Proposed Constitutional Amendment - Defence of the Realm

I have to back up Patroklus on this part.

While I agree with some of Ulrikas comments on the details of the implementation of this bill (OMG! ), I feel her basic disagreement with the bill stems both from her recent personal involvement as a "griefer" herself, and thus a different interpretation of what griefing is than Patroklus is using.

Griefing in the context of this bill is simply "law breaking." Banning someone from the sim which is the "LL tool"to address this (and currently the *only* tool available), is not always the thing to do in regards the particular law breaking you need to curtail or sanction.

Temporary removal of an avatars ability to apply for citizenship in Nburg is just another tool. It's use needs to be defined and the bill attempts to do that. It's not "a separate issue from griefing" it's one of the possible sanctions applied to "griefers" defined as "law breakers." It all seems rather straightforward to me.

I would also take issue with Ulrika's rather ludicrous blanket statement that there "hasn't been any griefing for two years in Nburg." (or words to that effect)

I have only played SL for a little over a year and I have seen griefers in the city myself several times. Surely (just to mention a few incidents), the rain of dead cats, the script griefing objects placed above Ulrika's own house, and various other quite recent events qualify as griefing. Not to mention the actions of our own friendly neighborhood self-styled virtual "terrorist."

*That* is griefing, and there are currently sanctions routinely applied without little guidance or structure in the law as to how they should be so applied. Ulrika herself has very recently complained of this very thing. The bill is an attempt from a new member to address these issues in a concrete and complete manner and Patroklus' efforts should be lauded IMO.

I would continue this discussion, but it might seem like I'm beating a dead horse, we both made points that explain our position. Not to mention it doesn't apply to this bill/amendment.

The issue concerning this thread is when is it acceptable to ban someone, and who should have such power.

I'm not a griefer by any definition of the word, as I simply removed property that belonged to me. To wit, there is no bill of sale for those structures, no written agreement stating that I had transfered them to the city, and no permission given by me to duplicate the structures. The structures are my property until they are paid for. Until then, this is a simple case of a group trying to cheat a creative individual out of their hard work by either pirating it or locking them out of the sim to prevent them from taking it back.

It's kind of like accusing a child, who climbed into a back yard to get their frisbee, of stealing. You sick bastards.

~Ulrika~

"Law breaking" like returning for things you own or "law breaking" like pirating someone's hard work? Personally, I think everyone in this city could benefit from a basic ethics course.

~Ulrika~

I'd say it's more like one going into a person's house to reclaim a bookcase one built as a favor.

I'd say it's more like going into a person's house to reclaim a bookcase that one built but was never paid for and discovering that they were making copies of this unique bookshelf without permission.

~Ulrika~

a better case for "griefing" would be Government officials destroying property with no reason nor consent of the people.