Quantum Core Enemies list

[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 **** Listing Foes ****
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxx - ffaec767-7c87-4ff2-b985-d1d51f8a882b
[1:40] Quantum Core - v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxxx - a33ffbac-b47b-4a79-b6ee-74c810861c60
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxxx - 221b6466-4a8d-4212-b8b3-5f6ea879448c
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxxx - 06575d09-bde6-4d44-9a64-703fb3dbf6a1
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxxx Oh - 5e0d208f-a8a8-4c01-8f36-ccf4a1ebff49
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxxx - 20c5cf82-ca1b-4fb2-ab3e-8db3368a7dbd
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 xxxx xxxx - 145b5e86-fcb2-4351-877a-0dfe65e80518
[1:40] Quantum Core v3.00.03.00.31 **** End of Foe List ****

The names have been deleted to conform with the forum rules.

Now the question.

The maker of the Quantum Core is distributing this list with her weapon. When one of these people are in range of the qc, (in the same sim, it doesn't use sensors) it asks the owner if they want to attack.

I've been attacked this way by people i have never met twice in the last 24 hours.

Who does one abuse report? The owner, the maker, or both?

Feel free to comment on the ethics of the distribution of lists of people to attack on sight.

Whisper.

Hmm, this reminds me of the 'blacklists' back in the days of Yahoo! booting. People made these little booting programs to kick people out of chat and off of messenger. They would have lists of people classified as 'lamers' that were to be booted. dum da dumb Dumb DUMB!
lol I would report the maker first (if at all). I would be more inclined to abuse report if my name were actually part of the script/enemy list as that is harassment and encourages strangers to do griefing for the creator.

We have a similar thing on Liome, except if you are on the list, we send rabid crabs after you.

AR the maker of the list. And find other sims to hang out in.

This reminds me of someone with a banned listing and is causing all sorts of issues with people. Oh well what else is new

I wonder if anybody has ever tried abuse reporting General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. They've made some really dreadful griefer weapons.

and you thought Plastic Duck was bad!:

General Dynamics does not give away a list of people to attack on sight. Poor analogy.

There's a whole crazy backstory in Scripting Tips, at /54/11/224637/1.html, if one is eager to see tempestuous little teapots, short and stout.

If I were one of the people on that list, I'd AR it for harrassment. even if I agreed to let a friend use one of those on me, I certainly didn't agree to have some random stranger shooting me with it, nor to have my name given out to random strangers. very childish.

EDIT FOR CLARITY:
I'm not talking about the post... have fun Whispering =)

Uhm, I own a Quantum Core, and I've never seen a list of foes being distributed with it.

The core comes with one name added to the foes list but that's because said person got the creator banned from SLX to help promote his own product, and the name will only show up when you first use the core.

actually the jury is still out on whether UUID's fall under the realm of the naming names ban, it's never been acted on yet by Strife so it's not officially banned I don't think.

The hitlists in such products usually come blank, and allow those who bought it to fill it, and carry the personal risk of having the persons on the list in radar range attacked by..whatever.

I find it's abuse of power that the creator of the product in question forces her list of people she dislikes onto her customers, opening up the possibility of them attacking people they've never met without wanting to, and in turn subjecting -those customers- to the receiving end of ARs.

As it stands, if one of the persons on the list goes shopping, and a person with the product (which is very popular by now) is in the same store and rez is enabled, they'll find themselves getting orbitted. Store owner will toss product owner out, and the shopping spree of the other is ruined.

My 2 cents.

I'm generally biased against these products in general as I think that the weapons market in SL is ridiculous and can't understand the enjoyment of going to a combat area and using some over-powered instant kill weapon that requires no skill.

But this is a gross case of harassment/abusive behaviour. They have every right to not like you, and are free to ban you from any land they own or avoid meeting you, but to encourage people to grief you is a horrible thing. Personally I think that product(s) should all be pulled and the creator forced to repay customers or lose land etc. to pay for it.

I have various people I dislike, but aside from adding them to my ban-list I would not do anything else to them unless they warrant an abuse report or something.

