Banned by off-world content....

If some lunatic gave me cause to think, based on their behaviour in the forums, that they were likely to come and abuse me on the Grid, then I might consider pre-emptively banning them, depending on the location that I was at. Though probably not, as it is a waste of my time, almost certainly unnecessary and in any case I can send them back where they came from with a couple of clicks should they turn up and be a nuisance anyway.

There seems to be little point in banning somebody merely because they are annoying on the forums however. I find several people infuriating here, and have gotten into some significant arguments over the years, but nobody has shown any sign of bothering me in-world, thus why ban them? To prove a point, to show that I do, really, disagree with them, honest? A little like muting somebody who has never spoken to you.

In fact, the worst arguments that I have had on forums have been with people who would _not_ take things beyond that arena - in other words, people with whom it is _worth_ arguing, adversaries that one might respect even if violently disagree with, rather than dismal little basement weasels with no concept of boundaries. The latter I would rarely even bother to mock.

Brilliant phrasing... it just had to be quoted!

Oddly enough, Caledon plods forward with 3 or 4 names on its banlist typically... well, except for days like today when it hasn't any at all.

There has been much talk of 'ban by affiliation' - i.e. ban all members of (insert griefing group here) which would then instantly extend to banning all Goreans or Furs &c depending where you were, I suppose.

Quite frankly I still think banning is over-rated. I think it would be *way* more fun to be able to turn people into nonspeaking cats, dogs, frogs &c... grin

"I think it would be *way* more fun to be able to turn people into..."
LOL!
Transforming people (in one's own view) is entirely possible. They are rendered by the client, so the client viewer could render them as Ruth or whatever off-the-shelf appearance for your viewing alone.

Despite the attractions of that, I have to stick to a principle of taking people as I find them.
The online world is odd. It drives/enables people to behave in a way that they would not do in a one-on-one situation.
I'll meet people one-on-one, mindo-a-mindo (is this new?) before I would consider writing them off as a waste of space/time.

+1

What's wrong with naming names?

It is prohibited in the forums mainly so the forums don't get filled up with business or social rivals pissing on one another. That makes sense - for the forums. But elsewhere? It is prohibited nowhere else in SL that I know of, and I see no reason why it should be. I would rather be able to know who is a crook, a griefer, an asshole - and to be able to form an opinion about the sanity of some landowner's bans of people on his/her/its land.

I understand false accusations come with the territory, but inmy experience they are infrequent, far outweighed by the good of knowing who to avoid, and have a way of being found out sooner or later, in which case they backfire on the false accuser. I have had personal experience of being on the receiving end of a false SL accusation, and the resolution was very satisfactory to me - my accuser is long banned from SL.

But not naming names only gives cover, concealment, and therefore encouragement to the malicious among us.

I don't know why you even question it. Ban whoever you want for whatever reason you want. As for me, though, I've had such rare reasons to ban anyone that when I see someone with a long ban list I assume they are the one with the drama issues. I have one neighbor who's ban list is unbelievable. I'm glad I have never met her.

So I can visit? O.o

Spiritually undeveloped.... great term. I wouldn't ban inworld for a forum tiff, unless it clearly crossed the line into something personal. And even then, I haven't done it, because I generally don't hold grudges.

*whew!* I have just 5 people on my ban list; someone who was griefing strangers in a mall, a search-bot, a land baron that's been a feature of Sarah Nerd's blogs, and the two previously-mentioned forum posters. Of course, I've only met two (the mall griefer and the search-bot, if you can count saying "Hello?" over and over again to the bot a "meeting."

I know the individuals on my list will probably never have reason to visit my tiny parcel, but as the old saying goes, "don't start none, won't be none." Also, I'm not worried about losing spots on my ban list as there are only 5 there now; I'd rather the area be open to most well-meaning people.

However, I was concerned that perhaps I'm one of the few who bans AVs based on off-grid behavior, and it appears from the posts here that I am. It does make me feel guilty that someone somewhere might think "I'm banned from there and I've never even done anything to him!" but at the same time I know reputations are very rarely given and usually have to be earned.

I'll have to think a lot more about this. Thank you all for your input.

Your land, your choice, no "wrong".

Personally, I don't bother with ban list for off-world because I've never seen indication that those people (not sure who that would be but we'll stay with the hypothetical that they exist) would bother visiting me in-world anyway. But that's my choice, not a right or wrong.

Ban EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Except me coz I ain't done nuffin'

Except that double negative just there.

You'd have to know who the 43 real people are first.

Otherwise they wont fit in your 300 ban slots.

Submit a JIRA - the land options to have a "Allow access only to Conan Godwin" radio button.

Ban them?! Of course not! Then I would lose the fun of them coming to my place, me setting it to Health Enabled, sending a region message of "I am Kokoro Montoya, You killed my fader, Prepare to die", and shooting them with Ordinal's wonderful Bee gun.

Or just ignoring them cause I'm too busy actually having fun and paying them no attention.

Stop!

You don't even know kung-fu! You have to train with the wise master and paint a fence!

And look, you're father's fine!

FATHER: *waves* hello!

(Ten points if you can name where this comes from)

There is no point in banning people who are not affecting you in-world as they are unlikely to visit your land anyway.

It might make the aggrieved land owner feel better though. Everybody's happy.

My view on this.

For my home, I have ban lines. I restrict access to members of my home group. That is friends I don't mind visiting my home, my virtual wife and our alts. No one avatar is specifically banned, it is a blanket ban. It is not because I have anything against anyone, it is just to have some privacy.

For my business, I only ban people who cause drama or grief in world.

Forum posts do not count for me.

Second JIRA suggestion;

all land to have an option "Restrict access to only people who don't suck"

and no fat chix

ban whoever you want, your paying for the privilege

You're ok with rude Africans?

What do you have against blankets?

My father was suffocated by one. I have had an irrational hatred of them eversince.


Them, and clowns. Because clowns are just creepy.

Blankets, clowns and furries.

but it affords you no privacy.

OK.

- note: This OK in no way indicates whether or not I consider you to be a retarded mouth-breather.