Abuse and Misuse of IMs for group messages and event SPAM

I am and have been a member of various groups that I've done work for and rented shops from. And when at first when my concentration was disturbed by, to me irrelevant chatter, on the screen I found it distracting - ok even annoying. The most chatty group I was ever in weren't even speaking the one language I comprehend. But then I guess I learned to ignore better and it stopped bothering me. I think we all sympathize to some extent with that part of Katya's story.

I love learning new words. And as long as I've been learning them every so often it still happens that I ask someone what a word means and it turns out to be such a common word that everyone in earshot gapes, incredulous that I don't know. And then after that I hear it 7 times in the next 3 days in 7 different places.

I want some crazy pills too! Quit holding out! ^_^

I can agree that using groups for spamming, and thoughtless bannings, are both bad for business.

I also agree that it's good for Linden Labs's business if the businesses using its platform are good businesses.

Linden Labs can go one of two ways with this problem. It can micro-manage the businesses using its platform, which would be considerable time and expense to Linden Labs.

Or, Linden Labs can let the free market run its course- bad businesses wither, good businesses prosper. Without extra work on Linden Labs's part, Linden Labs can let the free market solve the problem.

And indeed, many commercially-themed groups promise- and deliver- groups with minimal spam.

The spammer and banner didn't defraud anyone, steal anything, engage in an anti-competitive practice, or do anything illegal. What the spammer and banner did was conduct bad business. This is the kind of bad business that traditionally the marketplace, rather than rules or regulations, resolves.

There ya go.

No, better make that just one cheer -- more than 1 and I'd have to accuse myself of spamming...

Letting the bad operators die naturally is the most practical solution, I agree. I'll simply add that solid, honest, unfettered "Consumer Reports"-type info services can usefully speed such deaths up considerably, in any community, real or (as some insist) unreal like 2L.

Similarly, independent citizen info resources may well lead to discussion sites for 2L citizens where the debate about individual sim operator "rights" versus the alleged "rights" of the people they invite to visit them is taken seriously. The fact is, NO sim operator has ANY rights beyond those granted by the RL business, LLabs. These can be defined, as in the designation of "mature" regions versus ordinary ones, and then re-defined as the company wishes, as in the post-kiddie porn PR panic attack.

SL is an entertainment venue. Sure, a lot of the "entertainment" is the fun of creating for one's own satisfaction, or running a cool business or club without having to kowtow to RL authorities, or forming groups of like-minded members to pursue special interests. But none of this changes the fact -- or the reality -- that SL is at its heart an entertainment platform.

What we in our group have observed since joining up in 2004 is the gradual transition from a membership composed mainly of *individualist* creators to one where the vast majority of the members are, permit me, virtually passive -- overlooking the, for some of us, creative aspects of shopping and persona definition.

Like it or not, this transition in the basic demographic marks the emergence of a true community, since in every community, there are a small proportion of leaders and makers to a much larger proportion of consumers. LLabs needs *both* to grow and ultimately monetize their efforts and let the investors cash out happily.

So, as the masses learn about it and join up, those who have invested significant time and money in their sims can expect pressures from all these entertainment consumers to treat them with approximately the same sort of respect they expect in real. I'm not simply talking about not being SPAMmed, but about effective tech support, reliable up-time that does not need to be constantly explained in tech terms, simpler interfaces, and user-learning tools that are not labled "Knowledge Base" -- a designation that, sorry to sound like an anti-techie when in fact we are extreme geeks in real, says to normal people "You may as well not even try...".

These masses, who will be the ultimate reason the SL enterprise succeeds or fails, are similarly going to expect that whoever *really* owns the venue will ensure a basic standard of civil behaviour. These mass members are not going to care a whit about the arcane differentiation some in this thread make between "real" and "unreal". If the venue isn't fun and educational without being pompous, they will simply give up after a few visits.

I am well aware that many here will regard this as "coddling" people, or submitting to "liberal" social ideas, and will simply wish the masses went away, as most, in fact do now. Actually, it's just sound marketing. If the collective core membership of SL *and* the LLabs operators fail to respond to these expectations, -- the masses will simply vote with their mouse, as *millions already have*.

