SL Hacked! Whodunnit?

Hello, I am a leader of W-hat.

I am posting to explain a few things.

W-hat is a group of people who have met in a place outside of Second Life and come in Second Life to play the game. That's all we are. Nothing more and nothing less. Not everyone in the group knows everyone else very well, but we allow people in because of trust. If people break or abuse that trust, we remove them from the group.

Some confusion may be caused because often times, people who are friends will go out together. This makes it appear that "the group is moving" but it's really just a few people wearing the same tag. We do not do any type of organized... anything, really. Our group is far from organized.

We're in SL to have fun. We don't try to make anyone look foolish, we don't hate "you", there is no "vendetta", we're not a "mafia". Many members of W-hat are trying to improve the SL community and better it. Myself, I am an Instructor, I have served on Live Help twice, and I run a successful business in Second Life. I have made a lot of friends in SL, but I also have learned who my true friends are. I learned I do not have many of those!

It is my understanding that Linden Labs has contained the recent problem and that they will see that justice is done. In spite of the fact that I am part of the Prop 407 Coalition, I do have faith that Linden Labs can determine who did what and sort it out.

You shouldn't judge people by their friends, they're not their friends, each person is his or her own self. You shouldn't give up on people so easily, either. Everyone talks about faith, but I have seen very little in SL. Have some faith in humanity. The world is not out to get you. W-hat is not out to get you. Think for yourself.

Wow. I would like to thank folks for sending me the information by PM. Most of it I cannot publish because it includes RL information. Detailed RL information. As in his-favorite-color kind of information.

Instead, what I ask you to do is continue to send me all your information, I'll publish here what's appropriate (virutal information only) and I'll collect the rest of the information and email it to the Lindens later tonight. I'll act as a proxy and keep everyone's identity secret. If you do not want your information passed on to the Lindens, just let me know.

~Ulrika~

One of my favorite sayings is

"You are the company you keep."

That's a really stupid saying. I guess people that work in rehabs are all drug addicts?

I think it's just one of those sayings to make people feel better about having a closed mind.

Actually many, many people that work in rehabs have had drug or alcohol problems.

"This is unbased" Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf


Not that I am implying anything, I'm just sayin'

This is long, so bear with me. Also, names have been edited out from the obvious areas, and obscenities have been altered. I'm not sure the lase is necessary, but I'd prefer to err on the side of caution.

W-hat general Q & A:

Q: What is W-hat.

A:W-Hat is the non-grieving Something Awful goon group on Second Life.


Q: How was W-hat Formed?

A: When goons first came to Second Life, we initially all piled into the group "SA Goons". Joining the group was just a matter of finding an officer, and it was pretty random whether they would invite you as an officer or a member. Since the thread included a coupon code for a free account, many people had multiple accounts, and weren't afraid of being banned. The SA Goons group quickly became notorious for re-enacting September 11th on people's lawns and covering the world in beec*ck.

Eventually Linden got on the ball and the bans started coming quicker and quicker. The group tag was equated with "troublemaker" and bearing it would get you kicked out of almost anywhere. On April 26, 2004, NAME_A proposed creating a new group to get away from the bad reputation of the old group and the increasingly misdirected wrath of the Lindens. W-Hat was finally formed on April 27, partly in response to random people in the SA Goons group being hardware banned for no apparent reason.


Q: What the heck kind of name is W-hat?

A: The name for the new group was voted on. W-Hat (or W-Hat Corporation) was the winner. Another popular option was "Ninja Pirates", but a lot of people seemed to be persuaded by the evil corporation theme. Given the history of the group, and the smiley, W-Hat is also rather fitting.
( http://www.krogoth.org/w-hat.gif )


Q: You guys are grieving me and trying to destroy my life!!!

A: LMAO Butts.
But really, no we're not, take a chill pill, here is and abbreviated (Not complete) list of rules that everyone in W-hat is has to abide by or be kicked out of the group:
* no racism or racist content;
* no highly visible disgusting content (goatse, tubgirl, etc.);
* no harassment (this includes furries);
* no selling items or scripts that you did not create;
* no shooting on safe land (even in retaliation);
* no organized negative rating (i.e. using group channels to coordinate)


Q: That World Trade Center build is really offensive and is a slap to the face of every American!

A: People read too much into things.


Q: If you don't like being associated with grieving, why don't you kick out the bad apples?

A: We do! Here's some of the people we banned and why!

NAME_B:
Notes: BANNED FROM GROUP: "the only reason I play sl is to pi*s off Jews" -- PERMABANNED FROM SA.