Most "respectable" (ie those with a brain) builders who's items can have an "enemy list" tend toput the names of thier alts on the list. This is mainly for testing purposes, and to add a little humour into the notecards with things like "Please don't do XXXX to YYYY. He's been YYYY'ed extensively during testing." or somesuch.

I personally find a list of random Residents (or even Residents with whom the creator has a problem with) being in the item extremely tacky.

However, I'm unsure of any AR offense within the realm of LL's reality. The list isn't public, it's only sold to those who buy it. The owner can (and should) modify that list after reading the documentation (just most are too lazy).

So, as much as I think a creator who puts Residents names (other than their own and alts) into such a device is an utter a$$, I would say that the only people that could be ARed for misuse of the product would be the owner. At least within the terms of ToS/CS and with examination of LL's past judgements.

~Jessy

It's a non issue...( Follow the Link )

http://www.quantumproducts.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=928#928


On a personal note:

Mr Hush abused everyone in my customer support group in-world yesterday. Several people sent me a chat log, and I can say I have never seen so many C and F words used in one sentance or so frequently. My understanding is that everyone who was abused by Mr Hush in that conversation has filed an Abuse Report. Which is the likley reason Mr Hush has moved this rubbish to the forums. [shakes head]

Several people in the group conversation said they had Mr Hush in their foe list by choice. I suspect his recent behaviour will insure he remains on their lists for a long time to come. I am not suprized Mr Hush has been attacked. However I seriously doubt it was motivated by anything other than Mr Hush upsetting people.

I myself have had to endure hours of Mr Hush's threats tonight, which included declairing it open season on the sims where I have land, my support forums, and he seems to think he can turn up on my doorstep in real life too.


Darling.

I disagree, I think it's a great analogy. Only in this case you would AR the user and not the creator.

I wish they did. Wouldn't that be great? In fact, in RL, I'm going to compile a list of people I would like my clients to attack on sight. I think I'll send it out with the Christmas cards I haven't gotten around to sending yet.

Plus, it's a good analogy. General Dynamics makes the weapons, but they really aren't to blame for however the end user uses the weapon. Even if it did distribute a list of people that it would like to see attacked, the governments which purchased the weapon would be responsible if they inititated the attack. IOW, General Dynamics is not responsible for US, Canadian, Australian, British, Israeli, etc...foriegn policy, and those countries have no obligation to General Dynamics other than to pay their bills on time.

I think in all cases that you should AR the user. Not reading the manual and fine print is no excuse, if you have it active on non-damage land or have no consent to use it against another. Most gadgets of this nature have off command/switches for this reason.. and if it doesn't then you could AR the creator too.

Frankly, I don't care what kind of grievances one might have against a person, it's never a good idea to resolve them with weapons. Well, unless you want to set the land to damage, which then is fine as far as LL is concerned. It's a really bad idea for business owners to resolve issues this way.. we have land tools that handle this quite well. They are called "Freeze," "Eject," and "Eject/Ban."

I'm not familiar with the Quantum Core device, and not exactly sure how its used.

From what I'm reading, however - it appears to be primarily a device used to grief others. Is that correct? According to SL Exchange, it includes these features:

* Ability to anonymously mess up your enemies so badly they have to log out.
* Ability to Banish(tm) your enemies from a region for as long as you like, without them knowing who did it.
* Anonymous Orbits that work over no-push land, even when the target is sitting.
* Traps and cages that hold your enemies.
* Comical attacks to frustrate your enemies while you laugh at them!
* Bugging device to listen to other people's conversations remotly.
* Movement locks with auto punishment to send people flying who dare to walk into you.

Each of these features appears to be a TOS/CS Violation, with no otherwise legitimate use. One could argue that creating a device like this is at best, irresponsible. It is impossible for any consumer to make use of *any* of the above features without simultaneously violating the TOS/CS.

However, the way the rules work - it is typically the owner of the device, not the creator who is held responsible for how the device its used. Just like a Sim Nuke - its 'legal' to create one, just not legal to use one.

