Second Life Forums Archive - Land exploiter? Who's side are you on?

Cocoanut Cookie

Registered User

Join date: 26 Jan 2006

Posts: 1,741

05-19-2006 12:58

From: nimrod Yaffle

Oh, sorry, I thought you were upset that they went back on their word for about the reverse engineering in this case. I guess all the words made my brain fart.

Opinion:

Well, yes, you are right about that; I misunderstood.

As for the case at hand, it seems to me that being able to take the land back is reasonable. Even being able to kick him out of the game if they decide he cheated is reasonable. I don't like, though, that they can also KEEP the money he spent on the land, rather than just refunding it. Not to mention that they can keep everything of his in the game, or that they can do that to anyone they like whenever they feel like it (theoretically, according to TOS).

It is those sorts of TOS which I think really need challenging; they are entirely one-sided.

(Particularly in SL, where the makers are going to on the one hand tout the fact that real money can be made in the game - yet also say, oh and by the way, it's always all ours, anytime we want it!)

Now, about the reverse-engineering thing: Essentially what they are saying is, yes, we know it is against the TOS, but we figure if it doesn't bother us, go ahead and do it.

That's just no way to have a rule. For one thing, how do you know they will like what you are doing or not? Moreover, if they just happen to not like a person, and a person is doing this, they can boot the person on the basis of breaking the stated rule in the TOS.

But at the same time, they will not apply that rule to others.

That just doesn't work. You just can't have rules that are rules, "unless we decide it's okay in your case." Those aren't rules at all.

The same thing happens here on the forums. Several individuals can break the stated TOS with impunity and nothing happens to them. The TOS gets stretched way out of shape to make room for these individuals.

But other individuals wouldn't dare break these rules. And the very same TOS gets strictly applied - stretched in the other direction - in order to punish these individuals.

In other words, "We have the rules just in case we want to apply them to someone, but if we like you and you're not bothering us, we won't." That's no way to run a forums or a platform, or ANYTHING, imho. In means there are no rules at all; only different treatment for different individuals, based on whim.

I see the same philosophy applying to this reverse-engineering thing.

_____________________

Juro Kothari

Like a dog on a bone

Join date: 4 Sep 2003

Posts: 4,418

05-19-2006 13:59

From: Cocoanut Cookie

I don't like, though, that they can also KEEP the money he spent on the land, rather than just refunding it. Not to mention that they can keep everything of his in the game, or that they can do that to anyone they like whenever they feel like it (theoretically, according to TOS).

From what I understand (and have read on these forums) he sold the land almost immediately, so refunding his money would've the only recourse. They couldn't seize the land back, as it is now in the hands of new owners who bought it honestly.

_____________________

nimrod Yaffle

Cavemen are people too...

Join date: 15 Nov 2004

Posts: 3,146

05-19-2006 14:26

From: Juro Kothari

From what I understand (and have read on these forums) he sold the land almost immediately, so refunding his money would've the only recourse. They couldn't seize the land back, as it is now in the hands of new owners who bought it honestly.

I think he might have idle land that was not sold, or auctions he bid on in queue. Not sure though, just a thought.

_____________________

"People can cry much easier than they can change."
-James Baldwin

Cocoanut Cookie

Registered User

Join date: 26 Jan 2006

Posts: 1,741

05-19-2006 15:07

From: Juro Kothari

From what I understand (and have read on these forums) he sold the land almost immediately, so refunding his money would've the only recourse. They couldn't seize the land back, as it is now in the hands of new owners who bought it honestly.

Right. We just don't know the facts and details. I am saying that if everything can be seized (as is stated in the TOS), then - in general - that's not wonderful.

coco

_____________________

Nicole David

Furniture Queen

Join date: 7 Sep 2005

Posts: 134

05-19-2006 15:22

I don´t know the whole story, but I don´t think he should be punished without warning for a glitch in their system. I think they should had communicated with him, explaining the situation, and tried to make it work out rather than blindly banning him.

Edit: I also think what he did was wrong and shady, but LL could had handled it more professionally, I am sure.

Nolan Nash

Frischer Frosch

Join date: 15 May 2003

Posts: 7,141

05-20-2006 05:04

From: Cocoanut Cookie

Opinion:

Well, yes, you are right about that; I misunderstood.

