Anti-furry Griefers

Actually you outed your group in BOTH threads.......*shakes head*

Fair enough Gambit. If you feel they've stepped outside the guidelines for the forum, just use the little report button on the relevant posts. That would be about all anyone else could do in the same situation, other than calmly present their side of the story. If you're concerned about people's judgement of you, conducting yourself with calm dignity always goes a long way. In the face of reasonable behaviour, most will just shrug, and form no particular opinion on who may be right or wrong.

he is basically stalking Yiffie because he is a sad panda.

In fairness... the group is named in the OP in the other thread linked to by Gambit above.

Only proof thats needed is what the lindens already have. They made this virtual world and have logs of every action that happens within it. If you were infact involved in this incident then you will be punished acordingly. Thats all i have to say.

The problem with this is that you're assuming that every SL resident should be vehemently and actively opposed to griefing. Just because someone doesn't grief doesn't mean they are obligated to be offended when someone else does it to a total stranger.

We are obligated by the TOS not to grief...but we are NOT obligated by the TOS (as far as I know) to actively participate in the prevention of griefing, or to dissassociate with people who do. And I am delighted that this is the case, as some of the coolest people I know in SL happen to be griefers on the side, and I would greatly miss the pleasure of their company.

People should be judged by their actions...not by the company they keep. Judging them by the company they keep falsely assumes that said company behaves the same way all the time. None of my friends who grief *ever* grief me...and in all honesty, I see no reason why I should shed tears over a total stranger being aggravated by a friend of mine. In RL I might feel differently, but SL isn't RL, even though it might be more than just a game.



Now...to address whether the owners of furry sims have the right to blindly and arbitrarily ban members of a group because of the actions of some of the members, the answer is, sadly, yes. Of course they do. It's their land, and they can do pretty much whatever they want, no matter how fair or unfair it may be.

However...there is a certain irony in all of this. Furries constantly are crying out against being stereotyped as yiff-crazed perverted maniacs, simply because a small number of furries actually are. Is it any wonder that a person might feel it an injustice to be classified by sim owners as a griefer, simply because a small number of their friends are? Surely there are differences, but fundamentally, both types of stereotyping are the same.

Nobody likes to be judged unfairly.

Do what? I assumed no such thing. There are a whole bunch of words there that were in no way part of my statement. This is what you just quoted:



Let's break it down...

I said what I would personally do, and how I would feel.

I made a practical suggestion, that if being a member of the group was leading to undeserved negative attention, leaving the group could resolve that.

What I did not in any way say:

How everyone should feel about griefing.

What everyone should do about griefing.

That they deserved the negative attention by association.

I did not say people should be judged by the company that they keep. In a subsequent post, I stated that the reality is sometimes they are, that it is not necessarily illogical to do so, but that is not an absolute statement of how things should be by any means.

The assumption you claim simply isn't present in my words.

I have no comment on the rest of your post.

If I may interject here for a moment about group bans... In the case of a group having members who choose to grief while other choose not to, how are you suppose to tell Friend from Foe? Groups like W-Hat for example, have an undeserved bad rep because of new members flooding in and running around causing trouble under the W-Hat title. Now our sim has been griefed by W-Hat members before, so how am I suppose to tell whether someone with a W-Hat title is a friendly or a griefer? Answer is simple, I can't. If we had a ban group option in the land/estate tools I would ban the whole group and allow members back in based apon individual actions of the member outside the sim. To me it makes more sense to cut my losses and discover friend from foe before letting people in a perticular group that has caused trouble into the sim.

Also about the blacklists and accused griefing, fun is fun until it becomes dirty ie at the expsence of others. If a sim owner feels you are being way too distruptive in the sim and causing problems for their tenants s/he is well within their right to ban you and share your name(s) (or group if it was a group being distruptive) with their friends/neighbors. Same deal on the parcel level. Doing so in a cluster of sims like the Fur Vallies where all the owners are close to one another is a good way to get banned from alot of sims fast in around a minute and is not unheard of.

Also in an unrelated note that I feel like sharing, renting alot of land in someone's sim won't always entitle you to special treatment giving you diplomatic immunity to have fun at the exspense of others. Remember land is ALWAYS in demand and if you're renting a large portion of a sim the sim owner can always make more money renting out that plot of yours in smaller chunks. I just felt like mensioning this because a friend of mine had someone demand special treatment after he caught him griefing his neighbors just because he rented out a large portion of the land. Needless to say, that person doesn't rent there anymore and my friend has extra space for a community project.

I hate people like that, why punish someone just because they are a furry?

I treat everyone as an equal, even if I dont understand them... I dont understand furries or why they like being furries, but I dont judge furries.

I am going to be a furry for a week sometime soon, just to see why people like being furries.

The assumption may or may not be there. Maybe I misinterpreted what you meant to say, but from multiple readings on my end, it still seems to me like you're championing your own attitude in regards to the situation.


Furthermore, it's nothing personal against you. The attitude present in your post is one that I've seen in multiple places in this thread, and is an attitude that I am very, very opposed to (namely, that one should abandon SL friends because of what they do when you're not around). Your post just so happened to be of structured in such a way as to allow me to conveniently address the issue, without plucking random sentences from everyone's posts.

Perhaps I should have restructured my first paragraph, to where I was addressing an attitude, instead of an assumption. I might edit it later.

Anyway, nothing personal Fade.

