My short lived ban from Second Life.
|
|
Jerboa Haystack
TGTKFMA
Join date: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 2,283
|
10-30-2008 06:19
From: Phil Deakins Now you're making things up. What manager would that be? I think I've read every post in this thread and I haven't seen that any manager was involved. The LL views that are known about are 50-50. Ok Phillo...whatever lets you hold onto your little view. /me pats you on the head. But in my book...if an action is taken...and that action is then overturned...it indicates a realization that the action was performed in error. This ain't some LL tug-of-war. Banned...oops sorry you can log in again... = oops Sorry...shouldn't have banned you to begin with.
_____________________
From: Maureen Boccaccio Well between your fingers and that magical device, you work wonders. TOTD: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
|
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
10-30-2008 06:24
From: Phil Deakins An opinion is an opinion. You can fool yourself, and some others, with your view about an alt, but you cannot escape the opinions of people, just because you don't know who they are. Anonymity is a red herring - the views are as valid as anyone else's. Wrong. But then I wouldn't expect a man without honor such as yourself to understand. The words of a coward are never valid.
_____________________
I'm going to pick a fight
William Wallace, Braveheart
“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind”
Douglas MacArthur
FULL
|
|
Chris Norse
Loud Arrogant Redneck
Join date: 1 Oct 2006
Posts: 5,735
|
10-30-2008 06:25
From: Phil Deakins Then perhaps in future you will think twice before doing something that might get you suspended or banned. Perhaps you've learned the lesson that none of what you wrote gives you the right to do what you did. You are simply not important to LL or to SL - no individual is. Perhaps you've realised that now. That's right Sarah. Shut up and be a good little sheep.
_____________________
I'm going to pick a fight
William Wallace, Braveheart
“Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind”
Douglas MacArthur
FULL
|
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 06:27
From: Jerboa Haystack Ok Phillo...whatever lets you hold onto your little view. /me pats you on the head.
But in my book...if an action is taken...and that action is then overturned...it indicates a realization that the action was performed in error.
This ain't some LL tug-of-war. Banned...oops sorry you can log in again... = oops Sorry...shouldn't have banned you to begin with. It seems to me that there are two of us here who are holding onto our views, but there's a difference. One of us is making things up (what manager?). It's perfectly simple. One Linden thought that a suspension was merited and, later, another Linden thought that it wasn't. If my memory is correct, the second Lindon did think that some action was merited (a warning, I think), but not a suspension at that time. In other words, both Lindens thought that was Sarah did was wrong. In no way does Sarah come up smelling of roses as far as those Lindens are concerned. |
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
10-30-2008 06:31
From: Phil Deakins Then perhaps in future you will think twice before doing something that might get you suspended or banned. Perhaps you've learned the lesson that none of what you wrote gives you the right to do what you did. You are simply not important to LL or to SL - no individual is. Perhaps you've realised that now. Geez, phil. earlier I was about to write, to this post: From: Phil Deakins It seems to me that the level of drama surrounding this incident is simply because Sarah thought she was above all that suspension stuff, when she isn't, and that she doesn't even accept that she did anything wrong. Oh come on. You can't even CONCEIVE that the 3-day suspension might have been too much punishment for the crime? Fortunately, LL could. Thank god you aren't running things around here. coco _____ Thought better of it. But now you are busy telling LL's customers that they aren't important to LL? I think you should stop trying to "help" them. coco |
|
Jerboa Haystack
TGTKFMA
Join date: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 2,283
|
10-30-2008 06:37
From: Phil Deakins It seems to me that there are two of us here who are holding onto our views, but there's a difference. One of us is making things up (what manager?).
It's perfectly simple. One Linden thought that a suspension was merited and, later, another Linden thought that it wasn't. If my memory is correct, the second Lindon did think that some action was merited (a warning, I think), but not a suspension at that time. In other words, both Lindens thought that was Sarah did was wrong. In no way does Sarah come up smelling of roses as far as those Lindens are concerned. If Linden two overrules Linden one...Linden two has that authority or the overruling wouldn't happen. Manager or not...I figured one would go over the head of the first to get something overturned. So it is simple. Second Linden overruled first Linden. Second Linden wins. And there's a huge difference between a warning and a 3-day suspension.