As for the case at hand, it seems to me that being able to take the land back is reasonable. Even being able to kick him out of the game if they decide he cheated is reasonable. I don't like, though, that they can also KEEP the money he spent on the land, rather than just refunding it. Not to mention that they can keep everything of his in the game, or that they can do that to anyone they like whenever they feel like it (theoretically, according to TOS).

It is those sorts of TOS which I think really need challenging; they are entirely one-sided.

(Particularly in SL, where the makers are going to on the one hand tout the fact that real money can be made in the game - yet also say, oh and by the way, it's always all ours, anytime we want it!)

Now, about the reverse-engineering thing: Essentially what they are saying is, yes, we know it is against the TOS, but we figure if it doesn't bother us, go ahead and do it.

That's just no way to have a rule. For one thing, how do you know they will like what you are doing or not? Moreover, if they just happen to not like a person, and a person is doing this, they can boot the person on the basis of breaking the stated rule in the TOS.

But at the same time, they will not apply that rule to others.

That just doesn't work. You just can't have rules that are rules, "unless we decide it's okay in your case." Those aren't rules at all.

The same thing happens here on the forums. Several individuals can break the stated TOS with impunity and nothing happens to them. The TOS gets stretched way out of shape to make room for these individuals.

But other individuals wouldn't dare break these rules. And the very same TOS gets strictly applied - stretched in the other direction - in order to punish these individuals.

In other words, "We have the rules just in case we want to apply them to someone, but if we like you and you're not bothering us, we won't." That's no way to run a forums or a platform, or ANYTHING, imho. In means there are no rules at all; only different treatment for different individuals, based on whim.

I see the same philosophy applying to this reverse-engineering thing.

But I thought it was just a "game"?

Confused in the midwest

_____________________

“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit

Juro Kothari

Like a dog on a bone

Join date: 4 Sep 2003

Posts: 4,418

05-20-2006 09:47

From: Cocoanut Cookie

Right. We just don't know the facts and details. I am saying that if everything can be seized (as is stated in the TOS), then - in general - that's not wonderful.

coco

I think it's appropriate and I'm sure that as long as you don't go taking advantage of any exploit, your chances of having your assets/property seized is nil.

_____________________

Rude Prunes

Registered User

Join date: 9 Apr 2006

Posts: 92

05-20-2006 10:09

From: Cocoanut Cookie

Right. We just don't know the facts and details. I am saying that if everything can be seized (as is stated in the TOS), then - in general - that's not wonderful.

coco

This goes for RL too in some cases. Caught doing some dodgy like drug dealing, the government can seize your assets. Either don't do dodginess or don't get caught and you'll be fine.

Cocoanut Cookie

Registered User

Join date: 26 Jan 2006

Posts: 1,741

05-20-2006 10:46

From: Rude Prunes

This goes for RL too in some cases. Caught doing some dodgy like drug dealing, the government can seize your assets. Either don't do dodginess or don't get caught and you'll be fine.

That's a thought. Now that you mention it, I know that the government ends up with vans and what-not after drug busts. But do they get everything the guy has?

coco

_____________________

Jodina Patton

Registered User

Join date: 19 Nov 2005

Posts: 170

05-20-2006 10:52

Well LL should defiantly have a better auction system in place. No one should be able to just type in a URL and have access to auctions they are not supposed to have access to. I wonder sometimes if they got a bunch of newb/wannabe code writers writing this game sometimes.

The next problem is the guy asked LL if it was ok to bid on these auctions and they said "Good Luck"????????

Sure it is a typical cut and paste tech response but still LL should be more on top of things like that. Any questions related to auctions of expensive sims should be directed to a auction manager and not a copy and paste tech support person.

I am not sure what the monetary damages are. The guy should have got the money back he paid for the auctions out of his own pocket but not so sure about the money he made selling the sims.... Sounds like the TOS covers that somewhat,

Fact is though LL opened them selfs up for this for being careless. The world is full of people just waiting to take advantage of your mistakes. When they do it is hard to argue that they are the bad guy when YOU made the mistake in the first place that allowed them to do what they did. Especially when they ask you if it is ok to do so and you say "sure, good luck".... LOL

The lawsuit is not all bad for LL and all of us in the end. It makes visible errors that should be fixed that may not have been noticed or simply ignored and should motivate LL to take a closer look at their game and operations.