Renorei, I want to say that I admire this sentiment....friends who are real freinds in any sense of the word--even virtual friends--are not something that one should abandon too easily. However, the corollary of that is that if you are a real friend to them, you will be willing to share in living with the consequences of their choices.

It's kinda reminds me of the old saying, the true friend ain't the guy who comes to bail you out, it's the guy sitting next to you in the cell saying " well....THAT was interesting..."

But seriously, I understand your point of view on sticking with friends even when they make anti-social or self-destructive choices. At the same time, I might suggest that if you are true friends, you should have the latitude in the relationship to say, "dude, you are a true and good friend, and I love you like the brother that my mom claims she never had, but you are in fact acting like a flaming douche on white toast with a side order of dickknob salsa....maybe you should reconsider this course of action and we go find something else to do."

No, you are correct, the TOS does not require you to do anything of the kind...but perhaps being a real friend to someone might make doing so an important aspect of that friendship. And certainly, if that friend should go ahead and follow through on the proposed anti-social destructive behavior and fulfill their destiny as an agent of douchebaginess, then you should stand with them and accept the consequences of banning and/or bad reputation.

Oh not taken as such. I was discussing groups though... friends... I agree with Aldo really, he said it better than I could.

THAT is going in my sig!!!!

LMAO, Aldo, I thank you for making my day!! =^.^=

~Jessy

I will add that the one time I was really discriminated against in-game based on my lifestyle choice, the person doing it was actually a furry. I mention this only because I found it a little ironic, given ... well, think about it.

Also, that was very uncharacterstic behavior for a furry. The overwhelming majority of them don't really care what you are/do as long as you aren't harassing them.

But it just goes to show that there's no one set "profile" that defines what a prejudiced person will look like.

Boogabooga!

Hey, I think I posted that comment to the wrong thread by accident.

Oh well.

I haven't been banned. Sorry you assumed I was trying to "defend myself". I've never been a part of "cake". I'm pretty new--I've been involved with SL for less than a week.

I'm someone that is now worried about joining ANY group because of the mindset I've been seeing. I'm currently in EDGE-ZECUTIVES and The Emerald Dragon Club, and I sincerely hope that nobody in either of those groups decides to do something stupid. It seems that one asshole can ruin it for an entire group, and I just don't think that's fair, but that's my opinion, an opinion that not many people here agree with. Another thing this whole mindset might bring forth is more groups either charging L$ or having an extreme initiation process to join their group to try to cut down on the people who arbitrarily join a group and then do stupid things.

He has a perfect right to be offended by the behavior of SUB-humans who act like morons. It wasn't directed specifically at you. Get a grip, son.

Admins aren't banning whole groups just as a kneejerk response. Most people belong to many groups, so picking one is just impractical. But when multiple griefers attack, and all are members of teh same group, and (as griefer-groups tend to operate) are touting that group as they gleefully try to ruin people's days, then I can understandably see that decision being made. Especially since griefing ont he whole has taken a sharp rise.

I was witness, and subject to, an attack by two griefers who openly stated they were members of /b/ /b/anditos and /b/tards. There were just two of them, so, if I were an admin, and taht was my only experience, then I'd ban just the two of them.

However; I have also been witness to some of the fallout of what happened in /b/. And, those two griefers are still members of /b/anditos. That tells me that their actions are considered acceptable by the officers of the group. If that's so, then I certainly wouldn't want a group with those standards on my land.

Even if my best friends were members of the KKK, I would not join the KKK because of how that group's policies, and the actions of its members, would reflect upon me. So membership in a group DOES in fact say something about who a person is because they themselves have *Chosen* to be part of it, and stay apart of it even when the group sanctions bad behaviour.

So just flat our banning groups? A bad idea in general, but it is sadly neccesary at times. And I really don't think that groups are being banned just because one person who happens to be a member misbehaves.

Understood.

And I have the perfect right to be offended when he says things about all humans, himself included, especially when he groups all humans, including himself, in with the bigots. What he said was far more offensive than anything I've said.

So let me see if I understand this correctly,.... You seem to think that just because someone has different views,tastes,fetishes,desires, etc than you makes them less than human? Personally I find people into the whole golden showers and scat thing to be very revolting. Now as for them being less then human? How does having an attraction to something make you less then a human? In the same vein how does having differing opinions on anything make you less then human?

Yes the argument can be made for sociopaths and pediophiles. We would view these people as less then human due to the fact they don't care about the consequences of their actions or intend to hurt a child for their own enjoyment. This makes them sick individuals that need help but not really a "sub-human". Make no mistake I am not inferring Furs are sociopathic pedohiles in any way shape or form.

I am however trying to understand how you can justify classifing someone as "sub human" when you don't share their views in one way or another. Frankly I'm finding it very hard to do so. Am I an ignorant person for my inability to understand you? Possibly, though i'm actually willing to educate myself. You on the otherhand from what I can see have made no such effort as of yet. Ignorance is bliss I suppose, sleep tight in your stereotyped views of others. Because God forbid you should have to make any sort of effort to undertand things outside your little box.

I enjoy cookies

I need to go home, work makes me a mean husky! >.<#

If its still there, the best security thing, for 1L, is from.. uhhh... whats that place called..... uhhh.... timeless prototype... no thats not it... uhhh... power products inc. I think its called. For 1l you get a thing called the black box, sets the security warning and push etc. all that junk.

>

Sorry about yer home, if that happened to me, I would gather a few friends, find them, come in and stomp asses out of mouthes.