Should LL Participate in Resident Abuse?

If they have "LL" prepended to their IRC handles, like it or not, they are acting as representatives of Linden Lab. I personally don't see anything wrong with them engaging in discussion in ouside fora, however they should realize that once they are presenting as company officials, anything they say or do will automatically be associated with company policy -- as it should be.

I work in an industry in which information, ethics, and the associated "reputation risk" of abusing either are taken very seriously. I'm free to say whatever I like, provided my statements aren't connected with my employer. Clearly Linden Lab is now suffering the reputation effects of a lax employee communication policy (q.v. the Pathfinder debacle).

Except that none of the drama in this thread has anything to do with any communication by the Lindens. The Pathfinder situation was clearly different. This is simply Hank being mad that he got banned for his own behavior - it is not about the Lindens being lax in their communication policies. It actually has zero to do with them, he is just on a vendetta against LL and Gigas for perceived wrongs.

What we really need to discourage is the over use of quasi, which is just fucking annoying.

Quasi is how you make a bullshit statement into a legitimate one.

Let's say you have something that isn't official. If it's officially stated that it isn't official, then you can't argue, right?

But add quasi- and then you can say anything you want about it. No, it's not official. But it's quasi-official!

It's a weasel word in this context that lets people continue an invalidated argument. It is the juide that re-animates the dead into undead zombies.

Or are they quasi-dead?

I'm sorry for inturupting, I thought this thread was about something else...

If you think that is so, then please address this point made much earlier in the thread:

Sure. the doctrine of tough-shit. Form my perspective, if people what to talk to lindens they should do it by one of the ample public ways. If a bunch of lindens want to talk to aimee weber in IRC under thier own names. then That is their perogative. If people feel closed out because they aren't privy to the linden's unofficial secret names-well tough shit.

My concern is that lindens who identify themselves as such on unoffical websites take on a quasi-official standing, and thus untterances by them are quasi-official statments outlining linden labs quasi-policies reragrding quasi-issues. Despite the quasi-erudite arguments by other members of this forum, the quasi-officia positions repreent a real, and not a quasi-real danger to the community.

Acces to the lindens is not the issue. Arbirtary and capricious discipline is an issue. The unintended exposure of linden labs to investigation and subpoena is an issue. Of course good customer relations should be an issue too.

A quasi-erudite quasi-argument and a quasi-veild quasi attack that might quasi deserve quasi-reporting for quasi-abuse and suject the quasi attacker to the quasi-standard quasi- enforcement for which linden lab is quasi-well known. Ulenss they just quasi-perma-ban you for quasi-violations of the tos that are extremely unpopular. Sorry I could not resist.

After reading that eyesore, its funny to see one person (no matter how much I now dislike them ) trying so very hard to grasp very simple facts.

it has been stated once and will be stated again.

Lindens do not represent LL when in #secondlife. So please quiet.

Well? Why not? I think having an officially sanctioned Linden IRC would be in keeping with the forum outworld opportunities to live one's second life as fully as possible. I
can think of a few reasons why Lindens on a private person's IRC (with that person having full authority to do as that person wishes with it) may cause problems.

I cannot think of any reason we shouldn't have an official Linden mIRC. Can anyone?

All of which misses the poiint entirely, and I now dislike you too, for very much the same reason. Oh and to repay your curtesy, please STFU. thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

I must say that I am surprised to see so little support for the idea that LL should participate in resident abuse.

It is nice to see the extent to which the community is gathering around a common cause on this issue.

You know, if this entire matter had started in good faith, I would be in 100% agreement with you Jake. However, what we have here is a situation that has nothing at all to do with the Lindens, their involvement or lack of involvement in the channel, their statements, or anything relating to them, other than the accusations Hank has made regarding his land sale. This is a dispute about repeated abuse on a publicly available IRC channel that Hank has particpated in for more than a year (and spent most of that time AFK, it generally seemed).

The issue of should or should the Lindens involve themselves at all with third parties is a separate issue that has been clouded here by Hank's drama fest. This isn't about Hank getting equal access to the Lindens at all. It is another attempt for him to take a public swipe at those people who he feels wronged by over a situation that happened more than 6 months ago. I see Hank making disparaigning remarks all the time about the Lindens and the Gigas group in completely unrelated threads, just to take yet another dig at them. It borders on obsessive, and his behavior on the IRC channel reached a point of disruptiveness that caused him to lose access to the channel. Hank is completely complicit in this situation - it is his behavior that resulted in the ban. It was not some random act of blocking someone.

The Lindens have posted in my forums before, most recently when a DOS attack took out the entire grid as well as their forums, as a way to communicate. I have Angel Leviathan blocked from posting on my site because she edited all of her posts to say "Fuck you cristiano!" because of a perceived sleight. The two issues have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, any more so than the Lindens being in that channel in the limited capacity that they are has any bearing on what Hank did, why he was banned, or any importance.

Let's say, hypothetically, that LL has finite resources, and they have to choose between hiring:

1) another developer to write new code and fix bugs in SL
or
2) a set of official IRC liaisons to monitor and police the channel 24/7

Which do you think would be resources better spent?

You are right. The question of someone being banned from an IRC channel really is a sepreate, if related can of worms. My only concern about Hank's Banning from IRC would be if he were banned from SL because some lindens feel he was obnoxious in IRC.

But if someone violates your tos on SLuniverse then they should be banned from SL universe, even if lindens post there. its your site and you have that power.

I sympathize fully, it is really annoying when people don't capitalize your name.

Corrupt, but NON-evil, is what I said.

coco

The difference - as I have made abundantly clear several times now - is that on the forums it is Lindens who decide who may participate. Not other individual residents.

coco

Corrupt is hardly a compliment, Cocanut. It's an incredibly strong, and insulting accusation to make against anyone. You can try to pretty it up by saying "oh but they aren't evil", but it is still making a clear statement about the company and its employees.

You did not answer my question about the SLCC. The Lindens took part in it, but it was player run and sponsored. They had full control over denying access if they so chose. Where was your moral indignation then, just curious.

That's cause I'm still thinking about it, Cristiano. I didn't realize that the SLCC would/could decide certain people couldn't attend.

As for throwing out someone once already there, I suppose they could have, and I suppose it would have been a bad scene, and yet, conceivably necessary.

I don't think it's analogous to this, though.

coco

It is definitely no compliment, nor did I intend it to be.

I'm not "trying to pretty it up." I really don't think the Lindens have any intention of being unfair or corrupt. But - their policies (or, more accurately, lack of any) have led to what we have now, which is a state of corruption. If I were trying to pretty things up, I wouldn't choose the word "corrupt."

"Corrupt" is what it is. I just don't think they ever intended that, or have any malintentions toward anybody, particularly. It's more sloppy than anything else, but corrupt is what it is.

coco

It is completely analogous. Hank has been participating in the channel for a very long time, freely. It was his behavior in the channel that led to the ban. If you had attented the SLCC and been disruptive and asked to leave, it would be the same thing.

I'm still thinking about it.

coco