NAME_C :
Notes: dec 15, 2004 - BANNED FROM GROUP: "NAME_C: Yeah...I just want to get banned for once NAME_C: We set off some c-4 in the casino yesterday, blew a ton of people away. NAME_C: The normal thing...soil the reputation of someone's mom. NAME_C: Then shoot them when they get mad."

NAME_D
Notes: BANNED: STUPID GODDAMN IDIOT ARRRGH

NAME_E
Notes: nov 29, 2004 - BANNED FROM GROUP: "Holy crap, it's impossible for me to get banned in this game. Yesterday, I dressed up as Hitler in the WA (complete with Nazi salute) to protest "International Jewry" and "Bolshevism" in the Linden regime."


Q: So and so did such and such! Why didn't you kick them out of your group?

A: Well, the answer would be one of these: (a) They were warned, (b) They were banned, and couldn't be kicked out, (c) We didn't know, (d) We couldn't find any evidence [what are we supposed to do?], They didn't break our rules.

It's pretty much impossible to keep track of the actions of 190 people and when it comes down to a "He said she said" type of situation, we're obviously going to take the word of our members over someone else.


Q: What does W-hat have against furries?

A: As a group: nothing.

There is historically a lot of bad blood between furries and SA forum members. See the Something Awful Forums Wikipedia article and the Furry Wikipedia article. Currently, anti-furryism is seen as old hat, and in general is not acceptable unless intensely humorous.


Q: So you're saying your purpose here isn't to grief people, then what do you do here?

A: Have fun and relax with friends while playing our favorite online game.


Q: IT'S NOT A GAME.

A: That's not a question. :V



*****************************
The above is from the W-Hat General FAQ, available in Baku if people remember to rez the dispenser. If you'd like the unedited version, either visit Baku or contact me ingame.

Edit:


Dear god man.

EDIT AGAIN:



So anyone who defends themselves from false accusations is now apparently trying to twist the truth? Riiight.

Not sure why this group always feels it necessary to run in here and justify themselves -- repeatedly. If we go on past performances, next we'll see a rampage of 2-post alts claiming to be "unbiased" but all defending a group that claims it doesn't need to defend itself.

Here's a tip: If you want your group to avoid being singled out whenever bad stuff happens, try to screen your membership better. You might have problems understanding the saying ""You are the company you keep.", but how about "A group is known by its works"?

You are.

And you're now getting the sympathy you've earned, whether you had anything to do with this or not. If you didn't, let it die and let the Lindens take care of it. If you did, we probably won't be hearing much from you in the future. In the meantime, I'm left wondering why a group who claimed so loudly that "our opinion of them doesn't matter" would try so hard to change our opinion -- after the damage has been done?

AGAIN, you're attributing actions to me that I had nothing to do with. I started posting in this thread because a good debate of logic gets my juices flowing, and I continued to do so under that idea and also posting supplemental information when it was asked of me.

Your avatar icon appears to be female, I have had bad experiences with women in my past, would it be fair to attribute their actions to you? No, it's not fair to attribute actions of one person to another when their only link is aloose, unorganized grouping.

The difference there is between a volentary group and an involentary one.

I think the bottom line is - regardless of your group - if someone in your group commits a federal crime, it reflects very poorly on your group.

It doesn't help that this group has a history of bad members. Honestly, people have been complaining about (hacker's name omitted) for months and was banned a few times and W-Hat had allowed (hacker's name omitted) to stay a member rather than to eject him.

Additionally, I've personally witnessed (hacker's name omitted) griefing more than once, and each time other members of W-Hat seemed more than happy to join (hacker's name omitted) in dancing around, rezzing crazy stuff, and rubbing it in to victims.

The fact that W-Hat has been harassing me in response to the Land & Econ thread from a couple weeks ago doesn't make me any less shy to say these things.

Yeah, you guys can say you have to play by the rules, but you sure have a way of not punishing people in your group who break them, including having officer-sponsored harassment.

OK, fine: I've been treated poorly repeatedly by people who work in Customer Service at a lot of companies, is it therefore fair for me to assume that every Customer Service person is out to get me?

I would suggest that you do not send your information to another resident, but instead send it directly to LL. It is not for a self appointed resident to decide whether information should be forwarded to LL or not. If we are to assist LL in making SL safe again, then we must all give them the information they need to combat this hacker.

Alexa

I just gotta say it is hilarious hearing people defending w-hat.I don't deny anything that is said to be true, invariably it is true to some extent. In the grand scheme of things though, its very much like members of well known hate groups in RL defending themselves by saying we are a "kinder, gentler" hate group that does things for the community and raises money for orphanages and such. In fact, I find it so funny I can't stop laughing... sorry.

