The Garlic Necklace doesn't really work.

LOL, I know Yumi. I'm pointing out that SL works the way SL works because that's the way LL wants SL to work. Marketing, policy, and all. I am, in fact, capable of discerning the difference between the two.



Only if you've completely lost touch with reality (and somehow can't differentiate between RL and SL anymore).

1. Sorry, no. Your analogy still does not have any resemblance at all to the situation and you STILL sound like the typical, sue happy person.

2. You have to put up with it in many systems in day to day life: The difference is that said systems are tied to and created by people who can easily be brought into the open and held legally accountable ... and many of them are not. Again: Deal with it.

3. Ahem: The creator's attitude is irrelevant - if you feel it violates the ToS, the proper person or entity to address the complaint to is Linden Lab; not the end users.

But that's like saying I have no right to ask LL to deal with a griefer who uses scripts, because the scripts use LSL which was created by LL and is integral to the game, therefore the griefing behavior is tacitly permitted by LL, and if I don't like all the flying penii, my only recourse is to delete my account. I don't believe it's the only recourse.

Enough people complaining convinced LL to change their policy on annoying ad farms, which a while ago were simply allowed. Now they are not. As customers, we're certainly allowed to attempt to force corporations to do what we wish.

Your information - even real life information - is proven to exist in many databases, some without your consent, many do not NEED your consent (US example: any federal program or Agency, FBI included).

Bloodlines .... is trivial compared to this.

****SCREAM**** CRAP. How long ago did you do it? Activated the necklace? Before you were asked again for a bite?

And there's no evidence that BL is part of how LL wants SL to work. (And don't argue that "they haven't stopped it, and it's not against TOS"; the same applied to sexual ageplay for several years.)



Nope. The point of the example is that "opting out" isn't really "opting out" if it has too heavy a cost. Obviously, giving up your RL is way too much cost for anything. Giving up SL is a much lower cost but may still be too much for some, and is pretty unreasonable.

You are right, you don't have any "right" at all. You can put pressure on the company, or appeal to their own policies, and *ask* them to enforce them. And they will, to keep your goodwill, most of the time.

And my whole point is that if BL is doing something wrong, it's LL who needs to deal with them. You can put pressure on LL to do that, sure. Do that. Great! But it already seems quite clear that BL isn't on LL's radar (while ad-farmers were - the bottom line and all that).

I can live with that.




I am dealing with it. This is my coping mechanism.



Well, then I guess I'll just have to accept the fact that I'm addressing the complaint to the improper people - while I continue to do so.

Those are databases which have been deemed by the government to need our data.

Other databases may be for shops or places that we've visited or simliar.

None of them are equivalent to the bunch of weird goths in the corner at the bar, who you don't particularly want to talk to, tracking your personal data because they argue they need it to continue being weird goths.

SL (unlike RL) is a service, provided by a private corporation. If you don't like how the service is run, then don't use it. If you find yourself unable to do that one simple thing because you're too emotionally invested, that's your problem. Not LL, not BL.

Deemed by the government or not ... sorry, they do not NEED your information Yumi.

The point being that such things exist and that they are, in fact, the same as this SL example.

Yah, but I don't think you'll win this one. There's been too many situations where corporations responded to remove requests by putting a user in a negative database, and got away with it. I went over this one with United Airlines back in the early '90s, because they claimed they couldn't stop spamming me unless they put me in a "Safe Harbour" database.

Again, you conflate BL with SL. It's ridiculous to argue that every single thing that happens in SL occurs with LL's implicit approval and thus is a part of their service. That would mean LL approved of griefing, sexual ageplay, gambling, harassment, social exclusion, dodgy land deals, freebie resale, and everything else. As it is, we have no idea what they might approve of.

If LL were putting BL in the Showcase or integrating it with the client then I would understand your argument. Otherwise, I don't.

Well, it's definitely a long shot. But remember, the rules are different in SL. Banks and casinos are legal in many places, but LL disallows them. Prostitution is illegal almost everywhere, but LL allows it in SL. So there's at least a small chance. Enough of a chance to try, I say!

I agree. Which is why I haven't argued that. My observation is that if someone has a problem with BL, they need to take it up with LL. I've stated why a dozen times already.

And if LL doesn't do anything about it, they have no other recourse (other than complaining tirelessly as Dakota points out) but to cancel their account. You might not like it, but it's fact.

I'm not saying I think this is a particularly good state of affairs, you know.

Except for one thing - if they don't, and it _is_ against TOS, that can lead to a later defence of selective enforcement.

What?

Anyway, it was fun doing the devils advocate role here. Now my RP required bloodlines, but not as intended.

Good luck to all you anti-bl campaigners!

Know that there's another vampire system just getting started which is even more stealthy about putting you in their database.

If LL act against you under their own TOS, even if they throw you out, you can sue them to get back in (Bragg in fact did so).

If LL enforces the TOS against some people and not others this may affect people's ability to do this. You aren't supposed to use a contract that way.



Perhaps LSL needs a tainting mechanism.

I still don't follow. Are you saying that someone was thrown out of LL though they didn't violate the TOS, and so they successfully sued to get back in?

Does it reward people for spamming?

As I understand it, it's quite the opposite. When you are bitten, you never know.

I think the point you're missing is that, if they COMPLETELY remove you from their database wholesale, then you'd be "fair game" again to get tons of bite requests, and thus, would mean that you would be "back in the game" again. By the design of the game, there is no way to completely remove you from the game, and make it to where you cannot be bothered by anyone else playing the game again in the future.

I also think you're going off on something which really is tangential to the issue, in that making a game that requires people to spam other disinterested third parties to play should be addressed by the Lindens as a violation of the ToS regarding harassment.



Beyond the odiousness of the game's design itself, the wording of the function of the garlic necklace is misleading. It should say "wearing this removes you from the game; in order to do this, we have to record your preference in our database and, once done, you will no longer be displayed on our site as a participant, nor will you get bite requests". It is really a distracting semantics issue.

Even still, the REAL issue is that it relies on spamming other people to involve them in a game they don't really want to be involved in. I would suggest not attacking them from the angle you started in this thread, because it is a valid way to do opt-out. Instead, continue to attack them from the correct angle that having to "opt-out" at all should be made against the rules by Linden Lab.

As for me, I've never received a bite request, so I don't care about it on a personal level, however, I have my own response to it: If someone requests "I am a vampire, and I want to bite you and suck your blood. Allow me? Accept/Decline", I request "You've annoyed a very large and very cranky Ancient Dragon who is now going to eat you for being a waste of oxygen. Accept/Decline". The nice thing about being me is that consuming a sentient is total, including their SOUL!

Just for that, I'm going to replace your socks with Folgers Crystals.

Any excuse to steal socks...

it is interesting though. This other system will not spam people, but will probably result in even more people in their database. I wonder if people are more annoyed by the spam or the database?

hmmm, been a while since I wore any, did you take stockings at all?