Clubwatch

Thats the Hippie Dippie Tao management style for ya.

AKA Kangaroo Court? Better go find yourself a Philadelphia Lawyer.

Oh wow ..

Baby - Check

Bathwater - Check

104th storey window - Check.

Id rather there was NO way to handle griefers than to place the fate of Residents in the hands of Other Residents.



------

The only griefing we really need "Protected" from is grid attacks.


Everything else is actually managable.

I agree. Operational Stability and Security is Linden's main concern. I can protect myself from, Crooks, Cretins and Social Engineers, including any Wannabe "Police" or "Court".

This is going to be lovely.

Going to be really impressive when the first person gets stuck on the universal ban list becuase she cheated on her SL boyfriend and he was a vindictive SOB with a good imagination.

I don't think the intention was to actually bar anyone from certain clubs unless they actually cause trouble there but for business owners to be alerted when persons who have caused trouble elsewhere enter their premises so that they can keep an eye and ensure there is no trouble - so if business owners put people they have a grudge against on the list, it doesn't stop the person on the list from getting in anywhere.

Schemes like this are very common in the UK and exist in a lot of urban areas. Pub and shop owners all have a radio they can communicate over about suspicious activity to be watched out for. In Southampton there is a 'Pubwatch' scheme where if somebody is barred from one pub in the city, they're barred from all of them. Unfortunately this is not perfect either, one pub landlord I know has barred loads of people in an attempt to make his pub more upmarket but on the whole, I think these schemes are a good idea and protect the innocent majority who just want a safe night out from those who seek to undermine them.

We all know griefers exist and are a problem. Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with banning persons from my premises if they are causing abusive behaviour of any kind, be it attempting to crash the sim, verbal abuse, weapons or nudity in an inappropriate place. After all, I own the land and I can do what I want with it within the rules obviously.

Personally, I'd operate a more liberal policy with warning somebody first and only barring them if they reoffend. I think any Clubwatch scheme should do the same - 1st offence = warning, 2nd offence = 1 day ban from all participating premises, 3rd offence = 1 week ban and final warning, 4th offence = permanent ban or something along those lines.

This is a valid concern.

The only way of offsetting this problem with any sort of banlist (short of not having one at all), is to make sure the accused person has equal time to voice their side of what happened.

I would strongly suggest that anyone considering ban sharing keeps that in mind: if simply for the sake of the integrity of your ban information. There are always two sides to a story, and without hearing both you run a greater risk of making an error.

Additionally, its nearly impossible to make a 'universal' ban list work. Rules & expectations differ across the grid: What makes logical sense to ban someome from Gor may make zero sense from Luskwood, and so on.

Communities that share a similar set of rules can indeed benefit from exchanging bans with one another, providing they give the accused an opportunity to voice their perspective as well. However, the only kind of viable *universal* banlist is the one ran & maintained by Linden.



Gomez - BanLink doesn't work that way exactly. Admittedly, the description & documentation that is on the front page is scant.

In a nutshell, each landowner maintains their own *independant* banlist, that they have full control over. Optionally, each landowner has the choice to honor bans from other landowners individually, and make changes to those trusts at any time. By default, you honor bans from no one but yourself.

Bans do indeed take effect automatically that originate from other locations you've chosen to 'trust' - but it is your choice which locations those are. Additionally, its possible to override bans individually, if you wanted to honor all bans from Location X save for a select few.

Folks who are banned by locations that subscribe to BanLink have a central place to go to dispute what happened, and log their side of what happened for all involved to see. While resolution of the dispute is between the banned individual & the landowner, these detials are very helpful in deciding which locations are worthy of honoring bans from, especially if they go unresolved.

The intention behind BanLink is to offer some semblance of accountability in a virtual world with a lot of anonymity. That accountability isn't just for greifers - its also to hold landowners accountable for the ban decisions they make. If they make poor ones, they'll quickly find few willing to trust them.

I am a avid club goer. I consider myself a good Sl citizen and am respectful of others, their rights and property. Even when I disagree with them. Here are some of the reasons I have been banned from clubs:

1. I asked about a missing Xploder payout (nicely).
2. I was not activily playing a game.
3. I was causing too much lag. (I had no bling or scripts)
4. I was an Xploder hunter. (the owner had an online Xploder, what did he expect?)
5. I won too much.
6. I did not answer an IM from the manager, right away.
7. I was sitting some place the manager didn't like.

There are some owners out there who ban first and think later.
There are also some power abusing managers, who don't realize the damage they
are doing to the club's reputation.