_____________________
From: Maureen Boccaccio Well between your fingers and that magical device, you work wonders. TOTD: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
|
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
10-30-2008 06:38
Phil is right that we as individuals aren't important to LL. But collectively, as customers we are. The problem is we don't act collectively enough. As ill advised as it was, I applaud sarah's FU to LL the company for how they have been treating it's customers for quite some time. She finally blurted out, what a lot of us have been thinking and saying in less colorful language.
|
|
Ann Launay
Neko-licious™
Join date: 8 Aug 2006
Posts: 7,893
|
10-30-2008 06:40
From: Phil Deakins
It's perfectly simple. One Linden thought that a suspension was merited and, later, another Linden thought that it wasn't.
From what Sarah told us at SLU, the person she spoke to on Live Chat thought the punishment was too much, so she (the Live Chat rep) contacted the Abuse Team and one or more of them agreed it should be reversed. So it's at least two to one in favor of Sarah. 
_____________________
~Now Trout Re-Re-Re-Certified!~ From: someone I am bumping you to an 8.5 on the Official Trout Measuring Instrument of Sluttiness. You are an enigma - on the one hand a sweet, gentle, intelligent woman who we would like to wrap up in our arms and protect, and on the other, a temptress to whom we would like to do all sorts of unmentionable things.
Congratulations and shame on you! You are a bit of a slut.
|
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
10-30-2008 06:41
From: Phil Deakins Nope. I went to bed and many pages of posts were made through my night, some of which I thought were worth a reply.
Oh but she did.
Nope - not even that. The level of drama came about when Sarah created two threads and a blog post about it, directing people to the blog post as though it was important or newsworthy. It mattered to Sarah, but not to anyone else. I've got to leave pretty soon here, but I want to say I do wish you'd stop pontificating on who and what matters. Especially I wish you'd stop speaking for LL, and stop speaking for the rest of us. Of course it matters to us whether we are going to be unable to access what we paid for for relatively trivial reasons as a matter of policy, and we would be remiss as customers and human beings to accept any such practice. And of course it matters to SL that they not do any big PR flubs. They may not be terrific at PR, but they certainly care about it more than you do. And I can state with conviction that they definitely care more about their customers than you do. From: someone What happened to Sarah isn't, but I do have strong views about public profanity, and have had for a long time.
Strange, isn't it. The vast majority of people everywhere are not profane in public, because they are sensitive to those around them, but a few are. And I'm the bad guy because I think that people should be sensitive to the people around them - just like most people are. Strange, isn't it?
There are two issues here. One is whether or not profanity is acceptable everywhere, as long as there are only adults around, and the other is whether or not the suspension was a correct response.
Some posters here, including Sarah, answer the first one very well, by claiming that it was only adults who saw it and, therefore, the profanity was acceptable. But it is not acceptable everywhere. It is not acceptable in front of children, for instance, but why isn't it acceptable in front of them? Think about that, and you'll realise that it's not acceptable everywhere, even when only adults are around. Apart from that, it is well-known that some people find it offensive, which is why most people don't do it for all to hear. But some people choose to ignore other people's sensitivities, which speaks about the nature of those people.
