Need help right away EMERGENCY

I don't think it is unkind to say "if someone is bugging you online, click the X". That is nothing more than straight truth. If they do not have either the self-esteem, or the balls, or toughening life experience or whatever it takes, then they should take themselves out of the situation. There is no way to make a bully all of a sudden be nice. And we all already know that you can AR until you are blue in the face and even if LL does do a temp ban, they can come right back with an alt and continue to bug you forever. So, as much as it might sound harsh, there are only a couple of choices - figure out some way to actually let it all roll off or leave. If you can figure out how to let it roll off, you win in many ways. If you leave, you lose in many ways.

This. In spades.

Part of the issue here seems to be semantic, over the use by the OP of the term "emergency." We don't know what really constitutes an emergency for him. Does it really matter? I get that people were trying to put this into "context" for the OP by suggesting that this probably wasn't really an "emergency," at all, and that one can respond to distressful situations in SL by doing what one often can't in RL: logging off. And that in itself IS a valuable and worthwhile point.

But I guess I have three points about this. The first is that a few of the posts here were accompanied by much implied eye rolling, which, given how little we do actually know about this "emergency," seemed unwarranted and, as Melita implies in her post, a bit unkind.

My second point is just to second what Treasure, Josh, and Melita say here: while the application of a bit of perspective to those who seem to be a little too immersed in SL is not a bad thing, it should be tempered too with a bit of empathy, and an acknowledgment that everyone's experience of SL is different, and not therefore necessarily "wrong."

The third point is a more practical one: not every type of griefing can adequately be answered by logging off. If, as appears to have been the case of the OP's wife, harassment is continuing in group chat, then logging off is the virtual equivalent of hiding under the sheets and hoping the problem is gone because one can't see it. Again, this is speculative, but my sense of the OP's "emergency" is that it was not a simple one-off griefer attack.


Well, yes . . . to some degree I concur. But isn't helping people deal with problems precisely what the RA forum is supposed to be about?

I don't assume anything - I just post the directions to some technical solutions they can try. If they are trolls an emotional, smart-ass and/or rude response is exactly what they are seeking. My bland response would not encourage that to go on - and if they are really serious, then I gave them a serious solution to work with.

Sounds like a reasonable response.

Me, I put on the kettle, get the gingerbread cake out of the fridge, and pull a rocking chair next to the fire. Poor dears . . .

Actually, no.
There is a term called, "verbal assault" and they can take legal action.

Not in the United States. Here we have this concept called freedom of speech.

Of course in theory anyone can file a lawsuit that wont survive a motion for summary judgment if (1) they can find an attorney stupid enough to represent them at the risk of sanctions by the court for frivolous litigation (2) have money to waste doing so to pay the attorney (I doubt they would find any attorney stupid enough to do it on contingency), and (3) money to pay for the defendants attorney if the court awards the defendant attorney fees.

Yet the emotional harm is constantly being factored into court cases?

... and wasn't the freedom of speech to protect your right to express your opinion and not to attack others verbally?

Emotional distress is only one element necessary to maintain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Among other things you need outrageous conduct for which there is a very high threshold in general and an even higher threshold when the conduct is speech as the courts will weigh the importance of freedom of speech heavily against any claim of emotional distress. Calling someone all sorts of names and telling them they are ugly and fat and all sorts of other obnoxious things will never meet that threshold. To my knowledge there is not a single case in the entire history of United States jurisprudence that has ever prevailed where the conduct was mere words, and certainly not in my state.
No, and in addition you cannot have the former without allowing the latter. Saying disparaging things about another person is often an expression of opinion.

Some states have criminal laws in respect to cyber bullying now so before trolling all the trolls need to check up with their defense attorneys to make sure they will not be sent to prison. Because when some geek gets sent to a prison and asked why he is there by the serious inmates and the geek claims to be a cyber bully then the ensuing activities will not turn out well for the geek.

Also if you live in the same state as your victim there are numerous charges that can be filed. When the matter crosses state lines the extradition factors come into play weakening the law and strengthening the criminals.

A strange country you are in where such uncouth behaviour could be tolerated especially in the example where it is a public place and witnesses to the verbal attack could be found.

Soon you'll be arrested for looking at somebody in a funny way.....

Over here in the UK we have various relatively low-level criminal offences -- harassment, putting a person in fear of violence, and using threatening words or behaviour are three that spring to mind -- that someone standing in the street hurling abuse at someone else might be committing. And there's the good old catch-all (almost literally) "conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace".

Do you really have no similar public order offences in the US?

Or wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area.

Or stepping on the cracks in the pavement, or being in possession of an offensive wife.

Rock

If you don't protect all speech, you will soon have no freedom of speech.
And "you are an (insert what ever insult you wish)" is a valid opinion.

Threats and insults are two different things. "I am gonna beat you to a pulp" is assault or terroristic threatening and you can be arrested for it. "You are an ignorant ass." is something to be ignored.

Everyone doesn't have/include kindness as part of their character/nature. They just aren't kind. They just aren't, and that's the way it is. They truly will never, ever see it your way because they are unable to. Sometimes you just have to stop expecting kindness, when you see without a doubt it is not forthcoming, and move on. I can even forgive that, because it's really not not in them. You can't make people be what they simply are not. You just move past it and go on with your life.

Not only that, but in SL it's almost all gas. I can say "I am gonna beat you to a pulp", but how can I do so? Answer: I can't. Therefore, what would be a threat in Real Life is quite ignore-able here.

Although, to get back to the OP, he did say the problem was related to group chat. If his wife was being defamed or slandered publicly, I can certainly see where he would want to do something about it right away.

The answer: Find and contact the group owner. Call their attention to the behavior of the griefer and request that they be removed from the group.

If you are in public and loud enough you can be arrested for 'Disturbing the Peace'.

Sure, and that's why we in the UK, at least, have a variety of different offences (the low-level ones are listed at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/public_order_offences/#Table_1 if anyone's interested). What, if any, offence has been committed in a particular set of circumstances is for a court to decide. I can't see how "You are an ignorant ass" could, on its own, constitute an offence, either, though it might well be disorderly behaviour if you followed the guy down the road, repeatedly shouting insults at him or if you were just approaching passers by in the street and hurling abuse at them.

This may (sadly) be true. On the other hand, there is a reasonably good substitute in "civility," which depends less upon one's nature than upon one's adherence to social conventions. Mostly, we do "civility" pretty well here.

Oh STFU Scylla!

... just joshin'

You need to explain the nature of this "attack". If something is really upsetting then AR and send the offending chat logs and then leave the group - at least as a temporary measure.

Also IM the Group owner/s and report the harrassment to them.

I would think that standing in a parking lot and insulting people in an unprovoked manner could fall under that.

Then there is as mentioned, disorderly conduct, which may be more applicable.