Are we human? Or, are we griefer?

Who cares whether the people involved are having a good time? And who cares how those folks describe their actions? The question is whether these actions violate the ToS by LL's judgment (whatever it is on that day, by whichever CSR is involved). If so, call them whatever you want, but they are impermissible inworld.

ok just saw this now

first off, you go about your business as usual. Do not change for the person causing issues.
I have personally been right where you are now being blogged about as Morgaine on websites that were beyond insane. Its something to swallow when it happens and you know its not right, then you think wow this person is pretty sad to go to the effort. Nothing you can do about falseness and someones OCD on being a freak. Myself a few friends just ignore and laugh as much as you can, ya know. Then it was so obvious they are a sick individual.

More power to you Immy

Hello Imnotgoing...

...don't worry...

...really...

Nice to see you.

Spot on... I have had Lias publicly call me a rapist here in these forums, just for a sex group I am in... which as she read my profile, she would have noted rape r/p is listed as a personal limit of mine... but that couldn't get in the way of a juicy accusation.

/327/b2/330367/10.html#post2502360

/327/b2/330367/10.html#post2502372




It's just Lias.. it doesn't matter...

Maybe fatwas from the likes of Lias should be worn as a little star.. I frightened a troll.

Be in what ever group you want for what ever reason...

Linden Lab has never said that the group has engaged in any such conduct. It has said that certain members of the group have engaged in such conduct. Inferring that because some members are engaging in such conduct that the whole group is doing so is the equivalent of saying some black people are criminals therefore all black people are criminals. I've noticed that you have a history of making these kind of generalizations.
Try getting your facts straight. Immy was twice at parcels hosting an NCI infonode because she is an NCI instructor and mentor. She was at the remaining parcel because of an open invitation by Prok himself in the classified forums under special attractions. WU has never "greifed" NCI infonode parcels and you have no information to support your unfounded claim that they have even griefed the parcel hosting the discussion from which Immy was ejected. Further she was not griefing in any of the three situations and neither was anyone else so you have not even addressed brinda's previous point, which is that you have no clue what you are talking about when you falsely accused Immy of griefing (which is also a violation of the forum rules here even if one is deluded enough to believe such an allegation). Prok banned her just because of her group affiliation, and in a text exchange with Beverly of NCI he came off like a ranting, emotionally unstable maniac, irrationally insisting that Immy must be a griefer because she is a member of WU. Seriously, try getting a clue before you spew such nonsense.

Linden Lab did not delete 'some' of the WU island because some of them were racist griefers.

Yeah we addressed it. This is the third time. And after several griefer attacks from the group Immy is a member of - the owner of the parcel just banned anyone with the griefer group tag. And that is being pro active. All of her guests should not have to deal with anymore of that nonsense.
And that is the smart thing to do when members of that group keep griefing her events.
I tend to show a little more compassion for the person being griefed than for the halo-wearing member of the griefer group/ But that's just me.

Which is completely irrelevant to the FACT that Linden Lab never said what you claimed it said about the group. Perhaps you should change your name to Liar Leandros.

".....a member of the Woodbury group and a frequent flyer at the griefing posses coming to disrupt the discussions at the Sutherland dam"

Once again you are illustrating how clueless you are. First, the discussion groups at Sutherland dam often have lots of people there. So even if one is to take Prok at his word that Immy is there when griefers are there, it's a logical leap to say that she is griefing, but again, you do that a lot. Second, nothing in that statement asserts that Immy was griefing. All Prok is saying in that statement is that she is at the discussion groups when the griefers are there. Once again you are distorting statements in a weak attempt to support your unfounded conclusions.
You've done no such thing. You've tried to deflect it by again spewing more ignorant and irrelevant assertions.

ok well the big elephant in the room is the fact the just about anyone here who reads these forums know that there is another who is a bit ...lets say OCD to put it mildly.

and posts are not to be taken seriously.

passes the shovel ...keeping digging your own hole.

^^ This.

You need to stick your tongue out and chant 'nah,nah,nah-nah,nah' when you say that, LOL.

Linden Lab said "many" members of the WU were racist griefers, I guess the rest are alts and cheerleaders.
The landowner banned people that are in the group that was griefing her. What is so twisted about that statement? Sounds like a rational reaction to griefing.
Well, Immy said this some pages ago
And that is a 'she said, she said' situation that cannot be proven here so I did not say what Immy said was false. I said as I stated above: It was smart for the land owner to ban everyone from the group that was griefing her. And Immy should not be surprised that she did so.

Yes, some people have a "good time" griefing. That's why they do it.

Technically true, but irrelevant if it turns out they actually deleted it because of a trademark dispute with the real WU.

And now you're saying they banned Immy because she was a member of the group, not because of something she did.

This is sounding more and more like your attacks on nudists (including your attacks on RL nudists, which you seemed to back down on but never apologized for) and your "boyfriend"'s staged incident in Zindra.

