Advertising as HArrassment

Then we need to differentiate between "reasonable advertising" and "spamming".

Let LL set limits, and be done with it. Problem solved.

Lewis

They have set their limits. Why aren't we done with it?

Sticking their head in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist is not setting a limit.

It's hoping the problem goes away.

The problem will not go away.

However, they have the power to make it go away.

It's called a "Ban", for reasons of disturbing the peace, spamming, and infringing on other's gameplay.

Lewis

Everything you see in SL is caused by a transmission of data packets from LL. All of these packets were created by people who make the objects and placed by those who buy them. If LL is to forbid these transmissions nothing will be visible in SL. That's why it's clearly not LL's intention to make a rule denying people the right to place things (digital things) on their land that transmit data via the visual SL interface.

When reading real life laws, the same standard applies as mentioned in the previous paragraph, and the intent of the lawmaker is established by the courts (LL in SL would be the court).

I couldnt disagree more. Why not empower the users with more tools? We could sit here all day waiting for the internet to be void of idiots and fools but we'd be here a long time. I say more power to users and less burden on LL to run around babysitting us. If by merely creating a policy suddenly meant it got enfored/obeyed then life would be a million times easier. And this type of technology/tools, like prop 905, would help make things better even when a policy wasnt being broken.

And certainly you and a group of like-minded sould are free to pool your money and buy a sim, and come up with regulations regarding landuse within the sim. This is community building. I think it a good solution. There are a number of zoned sims you can join already.

You are also free to buy the parcels around your house to preserve the view in that way.

If you want it done on the cheap you are free to build a wall on your own land, and put a very pleasing texture on it.

Ultimatelyn we are buing an interest in virtual rela-estate, and one of the conditions of real estate is that you can, of necessity, see inot the land next to you. Views are protected by agreement, or by purchasing power. In a vrey real sense the amout of tier you are willing to pay to LL directly controls the amount of power you have over your surrounding view.
If you are willing to pay US$1300 plus $195/mo in tier, you can have all the view you might way on a private island. If you are willing to pay $9.95 in tier, you get $9.95 in view, which means you have to tolerate your neighbors. They also pay tier to LL and as long as they are acting within the TOS, then you are bound by the time honored and acncient legal doctorine, common to all systems: Tough Shit.

Ther eare work arounds. But these involve work, and relcoation. Preservation of view is something to think about prior to buying land, not after. Ultimately I find many arguements made against this to be arguments of result, without considering consequence.
As I have said, this is a land-use issue not a free expression issue.

I think those tools are fine, Chris, actually. Many people are happy to be able to mute those who bother them, for instance, or to ban griefers from their land.

It is not that having the option of the tools is bad. It's depending on them in place of reasonable rules that doesn't make sense to me.

coco

Not surprisingly, LL sees this the same way. It is in their financial interests to let the mainland be a hellhole.

But only up to a point, because at some point, people start checking out of the game after just seeing the hellhole, rather than staying in it and trying to figure out a way out of the hellhole.

coco

I for one, am done with it.

The decision is made; they choose discretionary uninforcement, and to provide residents with zoning tools, and that was essentially that.

It's not what I would have done, but if you take the long, multi-year view - I can see the line of reasoning clearly enough. Is it the right decision? Time will tell.

I stated my views quite a while ago - at this point, 'pushing' those views further seems... unproductive.





With regard to service terms though - if they are unreasonable at all, they are unreasonable in the 'other' direction. Read the terms - anything that disrupts the community can be removed.

What holds us in balance and sculpts our rules is raw capitalism - as long as Second Life is compelling enough to draw residents, it will move forward regardless.

No one is dictating anything to me Chip and I'm throwing nothing away but a little square of virtual land with an offensive sign over it.

It's not the sign maker anyway, it's LL. He's just doing what they let him do and having a good money making time of it.

I'm not intolerant of other people's rights at all, your reading what you want to read. I'm very tolerant.

I pay LL for my experience however, and if I don't agree with their actions I am free to not pay them and still remain in SL, have a fun experience and be a drain on them rather than profit and I don't have to look at an offensive sign outside my window or pay an obvious extortionist. Problem solved.

Would you feel the same if I bought 1000 little squares all over and posted swatikas with an elect the american Nazi party slogan and holocaust denial rhetoric spammed across the entire mainland? Or something similarly distasteful like anti-semetic signs everywhere? After all it's free speech and it's my land to do with as I wish right? I doubt that would last a day before the Lindens removed them and me.

Why is this any different?

You're right, it wouldn't last a day. Nazi symbols are hate speech as defined by the TOS. Impeach Bush signs are not. It's as simple as that. No one can make your choices for you but from my perspective you're saying that an impeach bush sign near your land outweighs everything else that is SL. I just don't have much sympathy for that, honestly. I've had all manner of ugly and annoying things built next to my land. All it took for them to go away was patience. I still have my land and those dozens of small annoyances are long gone. If I had bailed out because of that first one then I wouldn't have what I have now... a large swath of beautiful land with wonderful neighbors that truly feels like home because I've been there for more than two years now.

