Banned due to language I Speak?

i already did.. and got absomolutely no answer..
what Pz me off most tho.. the sim is K-cat... which is a Kobe place.. my hometown..
but its only a tiny dead boring little parcel of a bar on a whole sim...

Mondak,

I see no real problem with what the sim owner is doing. Essentially, his or her domain is his or hers to do with as he or she pleases (as long as he or she doesn't violate the TOS).

Allowing "Japanese only" is similar--in my mind--to the VFW or American Legion restricting their membership to veterans . . . or Ladies Workout Express accepting only female members. I'm sure you can think of other examples.

I doubt if the sim owner is trying to be "racist" in any way (at least I hope not).

And if the Golden Apple (the big prize that is supposed to be open for *all* to pick) happened to grow on the tree in this specific area, only someone using the Japanese viewer could pick it. That would be akin to everyone in Europe being able to buy a Euromillions lottery ticket, but only someone in Switzerland being able to win the jackpot.

QFT,,,, I wonder if it was a english language land and banned japanese from it if the whole thing would be portrayed in a different light... No Im not Japanese, did anyone saying this is wrong, buy the land for them, does anyone pay their tier? of course not. A land owner has every right to allow those they wish on their land, they payed for it, they pay tier for it. I will back anyones right to ban for any or no reason.

It's interesting, it's like the thin line between preserving ones "right to say no" and giving "everyone a fair go" which are both valid. It spirals and each get very backed up into a corner, which is natural, because somehow someones rights are usually threatened.

You'd hope common decency/sense would usually win out.

Reposting because I think it needs to be said again...

this is not RL.... the person who owns the land is perfectly within his rights. He is NOT breaking the ToS or any law. All he is really doing is PO others, and that is also his right. This fair crap has to swing both ways.

I was using RL as an example where people *think* as land owners that they have absolute rights and are wrong, just as they are in SL too.
A land owner does not have carte-blanche inherent rights to do *anything* they like. They have many rights, all granted by LL that can be changed at any time and are not absolute. You also missed the bit where I acknowledged it may not be against ToS currently but I feel it should be.
If you read what I put again, I do say that if you don't want someone on your property then you should have the ability to remove them for any reason. Who would know your reason anyway? You cannot not make rules against what is in someone's head, it is impractical, even if you suspect they are exercising racial discrimination.
However once that person puts out a publically viewable policy that shows clear intent to discriminate based on race then they have crossed a line. There is a clear difference between the two.
Displaying a policy of racial discrimination on your property in SL should be a ToS violation just as it is in many places in RL. It is irrelevant that this is not RL for the purposes of this comparison. It is like for like.

As a side note he is engaging in a competition to which he has implicitly or explicitly agree the terms (Ref: The Golden Apple) which is *open* to all residents. The owner of the program has stated that banning large groups of people is not compatible with participation in that program.

Actually here in the CS, paragraph 1, it states:


When you disallow a group of people for no particular reason than say, race, from your property, you are marginalising those people.
Here in the CS it is clearly shown as not acceptable.
Those who want to play words games might note that it does not explicitly say that marginalising groups of people is not allowed but I think the intention is pretty clear when they mention it, otherwise there would be no point in doing so.

Yeh, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander".

Either we all have equal rights to ban with out being slammed for it or we don't. Thing is, some bans are socially acceptable and rewarded and some are shunned. It seems to depend on who's lobby can cry foul the loudest. So fair often doesn't work out.

I believe most people are pretty ok, and a lot of the strong reaction is defensive as ones rights feel so shat on, either side of the fence (at times even by law).

I guess I am saying, I get offended that some people, either side of the debate, take it upon themselves to dictate what I can do. When as far as I am concerned I am ok as it is already.

But I thought this was fucked, banning people for no English so only Japanese speakers could get the free lindens. So spoke up, what else can you do?

Someones race or physical type can't hurt anyone, but what if a belief/religion marginalises you?

This system as a whole just doesn't really work. I'm not saying I know what would either...

How do you know they aren"t breaking any laws?

I don't subscribe to the idea of discriminating against any group of people, race, religion, beliefs, etc by anyone. It makes no difference, in my view it is wrong unless there is an overriding good reason. There are very few situations where there is a good reason to have a clearly spelled out discriminatory policy.
If you keep your property, private and exclusive by default then that is different. My views above are for places that are publicly open for which membership is not requirement.