This sort of population churning isn't good for the professional business operators in here, and it isn't in the interest of the LLabs folks, either.

Thanks to all who took the time to post!

End Note: Some have speculated in the thread that I must have done something *seriously* rude or bitchy to cause that owner to ban me as well as eject me from her group. Well, I certainly can be a bitch, true enough! But in this case, I simply said *politely* in the group's IM channel that I would appreciate not being spammed with event spam when it can be sent via the Announcements mechanism. My error, of course, was in saying this, however mildly, in *clear*. That called the spade what it was, and it must have really upset her, especially when another member immediately chimed in (without caring to do so politely) that he too was sick of her SPAM, the sole purpose of which was to get people to come to a party that had already been more than adequately promoted.

You used the group IM channel to tell the group owner that you didn't think the group IM channel was the appropriate place to promote group activities?

*boggle*

I already thought your stance was extreme from your original post - but based on that post, and your strong vehemence against using group IMs even for group business, I imagined that you had, you know, sent a private IM to the group owner laying out your views.

But you used the group IM channel! Great.

I would still like to know what you think the purpose of the group IM function is, since you find it inappropriate for a group owner to use it to notify group members of group events.

/me makes not to self not to invite OP to join my group. I certainly don't want to risk a nasty note and an AR for daring to let the group know what's going on at my place.

It makes sense to me that a group grouped in the first place so that the group could contact the group for group activities and involve the group in a group atmosphere without having the group members be in the same location at once. (^_^)

And let us not forget that group notices have been broken for at least a year. Once the group gets over about 60-70 members, group notices will fail to reach random members. I ran a test in one of my groups that had around 100 people where I sent out a group notice and then immediately asked in group chat how many people got it. Around half responded that they didn't get anything- and none of them had disabled notices for my group.

We need both more control over who gets to talk in groups (i'd like it to be an ability tied to roles), and we need a notice function that actually works.

Personally, I've completely stopped using group notices- and even groups- unless they're absolutely necessary (for example, to allow mall tenants to place things on my land). I wrote my own targeted "distribution list" system that has proven far more effective than any of the in-game provided methods for announcements and updates. (Grr, just wish Moopf Murray hadn't discontinued his name2key service!!!)

...but I already said I made a mistake by posting my *polite* comment in clear channel. I posted in IM since that was where *she* was spamming.

As to what I think the IM channel should be used for, I strongly feel it should be one-to-one and not a broadcasting tool. If the group Notices tool is not working, and has been busted for a year as said, well, then, I'm sorry. Clearly then, IMO, there needs to be a distinct IM-type channel for groups, OR a feature that lets the user "mute" IMs from selected sources.

At a minumum, it should be made crystal clear to new people that, if they join a group, they can then expect broadcast-type IMs from the group. I think that would come as a shock to more than a few users, who are used to IM meaning a channel for private and personal convos.

Thanks for the heads-up re: the probs with the Notices tool! If it breaks down at 70 or so addressees, that would go a long way to explaining the absence in SL of really effective mass, opt-in publications.

PS: You may of course ban me in advance, Madhu -- but then you'll never learn my secret crab curry recipe....

One of the groups I'm in, NCI, can get quite chattery. If I find it too annoying, I just end the chat session, and I don't hear another word. But generally, I stay in the group for the class announcments - sometimes I like to attend classes and stuff. Anyway, one time one of the group leaders posted a longish note about some kind of pool party being run for newbs by the group. Someone (I'm guessing they had just joined) wrote back an indignant note about how this group "wasn't supposed to be used to advertise private events". Everyone was like, "Dude - it's an NCI event, dummy!" It was funny.

NCI is one of my fav groups so I stay in it.... if a group bothers me I simply leave it, its up to me.

There already is a distinct IM-type channel for groups. It's called Group Chat or Group IM, it is distinct from personal one-on-one IM's in that it is for the *group* not personal private messaging.

