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

I completely agree with Aimee. What we are facing is an inevitable loophole in the TOS, in the same manner people in real life abuse the first amendment. There is no simple way in ending this, and any action taken to amend the TOS for these situations will most likely bring rough repercussions over us all.
I pitty the people who look at it as a simple "we go where money goes" situation. It's not that simple. Social temperature is very complex and not easily measured. How do they (LL) surely know what is going to bring them more losses? Do you really think the forums are a good sample of the community as a whole? What about the funnels and funnels of people who don't read the forums? How can they really estimate the number of people pissed because of the IBG or that would be pissed by a future TOS regulation that limits their freedom? How will the community react if they take a unilateral decision on one person because of the whining of a large group, if there is no TOS foundation?

Hey. I'm pissed at this guy too (or is it, these guys?). But the fact is right now the tools are not in place to actually demonstrate he's actually griefing so... put him in a slammer, just because?

Did you know that Al Capone, a sinister mobster who's killings and liquor smuggling was done at broad daylight and was no secret to ANYONE, was soooo good at working the laws loopholes that the only thing the US was able to REALLY accuse him was of tax fraud?

I absolutely agree 100%

Couldn't the signs fall under harrassment?
George Bush could be a resident of second life.
Im pretty sure if there were signs that read 'Impeach Shai King' there would be no problem of removing them.

No it wasn't - and yet a large group found it 'offensive' - glad they didn't have the power to take it down..

..now onto the second one - go back and do some history checking - ppl said EXACTLY the same thing 'ugly signs ruining my view - on my doorstep - land prices too high' and the prices at the time were considered excessive.

The onus is still there, btw, for you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that is what he is doing. You will also have a very hard time proving 'extortion' without being able to state what the threat to you is. At worst it is profeteering. You must also prove his intention to 'grief'.. no matter how much you wish these things so - you must be able to prove it. Otherwise your entire argument boils down to 'I don't like it'.
Which brings us back to my personal encounter.

I don't like it either - but I like less the ability for a kangaroo court to dictate what can and can't be built on land others own. If he steps outside of the TOS - nail him.. but I haven't been sufficiently shown that that is the case.

You don't need to be shown, nor does a kangaroo court. Only the Lindens need to be shown.

As far as I see it... from the TOS...

take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden at its sole discretion that is harmful.

take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden at its sole discretion that is harassing.

take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden at its sole discretion that is otherwise objectionable.

IGB guy crosses all three lines and more importantly does so with intent to cause these effects.

Also remember the TOS is just a guideline, it also states that Lenden can do anything they want at any time for any reason regardless of what the TOS says.

All this is at Linden's sole discretion, not mine, not yours and not a kangaroo courts. People here are simply making sure it is brought to their full attention adn their discretion is applied.

First if someone wishes me to agree with their point, then yes - I have to be shown. Otherwise I won't agree with them.. I'm not dictating 'what Lindens should do' - I'm saying 'I am against any notion that YOU can tell ME or any any other player what they can and can't do on land they own, within the TOS" irrespective of whether you like it or not.

Which brings us to the TOS:

How is it harmful? It's a texture.
How is it Transmitted? It's not. Unless you count the across the internet (and by which case every letter typed and pixel drawn is subject to the same scrutiny). The texture is not given to you - forced onto your screen like a spammy notecard or a shout.

And how is it objectionable? Apart from 'some folks don't like it. It's a simple statement.. I don't agree with it or disagree with it.. it's not a goatseks sign or a 'God Hates Fags' sign, or a Hitler Youth Rally sign, a burning cross, or anything else shocking or out of the ordinary.

It's a blue sign with some words on it.. none of which are offensive, none of the images on it are offensive... It's a blue sign that isn't very pretty.

How can you prove his intent? thats the tricky one too - he can give some cock and bull 'Oh I don't like the war' and say the setting of prices high is to 'bring attention to the message on the map' - like he did in Hamlets story and in in-world correspondance.. It's a sticky situation, because he's laughing up his sleeve as he says it.. it's not about what is known, it's about what can be proved..

People wish to be up in arms - but so far it's up in arms over nothing more than a NIMBY mentality.. and personally if LL goes with mob rule and ill formulated twisting of guidelines as a precident - I will be most disappointed in them.

OMG George Bush(it) in sl! now that would be funny if he was and the press got ahold of it. LL would get a boost.

He could be running one of the stripclubs or selling bondage stuff in world.

I don't think he can type.

Tell that to the people who can't sell their land because it is surrounded by them.



In reading the TOS as any other document, each of those terms is used independently. such as...

take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden at its sole discretion that is harassing.

Reads...

Take any action that is harrassing
Upload anything that is harrassing
E-mailing anything that is harrassing
Otherwise transmit content that is harrassing

He's definately taken an action that is harrassing in my view.



Signs declaring our country is waging an illegal war and has no credibility is highly offensive to a LOT of people. Possibly just as many as a burning cross is.

Objectionable is in the eye of society, a hitler youth sign is not objectionable to everyone either, nor are goatseks signs. Because it isn't offensive to you doesn't mean it isn't offensive to hundreds or thousands that have it hanging outside their bedroom windows or over their houses.

It's a judgement call like any other offensive thing, lines must be drawn, and have been and there's no other way or you have to allow the goatseks signs too.



The price is just high enough so people can pay it to be rid of it. If he just wanted attention the plots would be for sale at $999,999L so it would get attention, but not realy be for sale. If it was at the going rates, it would still get attention but not be extortion. Placement of the signs where he puts them, many in almost zero traffic areas between residential houses at a price he does shows intent.



People are up in arms because hundreds possibly thousands have something offensive placed outside their window that has no other real purpose other than to affect them and was intentionally put there for only that purpose, that lowers their land value, with the only viable option for relief paying $5000L to an extortionist for a 16m plot.

