Should people with abillity to "ban" from land have restrictions/rules?

What I'd like is a list of all the people who use banlink, so I could ban them from my sims. hmm, maybe I should blacklist of my own...

I think your missing my point. You think I am talking about someones who is an idiot. If someones an idiot then they obviously don't deserve to speak out about being banned from a land. I am talking about being a normal person who gets banned from a land for no reason. So "YES", I have a sense of entitlement. IF I am not harming anything and am following the rules theres no reason to do anything. Your putting everyone in one basket. I am separating the two people.



Actually thats where you're wrong. In America you have rights and depending on why the barred you from wherever you can fight your way back in through the legal system. While I will make no comment on gays, if a gay gets barred from a club because hes gay you better believe if hes sues the owner he will win because "Its his right to be there". So there is no "end of story" for the most part. People can't just kick you out unless they have probable cause. Its just most people don't have guts enough to take it past the barring. They take it and walk away.


If they paid for their land fine. But for instance with the place I was banned from (Star Wars). If I pay for my account and I pay money just so I can play some Role Playing on the very FEW Star Wars places there is (only about 7) then that person is stopping me from enjoying what I am paying for too. So then really I am paying for something I can;'t enjoy and Linden owes me a refund if I can't pay for what I want to do!

After all you all say this is a game (whatever you want to acll it) where you do what you want in it. Well I pay for it to play games. If I payed for a game where there was only 1 land in the WHOLE world that had what I needed and got banned from there I would be screwed and paying for nothing!

Being banned from a mall is one thing, there are 100,000 other malls. Being banned from "specialized" places is another. And once again thats why there needs to be rules for banners. Because there not the only ones paying the game.

Thats really what I am getting at. People that go to those places that there aren't alot of. Because alot of these places are owned or have staff that are idiots but since they are limited places you don't have a choice and since the people there are idiots you take a chance! But I have no power to turn in the land owners! If they ban me from anymore of the lands I play on I will have no more left. And I will be paying for a game I have no use for, well not for role playing anyways. I don't think people should be able to ban 100,000 people from such a limited amount of land like theirs.

I'm gonna go through this point by point.
One mans idiot is another man's friend. As has been said several times to you, the reason for banning is immaterial. Whoever banned you (and remember, there is a limit on the number of people that can be banned) must have had a reason, even if it was "I don't like that guy." Just because YOU disagree with it, doesn't invalidate it.


DINGDINGDING! WRONG!
Your example of homosexuals doesn't apply here, as that is an example of discrimination. You are not being discriminated against. They, according to your side of it, banned you for no reason whatsoever. "Its (sic) his right to be there" is just plain incorrect. To repeat, NO-ONE has a right to be on someone else's property.
You're comparing apples and oranges and calling it a peach.

In the immortal words of John C. McGinley in the American Sitcom Scrubs...
Wrong wrong wrong wrong... wrong wrong WRONG WRONG.
You are not paying Linden Labs to play Star Wars, you are paying them to play Second Life. They owe you NOTHING. To suggest they do is ridiculous.
Now, if you were paying the people that banned you, and you haven't said you are or aren't, then you might have a case. But to say that Linden Labs owes you ANYTHING because someone banned you from a parcel is ludicrous. I can't believe you're serious about this.


Again, you pay to play Second Life. Nothing else.
As I said, if you paid to play the games within Second Life, then you might have a case.
And please don't confuse wants and needs.


Let me get this straight. Someone goes out of their way to create something cool and fun and original and they should be punished for it by taking away some of the controls that they are entitled to, according to their agreement?

Survey SAYS... ERRRRRNT [X] [X] [X]


Just a personal note, based on this thread.
This is only an opinion:

Judging from your posts and the sense of entitlement you have, as well as things like "staff that are idiots" and "the people there are idiots" and "I have no power to turn in the land owners" and the like...

I'm getting the feeling that the ban wasn't for nothing. I know that if you were to come onto my land and speak to me like this, I would probably kick you out.

