Petition and Poll: Reinstate CrisMid

Lewis,

Thanks - I know we rarely agree on much, but I do know how much you enjoy SL and how seriously you took your role as a Greeter. It made me sad to see you removed, and not even know why, especially when there are people still in the group with far worse disciplinary records - it just felt, like my own suspension, to be motivated by something beyond simply the infraction at hand. I do hope you can ultimately find out why - the lack of any kind of due process is one of the worst parts of Second Life, and something Philip and Co. should be ashamed of.

If they really want this to be the open platform they claim, they need to stop micromanaging people like children and remove discplinary action for all but the most aggregious offenses (example, grid attack). Instead, they are creating an us vs them culture that is becoming increasingly acrimonious, between arbitrary discipline, content theft, and increased instability and decreased quality of SL. You are absolutely right in what you said about LL being their own worst enemies, and the biggest danger to the ongoing success of Second Life.

I used to back LL 100% for everything except the privacy issue. But, I have pretty much lost my faith in them completely.

Our loyal dictator Philip Linden will tell us rather or not it is just.

QFT.

If you ever decide to start your own competing virtual world, count me in.

~Ulrika~

Glad you are back, Cris. I hope this doesn't stop others from letting us know there are new exploits.

Just my opinion, but I think you were singled out Chris so the rest of us would keep our heads down as we go to hell in a handbasket.

It is a pleasure to have you back Cris...
Your eloquence is of the highest order and your voice a necessary and important one in our world.
I think that most of us who usually try to support LL in most of their decisions would agree that we are not happy with the way this particular issue was handled. Your suspension certainly seems to have been a pointed attack.
I most heartedly agree that timing was so urgent here. With the amount of people online during any weekend hour, and the few Lindens around to handle normal griefing issues, it would be tough to get anyones attention. (No fault of any particular person on staff)
Why not try to alert as many people as possible especially when major events were happening all over inworld for the Relay for Life and there was so much damage waiting to happen.

Well, time to move forward. You are back with us and thanks again for being kind enough to chance taking the *rap* for having the guts to yell loudly enough for people to hear !

You have love & respect from Mash & I always, Baccara

Indeed.

Welcome back, Cris.

To bring up my own situation -- This quote, dear friends, is exactly why it would have made zero sense for GOM to remain open and compete with LL's currency exchange market. In spite of our own loyal customers (many of whom poured out similar statements of support to us when we closed up shop last year), the unknown quantity of LL's capricious and arbitrary enforcement of their mutable TOS made the risks of continuing to handle US$400k+ (in cash and L$) per month of residents' wealth far too great.

This was my view of it too. He was made an example to show none of us are immune from being slapped down by LL, hoping us little peons will then cringe in fear. Personally...I think it will backfire though and have the opposite effect. I think more people are now willing to stand up and speak their mind against LL and their policies than before this "example" was made.

Aodhan, you don't understand. People are 99% CERTAIN that there is nothing whatsoever Cristiano did that would add an important piece to the story.

When unjust things happen to other people, yes, that is what people think - "Well, they probably did something else we don't know about." Or (worse), "Well, I didn't like him anyway."

This sort of thing actually happens all the time on the forums, and affects people's businesses and their participation in the volunteer programs, but never can the outsider be so sure that there wasn't some good reason for the punishment.

Truth is, there is often no good reason - or not enough reason - for forum punishments, or for the type of punishment given (informal warning, warning, suspension), or its harshness.

I really think LL doesn't understand just how much these affect us, and how personally we take them. They don't understand how it feels to a law-abiding concerned citizen who never got in trouble anywhere before to be all of a sudden a criminal here. I think they just think, "oh, it's just a suspension" or something. But getting punished unfairly really has a huge impression on an individual, particularly one who has always been a pillar of every community they've ever been in, and never knowingly breaks any laws.

coco

P.S. Sorry - this is Cocoanut Cookie (Cocoanut Koala). Forget which I was signed in under on AOL.

And welcome back, Cristiano!