When I am treated with disrespect, I simply leave and don't come back and I tell all my friends. I don't worry about clubs that treat their customers this way. They usually don't last very long.

I am sympathetic to the owner's problems. There are a lot of trouble makers out there, but a least in SL they can't easly wreak the place. There aren't a lot of bar fights in SL.

If I were a club owner I would not subscribe to any type of shared ban list. It's just too risky to the clubs reputation.

It may not be the intent of a plan like this but it will get abused..just as the object that steals money get on your friends list and get the news out cry..People were using that to hurt others that were innocent..

No research was done to see if there were actual objects doing it at the time..Just rumors and peoples names with the follow up of ban and report them..People had even made threads in here that were victims of rumors like that and had thier avatars banned from all over..

We used to have a system like this with the top clubs in sl and people were being added to the list for personel reasons..Not only griefers..When the system was in place the griefer count seemed to go up for some strange reason

If there was actuall evidence that had to be shown instead of taking someones word for it the system would work but if not it's just one player handing names to others..

Right now at the club i work at i made someone mad because we didn't agree on something he takes it to another level and comes in spouting about me and others being males instead of females trying to hurt our sl jobs..He was banned not only for that but a few other reasons..
For me to start iming other clubs because i felt i was being griefed along with other dancers is still not right because it was an isolated thing,But who is to say the next dancer /manager/owner doesn't get on there doing what they can to make sure this person is gonna pay for trashing them infront of people in thier own club or whatever reason it may be..

If you want a system like this you have to make it rumor proof or it will be abused and used to hurt anyone they see fit..

screen shots and logs and whatever can be gotten at the time and not just from one source..
if it's not fool/full proof people will get hurt by it and use it as a personel tool..

I have to admit Travis without you and some of your civic minded helpers at ban link - it would be a lot scarier than it is.

At least you all are responsible.

I still dont like the idea of these Lists at all.

But it doesnt mean I dont appreciate you all in your efforts to be fair.

I'd also add the need for Linden Owned Land to be better "policed". Not by a police force, but by LL maintaining all the land that they claim ownership to. Either maintain it, or sell it to someone who will.

As for the concerns of any "blacklist"...no, I don't have any. Why? Because I don't grief. *shrugs* It's that simple.

People can talk smack on me all they want. anyone that bans me because of believing what another has said without proof, is a place I wouldn't want to go anyway. Anyone listening to "rumors" alone, is just being foolish. Esspecially those that run a buisness. Buisness owners are not going to ban just because so-and-so said so. Why? Because that's a slot in their ban list that could be used for a real greifer.

So even if people "abuse" the system, it doesn't matter. BanLink has proven adequately fair, and works for those that use it. This shows that such systems can be used responibly and that they do indeed work.

Hearing of someone "wrongly banned" is something I just don't hear about. (Well, I do since I run security for places, but I back up bans with proof provided to the landowner. That's more of whining than complaining about injustice.) Usually the only people that whine about a ban are those that deserved it in the first place.

Blacklists don't need a group, or system though. They happen every day through normal IM channels and chat. Friends talk to friends whom talk to friends. At least with the group and a set system, there is some little bit of controll. Some more than others. As in all things.

Now that I'm done talking in circles *snickers* (Sorry about that).
I just don't see bans as a big deal. It's not like anyone who knows me is gonna ban me. If I find myself banned, I might ask why, but more likely I'll just shrug and go elsewhere. SL is WAY to big to worry about 1 or 2, or 500 people banning me.

~Jessy

Ummm...there's no need for any safeguards, since anyone has the right to ban anyone from their own land for whatever reason. If I don't like your hat, I can ban you. Having reached the decision to ban someone is reason enough for that person to be banned.

Who does a landowner need to convince, other than themselves?

Of course.

Everyone who gets accused of griefing must be guilty.

Simple? yes.

Just? No.

Surely.

And then you can go and tell 100 other club owners how bad I am. And they will ban me.

And my name will end up on a list of unredeemable people somewhere.

And those who are members of the list will ban me.


Being banned for no reason from 1 parcel is just property rights. When its 1000 its injustice.

It's upto those club owners to decide. I for one reckon suspiscion of being a griefer to be reason enough to ban someone from my land. Go to a different club. Club owners a well within their rights to share information - it's then upto the people they tell whether or not to ban you, not the original club owner. Being on the list, in this case (from what the OP says) will not necessarily get you banned from all member establishments - it just warns them to keep an eye on you.