Actually from the sound of it, it already is common sense that if you join a group, you will get group IM's and group notices. That is the purpose of most groups communication tools, to communicate to the group.

The answer really is simple and has been repeated several times by many people. If you don't want to receive group chat, don't join groups.

This is not to say that there shouldn't be a better way of handling things. Option boxes allowing each individual user to tailor exactly what they do and do not wish to receive in the way of communications would be a near ideal solution. Unless or until such a feature is included however, the only way you can avoid being the recipient of group chat is to simply leave the groups and not join any others.

She is using HER Event group to announce Events FOR the group. that is not spam.
i sympathize with you, but you cannot ar someone for using her group im for the purpose she created it for. and since she isnt here with her side(i am starting to learn the hard way that sometimes all may not be so black and white in these cases), im gonna guess she probably had a good reason to ban you, she just chose not to share it with you.

I just don't accept the premise that a group owner sending a group-related message on the group IM channel is "spamming."

Here's a not-so-hypothetical hypothetical.

Suppose a venue owner schedules an event for a certain time. She sends a group notice prior to that time alerting her group members of the event.

At the time the event begins, she (a) sends a group IM reminding in-world members of the group that the event is starting.

Then, 2 hours or so later, the event is still going strong, and she (b) sends another group notice saying "things are still hopping here, so come on by if you're in the mood." Or, alternatively, things are a little slower than she'd like, so she (c) sends a group notice saying "things are still hopping here, so come on by if you're in the mood."

Do you really think (a), (b), or (c) amounts to spam? You're going to have to do some work to convince me of that. I think this is what group IMs are for. But I am interested in hearing your arguments to the contrary. So far I have not; I've just seen you saying "group IM shouldn't be used for spam." I want to understand how you can consider these uses of group IM to be spam.



But the group IM channel exists. So are you calling for its elimination? Your original post suggested you wanted its use to be an ARable offense, against the TOS. Again, this strikes me as an outrageous position. I don't know how else to say it - I am totally baffled by your position. The channel exists. Do you really think there is *no* appropriate or legitimate use for it?

By the way, as has been said several times in this thread, if you are annoyed by an ongoing group IM conversation, you can make it go away by closing the tab in the communications window. I assume here that ongoing conversations are not what we are talking about, since you criticized and AR'd a group owner for sending a notice over group IM, not for carrying on an ongoing conversation.



I think this is a red herring. There are MUCH more important things that need to be made clear to new people, like, for example, how to open a box, the difference between prim hair and system hair, and the fact that griefers and "mak sexies now?" isn't all there is to SL. Your issue here a user can readily figure out for him or herself just by being in a group and seeing what happens. It's just not that big of a deal. I can't imagine a user saying "OMG, I joined a group and then I got a message that wasn't specifically directed at me personally! I'm going to QUIT SL!!!!!!"



I didn't say anything about banning you, you are welcome to visit any time. But I sure as hell don't want you in my group if you are going to send me nastygrams and AR me for using group IMs to send my group members time-sensitive information about group business.

I remember that day. It was hilarious! \(^_^)/

It has happened more than once.

I remember when someone considered a class (particles, I think) announcement "spam" and claimed to be leaving the group immediately only to rant on-and-on about how he shouldn't be disturbed by IMs all the time, and had to get ejected by an officer after a half-hour. (^_^)

The better one was another group I was in had an announcement once and some random somebody didn't pay attention, clicked their Communicate button, and engaged in spanking role play thinking she was in IMs with her.... uh... spanker. (O_O) She got back about 5 "Wrong Window" replys and we all had a good laugh. (^_^)y

<standing ovation>

Like "If someone cheats you out of your money your money will be gone." I agree this is a red herring. How much have you lost if you make one or two clicks to join a group and then later have to make one or two more clicks to un-join?


To be scrupulously fair let's give Katya the benifit of the doubt and believe that she wasn't all that nasty when she used the group IM to tell the group owner that the group owner was using the group IM for the wrong sort of message. And I think she said the AR was about being banned from the group.