Land exploiter? Who's side are you on?
Cocoanut Cookie Registered User Join date: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1,741	05-19-2006 12:58 From: nimrod Yaffle Oh, sorry, I thought you were upset that they went back on their word for about the reverse engineering in this case. I guess all the words made my brain fart. Opinion: Well, yes, you are right about that; I misunderstood. As for the case at hand, it seems to me that being able to take the land back is reasonable. Even being able to kick him out of the game if they decide he cheated is reasonable. I don't like, though, that they can also KEEP the money he spent on the land, rather than just refunding it. Not to mention that they can keep everything of his in the game, or that they can do that to anyone they like whenever they feel like it (theoretically, according to TOS). It is those sorts of TOS which I think really need challenging; they are entirely one-sided. (Particularly in SL, where the makers are going to on the one hand tout the fact that real money can be made in the game - yet also say, oh and by the way, it's always all ours, anytime we want it!) Now, about the reverse-engineering thing: Essentially what they are saying is, yes, we know it is against the TOS, but we figure if it doesn't bother us, go ahead and do it. That's just no way to have a rule. For one thing, how do you know they will like what you are doing or not? Moreover, if they just happen to not like a person, and a person is doing this, they can boot the person on the basis of breaking the stated rule in the TOS. But at the same time, they will not apply that rule to others. That just doesn't work. You just can't have rules that are rules, "unless we decide it's okay in your case." Those aren't rules at all. The same thing happens here on the forums. Several individuals can break the stated TOS with impunity and nothing happens to them. The TOS gets stretched way out of shape to make room for these individuals. But other individuals wouldn't dare break these rules. And the very same TOS gets strictly applied - stretched in the other direction - in order to punish these individuals. In other words, "We have the rules just in case we want to apply them to someone, but if we like you and you're not bothering us, we won't." That's no way to run a forums or a platform, or ANYTHING, imho. In means there are no rules at all; only different treatment for different individuals, based on whim. I see the same philosophy applying to this reverse-engineering thing. _____________________
Juro Kothari Like a dog on a bone Join date: 4 Sep 2003 Posts: 4,418	05-19-2006 13:59 From: Cocoanut Cookie I don't like, though, that they can also KEEP the money he spent on the land, rather than just refunding it. Not to mention that they can keep everything of his in the game, or that they can do that to anyone they like whenever they feel like it (theoretically, according to TOS). From what I understand (and have read on these forums) he sold the land almost immediately, so refunding his money would've the only recourse. They couldn't seize the land back, as it is now in the hands of new owners who bought it honestly. _____________________
nimrod Yaffle Cavemen are people too... Join date: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 3,146	05-19-2006 14:26 From: Juro Kothari From what I understand (and have read on these forums) he sold the land almost immediately, so refunding his money would've the only recourse. They couldn't seize the land back, as it is now in the hands of new owners who bought it honestly. I think he might have idle land that was not sold, or auctions he bid on in queue. Not sure though, just a thought. _____________________ "People can cry much easier than they can change." -James Baldwin
Cocoanut Cookie Registered User Join date: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1,741	05-19-2006 15:07 From: Juro Kothari From what I understand (and have read on these forums) he sold the land almost immediately, so refunding his money would've the only recourse. They couldn't seize the land back, as it is now in the hands of new owners who bought it honestly. Right. We just don't know the facts and details. I am saying that if everything can be seized (as is stated in the TOS), then - in general - that's not wonderful. coco _____________________
Nicole David Furniture Queen Join date: 7 Sep 2005 Posts: 134	05-19-2006 15:22 I don´t know the whole story, but I don´t think he should be punished without warning for a glitch in their system. I think they should had communicated with him, explaining the situation, and tried to make it work out rather than blindly banning him. Edit: I also think what he did was wrong and shady, but LL could had handled it more professionally, I am sure.
