Which Should be Least Tolerated in Second Life?

This is a personal attack on me... I am disabled and I request the Lindens ban you.

you request the Lindens ban everyone

they prolly have a good snicker when they get a ban or lock thread or 'deleate' thread request from you and file it on its own server

relax man, you are WAY too uptight

damn, I should be more tolerant of men and woman too

and boys and girls

now have I included everyone yet so you don't feel persecuted?

and, read the song lyrics

Eminem wrote the song, and we are tolerant of him...

1st verse. A certain actor who played a superhero and fell off a horse and is now deceased is mentioned...

geez man, you're so vain, I bet you think this song is about you...

I really don't see how this was a personal attack on you personally...

Mulch honey, get some sleep (and lay off the damn Nyquil!)

oh, btw, good song

Warning! Danger Will Robinson! Do not try to argue with Magnum, it's futile!

lol, check it

/108/90/74521/1.html#post775859

must be the lost in space time o the year

That's frightening! Or maybe you're really Moopf Ennui, to go with Moopf Murray and Moopf Pendragon. Maybe I don't even know I'm you. The plot thickens....

personally I don't tolerate alts



I had a few acid trips like that, where I saw everyone else as a different representation of me in some other state or time or lifetime

mucho empathy

but thats a topic for another time. nyquil is finally working so i can be asleep while I am sick =)

I'm glad to see IP Theft and Griefing far and away ahead. IP Theft and Griefing break the law, the others are just legislating taste. The trend in the United States of legislating taste (booze and cigarettes are legal, pot isn't... Christianity is pious while Wicca is mocked... heteros get tax breaks, homos can't even get married... etc) really disgusts me.

Regards,

-Flip

Yep, I agree Flip. I voted for Griefing, but IP Theft was a close second. Everything else is a matter of taste or morals, which, like em or not, are individual choices.

I chose griefing over IP theft because I pictured both happening at the same time, and which one I'd want tackled first.

I chose greifing as it incorperates several of those options..

What Issarik said

It's really sad that a certain someone has nearly driven me to consider "Griefing" worse than "Nazi Iconography". I don't think LL should take action against either, but citizens should act out (legally) against bigotry and extortion/griefing.

Actually, they have taken action against Nazi Iconography on more than one occasion.

Intolerance should be the least tolerated. I hate intolerant people! They should be tortured and then shot, and then tortured again!! followed by more shooting and lots more torture!!!.

* shoots myself in the head *

Now Somebody... please... torture me...

i want PIE goddamnnitttttt!!!!!!!

Tough call on so many of them there is a chance to cause the house of cards to tumble, but I went with the IP theft since legal action there could be the most damaging, whereas legal action on the other topics deal with just one individual vs the community.

Legal action regarding IP theft has potential to drag in Lindens, individuals and the community, tons of RL $$ at stake even though the argument "it's all just play money" is on the table that wont stop corporations from going after LL, offenders and people who have crossed bounds on copyrights and trademarks in RL to turn a buck in SL... it is a very touchy subject.

Im sure a lot of people would disagree, and that's the beauty of open forums, you can flame me for being different.

What Ferran said

And I want pie too

In many places, such as the one in which I was born, it is illegal to have any kind of sex other than strict copulation. Burn that Kama Sutra book, coz if a cop in many US states catches you (even though you are married to the person) having oral sex, well, you could be in trouble with the law! Why aren't all people who have oral sex in jail??? only because the police, sensibly, decided it was NONE of their BUSINESS! thank goddess.

What I hate almost as much as IP theft is having some self-appointed vigilante come over and harass me because he has made a judgement call on what I am doing in private. Folks can consider a wide variety of behaviours offenses and then justify their own shoddy behaviour as a result. To do this, though, is clearly a TOS violation and one of the people who did do this to me has been banned. If I had only AR since day one, perhaps more of them would be. I've been sexually harassed by Ass-hats (tm) on multiple occasions because they don't like people being sexy in sl. I'm a big believer in personal freedoms, particularly in a fantasy world. I don't care if Ass-hats (tm) or newbs or anyone builds unsightly builds. I do care if someone (a) Lags my sim on purpose; (b) tries to harm or harass my guests; (c) sexually harasses me or my guests; or (as has also happened) tries to steal my account(s)/money. Griefers should be banned in such a way that a simple IP change doesn't allow them back in. For griefers, SL is a game and everyone who isn't in their grief group is a target of that game. They need to go somewhere where that is true: such as W.o.W.

I voted IP theft. It's the most clearly illegal and the only option that I think is clearly wrong under almost every circumstance.

I would like to say, though, that *I* don't necessarily think Nazi iconography should be completely banned, but I think it's ok for Linden Labs to do so. As far as I know, they've never claimed SL is a democracy. If Nazi iconography is something that is so controversial that it can't be allowed in the game without destroying SL culture, then it's probably a good idea to ban it.

I voted IP theft too.

I'm not so concerned about what consenting adults are doing with each other at 500m. I think some of the lifestyles in SL are down right silly, but people can think the same about mine.

Trolling would have been my 2nd followed by griefing. Trolling because I try to keep up with what is going on in SL through the forums and trolls waste my time. Griefing I disagree with on principle even though I'm rarely affected.

I don't care what lifestyle or roleplay anyone chooses so long as it isn't forced on me or anyone else. I may not 'get it' but I don't have to. It's none of my business.

I chose Griefing, mainly because I think it's the thing that drives people away more than anything else, and it's also a catch-all for a lot of behaviours.

i voted goreans becuz of the reaction it got in the thread.

it is teh funny.

yes it's two consenting adults but... if the level of simulation (talking future here folks) ever becomes "indistinguishable" from the real thing (that including photoshoping for stills) it is illegal. If you read the last line you can see that it's probably legal now for no one would walk in on two av's and thing is was "real molestation".

even SIMULATED child pornography is illegal according to us code 18,2256
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;

--clip---
( “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

Actually, I believe the simulated child porn part of the law has been struck down by The Supremes.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban on virtual child pornography today, ruling that the First Amendment protects pornography or other sexual images that only appear to depict real children engaged in sex.

The 6-3 ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition is a victory for both pornographers and legitimate artists such as moviemakers, who argued that a broad ban on simulated child sex could make it a crime to depict a sex scene like those in the recent movies "Traffic" or "Lolita."

The court said language in a 1996 child pornography law was unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075