The other issue is a lesser one. Some think the suspension was justified and others don't. That's all there is to it. It's no big deal. Personally, I think it's as justified as ejecting someone from a restaurant for profanity, but that's just my opinion. Then why not make some other thread regarding your strong views about profanity, instead of making it the top issue here, which it isn't. (And what are you doing in SL, where profanity is the norm?) But - while I respect your views - please stop tooting your own horn about how you are so much more "sensitive," as you put it, than everyone else. It's making you look about as sensitive as a toliet seat. coco |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 06:42
From: Cocoanut Koala Thought better of it. But now you are busy telling LL's customers that they aren't important to LL? That's not what I said though. I said that no individual is important to LL or to SL. Customers as a whole are very important to LL, and people as a whole are very important to SL, but no individual is important to either. For instance, I've no idea if Xcite is owned by one person or not, but suppoe it is and suppose the person left and closed it down. Would it matter to LL? No. Would it matter to SL? No - those who have their stuff will still have them, and those who don't have them will buy an equally good or better alternative. I picked Xcite, because my impression is that it's probably the biggest place in SL as far as users of its products are concerned - almost a monopoly. There are big clothes stores, of course, but closing any of them wouldn't affect LL or SL. |
|
Kyllie Wylie
J-Rocker
Join date: 7 Mar 2008
Posts: 489
|
10-30-2008 06:45
From: Phil Deakins
Strange, isn't it. The vast majority of people everywhere are not profane in public, because they are sensitive to those around them, but a few are. And I'm the bad guy because I think that people should be sensitive to the people around them - just like most people are. Strange, isn't it?
There are two issues here. One is whether or not profanity is acceptable everywhere, as long as there are only adults around, and the other is whether or not the suspension was a correct response.
Some posters here, including Sarah, answer the first one very well, by claiming that it was only adults who saw it and, therefore, the profanity was acceptable. But it is not acceptable everywhere. It is not acceptable in front of children, for instance, but why isn't it acceptable in front of them? Think about that, and you'll realise that it's not acceptable everywhere, even when only adults are around. Apart from that, it is well-known that some people find it offensive, which is why most people don't do it for all to hear. But some people choose to ignore other people's sensitivities, which speaks about the nature of those people.
The other issue is a lesser one. Some think the suspension was justified and others don't. That's all there is to it. It's no big deal. Personally, I think it's as justified as ejecting someone from a restaurant for profanity, but that's just my opinion.
Wow Phil, you should get off your computer once and a while and go outside to the "real world". I mean do you live in some sort of gated comunity where the garbage men wear white gloves and there are security people to keep out the vulgar mass's? Maybe a little light Television watching is in order... as you keep mentioning restraunts, lets try Kevin Ramsey's Hell's Kitchen....its on the Food Network, not even pay cable in most markets... your kids can watch it every night.... I think that should bring you up to speed on what is acceptable in public use of swear words. |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 06:46
From: Jerboa Haystack If Linden two overrules Linden one...Linden two has that authority or the overruling wouldn't happen. Manager or not...I figured one would go over the head of the first to get something overturned.
So it is simple. Second Linden overruled first Linden. Second Linden wins. And, as far as anyone knows, any Linden, including Linden one, is able to overturn another. No invented managers are needed here. From: Jerboa Haystack And there's a huge difference between a warning and a 3-day suspension. Yes there is, but judging by the posts here that make out that Sarah didn't do anything wrong, even a warning wouldn't have been justified. Or are you changing your mind and she did do something wrong that merited a warning? |
|
Kyllie Wylie
J-Rocker
Join date: 7 Mar 2008
Posts: 489
|
10-30-2008 06:51
From: Brenda Connolly Phil is right that we as individuals aren't important to LL. But collectively, as customers we are. The problem is we don't act collectively enough. As ill advised as it was, I applaud sarah's FU to LL the company for how they have been treating it's customers for quite some time. She finally blurted out, what a lot of us have been thinking and saying in less colorful language. You should go to fan faires for other on-line games, I remember one for Everquest where a stream of upset speakers got up at a mic and shouted "fuck you" to John Smedley and the other Dev's ... did they get suspended? or even toss's out of the Fan Faire? Nope... |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 06:51
From: Cocoanut Koala Especially I wish you'd stop speaking for LL, and stop speaking for the rest of us. I haven't been speaking for either. On whether or not the suspension was justified, I spoke for myself, and stated that it's my opinion. On whether or not it's acceptable be profane in public as long as there are only adults about, I spoke my own views. I did refer to the vast majority of people who refrain from public profanity because they are sensitive to the people around them, but that's not exactly speaking for "the rest of us". I'm sorry that some people don't like my views on public profanity, but I have them, and this thread is about that subject. |
|
Brenda Connolly
Un United Avatar
Join date: 10 Jan 2007
Posts: 25,000
|
10-30-2008 06:51
From: Phil Deakins And, as far as anyone knows, any Linden, including Linden one, is able to overturn another. Yes, the TAO, of course. This all speaks to the problem out there in SanFran. If discipline is handed out so arbitrarily and can be countermanded at will by any drone at the controls, it isn't going to be very effective. Consistent management policies should be TAO 101. |
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
10-30-2008 06:57
From: Phil Deakins That's not what I said though. I said that no individual is important to LL or to SL. Customers as a whole are very important to LL, and people as a whole are very important to SL, but no individual is important to either.