For almost a year I had a race track next door that had cars with loud revving engines that could be heard across the entire sim 24/7. I wager it was far more annoying than an impeach bush sign because you couldn't ignore it even if you wanted to. I got used to it and in time it went away. The only way to get what you want in SL is to hold your ground and be patient. For me it was well worth the wait and I couldn't imagine giving up my land no matter what got built next door, especially if it was just a single prim with a loud blue texture on it. Each to their own, but to my mind those who quit SL or surrender their land because of one sign show an appalling lack of tolerance.

Being patient does do the trick in most cases - I don't move around at all, and I've seen all kinds of things come and go.

However, I like how Kelli explains this. It really is just that simple - a matter of deciding not to pay for services one decides aren't up to par. If the Lindens decide this is going to be how it is, then we can decide that we don't want to pay for it.

Also, I think you are overlooking something psychological about all of it. If I had a race track next to me and I knew people were having fun, that's one thing. I do have a club next to my store that's in my Sim that lags and from which people shout constantly, even though it's not big enough to need it. But you know, I know they are having fun, and I like for people to have fun.

But if I had someone next to me who I know existed for the sheer pleasure of pissing me off (and maybe even raising his build higher each time I raised my own trees, or whatever, as we have heard happens), then it becomes MUCH harder to tolerate.

I think you can agree there is just something human about that. Kind of like you put up with your neighbor's late-night party cause after all, it is Saturday, and they are having fun, and you could join in if you want to. Whereas you would be MUCH less tolerant if there was one individual sitting there, timing his every move to annoy you as much as possible. I think there is just a fundamental difference there.

coco

I agree with most of that, Coco. I just would feel that if I let something like a sign drive me off my land that It would be like saying that the sign has more willpower than I do and I just wouldn't accept that. It frustrates me that other people will.

Wouldn't that be classed as 'disturbing the peace'?

I was under the impression that you weren't supposed to create anything - be it text, sound or whatnot - that could be heard beyond the boundaries of your own land?

Lewis

It might have been but I didn't complain to LL about it. I talked to my neighbor. He loved the sounds and felt very strongly about having them. I decided it would be far more advantageous in the long run to have a good relationship with him instead of an adversarial one, and I didn't feel that my subjective tastes were somehow more important than his. He was doing what made him happy and I was cool with that, even if I found it annoying. It's called tolerance. Try it some time

I think your point about tolerance is well taken Chip. So many problems can be solved if we reallly take that philosphy to heart.

I do think there is an inconsistency though in regards the comaprison (coco?), made to Nazi symbols. I dont feel personally that Nazi stuff is any different thatn any other syumbol or sign. If LL really believes this line they are handing everyone about the Bush signs, then I dont see how they can justify banning a Nazi sign in the same breath.

The Bush signs are deeply offenseive to a lot of people, more so because he is "getting away" with it. If the mainland really is a "free-for-all" as some people argue, then it should be ike a Blade Runner type landscape, and anything goes. I have also heard credible reports that other political signs that protest against Lindens or affect Linden owned land have been summarily removed. It is this inconsistency that offends some peolple I think.

Well actually nazi signs probably wouldn't bother me either. I'd think they were incredibly obnoxious but I likely wouldn't burn any calories worrying about them. I can understand why LL would ban those though since they relate directly to racial hatred. The Bush signs are merely a political statement, however ineptly expressed.

It wasn't me who said the nazi stuff above. However, I take a VERY VERY strong line against Nazi things, and I absolutely WOULD NOT play ANY game where it was tolerated.

As for the noisy neighbors and whatnot, I agree that Chip's viewpoint really goes a long way. I have a pretty much live-and-let live attitude toward everyone in every game, and it has served me in good stead for a long time, in games and irl, too. I'm quite easy-going about stuff like this, and patient.

As for allowing a sign that says "Impeach Bush" - I am very, very much in favor of and also extremely PROUD of the freedom of expression that allows such a sign. (As opposed to Nazi imagery and slogans, or other forms of hate speech.)

To me, being able to post such a sign is one of the strengths of the United States, and also one of the strengths of SL. I am never the slightest bit offended whether or not I agree with a political sign.

What I am offended by and increasingly unappreciative of is the Lindens insistance on letting this misery happen to all of us, and even encouraging it by giving it their blessing, in the NAME of free speech, in a way that goes beyond freedom of speech or the legitimate and reasonable expression thereof, imo.

It's nothing more than griefing, really, to me, and THAT offends me. That I suspect the Lindens allow this griefing because they agree with the viewpoints on the signs is something I don't like even having to suspect. (Not because they might or mightnot agree with it, but that they might let that influence them to allow the signs to stay.)

And eventually, when and if I tier down, it will not be because one of these signs is next to my property (even if one is). It will be because I won't pay people who aren't providing the service I expect.

Meanwhile, though, I figure these things take time. And, of course, I still want my own store, which I worked hard to build up. And maybe all this will all die down, who knows.