The great thing about SL, though? If there is nowhere doing what you want to do? That's, like, the IDEAL thing! It means there is a hole in the market, crying out to be filled.
Hell, in the very market you're talking about, the Star Wars market, I found a hole and filled it (Brenda, Colette... do NOT touch that, dirty girls! *grin*) with my Astromech... *ahem* I mean Little Robots that look kinda like trashcans.

Stop worrying about being banned. Start up your own thing.

Mickey summed up what I feel. I'm paying for my land, you're not. Now I haven't banned anyone, and if I do it will be with good reason (constantly invading privacy, griefing etc.). There are idiots out there, sure, but they're paying to be idiots with their property.

The only case I can think of is if a land-owner of a neighbouring plot to your own bans you and gets others around you to ban you, negatively affecting your experience of owning your own land, then you might have a case. Ultimately that one's the fault of the poorly implemented parcel permissions within SL (extending up to 768m even if the content's 20m high). LL, might step-in if you abuse report such a case because you're a land-owner too and your enjoyment is harmed, and if you've done nothing wrong than that's a case of bad-neighbours.

If however, you've gone to someone's land, and they've decided for whatever reason that you are not welcome, then it's their right to ban you. Maybe you were wearing an 'out-of-character' avatar for that simulator (some don't warn you first which is just rude, I've been ejected as a furry before without being told why until I furiously asked). Maybe you said something that was misinterpreted. Maybe you just happened to pop-in and ask a question when the land-owner was on their period, or had otherwise had an especially rough-day. Who knows, if you've a problem with a ban, then take it up with the owner of the land to find out why and if you can get around it.

Many Star Wars sims/areas are for roleplay, and require you to be 'in character', which frequently means something from the recognised Star Wars universe. This can often rule out furries unless you're obviously wearing a jedi-outfit or such. If you're not in character and don't have an out of character indicator (ie to show you're just exploring) then places may eject or ban you. It will even rule out avatars that are just wearing plain jeans and T-Shirt because it's not a particular uniform or style (it's not "Star-Warsy". That's just how these places want to run themselves, and it's not for you to tell them they can't, though you're entitled to argue that it's not fair, or you just didn't know/didn't have time to do anything about it.

Griefers are so over-hyped,

Eject and Ban handles most of them, restricting who can build objects most of the rest.

The RARE ones who crash sims and other DNS attacks are the ones we should be worried about , not the idiot running around with a giant prim Penis on his forehead.




You are evil.

She is much better than Blake or Jordin. Even Simon was ticked off the ENTIRE show about her leaving.



What I dont get is how Dreamz thought he had a chance at winning. Even before he didnt honor the deal. No one mentioned the "Eveyone knows you are a liar" part till the jury.

I cant beleive he wouldnt fess up to Jeff he had no clue he knew what he was doing through the whole show. He even said hed honor the deal by himself to the camera. Even Johnny Fairplay would admit he was lying during the solo camera shots. .

And Earl looked 10 years older easy with that beard.

Yeppers. But still...
TrueBabes, I'm better than Blake! *grin* He kills me. Dude is a "beatboxer", but STILL can't sing on the beat... even with a drummer not 3 feet away!
As for Jordin, Melinda may have been a technically better singer, but... let's be honest. Are you going to buy her album? I'm certainly not. Although, I will see the third installment of her movie series this summer!
Plus the whole "Really? You like me? Honest and for true?" thing started ringing false to me.


Agreed. Although, her was rather seriously HAWT! with it!

But, back to the topic...

Yeah. Um... any one, any time, any reason.

Technically she is probably the best singer AI has ever had - might not have the best voice, but is the best trained singer. She was pretty much a pro and vocally as flawless as possible considering.

But I guess that wasnt enough to overcome her appearance. Which isnt good enough for the shallow post rock video music market.

Yes Ill buy the album - Unless its all Whitney Houston style - I wonder is the producers sabotagued her anyhow "Nutbush"? come on if they are going Tina Turner how about "Whats love got to do with it?" or at least "Proud Mary".



Yeah Earl looked good with the beard

---------------------------------------
Ohh on topic , huh ?

Linden Labs should NOT endorse Black Lists and Gossip sites that would lead to them.

We are SO getting this thread closed.



Anyways...

