Do You Think LL Is Too Easy On Griefers?

Yikes.. Ok, first off, there is no need to call another person a turd because you disagree with them. That kinda makes you look like an ass as opposed to the person you attacked.

Secondly, punishment is meant as a deterrent, unfortunately the deterrent needs to be of a stronger caliber. It's like cockroaches, you can try killing 'em off with whatever pesticides, and they'll be gone for a while, but eventually they come back, and they adapt. I think that in the mindset of a griefer who doesn't care about the actions he does and only cares about amusing himself by watching others suffer, I think that a good suppository dose of "forced universal karma" can work wonders.

The problem is that criminals do NOT operate within the bounds of logic and empathy. A law that empathizes with them is not going to really help them. There needs to be a deterrent system put in place that causes them to do a double take, to make them see that "whoa.. if that kinda shit happens to me if I do this, is it really worth it?"

Well, I would agree mostly. When somebody compares a video game diciplinary policy to the way Nazis treated the Jews during World War II, the correct response is to ignore them or AR them, not call them a turd. However I can understand how Jonquille's emotions may have run high over such a vulgar trivialization of one of the greatest horrors humanity has ever suffered. For the most part Jonquille's statement paled in comparison to the comment she was addressing.

All the rest I agree with 100%

If I had intended to compare a video game to the Holocaust, I would have said so.

I compared branding people within the game with green, yellow, and red, to indicate that those people should be steered clear of and banned outright, to The Scarlett Letter and the tatooing of arms in WWII. I have yet to come up with anything else it IS like. Can you? The idea of branding people in LL according to their records is a bad one, and for the same reasons.

And I resent any implication that I treat the Holocaust in any sort of trivial fashion. The worst thing we could do is travel blindly down the same sort of road, in the way we treat people. How you could not see a parallel is beyond me, because it is obvious. Undoubtedly you didn't see it that way - but to suggest that I'm trivializing anything by drawing the comparison is ridiculous.

Now - that's my opinion, and you're welcome to reject it. But the idea was put out, and that is what I think of it. Actually, it's stupid to even argue about it, it occured to me after I got offline, because the Lindens would never do any such thing. For the same reason that no one, anywhere, ever does any such thing. (If they do, feel free to correct me with examples.)

But if we are going to be busy AR'ing people, then I guess I have some AR'ing to do myself.

coco

P.S. I wasn't comparing a video game's disciplinary policy to the branding of people in Nazi Germany. I was comparing your idea for that disiplinary policy to the branding of people in Nazi Germany, because that is what it would be like. Not theirs. Although I recognize that you weren't thinking of it that way.

It's okay to compare griefers to cockroaches, but not to call someone who tries to compare another forum poster to a Nazi a turd? I disagree, obviously.

I did not compare Aimee to a Nazi. I said that the idea of branding people in the game was tantamount to branding them with a tattoo on the arm or a scarlett letter.

coco

Hahaha, I thought you were through with these shrill declarations of intended ARs? Seriously, man, you've already shoved your foot pretty far down your throat, why are you making it worse for yourself?

*edited*

AR that. Make sure you announce it too.

There is an essential problem with a deterrent that invovles identifying a malefactor as such, and catalgoing the degree and number of their offenses. For many people who behave badly, it simply isn't a deterent. As Dianne M pointed out, there are plenty of "goofballs" who would look on being named in the police blotter, or being tagged as a troublemaker, as a "medal" to wear proudly. After all, many folks who engage in anti-social online behavior do so out of a desire or need to gain attention, to be noticed, to assume the mantel of notoriety. I have wondered if the Lindens don't leave names out of the blotter for precisely that reason--they have no desire to give the pathological personalities the attention they crave.

Actually deterring repeated and escalating anti-social and destructive behavior is perhaps best served by a response that is relatively priavte at its lowest levels, but which becomes public when an ultimate draconian solution becomes ncessary. Which brings us back to the orignal poster's question: "Is LL too easy on griefers?"