Fair enough. So would you say if a belief marginalised me, I could ban it?

I just think setting something in stone is always a recipe for disaster. If I'm reading you correctly, I can see you kind of agree too in that you believe there can be exceptions.

Of course, there are exceptions to everything, nothing is 100% one thing or another. Even though my views are strong I do not let them become rigid and blinkered by not allowing enough flexibility to enter into them. It is enough to outline general cases and deal with exceptions on a case by case basis.

Of course, you would have a good reason to not want them on your property, rather than an arbitrary dislike for them.

Yeh, then it comes to, What if I think my reason is sound and some other belief wants to decide for me that it's not?

I'm not trying to have a go, I just don't think it's a fool proof system.

Nothing is foolproof and there are always grey areas. That is why case-by-case is good is such things.
Also I doubt you would have a big sign saying they were banned without saying why either. The "why" would be important here.

Agreed, I usually go case by case too.


I just think it's me that owns the "why" and not anyone else. If someone disagrees with my "why" to me that is their offense and problem and not mine. The thought that I have to justify my beliefs it to anyone is where I switch off.

This is why as much as I agree, on my own behalf, with most of the ideals. I disagree with it being legislated.

I think if you have a public place that you must ban a certain group from due to them engaging in discriminatory practices against you then it is good to give a reason, it shows that you are not being arbitrary and unnecessarily discriminatory yourself.

Legislation in RL that deals with things like this is often written in broad terms and leaves much up to law enforcement to decide if discrimination is clearly being exercised. Of course there will be guideline to follow and such too. I don't see much problem with this, people are generally very bad at policing themselves.
You and I perhaps would not be bad it making sure we did not cross the line but then the legislation would not be aimed at us nor affect us to any significant degree if that proved to be the case.

BTW Thanks for the interesting discussion, it is good to be able to discuss something without tempers flaring etc. as so often happens I need to go do some RL stuff now so I will bid you good night for now.

Yes thanks as well, it's good to discuss. I'll end too, with the thought that I think most people are reasonable and decent.

A lot of the insistence on the right to ban and the outcry at not able to enter regardless of what ever issue is defensive, sadly with good reason. Both positions are trying to preserve rights they see fading away.

I really believe if it wasn't set so hard in stone it'd happen so much less on all sides.

Anyway, thanks again.

Thanks to all who responded

This has been a very thought provoking subject indeed !
And I probably shouldn't have said the "R" word in the original post,
I probably should have said "discriminatory".

Yes land owners have the right to do as they wish for land they pay for, but, if you use something (ie: Money tree) that is ment for the general population and use language as a basis for banning or filtering then yes it's a form of discrimination.

As a creator I too feel hurt that someone's creation got used in a way it was not intended, and i've seen a lot of that going around still...

I'm going to end with this, say "Hi" to the next new person you meet inworld, and if there is a languange barrier work through it, if you use a translater then make sure your spelling is proper, because one misspelled word can be the difference between making a friend or pissing someone off....

Similar to the VFW or American Legion? Hmm... no. Those aren't limited to one 'people' per se... you can be any race and speak any language... You just have to run out and get shot at fighting for a country to become a 'veteran' of a war after all.....

Similar to Ladies Workout express.... no.... thats not limited to a 'people' either... again no racial or language connotations... I can understand women in workout gear not wanting some hormonally challenged neanderthal leering over them in their gym togs...

Your comparison isn't quite valid.

Frankly you're right.. they can ban green skinned mutant platapus for all I care. As long as its only their stuff their banning them FROM.

Would be QUITE different if I were to change the golden apple so that only folks on the ENGLISH viewer could pick it though wouldn't it? Good thing I'm not that shallow.

this whole thing has been argued repeatedly... how many remember the Gor sims who banned furries, the sims that ban child avs? The OMG rants... its discrimination!!! Get over it... there's over 30k sims. Im a child av, can I go to any sim that happens to be public? Hell no I cant and Iaccept it. I still have more that enough places to go and I loose no sleep over it. Do what you wish with your own land, I applaud that japanese sim. They are honest to themselves.