Still wrong. If I Role Play in Star Wars, and someone set up a Star Wars Role Playing land then I have every right to be there, thats the whole point of this game is it not? You find what you want to do and do it! The star wars geeks role play and go to these sets of planets(land) (for the most part) and play on them! But the one owner bans people because he is a moron.

And if am paying to be premium on my account then I even MORE SO have a right to be there. And if not then I want my money back! Why should I pay for a game that I can't play in like I am told I can? I can't set my own goals then give me back my money! Don't let people ban for no reason and block my goals then.



The flaw is you have free accounts in SL too. So the whole "You are paying them to play second life" is as you say "Wrong wrong wrong wrong". SL is free (so they claim). You pay more for various aspects. But like anything you can be a sue happy nut and make it out that if all you do is role play then you are waisting money on something you can't even do! And your "wrong wrong wrong" doesn't hold water in court of law. If I am paying but not getting what I I pay for then I am being taken advantage of.

But since you don't seem to get that, lets try this. If you simple wanted to play this game just to go to the ONE and ONLY lets say "Movie theater" in the world (lest just say there was one) only and you had a premium account but you got banned for a ridiculous reason. Don't you think you should get your money back? If you have no reason to play this game for any other reason why should you be paying for it if you can't even go to the one place you enjoy?

Do you make payments still on a car if you don't have it for whatever reason? Do you still pay for cable if you don't own a tv? No, of course not.



Like I said its easy for people that think they are "all that" in the game to go around yapping about the rules when they have nothing to worry about or do the boring things in the game like run a business or do nothing but dance all day. But when your on the opposite end and you just happen to meet landowners that aren't nice you get the opposite feeling towards this game.

And yes I deserved my ban. I said "Hi". Definitely ban worthy in my book! Maybe instead of yapping and thinking your all so smart and bans are acceptable you should go to some of these places where I was banned. Go meet the land owners and see how long you last before you get banned. Then come back and say "Its their right to treat my like a pile of crap then threaten me and ban me!".

No where in the rules does it say someone can treat you like total crap, harass you...etc. Ban me or not at this point. Don't do anything else because you suck as a land owner. "Nar Shadda" is the name of the land. Look for the little bar like place with a giant creature resembling Jabba the Hutt. Smooka is his name I believe. Dare you to say anything to him or anyone inside!

BTW after he banned me he and his little idiot friends that harrased me in the next Star Wars land tried convincing people I was such a bad person. So I kept filing Abuse Reports. Some girl came and said she was from Linden Labs and asked if I had filed the reports I told her yes and she asked if those people (the ones around me) were the ones harassing me. One by one they all disappeared (including that land owner). Then she told me she had taken care of it and to have a good day.

So I don't know if thats just because I filled enough reports. Because I said the land owner was so mean or what. But obviously land owners can even get in trouble!

I think people should be allowed to ban on whim, and that's what bans from land should be regarded as by LL - a whim of the landowner during gameplay. No official notice should be taken of landbans by LL. They should only respond to official abuse reports And of course if someone reports another player/resident without good reason, then that in turn could result in the reporter being disciplined in some way.

Hmm....I think Kez Oh deserved the ban after all, from the sound of it. That attitude of him surely can drive some land owner crazy.

The name "Private Island" isn't just for show. It is what it IS -- Private. People can get in because sim owner allowed them so. It doesn't matter what the name say, they can flip the switch and have it disappeared from the grid whenever they want. If he think he can go into anyplace he want to, surely it'll get him banned sooner or later.

Well, unless he is just currently mad at being ban from just that certain RP sim. In that case, he should cool down more before replying. There're many starwar sims anyway, as far as I know.

I once ban someone because he keep rambling and begging for money and free stuffs, despite the rules which he surely has never read. Ruined my mood and every other people. Do you believe there're some people who request free stuffs from creator, by rambling about bad and horrible that creator's items are? *shrug* I couldn't believe it. Like I'd give free things to someone who say my items are horrible, and then ask to have one of them for free. And sim I am in have records of banning people who doesn't read the rules of clothing (ie: no gun, no kid, no stupid, etc). *shrug* who know, maybe he happened to be a furry in a starwar sim, or being a human in a furry's rp sim, or maybe dressing as a kid or somethings. That could result in instant ban with short temper officers.