My L$2:

Ignoring the obvious one-sidedness of the story, there really is no crime here, at least nothing that LL should get too concerned over.

People need to learn to just accept that they are not always going to get along with everyone else and stop trying to make other people conform to their way of thinking, despite any perceived superlatives in reasoning or emotional maturity. Not everyone is going to be reasonable, especially to another's perception, nor are they going to be emotionally mature, especially not all the time. Sometimes we all have a bad day.




They can also be manipulated to ruin very good businesses, too. I take any "Consumer Reports" effort with a grain of salt. Personal experience, in my own estimation, is the best and only real barometer.



There is no debate. Sim owners have to follow the ToS, sure, but beyond that, they are free to operate their regions/businesses/venues/events/whatever any way they wish. They have the inalienable right to exclude anyone from visiting/participating for any reason, just like you have the same right to do the same in your own home or place of business in RL (there are some civil rights caveats in RL, as there are a few ToS caveats in SL, too).

In the OP's specific situation, the sim/group owner exercised his right to used the group as he saw fit, within the ToS, the OP didn't like that, exercised one option of several available for redress, and the group/sim owner exercised another of his rights to eject/ban the OP. To him, it may have seemed justifiable at the time; few will ever know for sure, but it doesn't matter. It could have been 100% rational; it could have been 100% irrational; or it could have been anywhere in-between. It was 100% legal and legitimate, though.



Then that is their loss. Judging the whole of SL by one region's experience is like judging all of a whole State for a bad experience at a restaurant, theatre, or whatever. There are SEVENTEEN THOUSAND regions in SL. What can't be helped if people are so shallow as to get discouraged after running afoul of one of them on a bad day. People need to grow a skin, and a backbone. If they are so fragile that their entire experience can be destroyed by one minor negative encounter, they don't even have a chance in SL.



Unless you have some super-secret, comprehensive exit poll I don't know about, attributing mass attrition to any one cause or set of causes is rather dubious, don't you think?

As for "coddling the masses", I don't "coddle" anyone. I offer to help people, and give a lot of preference to those I consider my friends and family, but whiny "I got a boo-boo" complaining I either ignore, or say "that's too bad; welcome to SL". If people have a genuine problem that I can help with, I do. If I can't help, then I will usually refer them to where they may find help. However, drama and empty complaining I just usually just ignore, until it gets into my face, then I just eat 'em alive.



As a large estate manager of a fairly popular venue in SL, my standard response to such complaints is "You have the option to leave the group at any time".

I *NEVER* complain about spam in a group from the group owners/Officers. To me, that is so immature as to be unthinkable as an option. If it is bad enough to bother me, I just leave silently. Once in a while, I MAY remind another member that posting off-topic stuff is likely to be considered spam, and will probably result in sanctions. As a group owner/officer, I vigorously enforce no-spam rules, sometimes immediately ejecting folks on their first offense (the groups in question have a very plain "no-spam" charter, and being invite only, we verify that each new member has read and agrees to the rules before getting the invite, so there is really no excuse). In addition, people complaining in the group chat about official communications are usually told to take it to IMs, or they may be sanctioned. The exact response depends on how they complained. Also sometimes depends on what kind of day I have had. Generally, I avoid being a disciplinarian on my bad days, but sometimes bad days are an accumulation, and I don't realize how short my fuse is until someone's already blown it.

To sum up: Put your best foot forward, and maybe someone will reciprocate. Accept and deal with the fact that SL will never be a bed of roses without thorns. Don't let one or a handful of bad experiences detract from the rest of SL. Always remember that you are a guest in someone else's house that is not your own. If you don't like the rules or the (lack of) hospitality, leave, don't go back, and, if you feel so inclined, let your friends know about the experience. Understand and respect that people don't deal well with others at times, or at all. Lastly, don't blame the platform for the content. The two are severable at the most esoteric level.

But that's also ridiculous in itself. I don't know how the OP could think that LL gives a flying fark about internal group politics. That sort of stuff isn't ARable (and not in the "suitable for growing crops" sense either).