But I will say one thing: I definitely would not DREAM of tiering up further now.

coco

I disagree with this mostly because I think it's quite clear from history that banning such stuff leads to the exact opposite result from what is intended. Demonizing Nazis leads to hiding the truth and banning the paraphenalia lends it a curious kind of power that would eventually be defused if it was not banned. That's all off-topic though and has been debated to death before on the forums to no avail. I was merely mentioning that as an example of inconsistency (and it is).

I can't speak for the States, but any community I have ever lived in it's simply not allowed to put up any old sign on your front lawn or your buisness especially and particularly political ones and I think this has been the case in the majority of modern "western" history. In Canada, during an election for instance, they crop up all over but with the express understanding that this is a speical circumstance and people get mighty angry if they are not taken down immediately afterwards.

This is where I completely agree with you. The whole issue of what kind of sign with what kiknd of statement you are allowed to put up in terms of "freedom of speech" is to me, completely extraneous to the "Bush sign debate." Freedom of speech has nothign to do with it IMO, and the beahviour itself is simple greifing and extortion and should be (could be), banned on that basis. My point about the inconsistencies in the application of free speech rules in SL was just that (about free speech). I did not mean to imply that it has anything to do with why the Bush sign guy should or should not be banned, as I think it's irrelevant to that case.

I agree with your statement - he isn't your neighbor.

On the other hand, since you and your neighbors surround his land, you all can setup boards to block in his 16m spot and render it useless. It's not a real solution for the problem, but it can remove the eye sore. Just make it look like it's a giant lamp post, a lighthouse, etc.

Nazi symbols are hateful as defined by the Lindens(and most other reasonable people), the TOS doesn't mention them at all though.

A swastika for example was in use by other cultures for over 3000 years and appears in hindu holy books, it is found in the ancient city of Troy, and is common in Indian artwork and on both current and ancient Hindu architecture. The nazi's just stole it and used it relatively recently.

So if I put up hindu religious signs all over with their "good luck" swastika is it still hate speech? Free speech and tolerance anyone?

There are many things that could be decided as.....

"harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable"

Which is all the TOS mentions. The term "otherwise onjectionable" leaves it open to anything the lindens decide they want to get rid of and easily covers this guy if they so desire.

The content doesn't bother me, he can tar and feather Bush and send him via UPS to Bin Laden's cave in Pakistan for all I care. That's not the point.

In this case there is no argument he is intentionally annoying me, he even admits it. The sign serves no useful purpose other than to annoy and extort. He has never even been back once since he put it up. There is almost zero traffic there. It's intent and purpose is plain.

Unlike your neigbors where the cars actually were something that was interacted with and served a useful purpose. If he built a racetrack, a sign for a mall, an ugly house or anything useful I wouldn't complain a bit. It's a question of intent and context.

If he put the land as not for sale, or for sale at $999,999L I wouldn't complain either.

The intent of the sign is quite clear. To harrass me into paying him $5000L for land he bought for a fraction of that.

Just as yelling FIRE! when there is a fire is fine, but free speech doesn't cover doing it in a crowded theatre just to watch people jump and trample each other. It's a matter of context and intent. His is plain and admitted in his own interview.

I think there are plenty of legitimate uses for nazi symbolism. WWII games are a prime example. Having said that, my point was simply that "kill all the Jews" is rather more hateful than "impeach Bush" and in that context I can understand them being treated differently. Yes, LL can use their discretion (and it looks like in this case they're going to do something), but if that discretion can be manipulated by vocal minorities with an agenda, is that a good thing? Personally, I think not.

First you assume a minority, it's quite possible the majority of land owners at least on the mainland would agree with getting rid of them. The polls I've seen here certainly have seen a majority wanting the signs gone.

Second, no society has static rules, we make rules as we see the need to do so constantly in any and every society. That is the basis of any society and a society cannot exist healthily without that process. This is simply that process in action.

Even vocal minorities have a voice though. It's a good thing as the laws we pass in this country when vocal minorities raise legitimate concerns are often just. We react with better rules such as civil rights, zoning laws, hate crime laws, and issues voiced by many vocal minorities that are on the way to our supreme court now such as redistricting laws.

We argue and debate and demonstrate about the issues. Society at work defining itself.

It's a great thing.

Only in this case we must raise our issues to the Lindens, a single source who's motivation is profit based, and is free to impose whatever agenda they desire on the society or ignore us, or simply not be reachable.

In other words we try to justify, beg and plead our issues to fascist state leader with their own seperate agenda from the society who may or may not listen or care, and could permantly "remove" us at a whim.

In any case it looks like justice will finally prevail.

There are 100,000 residents in SL. How many have you heard speak out about the signs? I'm going by that number, not assuming the disposition of the rest. In other words, I'm not the one making the assumptions here.

I'm not assuming it's a minority or a majority, we simply don't know. I just said it is *possible* that it's a majority not that I assume it is in any way.

What we do know is that the majority of those in the forum poll here wanted them gone.

It's surely a very small skewed sample and at least somewhat unrepresentative but it is the only sample available.

In any case just because a minority is a minority doesn't mean it's agenda or cause isn't justified. As well just because a majority doesn't speak out on an issue doesn't mean they don't hold a majority view.

By the way I love your templates, just wanted to say thanks for them while we're talking.