Nolan Nash Frischer Frosch Join date: 15 May 2003 Posts: 7,141	05-20-2006 05:04 From: Cocoanut Cookie Opinion: Well, yes, you are right about that; I misunderstood. As for the case at hand, it seems to me that being able to take the land back is reasonable. Even being able to kick him out of the game if they decide he cheated is reasonable. I don't like, though, that they can also KEEP the money he spent on the land, rather than just refunding it. Not to mention that they can keep everything of his in the game, or that they can do that to anyone they like whenever they feel like it (theoretically, according to TOS). It is those sorts of TOS which I think really need challenging; they are entirely one-sided. (Particularly in SL, where the makers are going to on the one hand tout the fact that real money can be made in the game - yet also say, oh and by the way, it's always all ours, anytime we want it!) Now, about the reverse-engineering thing: Essentially what they are saying is, yes, we know it is against the TOS, but we figure if it doesn't bother us, go ahead and do it. That's just no way to have a rule. For one thing, how do you know they will like what you are doing or not? Moreover, if they just happen to not like a person, and a person is doing this, they can boot the person on the basis of breaking the stated rule in the TOS. But at the same time, they will not apply that rule to others. That just doesn't work. You just can't have rules that are rules, "unless we decide it's okay in your case." Those aren't rules at all. The same thing happens here on the forums. Several individuals can break the stated TOS with impunity and nothing happens to them. The TOS gets stretched way out of shape to make room for these individuals. But other individuals wouldn't dare break these rules. And the very same TOS gets strictly applied - stretched in the other direction - in order to punish these individuals. In other words, "We have the rules just in case we want to apply them to someone, but if we like you and you're not bothering us, we won't." That's no way to run a forums or a platform, or ANYTHING, imho. In means there are no rules at all; only different treatment for different individuals, based on whim. I see the same philosophy applying to this reverse-engineering thing. But I thought it was just a "game"? Confused in the midwest _____________________ “Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
Juro Kothari Like a dog on a bone Join date: 4 Sep 2003 Posts: 4,418	05-20-2006 09:47 From: Cocoanut Cookie Right. We just don't know the facts and details. I am saying that if everything can be seized (as is stated in the TOS), then - in general - that's not wonderful. coco I think it's appropriate and I'm sure that as long as you don't go taking advantage of any exploit, your chances of having your assets/property seized is nil. _____________________
Rude Prunes Registered User Join date: 9 Apr 2006 Posts: 92	05-20-2006 10:09 From: Cocoanut Cookie Right. We just don't know the facts and details. I am saying that if everything can be seized (as is stated in the TOS), then - in general - that's not wonderful. coco This goes for RL too in some cases. Caught doing some dodgy like drug dealing, the government can seize your assets. Either don't do dodginess or don't get caught and you'll be fine.
Cocoanut Cookie Registered User Join date: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 1,741	05-20-2006 10:46 From: Rude Prunes This goes for RL too in some cases. Caught doing some dodgy like drug dealing, the government can seize your assets. Either don't do dodginess or don't get caught and you'll be fine. That's a thought. Now that you mention it, I know that the government ends up with vans and what-not after drug busts. But do they get everything the guy has? coco _____________________
Jodina Patton Registered User Join date: 19 Nov 2005 Posts: 170	05-20-2006 10:52 Well LL should defiantly have a better auction system in place. No one should be able to just type in a URL and have access to auctions they are not supposed to have access to. I wonder sometimes if they got a bunch of newb/wannabe code writers writing this game sometimes. The next problem is the guy asked LL if it was ok to bid on these auctions and they said "Good Luck"???????? Sure it is a typical cut and paste tech response but still LL should be more on top of things like that. Any questions related to auctions of expensive sims should be directed to a auction manager and not a copy and paste tech support person. I am not sure what the monetary damages are. The guy should have got the money back he paid for the auctions out of his own pocket but not so sure about the money he made selling the sims.... Sounds like the TOS covers that somewhat, Fact is though LL opened them selfs up for this for being careless. The world is full of people just waiting to take advantage of your mistakes. When they do it is hard to argue that they are the bad guy when YOU made the mistake in the first place that allowed them to do what they did. Especially when they ask you if it is ok to do so and you say "sure, good luck".... LOL The lawsuit is not all bad for LL and all of us in the end. It makes visible errors that should be fixed that may not have been noticed or simply ignored and should motivate LL to take a closer look at their game and operations.

Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

Land exploiter? Who's side are you on?