I agree completely. I was just compulsively trying to keep the facts (as told by the OP) straight.

Oh I know, Kaimi. I just found that particular issue preposterous

To tell you the truth I'm starting to wonder if Katya has been pulling our leg all along.

But what you did wasn't wrong. Nobody is saying that the OP was unreasonable for not wanting to receive messages. They are saying that her response was unreasonable. You told the group owners or someone that it was annoying and exercised your right to leave. No problem with that.

Say I wandered, uninvited, onto your land and your security orb ejected me (I know, ban lines, but for the sake of argument, pretend it's an orb). Then I AR'ed you for ejecting me. You'd get a pretty good laugh from that, wouldn't you? That's exactly the same thing that the OP did here. Even funnier, suppose I AR'ed you for having ban lines up that kept me from going on to your property? HAH! Take that Ricardo! lol.

The OP doesn't seem to get it, even though it has been explained to her over and over, and 100% of the posters disagree. She is out of line to try to AR someone from banning her. It's not her group. If she doesn't like the IM's, her option is to leave, not expect the group to conform to her unreasonable wishes. Everyone else is enjoying the group - now they have to stop because one member doesn't like it? As for banning, land rights are land rights. The owner had the right to ban the OP and kick her out of the group. She didn't like being in the group anyway - there were too many messages.

Actually, I don't see the issue. The OP didn't like the group messages. She's not in the group now, so no messages. Problem solved. Why is she complaining? I smell troll.

I'd agree that some sort of reliable "Consumer Reports" information would be a good thing. And there are some people who already do such type things in their blogs.

One of the big reasons that the SL economy doesn't thrive the way one would expect a free market economy to thrive is that there are not good sources of information about product for consumers. The free market model depends on good flow of information.

However, you have a few barriers to overcome when it comes to establishing something like "Consumer Reports" in SL.

1) Like most businesses in SL, the people who run them are not professionals at their SL occupation. So, your "Consumer Reports" sites would not be run by persons trained in neither journalism or business. So the sites wouldn't be giving out the best information. Most would turn into "I liked this random place I went to, and I hated this random place I went to." Not very informative for consumers.

2) One of the reasons that the RL journalists and business experts won't be attracted to doing a version of SL "Consumer Reports" is because, like most honest SL business, there's no profit in it. Consumer information sources still depend on ads for revenue, to pay those staff writers. Intangible, non-monetary rewards probably aren't high enough to justify the time and effort one would need to expend for a serious consumer reporting effort.

3) There's no reason for any SL resident to trust any SL "Consumer Reports" site. All SL Residents are essentially anonymous. It's hard to trust an anonymous person. There are very, very few residents whom I would consider to have built up such a trustworthy avatar name that people might be inclined to trust them despite not actually knowing them personally. (I'm hard-pressed to think of more than two people whom I don't know, but I'd find completely trustworthy based on what I know about them.)

This is not to say that SL "Consumer Reports" can't be done. I'd like to see it done. I can just think of three huge problems that would need to be overcome.

And like I said, I do know that there are SL residents who blog on consumer information, business reviews, and such. And then a place like SLExchange allows buyer reviews of products. I've only read a few product review sites, and they've been of only modest help to me. Since most of what I buy is clothing (which may run me between $0.50 USD to $1.50 USD anyway for an outfit), it often feels like it's more efficient to gamble a dollar than to take the time to search out and read a lot of consumer reviews.

Event announcements should not be posted under group notices. They should be done under group IMs.

Why?

Because if a group announces an event on IM while I am logged off I will be blissfully unaware of them. If the group announces them under group notices I will see these notices on login. Since events are occur at a specific time I will possibly be reading about events that have already ended after I log in.

Now if I am online and get a group IM on an event I can close the group chat and not see any more IMs. If the event goes out on notices I will have to click to close each one that comes out.

I agree that a group owner shouldn't massively spam it's members with either method but I do think they will end up losing members because of it and eventually they'll either learn or go out of business.