Plus, injustice is when someone's actions unfairly restrict your natural rights. Being able to go into a club is not a right, it's a priviledge.

What if you arent a griefer?

But you end up being called one. Manufacturing "proof" is laughably easy in SL.

Club after club bans you.

Expand that past clubs - the wave of the future according to Dan L (and Phil) is Published Ban lists.


Heck your willing to ban someone who is just SUSPECTED of being a griefer. Im sure theres a ton of people who feel the same way.

-----------------

Person A breaks up with Person B

Person B gets mad and reports Person A everywhere he can as a griefer.

Person A's SL is a branded griefer and unwelcome in big chunks of SL.

Then it's tough luck. We're not talking about ARing people and getting them banned from SL, we're talking about private land - proof is unnecessary since the owner of the land is witness, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The notion that a landowner would need proof is laughable, since, as pointed out, they only need to convince themselves in order to ban you.

Yes I would be willing to ban someone I suspected of griefing. I would also be willing to ban someone who I thought has an ugly skin or I didn't like their name. That's what private land is all about.

You're absolutely right when you're talking about *your own land*.

However, it starts to get complicated when you're talking about *sharing* bans, in any capacity. New responsibilities emerge there.

Lemme give you an example. Say you saw this posted to a ban-sharing forum:

*********************
Travis Lambert: Joe Avatar disrupted my event and is banned
*********************

If that's the only context you saw - and the ban originated from someone you kinda-knew, you'd honor it, right?

But check things out when they're put in context:

*********************
Travis Lambert: Joe Avatar disrupted my event and is banned
Joe Avatar: Travis has a personal issue with me because I'm dating his x-girlfriend. I never disrupted any event.
*********************

Now, seeing that, would you still honor it? I certainly wouldn't.

In cases where you're *communicating* a ban to others... whether its via an automated system, a forum, or Group IM - without the full context, its difficult for those listening to it to make an informed decision on whether to honor it or not.

If the accused person has no *opportunity* to offer their side of the story, the ban sharing really starts to run the risk of becoming grossly unfair, and in the end: not useful to anyone.

Safeguards not only protect folks from having a ban shared unfairly - they also help protect you from honoring bans that were unfair in the first place. Think of it this way: If you're running a buisness, honoring unfair bans can negatively affect your bottom line.

Travis, that still does not make any case for the need for formal safeguards. Those who participate in this scheme do not have to ban someone just because someone else did. This, as people have repeatedly pointed out, is not a ban list but an information sharing medium. It is then upto the individual club owner whether to ban someone who appears on this list - they are not automatically banned.

Exactly.

It not about banlists, blacklists etc, but if an AV has been to another club causing problems and you know in advance whet the issue is and what he/she did - then they turn up at your club, it's easier to keep an eye on them - they dont do anything wrong? No problem, they are welcome as a guest - but if several club owners report XXX has caged everyone in this club, watch out - and the AV turns up, you can be ready to deal with the situation and minimise disruption.

Just to reiterate - this is NOT a blacklist - it's a way for club owners to communicate about potential problems, and for the individual club owners to make thier own call on how they use it.

Gomez

I guess we've got to agree to disagree on this one

I'm completely with you that no one has the right to dictate to you who you can/can't ban on your own land, or why, under any circumstances.

I'm just suggesting that an IM Group isn't the best way to share this kind of stuff, because it leaves no opportunities for the accused to weigh in. There are lots of groups out there that share bans like this over IM; this is by no means anything new.

I just think there are better ways of *sharing* that allow landowners like yourself to make more informed decisions about deciding to honor bans issued by someone else. Of course - even when armed with more information, the final decision of whether to apply it to your own land should be yours.

Again, this is where we disagree Travis. If you get banned from somewhere, all you need do is IM the owner and say "Why am i banned, I've done nothing wrong." That's where everyone has the opportunity to make their case. Sure, the owner may ignore you - but most will listen; afterall, how many griefers actually dispute a ban? It probably happens once in a blue moon. Again, no need for a formal proceedure.

Fair enough.

Although - just speaking from a BanLink perspective, you'd be amazed how many griefers indeed dispute their bans.

Thing is, the majority of the time, the wording of their dispute just cements the original ban reason as being valid.

Such as:

************
Travis Lambert: Joe Avatar disrupted my event
Response from Joe Avatar: aLL fURRIES mUST dIE! lOLOLOL111
************


Just sayin'

Lol I wouldn't really call that a dispute as such.