The reason WHY immy was banned at these events isnt so much the problem, Public slander is still quite an offence. Immy is neither a griefer or one to hang out with such a croud. That said, lets get a few more things straight...

Lias, your entire argument right now rests on this statement from said Blogger's blog...


"Imnotgoing Sideways, a member of the Woodbury group and a frequent flyer at the griefing posses coming to disrupt the discussions at the Sutherland dam"


...this is an unproven statement, unbacked up by logs, photos, or witness statements, and although said blogger mentions possessing said witnesses and logs, they have still YET to be presented once. NOW if you wish to see logs of all three events, you can view them at Immy's blog, and in the case of the sunderland dam event, the said blogger has the chatlogs up for all to see in a previous artical, link provided in Immy's blog.

considering you're taking this blogger's un backed claims at face value OVER the fully backed defending claims that even use references said blogger provided, and even over an actual witness of the events (see brinda Allen), Your undeniable bias against immy comes into question in relation to your reliability as a debater in this thread. To this point you havent discredited a single claim that discredits your own arguments and are just repeatedly going on about your own unquestionably iffy references as fact to back up some of what truely seems to be quite proposturous reasoning!


**breaths**


Okay, back to the actual topic, I'd say option 3, or option 1 either whole or partially (by simply hiding the group, this would denote not being openly supportive of "griefers" based on what others feel the group is about, while still allowing you to function within the group based on what you feel the group is about).

chat to you later,
Rin ^ ^

My point is that Immy is being considered guilty by association.

This whole thing is beginning to smack of the Red Scare in the USA in the 50's, and the beatings of people wearing turbans in New York following 9-1-1.

Frankly.. this stinks.

Consider: LL took down the WU sim. Why have they not deleted the WU group?
There must be some positive aspects to the group.
However, the people in that group who choose to pursue griefer activities are the ones that are visible, and therefore targets. We need to avoid falling into the trap of painting all with the same brush and should instead show the intelligence to take each individual separately.

My association with Immy has always shown her to be a thoughtful person who is mindful of the consequences of her actions, as well as a builder and teacher. I have never come away from a conversation with her without learning something new.

A while back, I had an argument with a SL shopkeeper as a result of a friend asking me to make representations on her behalf to find out why she'd been booted and banned from a shop for no apparent reason.

Turns out the shopkeeper had some time ago had some run-in with a Brazilian couple about something they'd bought; they'd retaliated by coming back with some of their friends to remonstrate with him, things had turned nasty and he'd responded by not only banning them from his land -- a not reasonable response -- but also by booting and banning anyone whom he thought, on the basis of their group memberships, might be Brazilian chums of theirs, who might, in turn, have come back to cause still more trouble.

I thought the guy was being a bit of an idiot, since my friend hadn't been involved in any of this malarkey and just wanted to do some shopping. What's your take on it?

I'm rather confused by this controversy, never having heard of Woodbury University until now. Presumably, whatever Prok says, Linden Labs don't share her views on this *group* to which Immy belongs, since the group is still up and running, with 500-odd members. Since, self-evidently, Linden Labs have shown themselves willing and able to take down a whole sim because of its association with troublemakers, the fact they haven't similarly disbanded the group suggests -- at least to me -- that they draw a distinction between the group and the nuisances whose activities led the the closure of the sim. Is it suggested they are mistaken in this? And if so, on what grounds?

Or, is it suggested that Immy herself has actually been found to be involved some wrongdoing? Not that members of a group to which she also belongs were, and not that she turned up at a public event shortly before or after some known troublemakers but that she, herself, actually did something untoward. What action did Linden Labs take as a result?

So far, possibly because I don't know the background to all this, it seems to me we're deep in the realms of speculation and innuendo.

ETA -- I see Max and I posted similar thoughts almost at the same time

She openly admits to hanging out with such a crowd. But she said she did not grief the landowner when the other members in the WU group did.
I said the blogger banned everyone in with that group tag. And that is a logical thing to do after people with that group tag disrupted her events three times.
Immy states:So she is well aware of the relationship the blogger has with this group. Wearing their group tag and going to the blogger's parcel is definitely Immy's in-your-face style. But she should not be so taken aback when said blogger goes bezerka on her ass for doing so. That may have been the desired reaction Immy was hoping to illicit.

I see that you seem to have taken note and learned something.

Pep (Now all we have to do is get you to realise that even correctly spelled, you are talking a load of nonsense. )

I just wanted to point out how hilarious I find it that you support this person but keep using a particular word that would put this person over the edge

If your griefed on 3 separate occasions by folks all wearing the same tag - then you might be at your wit's ends and just start banning anyone from that group in an desperate attempt to make the griefing stop.

In 2006 when V5 came at our parcel this is the advice LL gave us - ban all of those members and AR the onces that show up and grief before they get banned.
I just assume LL 'flicked their lights' in 2007 as a warning about their behavior. I can only assume that LL does not want to shut off a corporate account that is actually a real university. Giving them the opportunity to clean up the mess and start again was probably a wise decision. But one LL will probably soon regret.

