Revising the Community Standards

I'm sure that just about everybody here is familiar with the anti-griefing stanza from the TOS:



It's becoming increasingly apparant that this is going to need to be revised at some point. The problem is that right now, it's too subjective, and thus needs too much interpretation. For example, taken literally, if someone was running a business and someone else opened their own store making similar items of higher quality and claimed more sales, the first person could claim that the second person had inhibited their enjoyment of SL because they didn't enjoy having to compete. Although AFAIK no-one has ever attempted this and it would be obviously rejected, the fact that the literal wording does not eliminate this "lunatic fringe" (since there are no limits of the subjectivity by which "ability to enjoy SL" is judged) means that every single accusation made under this standard has to be scrutinised to check that it is not of this type, which adds a layer of interpretation that would be better avoided.

In the converse case, the word "intentionally" opens up huge numbers of loopholes because anyone can claim that what they were doing was unintentional, or had a different intention, and in the absense of LL being able to storm into their homes and subject them to a lie detector test they then have to be let off. It seems inappropriate in any case; if somebody is damaging your enjoyment of SL it does not help you very much to know that they don't mean to, and if the aim is to protect LL's revenue by ensuring that people are not driven off SL because they don't enjoy it, the intentions of the people causing them not to enjoy it will not make LL that money back.

So I'd be interested to know if people think this particular phrase does need rewriting and if so what it should be rewritten to.

I don't think it needs to be redone. It is vague for a reason. There is absolutely no way to create specific language that would eliminate the need for interpretation on the part of LL. Even more specifically, for an emerging environment such as SL, there is no way to account for all the innovative ways to be abusive that will emerge.

The forums have finally become the SL congress, arguing over what legislation should be enacted. Sorting out and balancing all teh various interests is why the law is as complex and varied as it is. Its faascinatig to me to watch this community begin to discover this in a practical way. In one huge sense this debate over the bush signs has been a course in education, and attempting to find a solution to a social problem. As such this debate has been, and continues to be one of the most important topics in the forums.

There is one very easy way to interpret "intentional". Oftentimes, I've seen a Resi try to blow up a sandbox, and then shout out something very obvious and bragging about their actions, like "WOOT DOWN GOEZ THA SIM!!!1" Sometimes it's more subtle but just like offline, it is human nature to talk about such things.

Abuse reports have an "Include chat history" button.

I agree with Torley, most "criminals" either return to the scene of the crime or cannot resist the overweaning desire to gain credit for their deeds.

Of all the griefing/intentionally disruptive acts I've witnessed in nearly 2 yrs in SL, I'd say that in 99 - 98 % of the cases the "culprit" is obvious. When confronted, I find that they're either unabashed in their response or so obviously defensive that they become abusive secondarily in their response to the query.

New Years' eve comes to mind, for those of you that were there.

Grab a Linden, Ban them from your parcel if that's an option, AR them with chat history included, see that others in attendance also do the same, and MOST importantly, get on with whatever fun you were having beforehand.

If we disrupt our lives, they win. Just like any other "terrorist" act, when the intended targets do not bow and scrape and cower, the twit will move on. And the more folks they pester, the more the AR's pile up and the faster they'll find that SL is not for them.

Party on!

Very true - and if there was ever a statement made like 'alarm everyone' or 'shake everybody up' that would be good enough, I think.

One cannot prove intent, ever. There is no way (yet) to get inside someone's head.

But there can be strong, strong, strong circumstantial evidence, such as a person saying they meant to commit the act. Even in such cases, the person may be lying to protect someone, &c.


With regard to a better TOS - yes, not a bad idea.

How to come up with it? Should any of us have a say in it? Not entirely sure, myself.