For instance, I've no idea if Xcite is owned by one person or not, but suppoe it is and suppose the person left and closed it down. Would it matter to LL? No. Would it matter to SL? No - those who have their stuff will still have them, and those who don't have them will buy an equally good or better alternative. I picked Xcite, because my impression is that it's probably the biggest place in SL as far as users of its products are concerned - almost a monopoly. There are big clothes stores, of course, but closing any of them wouldn't affect LL or SL. Well, I think you are just wrong. Too removed from it or something, maybe. Unable for some reason, though, to see any humanity in anything at all. I know that individual Lindens do care about us, as individual customers. There are just far too many examples of Lindens going out of their way to help people. (Unfortunately, there are also some Lindens with bad judgment, like the one that slammed the banhammer here, and also some who seem to be on personal power trips.) And overall, even the remote big brass knows that individuals make up the aggregate, so they care about individuals for that reason, if nothing else. Of course individuals matter to SL, and matter to the rest of us. It's not true that just anyone can disappear and it's of no consequence to anyone else. It was of HUGE consequence to a lot of people, for example, when Starax disappeared, to name just one. And the fact that some stalwart SL citizens who have been around for years are apparently leaving over this OS thing alarms me, and doubtless alarms LL as well. On a more micro-level, the whole existance of SL revolves around who is in it. Of course it matters when someone leaves, to his/her friends. You seem to think that LL is some big, immovable force, in which individuals don't matter at all. SL is far more fragile than that. (In fact, hardly ANY company is immune to how people perceive they treat individuals, no matter how big and strong it is.) The world just isn't as you think it is, I believe. coco |
|
Jerboa Haystack
TGTKFMA
Join date: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 2,283
|
10-30-2008 06:58
From: Ann Launay From what Sarah told us at SLU, the person she spoke to on Live Chat thought the punishment was too much, so she (the Live Chat rep) contacted the Abuse Team and one or more of them agreed it should be reversed. So it's at least two to one in favor of Sarah. Ya hear that Phillo, they might actually have a *gasp* procedure for reviewing decisions like these. Sounds like an overrule to me. Oh...and when I heard what Sarah did, my first thought was "You go girl!" So no...what she did wasn't wrong. Impetuous...ill-advised maybe...but wrong...not on your life.
_____________________
From: Maureen Boccaccio Well between your fingers and that magical device, you work wonders. TOTD: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
|
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
10-30-2008 06:59
From: Phil Deakins And, as far as anyone knows, any Linden, including Linden one, is able to overturn another. No invented managers are needed here.
Yes there is, but judging by the posts here that make out that Sarah didn't do anything wrong, even a warning wouldn't have been justified. Or are you changing your mind and she did do something wrong that merited a warning? If I'm not mistaken, you haven't been arguing at ALL that a warning would have been a better reaction. You have been arguing, basically, that she got her just desserts. And now you are changing your mind? coco |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 07:01
From: Kyllie Wylie Wow Phil, you should get off your computer once and a while and go outside to the "real world". I mean do you live in some sort of gated comunity where the garbage men wear white gloves and there are security people to keep out the vulgar mass's? I do get out in public once in a while, and I do come across it. In one particular place I go twice a week there is a guy who includes it in every sentence. I know from speaking with people there that they dislike it a lot - not all, but some. Those who are offended by it are probably just a smallish minority, but the vast majority of people refrain from it because there may be people around who would be offended. |
|
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
|
10-30-2008 07:01
From: Phil Deakins I haven't been speaking for either. On whether or not the suspension was justified, I spoke for myself, and stated that it's my opinion. On whether or not it's acceptable be profane in public as long as there are only adults about, I spoke my own views. I did refer to the vast majority of people who refrain from public profanity because they are sensitive to the people around them, but that's not exactly speaking for "the rest of us".