The answer to that question probably depends on what LL's goals are in the ways that it handles griefers. If the goal is to utterly and absolutely deter greifing, the answer clearly is that they are are in fact way too "easy" on griefers. If the goal is something else--say, such as leaving open the possiblitly for some level of griefing as an element of the overall social experiment, in order to see what different kinds of people will decide to do on the platform and how the other residents will react and deal with it themselves--then they are probably doing about as much as they really want to do.

Also, I didn't attend a university or anything, but I think it's spelled "scarlet."

"the correct response is to ignore them or AR them"

As I said, if people are going to be AR'ing right and left, I'd better get in some too, huh.

coco

I don't think that's an accurate characterization. If anything, people will be ARing right down the center at a particular, obvious bull's eye.

Just what are you talking about, Enabran?

coco

I'm not doing your homework for you again, Cocoanut. Let's limit that to once a week, shall we?

I agree with you. I just used the word because Jonquille called Coco a turd to exemplify your point. I figured you were talking to me but I'll let them go on about defending Jonquille because , well, I agree with you. Sorry if I didn't make my sarcasm more apparent.

(gets out huge 'fucktard' brand)

OK, I have done my homework, as Enabran requested, and looked back several pages. I can see how Aimee took it personally, when I said she had just suggested branding numbers on arms. I should know by now that things get taken very literally around here, and it is not like having a conversation face-to-face.

My intention was only to point out that the IDEA was the same as branding people. Seems that the Scarlett Letter should have been a clue, but that was overlooked - and people were jumping on this bandwagon. The only thing left was the arm tatoos, cause that IS what it would be like.

I've apologized to Aimee in the game for causing her to think I was personally calling her a Nazi, rather than the idea. I have to admit, the idea itself is totally awful, and still is. But next time I will be more diplomatic when putting forward these ideas. For example: "Aimee, I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but . . .", said BEFORE, rather than after, would be a good idea.

As for those of you who have weighed in on this in such an infuriated manner, I have nothing to say.

coco

clues: satire, metaphor, warning

this is one of the one in one hundred times when i agree with you coco. branding people is not good. last names and birthdates are brand enough already.

Nothing was taken personally. Had I been uninvolved with this conversation, and your Nazi comparison was made about some other poster's suggestion ... I would have found it equally appalling.

If an apology is in order, it's not to me, it's to the forum.

What do you mean it doesn't happen in RL? What world do you live in? Criminal records are public, and very easily obtainable, and contain the full details of crimes. Hell, Aimee is not even proposing the details be included, just an indicator of repeat offenses. To somehow claim that this does not occur in RL, and then to make some Nazi comparison, which was about branding people for being Jewish, or gay, or other things, is completely innaccurate and undeserved.

see coco, this is what you've done for your credibility. you made a very astute observation about aimee's ill concieved idea but nobody cares.

should have taken my 10k offer. less grief, more money!

I, however, do... when the shoe's on the other foot your song changes quite a bit.

That and 'Godwins'... thread over.

if the details aren't included it is even more foolish!

in rl you have to apply for access to someones public records. your application itself is public. and the person is not subject to universal discrimination from walking around with it plastered to their head.

now if the details are unavailable, people can't even judge for themselves how they feel about the persons record. they have to take LL's word for it.

btw, i'm indian! i am smart at math and i smell like curry. i also don't tip well and am probably a doctor.

Simply untrue.

http://sex-offender.vsp.state.va.us/cool-ICE/


Not to equate the two (griefing and molestation), but any employer or _anyone_ for that matter can have complete access to anyone else's records utilizing the myriad of corporations out there which exist solely to trade with such information. Got a credit card? Got a name of someone? That is all that is required.

Comparing adding a temporary hue to a deliberate griefer's name in a game, to the permanent tattooing and persecution of millions of people based on their heritage and religion, is an 'astute observation'? No. It's hyperbole of the worst sort, and it's a desperate attempt by an ignorant and envious person to paint someone she dislikes in the worst light possible.