Official Word on Outing Alts In The Forums

You really need to learn the difference between someone directing something specifically at you, and you recognizing your own character flaws in what people say and identifying with it.

Derailed thread, repost of a locked thread..............and of course the usual I'm a victim crud. Stay on topic, please. Everything is not about you.

If you're gonna make a snide dig at me, then it's the better part of honor not to pretend you didn't and try to weasle out of it.

coco

Who's that directed at? You didn't say

Funny though - coz by not mentioning it, then your not showing the better part of honor now are you? LOL!

Thanks to Nolan Nash and MrsJakal Suavage for coming up with the Pathfinder Linden quote.

Thanks to Pendari Lorentz and everyone else who looked through the CS, FG, and TOS and the forums in search.

The Pathfinder Linden view on discussing alts is:


Pathfinder does not mention the specific part of "the Guidelines" it violates, and I can't find anything in the Forum Guidelines that seems to connect to Pathfinder's statement.

Possibly he was referring to the Disclosure section of the Community Standards, which reads as follows:

The Disclosure section states that we have a right to a reasonable level of privacy. Pathfinder states that discussing other people's alts is a privacy breach, so it seems reasonable that the Disclosure section is what is being violated. The question of whether discussing other people's alts deals with RL info does not need to be answered, because the first statement in the Disclosure section does not mention "First Life" or real world information at all. Instead it specifically states that we are entitled to a reasonable level of privacy with regard to our "Second Lives". It then provides some examples of how revealing RL information can violate the reasonable privacy entitlement clause, and in the next sentence provides some examples of how distributing second life information violates the reasonable privacy clause. The reasonable privacy clause thus applies to both First and Second Life information. A few examples of a concept are not an exhaustive list of everything defined by a concept, and the word "reasonable" is always subject to interpretation. Pathfinder Linden has provided us with an interpretation of the reasonable privacy clause in the Community Standards Disclosure section as it applies to the discussion of other people's alternate accounts, and the decision is that it breaks the rules.

Can anyone else find any other examples of comments by any of the Linden staff on the question of making allegations about Person A being the alt of Person B?

Did anyone look in the Second Life.com/help wiki?

You just don't get it do you? You don't get to tell me who I'm 'directing' things at!

I 'directed it' at a group of people - of whom you are one (in my opinion). A vast group of people who read things into rules - posts - etc. when it suits them - such as you are doing now.

You further went on to tell me what my opinion was of you - which amused me to no end.


EDIT

Went back and triple checked - nope - nowhere in any of the posts did I direct ANYTHING at you - you made an assumption and ran with it.

Now that being said - yes I think you ARE one of those people - but I did not single you, or anyone else out. I referred to a character trait, whether you possess that trait or not wasn't the point until you made it so yourself.

Judging others again about motivations......pftt. What a case.

Speaking of SNIDE, YOU do it EVERY post with CAPS. Comprende?

OK, then, I see your point. It was to a group of people of whom I was one of the primary spokespersons.

In future, if you aren't directing a comment to me, maybe you should either make that clear, or not put it into a two-sentence post directed to me, with a pointed question directed to me. I'm apt to assume from that that it is about me, and directed to me.

coco

P.S. Yes, it was the lengthy post about Pathfinder and the analysis of the Guidelines in it, above, that I was referring to earlier.

No. I'd not call a spokesperson of anything.. again you are reading into it desperately trying to find something disparaging against yourself to cry greivance. If you wanna cry foul, its your own damn fault...

So you wish me to preface every post with *btw this isn't about Cocoanut* Thats the most retarded and boneheaded thing I've read all day...

Once again - YOU don't get to tell ME who I made a post about - you simply DON'T get it do you?


I challenge you , if you reply, to try and stick to what I actually said - not what the voices in your head tell you I think.

hahahah!
Best comeback of the entire day.

Thank you.

Time to fess up:


Consider - I make a comment on a vague group of people... I didn't name anyone - but could I have meant someone in particular?

Hmmmm.... if I did and it was read into, that could be said to be the 'spirit' of the comment/post.


BUT


If you go by the LETTER of my posts.... thats another story...

Thank you Coco for proving my point.

*cuts strings and bows*


See - Blaze and Ulrika aint the only ones who can do 'perfomance art'

Siggy.

Have it your way. Just because you said it to me, and asked the question of me, doesn't actually mean it had anything to do with me whatsoever.

Now, back to the original topic.

coco

I will have it my way LOL But eh - keep on keepin on with that reading into stuff - as Dr Phil would say 'How's that workin for ya?'

BTW - go back and quote where I said it to ya will ya? I'd like to see that post