don't think he would then go on a campaign to report everybody else and his dog, either.

From: someone

Correct. I believe he has not done anything in violation of the TOS given it's common interpretation. There are some lines in the TOS that could be interpreted in a very open fashion such that we are ALL in violation (I must have interfered with somebody's enjoyment of SL at SOME point in time). But given the common interpretation, no violation has occured. Linden Lab agrees.

I don't think they exactly agree. As I said before, you might as well throw out the whole TOS if you refuse to apply it to an obvious violator for fear that you will have to hang everyone. And I've said before, I think there is sufficient information in the TOS now to accomodate extreme situations like this.

From: someone

I just scanned the "big six" and I can't find a single reg that YOU have been in violation of. The only possible exception would be section 6 "disturbing the peace" where I could claim that you "inhibit my enjoyment of Second Life" with your builds, forum posts, or whatever. But that would be a silly argument and an abusive misuse of that reg.

Go back and read Jacqueline's post in the Hotline. I can't remember the clauses offhand, but she pointed to the same ones I have. The fact that the IB sign methodology can be declared illegitimate on the basis of not one, but several, TOS guidelines gives even more heft to the notion that it should be.

From: someone

You say again that there is ample evidence of a TOS violation, but you need to spell it out. Perhaps you could cite each regulation, indicate how the perp has broken it, then explain how your interpretation of the reg doesn't apply to legitimate actions of a similar nature. If you could do that, then I would be convinced.

Again, see Jacqueline's post. I think she has covered most of it. It's not the sort of thing guaranteed to convince everyone, though, as it is an interpretation, but a reasonable and legitimate interpretation, in my view.

From: someone

If you feel that no governing document can be specific enough to handle these problems, then you are basically signing on to option B, the "do as we say" option. I'm not knocking that! I am just letting you guys know what you are signing up for. The next furious forum poster that earns a general disdain from the majority despite carefully adhering to the TOS may find themselves on the business end of a "do as we say" ban and there wont be a working regulation upon which to base an appeal.

They already are. We already function on the forums on a MUCH shakier basis than anyone functions inworld. And here, it is totally about speech, with no land, no extortion, no deliberate griefing of neighbors or anything involved.

Here, we can lose all simply for speaking our minds, in a way that we can't inworld. So this argument doesn't hold much water for me.

And anyway, as I've stated often enough, I don't think you have to go to the "because we say so" rule (though LL has the right to do that, too, for any and no reason), considering that the TOS already has guidelines, and this situation falls well within them - imo, not in yours. That the Lindens are addressing both yours and my concerns is commendable.

coco

What is measurable is intent and scale, intentionally degrading others experiences on a wide scale. He himself admits intent to effect other people's SL experience.

Then there is the intent to extort.

Most would have much less issue if the little tiny squares were set to not be for sale, or were priced at $999,999 linden or at realistic prices. That would show intent of expression and not intent to extort.

Add that intent, scope and extortion for money to be rid of it and you have all the TOS situation you need.

Anshe's for sale signs for example, serve a legitimate purpose other than to annoy, and the the land is at market rates. There is no obvious intent to degrade resident's experience invloved, or to extort to be rid of it, so it's easily differentiated.

IBG would have a very hard time trying to show how you are intentionally degrading other's experience, extorting them, or doing both on a mass scale.

Oops. You said qualitative. I misread.

Same as I've mentioned in countless other threads on the subject.. when I joined I had the biggest single group in second life (consider the population in 1.0 - and 130 ish folks - thats a LARGE chunk of the population) - deciding my arbian build in taber was distasteful.. actually they used the term 'sandnigger' build.

Consider a very SIGNIFICANT percentage of the population, quite vocal too, trying to take down a build that wasn't breaking the TOS..

Same deal..

Or Oneironaut's Cannibas Carnival. (OMG POT SMOKERS!)

Or Ansche Chungs 'For Sale' signs - thats even better as she was accused of 'land extortion' as well..

This idea is one I love ! Imagine, the Impeach guy stars a cottage industry by proxy ! Talk about job creation. Man, this Bush guy really has things on the ball ! Hey, there is a good side to everything... this really is hilarious, I have a sign in my otherwise fine view, but I can tune out the things I dislike, or place a bush or tree if I really cant stand something. What I think everybody is really talking about is intrusion... that is a TOS in my view, but, as a burning issue, this one is far down the line... wonder why nobody has written a script that just hides the things, they are just pixels arranged in a certain size and pattern. Maybe my lack of knowledge of things such as this allows me to believe it is possible.

