The Garlic Necklace doesn't really work.

It's actually exactly the same thing, people are once again getting upset over the storage of information they imagine to be private.

Well I suppose technically you are right but it is the fact that it is for participation in a game that is the point here.
If BL were only using name2key, then a) they would not even need their own database and b) I doubt this thread would be in existence as a separate issue.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think I understand perfectly what he wants. It's just that part of what he wants I consider unreasonable. The rest is perfectly reasonable.



Then why bother to post it in a public discussion forum if there is no intent to discuss it? Post it on a private blog somewhere and turn off comments. If you don't want to listen to or deal with dissenting points of view, that's the way to go.



I think we understand just fine. I know I do. I also happen to agree that Bloodlines needs to be "fixed". I think the disconnect is a reciprocal understanding of differing points of view which are similarly valid. I certainly have no wish to defend what I see as nothing more than an affiliate spam network operated solely for money. There's really not much of a "game" to it. However, Bloodlines isn't the only thing being attacked in this thread; third-party private databases are also being attacked, and I, for one, won't sit idly by and let it pass, because I happen to operate some of my own, and I do not agree with the assessment of harm being associated with them.

The title of this thread is "The Garlic Necklace doesn't really work". It is beyond clear that it does work as intended by its creator; it removes people from the game as participants. The semantical extension of this from a poorly-worded description of the necklace is that it do something contrary to it intended purpose, wrapped up in a desire to have total control over public information about an avatar stored in a third-party database.



Simply dismissing any and all opposition to one's point of view, whether valid or not, is the epitome of ignorance. OK, so you all are 100% right, and anyone who disagrees, in whole or in part, is 100% wrong. Yeah, I think we get that. Why, again, are you even posting this and responding in a public discussion forum again? If it is to garner support and sympathy, it isn't being met with much success with that posture.



Unreasonable expectation of control. Whatever someone stores about your av in their own private database you have no right to control. What you SHOULD have a right to control is what is done with that data where it can impact you. Simply storing the data has no impact on you. They (the Bloodlines people) give you a mechanism to control what they do with that data; specifically, they give you the ability to remove any and all effect of their product upon you. It's less than you want, but it is the minimum that they should have to do.



Well, the very minimum right now that they can get away with is to not offer an opt-out mechanism _AT ALL_. LL hasn't made any intimations they are going to go after them, so they are doing more than they have to do at the moment by providing the opt-out mechanism.



Fine by me; I certainly would agree that it would be a much better way to go. As for the "nor anything about you stored in any database", again, the unreasonable expectation arises.



2) obviates 1). If it is opt-in, then the only reason that you would have info about you stored in a database is if you "opted in" and participated. However, that still doesn't mean they are doing anything wrong by storing avatar info on non-participants in a database.



Well, in at least the part about avatar information in private databases, you all ARE "asking for the earth". You want policy to stop something which is realistically not stoppable, nor should it be.

As for the rest, what's the point in engaging in public discussion for a private, intractable point of view? You're right, it isn't rocket science, and we are just as baffled why you all "don't get it" as you are about us "not getting it". That's why you have public discussions; to sort out differences and come to understandings between people. However, taking the posture "we don't care what you think; this is what we think and it will never change" isn't very conducive to such discussions leading to such understanding, which, again, begs the question: WHY post it in such a venue in the first place?



Again, I think most of us understand quite well; the problem with understanding doesn't appear to be coming from our end. I think we've (well, at least I have) granted that you have valid disagreements with the game which need to be addressed. The disagreement comes down to semantics and principles. I think we've more than gone half-way in an attempt to understand and accept your point-of-view. I think that, for this to go any further, some reciprocal understanding needs to be accomplished.

Yes, the tell-tale sign of intractable irrationality.

Why bother to post it as a public thread, then? You all are targeting a general audience, and are going to get responses from a general audience. If you simply wanted to obtain agreement and commiserate, why not start a "Bloodlines Victims Support Group"? Then, you can get everyone who agrees with you together, and you wouldn't have to worry about all the ignorant, obtuse, and stupid people who replied to the thread.



That's fine by me; it won't have any effect on third-party databases, which has been my primary objection throughout.

I guess that is kinda the question about spam griefing: what's a targeted group? Seems to me that BL specifically targets those residents who aren't Bloodlines players. So if that's okay, one should be able to target those residents who *are* Bloodlines players, since the set is defined by the very same partition.