No, they ban them because they're entitled to. They set up THEIR land as an RP sim following THEIR rules and THEIR wishes. With the exception of Linden-owned land (which everyone is entitled to visit), you are a GUEST on other people's land, and that priviledge extends only so far as the owner of the land is willing to extend it.

Anyone else getting the urge to unneccessarily ban Kez Oh from their land?

Any landowner has the right to ban anyone from their land, for any reason. Live with it. But they were wrong to follow you and harrass you.

Exactly right

And since a landowner paid for the ability to ban on a whim .. then the rest follows.

Linden Labs shouldnt keep track of how often a resident is banned ..

And Linden Labs shouldnt endorse Black Lists and Gossip sites ..

Wow, absolutely amazing. Do you STILL not get that if people pay a couple grand to LL for their land, and hundreds of dollars in monthly maintenaince fees, that gives them the right to restrict access to it as they see fit? Being premium for $9.95/month absolutely does not give you the right to override the wishes of landowners who spend a ton more money than that to own property.



BTW, you're not supposed to name names in the forums. I suggest you edit your post.

The people from the first sim were wrong to follow you into another sim and cause you problems - but don't you for a minute get all smug and think that the Linden rep came out and did something about it because of your original complaint against the landowner for banning you. It was solely because they were causing you problems on someone else's land. Sure, land owners can get in as much trouble as the next person. But he did not get in trouble here because he banned you from HIS land - it's because he harrassed you on SOMEONE ELSE'S land.

So, if I happen to be playing D&D with a few friends in my house, you have every right to be there?
No.
If I setup a virtual game on my website, you have every right to demand an account and free access to it?
No.


Premium allows you to buy mainland land. It does not give you god like powers to wander wherever you want and be unbannable.
This is very poor reasoning and shows you don't even know what you are paying for. Perhaps you should read things before handing over money.



You are not told that you can go everywhere and do everything you could possibly want regardless of the landowners wishes.
Point to one place on the SL site that says premium account holders can do anything they want and be completely unrestricted.



You do realise a case would never get before a court if the plaintiff cannot even say what they are paying for? You are not paying LL for the privilege of playing star wars RP games. You are not paying LL to force everyone to be you friend.
Your knowledge of what the police and courts can do is as lacking as your knowledge of what you are paying for each month.
Purely out of curiosity, how old are you? This whole thing reminds me of being 7 years old when every kid liked to walk around saying "I'll sue you" at every perceived insult.


Again, paying for a premium account does not give you any extra rights on other peoples land. It gives you the right to own mainland, nothing more.


The payments you are making are not for the car, or the cable service.
They are for the general upkeep of SL, and the right to own mainland. Sticking with your analogy, the car and the cable service are free.


So those who stick within the rules are boring? that suggests you break rules for fun, making your banning entirely justifiable.


I visited Nar Shaddaa, upon landing at the teleport point you get a whole list of rules on your screen. I had the sense to read the rules first and not enter, because I was not in character for a starwars RPG, and have not read the "StarWars RP Standards", which people entering the area are expected to adhere to.

The fact that you do not mention the 2 people listed at the bottom of the rules notcard as contacts for problems in the sim suggests to me that you didn't read the rules. Neither of those names look like "Smooka".


Nowhere in the rules does it say people cannot have more rules on their own land.
Nowhere in the rules does it say you cannot be banned for any reason the landowner feels like.


I suspect that if a linden did that, they will have some explaining to do. Banning people on the ARs of a single person is not going to look good for them when their bosses receive complaints.
I suspect it didn't happen quite like that though. Take a look through all the threads regarding the lack of live help, and how often lindens turn up in world when a single person files ARs. It would go against the evidence that everyone else is seeing for a linden to turn up and start banning for a harrasment AR. They don't even turn up when nazi griefers are running riot.

Edited for bahd splelling.

I was going to go point by point, but you all have covered them so well.

Kez, you are not only incorrect in your assertions, you are almost the complete opposite of right.