I'm sorry to hear that, Siggy. It certainly seems LL has evolved from that incident and perhaps others, waiting for months and months and until thousands of residents are effected by IBG before even considering action. If we are going by the # number of threads I haven't seen Anshe's signs generate nearly the outrage as IBG. Maybe because they only catch one's notice, and barely at that, while flying?

I too have noticed the annoying signs that seem to be everywhere. And although I am no friend of President Bush, I find them annoying as snot.

That having been said, I don't think it would be just to force this person to stop being unable to post his opinions. Even if 99% of all SL residents supported banning them, it still wouldn't be justified.

The ACLU has over the years gone to bat for the rights of some pretty reprehensible folks (IMHO), like the Klan and the Neo-Nazis. Why? Because protecting an unpopular minorities rights is VITAL in a free society. Because the next time it mught be YOU who has the unpopular opinion, and needs and deserves protection.

I think the best techincal fix would be a "reality filter", that would allow someone to simply
"not see" the annoying signs, or anything else they chose to filter. In that way you can excerise your right to not have opinions or expression you don't like inflicted on you.

I don't know why this keeps popping up as a freedom of speech thing.

It's abuse. That's what it is. It was the same thing when they were spinning bright multicolored cubes.

This has nothing to do with what the signs say.

What was your intention when you built that build? Did you want to grief? To extort people? To force your stuff onto others? If not, that's not the same case.



She is not charging excessive prices for her land, and you can buy any of those parcels. The signs' function is to signify that that parcel is for sale.

Why would they take down your signs?

I think you can NEVER have a perfect law. The only combination that seems to work is the good laws + good judges. If those are provided, justice will be served.

Good laws: I think the ToS is good enough, but maybe it needs to be patched a bit. But no matter how much patching, it will NEVER be perfect. There will ALWAYS be a loophole.

That's where the human (good judges) factor comes in. A good judge will check the circumstances, intention, environment, and apply the 'good laws'. A good judge will kick/ban the bush guy, because things are clear there, but also, he will NOT take down your signs, because they're a totally different thing.

The only question is: are the Lindens a good judge?


No matter what Linden Labs does (even today), some people can and will always contest their decisions. I think that's happened in the past, happens today, so in that there will be no change.

Well here is a thought exercise for us... as the TOS is written now ask two questions...Why is the "impeach bush" sign being taken down, and why is Anshe's "land for sale" sign left up. Cite the regs, and explain the interpretation. All I am saying is, *I* can't come up with a good answer for this.


I would agree with all this, but other than "interfering with the enjoyment of others" I don't see any reg that could be applied to Impeach Bush that would require judgement interpretation from a Linden.

So here is another thought exercise we can try: Pretend you are in charge of Linden Lab, and a fledgling Linden comes to you and asks 'How do I tell the difference between legitimate violations of the "interfering with enjoyment of others" clause vs. frivolous claims? Where do I draw the line?' Again, *I* can't think of a good answer that doesn't eventually involve phases like "popular opinion." Again, I am not knocking this! I am just saying that it's the first time I have seen users feel comfortable with having Lindens operate this way. It could be a GOOD thing!

EVERY decision will be contested. I have yet to see a single person who was banned from SL come forward and say "Ya...I deserved it!"

The question is, will Linden Lab lean heavily towards the letter of the law, or the informed judgement of the Lindens on duty? There is NOTHING in the TOS that can be applied specifically to the letter of the law here, so we only have Linden Judgement. All I am saying is that every time the Lindens have gone this route in the past, it has resulted in a tremendous amount of anger from the users.

I am still cautiously optimistic about the possible TOS revisions, but again, I can't think of how they can word it to eliminate the signs and keep legitimate free speech.

Actually, I have been using the "Impeach Bush signs vs. Legitimate free speech" phrase throughout this entire argument but to be honest, I hope that guy never wants to debate me about why his signs are not "legitimate free speech" because I think I would lose.

Just a thought really...

Could perhaps the fact that he 'could be interpreted' to be breaking a number of TOS guidelines help here?

Aimee, I'm persuaded by your arguments here, just wondered whether you thought that a large number of almost 'yes he is'es could successfully be combined by LL to make one big 'clearly a nuisance'. A case of his being reprimanded because he's done this, this AND this, not one isolated thing.

Can he honestly apply every TOS violation decision to another player and launch a protest campaign? Would that justify LL to make a decision based on the current TOS more easily?

Simple, I tell fledgling Linden "which course of action is more lilely to end up gaining more paying subscribers with higher land tiers?"

This is a business for profit, and Lindens can't afford to be too idealistic when it affects the bottom line.

From our perspective this is about freedom of expression vs public nuisance.

From the Lindens position this is about their continuing livelihood above all else.