But I doubt the LL inaction against the Bloodlines artifacts is really because they think one way or another about this partition being "targeted." Rather, I think it's because the artifacts spread the responsibility for the spam across all the agents to whom they're attached, rather than originating solely with the creator. And that's where I think this precedent leaves LL wide open to a whole range of similar products that grief for profit, as Bloodlines does.

I do think the database thing is not the main problem, but again, it is more than just a name2key database, by a long shot. What that database records about residents is certainly not RL info, but it could diminish or destroy value of an SL account. As far as we know, it isn't being used that way currently, but it's at least interesting that they've collected all this data about how LL's customers react to harassment--harassment delivered in conjunction with the data collection process itself.

@Talarus, you started quite well by only talking about yourself, then expanded it to "we".

If you read back there are clearly some who say they do not understand what Dakota is after. My post was for them and not people such as yourself who understand but do not agree.

Dakota was posting information for those who thought the necklace did as indicated (any if you still think it does then you have not been reading closely enough), but sure you can all rehash the same arguments over and over if you want - no issue there from me but I really doubt anyone is convincing anyone of anything though.
I posted only in a last attempt to clear up the confusion for those who still claim to not understand.

Ahh the tell-tale sign of a total asshole. Projecting much?

My post above makes the *huge* leap of deduction required to suppose why Dakota might have posted the thread - why not read that if you cannot make that leap yourself.

Not quite the same thing at all. The difference is quite clear in that what you are proposing is clearly already against the ToS (targeting specific individuals in addition to spamming and harassment).



Oh, I wouldn't say that. If you create something which specifically targets a person (as you said, you'll "put their keys in it", LL will gank you quickly over it. Don't believe me? Go ahead and try it.



That Bloodlines encourages spam, yes, I agree, they should be considered under those rules. However, they don't specifically target any one person or group of people, by design, and that's where their "game" differs from your "game".

Simply put, apples and oranges.



Objections to the storage of avatar information in a third-party database have clearly been made in this thread. Even in that quoted above, you contradict yourself. The additional information they store is their own data, not yours; the only thing they store about you is the same information that name2key stores.

Why does any of their information have to be public? Why do all name2key databases have to be public to be valid, in your view? Mine isn't public, so I guess mine should also be ruled invalid and acted upon, right?

On the one hand, you are saying that they shouldn't store info about you and make it public, then on the other hand, keeping private info about you should also be disallowed? Which is it? More importantly, why do you care? The storage of information, by itself, isn't harming you or anyone else. In fact, I daresay that the whole issue with Bloodlines itself has to do with its opt-out design and spam-for-money approach, rather than how it is implemented, so why have this continuing objection to private database storage of avatar information at all?

As I said earlier in the thread, attack the real problem, and stop attacking things that are not part of the problem.

I like how you think

All you post is just a slanted opinion, nothing more.
Your words have no more or less validity than mine.
Your point of view leads you to certain conclusions that blind you to other ways of seeing the circumstances.
So does mine actually but you see the difference it I am not attempting to convince anyone of anything here.
So, how about you stop telling people what to do instead?

Thanks

Yes, well, at worst, I was following your lead, as you devolved into the "us-versus-them" camp yourself with the use of "we" and "our" throughout your post.



I also made a post that begged the understanding question as well, so I was inclusive in your (now revised) targeting criteria.



I thought it did as indicated, and have yet to see any evidence that it doesn't. Dakota's objection is based on his interpretation of what the creator wrote about it which isn't clear one way or another. Regardless, based on the design of the game, it is easy to see that it does function as intended, so the objection claiming it doesn't is spurious at best.

Only if you are looking in the mirror.

I find it particularly telling who ends up resorting to name-calling, when nothing was offered to prompt it.



I've read it and understand it just fine. Maybe you need to (re-)read and (re-)consider your own words?

Heed your own advice, and I think we will all be fine.

I mean, if you aren't attempting to convince anyone here, why continue to post more explanations and clarifications? Have your say, I'll have mine, and then we'll just move on. If you really aren't attempting to convince anyone of anything here, that is.

There was no revised criteria at all - are you smoking somthing?. My post made great pains to explain things clearly to those who claimed they didn't understand. Period.

