When is a penalty not a penalty?

Two days ago, I received an email from LL telling me that I had been penalised for having bots on store sex beds in a Mature region. It said what to do if I want to appeal the suspension. So I tried logging in - and I wasn't suspended at all. The email also said that I'd been given a warning, which I assume is true, even though the suspension wasn't. So I submitted an 'appeal' ticket, asking for the decision on the bots to be reversed, and the warning to be removed.

The next day I got the reply. It said that, after checking the circumstaces, the suspension was justified. What suspension? In other words, the guy who dealt with my ticket just answered it without checking anything. He didn't even mention the 'offense'. He (or something) was on auto-pilot. So what's the point in submitting an appeal in the form of a ticket? I think I'll phone my appeal today

To be fair, though, I'd always thought that those bots were sort of greyish - I just didn't know how they would be seen. Even so, I would have thought that an IM or email would have been sufficient, especially in the particular circumstances. The bots were there for demoing animations and, when the adult policy came in, I put more clothes on them. They'd been minimally clothed prior to that - panties and bra on the females. They were not in plain sight. To get to them, you had to go through an opening, past signs that say what is beyond. As well as that, I modified the demo beds so that no animation could play for more than 30 seconds, to prevent people from using the bots for sex purposes. After 30 seconds without a change, they stand up.

Even with that lot, I still didn't know how they would be seen by LL, and I do think that it's better for customers to use the bots for seeing animations than to try them on beds out in the open for all around to see.

I'm not complaining though. Those bots are gone but, under those circumstances, I don't think that a penalty (the warning) should remain. It's no big deal for now but, if LL bring in a certified creator system, where people cannot get the certification if they have a 'record', then it could become a big deal, so I'm continuing to try and have it changed.

In another context, the answer is: when it is simulation.

Pep (Yellow card!)

I'm sure I remember Blondin (in one of those huge forum threads) specifically advising you that your bots would be OK as long as they were clothed ... or was it customers trying out the demos were ok as long as they were clothed? Are they (traffic issues aside) somehow more offensive because they are bots?

Sounds like LL are running appeal-bots. Have your bots talk to their bots.

You may just have gotten your first official slap on the wrist and the term "suspension" refers to something else than we think it does, or is part of the boilerplate they send whether you were merely warned or actually suspended.

Or you may very well have been suspended but since a first time suspension is usually on the order of 1-3 hours a lot of people don't even notice.

(If you didn't properly flag them as "scripted agents" that may have contributed as well)

Yeah, I'd be surprised if the Adult Content policy had anything to do with it. Were they flagged as scripted agents, per https://blogs.secondlife.com/community/land/blog/2009/10/21/setting-a-scripted-agent-status?

Kitty and Qie:
Yes. All the bots I use have been registered as scripted agents for a while now, and certainly long before 2 days ago.

It was certainly because of them being on sex beds in a mature region - there were, and are, two more in the store but only on a cuddle sofa - no sex anims in it. And there are 4 more on the ground below if the investigating Linden actually investigated.

Pep:
It can't be equated to that other context, because there is no appeal against a yellow card - only against a red one (I think).

Spinster:
I have a vague recollection of that and I'm sure it wasn't clothed bots that were considered to be ok. I'm sure it was clothed customers. If it were bots, I would definitely have much more than a vague recollection

Kitty:
I don't think I've ever seen a suspension of just 2 or 3 hours. The shortest I recall is 1 day.

Think of it this way.
There were avatars bonking in your non-Adult place.

Whether or not they were live typists or bots and/or scripted agents, naked or dressed, they were still performing sex acts.

That was probably the reason.

From the point of view of 'predictability', an avatar is an avatar is an avatar.

Is it possible that you were suspended from search and they just worded the email poorly?

Qie. This is the part of the email that decsribes it:-

It's just about those particular bots.

Yes, I can't disagree. As I said, I didn't know how they would be seen, but I did take some good steps because of the Adult policy, especially the 30 second rule, so I don't think I deserve a 'record' on account of them - particularly if it might make a difference to creator certification later on.

I never thought of that, but I just checked and the store is still in search.

You can appeal against a yellow on the grounds of mistaken identity.

Pep ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ4axo9rmJY )

I don't think I'd get away with that in this case lol

I say take this to Judge Judy. I would love to hear her thoughts on the subject.

From the bit you quoted it has nothing to do with the bots at all.

It's fine to have a vendor selling sex beds on a mature parcel (as long as you don't advertise that fact in search in any way).

It's not fine to have a display model rezzed. Whether it's used by bots, in whole or in part, or solely human-operated avies makes no difference.

That was clarified ages ago in the posts Blondin did right here on the forums: selling sexually tinted content on mature land is fine, advertising and display/test models are not.

That's right. I didn't have to remove them *because* they are bots. I don't think I suggested that it was an anti-bot action. I worded it badly because it's my bots that had to be removed - I think of them as bots. I wonder why the person didn't boot them out him/herself. I wonder if s/he actually went there. hmmm.

No, I just found the post on page 76 of Answers to Questions (the monster thread)...

/352/11/314444/49.html#post2381979

(yes, I have too much time on my hands )


So, are they going back on this now, or is there something intrinsically ruder about it if it's bots doing it? Have you been asked to remove the demo beds as well?

I reopened the ticket and left another message, asking that it be reconsidered. I didn't get an email yet, so I thought I'd have a look anyway. The ticket has been closed again, without comment, and with no "Reopen" button any more. So that ticket is dead. I'm gonna phone when they've had a chance to get to work over there.

You don't need bots. Just send me a landmark and I'll be there when a bloke asks "do you know anywhere - tp me".

Huh. The "advertising" part I remember well. I don't recall a "no working floor model" statement. How the heck can one sell a sex bed if the customer can't demo it????

That makes it clear that tying the animations clothed is fine. I agree with you that it doesn't make any difference if they are tried with real customers or bots, or real people models. It's still the same. I suppose LL could say that, providing demo models for it is encouraging people to hop on, which I suppose it is to some extent.

No, I wasn't asked to remove the beds themselves. I wasn't actually asked to remove the models - and I'm still curious as to why the investigating Linden didn't boot them. I'm convinced the s/he never even went there.

According to Blondin, customers can try them - right there in the open where anyone can see. What I've done for a long time is provide and out-of-sight place to try them. And, since the adult policy came along, I've even limited the trial to a maximum of 30 seconds on an animation, after which whoever is on the balls if foirced to stand - the stand position on the balls. I honestly think that that's much more preferable to customers spending as much time as they like on a sex animation in the open.

I think they are using a vigilante system.
And I also truly believe that Lindens arent always "Lindens" if you get what I mean. They can be anyone. They didnt boot them coz they werent sure if they were real avis engaged in real sex who just werent saying much. Like normal people do when they are getting it on.

It's unlikely they were engaged in anything

I'm sure it happened because I replied to a snotty post in the blog, and in kind. It was the day after that when I got the email. Perhaps the person I replied to, or someone reading it, went to the store to look, and ARed them. It's bad if the penalty was issued without checking the AR for truth, and that's exactly what I'm convinced happened - no checks, just penalise. I can't see any other reason for a Linden not to boot the models. S/he could have told them to stop and, if there was no response, boot them.

A brilliant idea - except for one thing. It's preferable if no emoting goes on, and I doubt that you could do it that way