I wonder what the percentage of w-hat members have been warned/ suspended/ banned compared to most other groups of a similar size. I have been on SL over a year now and for exception of 2 people, every griefer and griefer object I have encountered in my time here has been a member/ owned by memebers of either SAgoons or w-hat. w-hat has a reputation for being a griefer group and if anyone is a member, they obviously agree with their agenda so defend all ya want, I still see the image of ol' Muhammed there denying the Americans are in Bagdad as he is being shot at by non-existant Americans...

Actually, having worked Customer Service.. I can safely say, "We couldn't care less."

Please give me an example of an event that was considered harassment by a liason or other member qualified to make that judgement, and was also sponsored by one of the group officers. Otherwise, I'll disregard your statement.

Which illustrates my point perfectly, thank you.


As long as you ADMIT that you're letting your own bias develop into a prejudice, I guess that's okay...?

I find it amusing when people think of W-hat as some giant common mind and goal oriented organisation like the borg when we're probably the most entropic group in the game. We all go our own way, there's no grand scheme to grief someone. We can't agree on anything at all really.

As far as why we're still posting, I can't speak for everyone else but I know it's personally amusing to me to see you guys thinking we're some grand overlords of evil in the game masterminding the griefing of everyone in the game. It couldn't be farther from the truth, the idea the W-Hat is about bothering/griefing other people in SL is as far from the fact as Santa Claus being a real person and not an embodiment of an idea.

Edit: People also like to bring up the fact that people who were in W-hat previously (And have been banned usually) have done things to them. So does that mean that the people who are in the group are going to do the same thing? I would think it obvious, the people who want to grief and be jerks get banned and the nice people remain.

It's not trying to portray a kinder, gentler W-Hat it's just how the game works, the idiots harrass you, they get banned, and nice people who don't want to grief and be jerks remain. You seem to be judging the entire group based on previous members actions.

I can't. Results of abuse reports are officially classified by Linden Lab.

I can say that the abuse of your group title recently has been reported as harassment.


I never claimed this. However, the very disorganization that you point out has obviously led to the tolerance of griefing in the ranks.

Even still, the fact that W-Hat comes together every time a member is accused of something does evidence that there is some collective thinking going on.


I think this is hyperbole. Saying that W-Hat puts up with griefers in its ranks is different from saying that they are a group designed to grief. Now, perhaps that's what others are alluding, but it's not what I'm saying.

Yes..just because many members of W-Hat are griefers, and just because W-Hat members have, many times in the past, sought to intentionally piss people off or offend them, and just because W-Hatters come into any forum discussion about one of it's members actions with the sole intent to troll, make fun of, or get the thread closed, and just because many W-Hat members have displayed bigotry and really, really, offensive or bad behavior, and just because groups of W-Hat members have acted as a mob with the purpose of harrassing someone and making them feel bad, that doesn't mean that W-Hat as a group is bad! I'm sure the group shouldn't be blamed for it's member's actions, or be in anyway associated with behavior displayed by members, or by builds done on their land.

Does Karl Rove work for you guys?

But I do find many of W-Hat member's posts amusing in a *roll my eyes at the irony of it* kinda way.

As a side note, I just wanted to point out, that due to the use of the word hyperbole by Hiro Pendragon, he is obviously my alt too (since the use of the word hyperbole is the telltale sign of two people being the same). So is Selador, he used it in another thread as well. Anyway, carry on.

/120/7a/54269/2.html#post572616

This is highly amusing. You pretend to recognize logic and yet assume that I attributed one single thing to *you*. I didn't. I simply said that a group is known by its actions. That explains the lack of sympathy your group sees here, in spite of your weak attempts at self-justification every time someone in your group exposes themselves as a griefer.


Most groups who value their reputation in the community will stop being reactive to abuses and become pro-active by screening membership more carefully. Those who don't get what they deserve.

There *are* some nice W-hatters. I've met them. I'm sorry for them that some of their group haven't managed to grow up, yet, and reflect back on the good ones.

But we already said that by our own intergroup rules forbid griefing, the definition of griefing is up for LL to decide though. I have seen people equate a W-Hat member just being at an event and earnestly participating to still be griefing just cause they're in the group. LL doesn't consider that griefing though

Edit: To David: Did you totally miss the times where I said that those were former members who are banned for the most part? I don't know a single person who has given anyone grief in W-Hat today. I know there may be one or two annoying members, but they aren't behaving with any malice to my knowlege, otherwise they'd be kicked out.

So we should be judged by our worst members who display behavior we don't approve of in our members and end up kicking out of our group? That makes no sense at all man.

Please let me know whether I'm here to troll, make fun of people, or get the threat closed. I though I was here to debate logic.

You seem to be confused. I'm not at all looking for sympathy, just fairness.

EDIT:

vv thank you Jeska <3