Oh really?
Don't like it? then don't dish it but to say you didn't is rich. I responded like for like as I always do and will continue to.

I disagree, as I posted above. They specifically target those accounts that are not Bloodlines players and have not yet explicitly refused to become Bloodlines players--an ever more focused target, as the spamming spreads.

BS, everything I have posted here is as a follow on from my post and a response to other responses.
I was not attempting to get anyone to change their opinion - show me one post where I was.
Now I am just responding to you being an asshole, stop being that and I will stop responding.
You don't even realise how condescending you are being.
Like I said before, don't start it if you don't like it.

There was no such criteria at all in your post. It was a general "those who don't agree with me(us)" post. Even said so throughout, both explicitly and implicitly.



Since when did describing a point of view become calling names? You present your (and Dakota's, by using the inclusive "we/us" point of view as "this is what we think and we don't care what anyone else thinks or says", which is the very definition of both intractable (you won't change) and irrational (not willing to entertain other points of view as part of a discussion is not rational).

What part of that justifies calling anyone an "asshole"? There's no name that was called or ascribed to you personally.

I mean, if you WANT the thread to devolve into a flamewar, OK, but don't pretend like it is still worth discussion if that is the case.

Sorry but calling either my points of view or me as irrational is a personal attack and justifies you being called out as what you are for doing it. Pretending it wasn't is just being pathetic, grow a pair and stand by what you said at least.

I would think the call is yours about a flamewar considering you started with the insults. Who is pretending here? Not I?

So? That doesn't invalidate anything I said, hence:



Then WHY bother posting more to the discussion? The simple fact that you go to such great lengths to "make your point" is kinda stupid if your intent isn't to continue the discussion (better known as "get people to see the light" or "change their opinion".



..and you think you HAVEN'T been condescending by calling me an asshole??? Please....

I am actually being very nice here. I have yet to call you any names, or otherwise disparage you in any way. I have simply rebutted your arguments thus far. If you REALLY want this to devolve into a flamewar, I'm game, but don't dare to pretend that it is something I started. -.-



Uhh.. I didn't start it, but I am happy to finish it.

If you can't separate yourself from your point of view, then that's your problem. If you can't argue, learn how. I stand quite well by what I said, and what I said was that your point of view, as you presented it is intractable and irrational. If you want to take that as a personal insult, you're quite welcome to, but don't claim that it was offered as one by me.



Try re-reading your posts again, including the part about obtuse/illiterate/stupidity. How is that any better?

Next?

Ohhhh Kay, anyone who has to tell you they are being nice, is trying too hard to convince you.

No, calling you an asshole is saying what you are, don't like it? Stop acting like one.

Of course you started it - the proof is there in your post. Continually denying it is getting stupid, soon you will be denying to said anything to me at all.

I have already said what my goal in posting was - if you won't accept that - that is your problem.

Oh so you think it is just fine to say my point of view is irrational too? Ummm nope, if my point of view is irrrational then you are saying I must be irrational for having it - one follows the other - and you are still an asshole.

Is that any clearer for you?

I mean you didn't have to say your snarky, condescending comment about being irrational in the first place did you? Nothing there warranted it at all and yet you did. You reap what you sow.

Oh and I can argue and debate just fine, I just react appropriately when assholes get snarky.

To be clear, I am referring to the rules about harassment, which the Lindens have implemented against specifically targeting individuals or groups by name or person. They do provide for "general harassment of the public", but only in very measured and very extreme cases, as witnessed by their reticence to our requests to deal with adfarming and extortion for the last few years, for example.

Technically, saying they are targeting the "public at large" isn't really targeting at all. It's like an archery contest, where you get points for missing the target, rather than hitting it, so it doesn't make any sense.

Apparently you are trying too hard to convince me, then.



Anyone who doesn't agree with you is an asshole, then? Great. Well, at least anyone can know where they stand with you from now on.

If I am being an asshole, it is SOLELY in response to you calling me one. In that case, I guess it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. One that I am only too happy to fulfill, for your sake.



Of course, and continually denying the facts and making up your own is really helping your case. I think it is beyond clear where the stupidity and idiocy is coming from, and it sure doesn't look like it started in coming from my direction.



Yes, it has always been clear. "This is what I believe; everyone else can fuck off". Care to reiterate it some more for posterity?