Philosophically, I'm not sure how much sense this policy makes, but for the time being at least, Darling appears to be working within the letter of the TOS/CS (albeit violating the spirit of it). In RL, encouraging someone to break the law is a crime. I'm curious why it isn't in SL too.

Well said (as always) Travis.

/me expects we'll start hearing about creators rights next...

Except for obvious things like crashing a region, no weapon is a TOS violation if you have the consent of the person being attacked.

No creator is in breach of the TOS if their weapon only attacks when instructed to by it's owner. The Quantum Core does NOT support auto attacks. At no time will it ever launch an attack without being told to by it's owner.

These are all old issues that have been discussed to death. Yet every time a new weapon comes out, so do all the old arguments. Last year it was Ownage, before that it was Force Prophecies, or psiTec, or the gun that shoots the black cage that drags people into the sky.

The Quantum Core is a tool. It has some dam good defences, and some equelly good attacks. It also has a large number of usefull tools that are not combat related at all. The last time I counted there were 112 seperate functions included in this tool.

Darling.

Oh dear,



This sounds very much like the ridiculous cry of "guns don't kill people, people do!" As any thinking person knows - and as the eloquent Eddie Izzard once said, "I think the gun helps, though - don't you?"

DG

So do baseball bats, knives, shovels, axes, chainsaws, ice picks, poison, nuclear bombs, and the occasional weed whacker. "Oh Dear"? Can you please try to be a little more patronizing? I was only responding to an analogy made in an earlier thread, but this wasn't quite condescending enough to be truly offensive until you got to the "thinking person" part.

I suppose if one were a thinking person, it might occur to one that the proper use of a tool is entrusted to its owner, not to the manufacturer of the tool. I assume that if you smashed your thumb with a hammer, you wouldn't sue the Stanley corporation, or whomever made the hammer, nor would it occur to you to hold the Home Depot responsible for selling you a dangerous tool like a hammer constructed out of steel instead of a safer alternative, like Nerf. However, if you were to misuse a gun, either for an illegal purpose, or just out of negligence, somehow the manufacturer is to blame and not you.

Frankly, as a life-long, responsible gun owner, I favor controls designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and to ensure their proper use in the hands of legal owners. As I pointed out earlier, I was just responding to an earlier post made about the analogy that General Dynamics is not responsible for the use of its product in the degree that the nations which purchase those products are. BTW, I never made any argument that guns don't kill people. Not even close. Of course guns kill people. Of course, unless someone actually wields the gun, all it does on its own is sit there and collect dust.

For those of you opposed to the war in Iraq - do you blame the Bush Administration and the US Congress to a greater degree than General Dynamics? I know I do, but don't use me as a judge - I'm unable to think properly.

As far as I can tell, the real issue here is two fold:

1)There is a device out there that is being sold with a "default enemy list" to the public.
2)The device is designed and is capable of attacking a target while masking the attacker's identity to prevent retaliation or, potentially, report of abuse.

The first item is definitely a social violation: The concept of sending a public army of anonymous, random faces after specific target may not be stated in the TOS word for word, but i'm pretty sure that Linden Lab would look into taking action if this issue is reported. Its one of those "dead obvious" cases where someone is crossing a line.

The second item may sound less serious, but its enough to raise some eyebrows, and probably enough for LindenLab to take action as well: Here we're talking about a device that allows you to grief anonymously.

If you were out for combat, you wouldn't really care about being identified since its all a game. But once you don't want people to find out who made the shot, you're out there with that weapon for an entirely different reason. Again, this may not be a ToS violation per se, but dont be surprised if the creator gets a visit from a Linden.

Agreed. But you've specifically listed features that perform those functions *anonymously* or *without them knowing you did it*. By design, these functions aren't for use with consent. Of course, the owner has to pull the triger, so it is arguable whether you're responsible from a TOS/CS perspective as the creator.

*Arguable* is the operative word, however..... note the word 'creating' in the quote below:



At the end of the day, the interpretation rests with Linden - which, much to the frustration of folks on both sides of the fence, doesn't always come quickly or consistently.