And if they find him within TOS, you can believe it'll open a floodgate for this type of behavior and expand it with things that you *do* find objectionable as it's actually a pretty good scheme to make 100x profits from 16m plots.

Right.

Think about that for a second.

If the president is sitting around playing a video game, instead of running the country, then he really needs to be impeached.

in your view - I can't say it has been for me - and I've had a LOT of crappy builds end up on my doorstep I could say anything is harrassing - its up to LL to determine what is - and thats the very crux of what I'm saying..

I've HAD something I've built (an arabian palace) called offensive and harrassing.. glad it wasn't up to a large group of people in this 'post 911 world'



Ok now thats funny because that definately DOES make it an issue of freedom of speech - which you have been saying it isn't....

I think Bush is an imbicile, I personally surprised he could READ 'My pet goat' - and I also think the nation was hoodwinked with a lie into a war.

Offended? Try and get my above comment erased.



Actually I don't have to - they very cleary violate the TOS - being in the open - they violated the rules on 'mature content' - in PG zones doubly so.



Ok now you have to prove that statement - what point it 'just high enough' -- you see how difficult this is? your idea of that may not be (and cannot be proved to be) his.. this is EXACTLY the argument brought against Anshe's oriental style for sale signs.. 'the land is just above affordable'. What point is it 'too much' in a free market where the price is what the buyer will bear?

Like I said - I for one would love to see them go - but I'd like it done cleanly within the rules - if the rules are twisted because a very small vocal portion of Second Life wills it so - I think thats a very very bad idea.



I've seen it before - and no doubt I'll see it again - I saw it with land scanners that lagged the sim to a near grinding halt - From what I see the signs are less 'harrassing' than that.

So far I see a lot of stating and not a lot of proving - maybe if folks spent more time trying to work out what they could prove, they'd be gone by now.

So what would possibly constitute proof in your eyes then?

Did you make your ugly arabian build intentionally to affect others residents experience negatively? Did you state that purpose in published interviews with Lindens?

He did.

Did you spam your ugly build in 1000 places for sale at 100x normal land prices? Did you even offer it for sale?

No you didn't, because you weren't intentionally griefing and extorting people.

See how simple that is to prove? It's hard to believe a griefing extortionist simply has to slap a lame political slogan on something to blind so many so completely to reality.

Would it take making the slogan "buy this little plot for my obscene price or I'll leave this ugly sign here outside your window and make more, suckers!" for you to see that he's playing people like a fiddle? He's a touch too smart for that one.

The TOS doesn't really matter anyway, the real rule is anything that is likely to affect Linden income is removed, that's what the TOS really says regardless of the semantics argued over exact wording, in reality none of that is really significant.

Alas thats' not proof - its statement. Don't get me wrong, if tomorrow he went on a shooting spree and was banned I'd be one of the first clapping my hands.

It's not 'blinding' me or anyone else - it's comes down to being able to say 'this is what you're doing' and the other party having no recourse. So long as they hide behind an ambiguity in what they're doing there is no way to PROVE that's what they're doing. Again, even if they said 'buy my land sucker!' THAT wouldn't be against the TOS either - at best its an ugly build. In fact there have been giant green lit 'for sale signs' in the past on overly priced land - bombarding folks surrounding them in a green glow... Net effect - nothing....If they actually did spam (give notecards or shoult etc.) that would be a good thing - you could probably get them taken down - but just sitting there is no different from the MetaAdverse signs or a for sale sign..

Once again - with no 'threat' it's not extortion - at best it's profiteering. As for 'exact wording' thats precisely what 99% of the people in these threads are doing - bringing up semantics. And the net effect so far is zilch to aid in thier cause.

The guy making these signs tends to fly off the handle over certain things in world - time and energy would best be spent there seeing when his behavior or signage actually DOES break the rules and acting on that.

About a month ago I stopped reading these posts, so I apologize if this has been suggested already.

How about a campaign to ban the creator and/or owner(s) of the signs from our land? I know it won't bring the signs down, but in the meantime it will let them know that we won't do business with idiots or allow them to visit our homes. This method may violate the "rules" but I think it's safe to say the idea will probably go unchallenged. If enough of us do this, the sign people will have a less than pleasurable experience in SL (assuming they enjoy playing at all) and this would at least make us somewhat "even".

I know alts could be used, but all we have to do is check the signs from time to time to see if we need to add a new name to the ban list.

It's so easy to do, so I figure why not try it.

Have a long and prosperous second life,
Korbin

Actually, I agreed with the Bush Sign guy's message, though the signs were ugly and in my face. Literally! I owned land next door to him. I never contacted him or bought from him. I ignored him and eventually he went away, though I don't know if that was because another neighbour bought him out or not.

In any case, the conspiracy theorist in me makes me wonder if the guy is trying to use reverse psychology maybe? There are so many instances in SL where griefers use reverse psychology that it is hard to limit myself to only a few examples, but a very well known group uses it frequently. I have talked to folks who liked to wear the soviet flag while annoying other players if not outright griefing, only to find that those same folks were not at all socialist in their political philosophies but all about unhampered free market economies. It seemed an attempt to link the negative associations of being griefed with the very political philosophies that the individuals in question opposed.

Likewise, one well-known fan club tends to have its group tag worn by griefers in the act of griefing quite a lot. (Like when the Live Aid performance for Hurricane Katrina Relief was bombed.) It is interesting that it is a fan club for a Linden. Again, the activity seems an exercise in reverse psychology: linking the Lindens to destruction and bad behaviour.

I'd like to hope that the tactic is so transparent that it isn't working, but... what Bush term are we in again?