Yes you have. You have stated unequivacally, and more than once, that what happened to Sara doesn't matter to anyone else but Sara. coco |
|
Cindy Claveau
Gignowanasanafonicon
Join date: 16 May 2005
Posts: 2,008
|
10-30-2008 07:01
From: Phil Deakins
Yes there is, but judging by the posts here that make out that Sarah didn't do anything wrong, even a warning wouldn't have been justified. Or are you changing your mind and she did do something wrong that merited a warning?
Whoever said Sarah did nothing wrong? Not even Sarah has gone that far - that's your own strawman invention now that you're being called out for your arrogance and you're running out of arguments. What she said isn't the issue. The issue here IS the concierge host's over-reaction - and that is why her suspension was lifted quickly. It WAS an over-reaction. But I can see you're making lots of friends in this thread. Carry on. |
|
Jerboa Haystack
TGTKFMA
Join date: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 2,283
|
10-30-2008 07:01
From: Phil Deakins I'm sorry that some people don't like my views on public profanity, but I have them, and this thread is about that subject. Hang on! %^&*% I thought this &*^*&^ thread was ^&*% about LL's %&^*% over the &^*^%( top response to Sarah's ^&*^ing &*% You LL. I'm gonna ^&*^% have to shift ^&*(^ gears here.
_____________________
From: Maureen Boccaccio Well between your fingers and that magical device, you work wonders. TOTD: "Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams
|
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 07:13
From: Cocoanut Koala Well, I think you are just wrong. Too removed from it or something, maybe. Unable for some reason, though, to see any humanity in anything at all. I'm arguing on the side of allowing for people's sensitivities. How is that not being able to see any humanity in anything at all? Other people are arguing that it's fine to offend people's sensitivities. Are you sure you don't mean them? From: Cocoanut Koala I know that individual Lindens do care about us, as individual customers. There are just far too many examples of Lindens going out of their way to help people. Of course they do. I experience that myself. But if you left SL, or I left SL, or Sarah, or any individual left SL, LL won't even think twice about it, and SL won't be the poorer for it. From: Cocoanut Koala And overall, even the remote big brass knows that individuals make up the aggregate, so they care about individuals for that reason, if nothing else. We all know that, and they do care about that - the aggregate - but no individual is important. From: Cocoanut Koala Of course individuals matter to SL, and matter to the rest of us. It's not true that just anyone can disappear and it's of no consequence to anyone else. It was of HUGE consequence to a lot of people, for example, when Starax disappeared, to name just one. Why was it of such a HUGE consequence? He left before I came, as far as I know. He left, SL continued growing and developing. LL didn't weep. From: Cocoanut Koala And the fact that some stalwart SL citizens who have been around for years are apparently leaving over this OS thing alarms me, and doubtless alarms LL as well. That may be so, but it's the plural. I'm only talking about an individual such as Sarah, myself, you, whoever. From: Cocoanut Koala On a more micro-level, the whole existance of SL revolves around who is in it. Of course it matters when someone leaves, to his/her friends. I agree with that, and I haven't said anything about it. Individuals do matter to other individuals. |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 07:14
From: Cocoanut Koala If I'm not mistaken, you haven't been arguing at ALL that a warning would have been a better reaction.
You have been arguing, basically, that she got her just desserts. And now you are changing your mind? No. You misunderstood my post. |
|
Phil Deakins
Prim Savers = low prims
Join date: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 9,537
|
10-30-2008 07:17
From: Cocoanut Koala Yes you have. You have stated unequivacally, and more than once, that what happened to Sara doesn't matter to anyone else but Sara. I may have said once, in which case, I stand corrected. Other times I've said things like, does anyone care? |