Welcome back, my friend

This is a chilling thought, but I suppose it's happened before (and to several very high-profile people, too). Censorship of this sort is bad, even if you don't necessarily like or agree with the point of view being expressed.I agree, as well; this is micro-managing at its finest (or rather, worst), and worse yet, something that was most likely initiated by a fellow member of the community and not even a Linden! For shame, LL.Yes, and the Lindens are simply plowing ahead with trying to bring more people into the content-creator fold, as evidenced by their "SL Developer University" which will take place at the SL "Community" Convention. It is apparently more important to spend time teaching people how to "build a business in SL" and "monetize" their creations than to deal with fundamental flaws in the punitive and security systems within SL. Again, for shame, LL.

Agreed. I've never seen such collective and public disdain for LL in the two years since I joined. Given their silence, it seems justified and thus likely to continue.

~Ulrika~

*builds Cristiano a popemobile*

Oh, god forbid they engage in "teaching". There is no shame in the SLDU and it is not necessary to tie everything LL does together in this manner.

God forbid that they actually put efforts into helping to combat the sheer amount of content theft that is going on and provide real tools and solutions for dealing with it that don't just amount to "oh well, file an abuse report". They want content creators to build the world and supply the content, but they are alienating those very people by not doing much to help stop the rampant tide of theft. It is a serious problem - if people continue to have their work blatantly stolen and those who steal it get away with it with no recourse, people will stop creating content. Beryl's point is a valid one - it's all well and good that they are training new designers, but they continue to neglect the needs of the existing creators that they have, who are suffering from theft more than ever. It is necessary to tie these things together, they don't exist in a vacuum.

The timing of the original linking of forum violations to one's SL account was really quite fortuitous for LL. As this change followed soon after the banning of he-who-shall-not-be-named, the forum collective was a bit too volatile for rational discussion and foresight into the precarious position the more vocal members of the community were being placed. Not to mention, the distinct disadvantage as compared to those who never frequent the forums.

Hehe like that would work for me

I'm like Cris in that regard - gladly pay the ferryman if I'm right.

If I can laugh walking out of the building after being fired, you better believe I can laugh my way through a 3 day suspension

Actually I think LL should do me a favor - seeing I'll be pretty busy these next 3 days, and eventually I'll get a suspension anyways, we should all take the initiative and suspend me now and apply it retroactively to the next time I fuck up.

I'm sure your use of the term 'fortuitious' was meant to be facetious, but I'll reply just in case.

Surely it was instituted as a means of silencing Prok's generally-divisive opinions, not as some independent measure. I'm sure nobody thinks it was just a coincidence that the policy change just *happened* to occur right after he was banned from the forums and Pathfinder was observed chatting on IRC, saying LL *wanted* some way to get rid of him.

I was given a quote from Philip Linden from the content creators meeting - funny aside they scheduled that DURING the wednesday update... guess interoffice communications works on the 'love machine' principles as well...

But I digress...

...anyways the content of the quote pretty much amounts to 'ah well, people will do this anyways - so why bother'

Can't get onto SL right now (at work) but if I have time I'll post it later (or if the nice person who gave me the quote could post it - that would be great).

But I think it sums up the laissez-faire attutude we've seen to content security - creator and buyer rights and permissions systems.

....or for those (like me) who prefer less verbiage and more imagery:

Imagine Snoop Dogg wearing leather chaps with his hair spiked saying 'STFU and make my world.....bitch'

omg this is great i havent played prok prok goose in so long thank you ricky zamboni omg omg omg

I *am* allowed to say "Prok", aren't I? Or is the merest mention worthy of my *own* suspension?

It was an independant measure, Ricky, in that it didn't apply to Prok. The tie-in was announced at the same time, but his forum ban did not tie in to his SL account. Ironically, he was not at risk for losing his inworld holdings (for his forum posts for which he was notorious, anyway) unlike the rest of the posters who remained.

My point being more that this discussion as well as the others concerning this issue in recent times, have a calmer, more rational air about them. Posters known to be historically at odds with each other are in agreement here. Even Cris cites the overall issue being more important than the effect on himself personally.

If this action was meant to instill fear or show that LL will not respond to so-called bullying due to popular opinion, it seems to be failing. Rather, the opposite effect seems to have occurred.