Immy sees it as thisI think she interpreted the blog a little dramatically to illicit the most sympathy she could from random forum posters. I do not believe the blog was this horrific. And I do not see where the blogger actually said Immy griefed her.

This now seems apropos to the thread:

blind in one eye and can not see out of the other. You do know that Prokofy is a guy, right? Or is this just one more little bit of reality that gets in the way of your version of reality?

A liberal is a conservative that hasn't been mugged yet.

A conservative is a liberal that hasn't been arrested yet.

I think everyone for their replies, on the forums, in SLU, and in person through IMs and forum PMs.

I have dealt with the subject on my own terms and have taken many things into consideration. As such, I wall make a statement.

ALL of the groups I'm in are griefer groups: Because in each group, I have observed someone giving another person grief. Emotional, technical, or psychological; it is still grief.

ALL of the groups I'm in are hate groups: Because in each group, I have observed someone expressing hate and intolerance.

ALL of the groups I'm in detract from the betterment of the SL experience: Because in each group, I have observed people spawning drama to the point where someone decides to leave SL and/or create an alt.

ALL of the groups I'm in reflect badly on me as a person: Because in regards to each group, someone has found something wrong with me due to my association in that group.

I have received suggestions that I simply hide the group. In regards to that, it would leave the remainder of my group list to pat them selves on the back for being the “better” 20 or so groups on my list.

As a result, in concluding this mess for myself, I will not leave any group I'm in.

What I will do is hide all my groups from being on display in my profile. If no one group can be on display because of the way it happens to “define” me; no groups can.

I am myself.

Does this sound irrational?

Does this sound illogical?

Am I making a rash decision because I'm making a big decision based on statements made by a person I should be best left ignoring?

Yes.

But, I am only doing so because behind all this I am getting messages of people making the same irrational, illogical, and unreasonable decisions. As a result, I refuse to be defined by group affiliation at all, regardless of the group.

In saying this, I wish to conclude this discussion and request that the forum threads get locked. They have served their purpose.

Thank you all very much.

This thread is now becoming emblematic of the problem that I've long had with the WU group.

SL's WU group devalues, albeit in a small way, a degree from the RL Woodbury University. The 125-year old university maintains a highly diverse and lively campus in southern california. There are a lot of different student groups on campus, and while I wouldn't be surprised to find that Woodbury hosts student groups looking into *chan -- it's a big media phenom -- I WOULD be surprised to find that they would tolerate a student group being taken over by a bunch of petty vandals from outside the school.

That's what happened inworld when PN was prominent within SL's WU group. Within the SL context, the name "WU" has become a joke, a synonym for griefing, and a touchstone for rabid posts in blogs and scandal sheets. We see it here in this thread. LL took WU's sim offline for a while in 2007, and here it's still being booted around as a reason why the group is ebol.

It's a pity that Woodbury supervised their SL presence so lightly that it was taken over by the type of folks who in RL hide behind first amendment guarantees to spew racist venom over weary neighborhoods. But, it happened. And now the real Woodbury University has a PR issue that they can only hope will eventually die down enough that they can delete the group without cries of oppression swamping Google.

As it is, SL's nonsense shows up on the third page of results when you Google "Woodbury University". My hope is that it fades out altogether.

So, Immy, in simple mercy to those who are trying to get jobs with Woodbury degrees and don't need some HR flack who's in SL to smirk at their application, just let this whole thing die out.
.

Aye, Matey!

no. she said she did not grief the land owner and NO OTHER MEMBER was present to grief (as backed up by both Immy's and said blogger's logs), nore was said blogger there long enough to see any griefing event taking place if any (as backed up by mysti tool logs).



I've already said this many times... I can agree with you here, but this action was more likely base on experiance an not willing to take risks than actual griefing events, since we've clearly proven these "griefing events" did not take place in Immy's presence or with Immy's involvement.

HOWEVER, said blogger's methods of dealing with members of what they believe to be a griefing group isnt the point of the thread and isnt the topic of argument, whether said blogger was right to ban Immy isnt in question... they felt it was right to not risk disruption, I can see that. What IS in question is the slanderous comments, (and subsiquent repercussions), made against Immy and NCI based entirely on assumptions using statements that are not only blown way out of proportion but also in many cases are entirely untrue.



one.. she wasnt wearing the group tag, she just has said group in her profile. Based on the comments made by the blogger in this particular artical, she was most probably suspected of being in woodbury based on her "goofy name", a common element that ties many woodbury and wHat members together. So in essence she was probably banned for her name.

two.. with the above said, she clearly did NOT desire this said reaction. Being one of the first people she spoke to following one of the bans (one from the NCI info nodes), I can honestly say she was at a loss as to why she was banned, it actually took a few days of digging to work out it was because of the group she was in.