Again, you pay Linden Labs for access to SL. YOU pay it. Some others don't.
This fee you pay does NOT give you the right to my land, his land, their land, anyone's land, other than the open land that LL has set up.

You have NO rights whatsoever to access this StarWars sim. None. You are there by the owner and managers' good graces. You are a guest on their property. They don't have to kiss your ass, be nice, do somersaults or anything for you. They have no obligation to you. None at all.

UNLESS you paid them for access. Which I'm assuming you didn't for two reasons. 1) You pointedly didn't say you had paid them when it was mentioned 2) someone else went to the sim and said nothing about paying.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

I'll let my closing words speak for me...

(to the tune of Gilbert & Sullivan's "Major General Song"

You are the very model of an incorrect entitle-ist,
You've information inexact, fallacious, and erroneous...t,
You know the knights of Jedi, and quote the fights historical
But when it comes to facts, your reasoning's hysterical
You're not very well acquainted, too, with matters geographical,
Don't understand the rules, both the simple and quadratical,
About real life laws, You seemingly don't have a clue,
And make up stuff based on opinions you misconstrue

Kez, you can want whatever you want, but it isn't what you get.

I have yet to see a serious proposal for any potentially implementable "rule" that landowners should be held to regarding banning. I'm interested if there are any serious and well thought about proposals. The rest is essentially miffed people (and I assume justifiably so) complaining about something that isn't going to change and probably shouldn't change. And it certainly won't change if there aren't any serious suggestions.

Collette, we get it that you don't like BanLink and that LL mentions BanLink on their site. You're entitled to that opinion. I don't share it, but your reasons are understandable.

I look at BanLink as protected by 1st amendment rights to free assembly and speech. Whether LL should endorse it is another matter.

Well its more than that, really.

All the things that have happened lately have made it easier to get banned from Second Life, not harder.

A Blacklist is only a partial ban, but its related.

Everyone is pushing to make it easier to get griefers off the grid, or to deny people access to this or that.

Very few (or none) are concerned with gurarantees to people concerning the right to their account.

I think it should be very hard to get banned from Second Life. Becuase it involves your access to something thats pretty important to many people.

Now of course individual owners should be able to ban people from the land they own - for whatever reason they want.

my thinking is thus: If someone feels they have the "right" to land I own...so be it. Now..the thing is, I own the land. I have full rights to it, paid for by my cash. I paid for it, it's mine. It still baffles me that one would think in this fashion.

In SL there are NO RIGHTS...it's business. It's capitalism at it's finest, not communism...If you want communism, make your own grid and set rules as you see fit. Just remember: the Soviet Union tried this and failed, all other communist States are nothing more than dictatorships in disguise...or not really communistic. A point in fact, true communism requires that all persons give to the state and not think of themselves at all. Human nature isn't that way.

I bought the land. I pay the tier. If you are in my living room without being invited it is rude and you will be banned from my land. In my club, if you are walking around with a penis hanging out of your pants and do not but it up after what I consider is a reasonable time without being asked, you will be banned. Be rude or vulgar to my customers or employees, you will be banned with no warning. Yes I decide what is rude or vulgar.

Simple if you don't like that private property owners have power, stay in Linden owned areas.

On land I bought and paid for, there are rules...........MY rules. If you don't like them, there are 1000s of other places you can go.

You can set your own goals and play anyway you want, just not on land owned by someone else.

That depends on how you look at it. Most people on the forums have a fairly creator-centred view of SL, and that's fine, because that is the underlying technical reality of SL, and of the people involved are content creators. However, that is not the only view of SL that's possible. There's also the user-centred view - where what matters is the de facto experience a person has in SL, and the mechanics by which it is delivered are none of the user's business or problem.

In this point of view you can see how the above comparison would apply, and the OP did post an example that makes sense in that viewpoint. A person signs up to Premium in order to take part in Star Wars roleplaying, and then gets banned from the Star Wars sim. From his point of view, he paid for the ability to do Star Wars roleplaying and it is not his fault that LL happened to choose this strange user-based content creation system for providing that to him. At least if they do choose that, they should be responsible for their choice and refund the money he paid for Premium, since they knew they were taking this risk when they selected that as their content delivery model.

So, yes, actually, in a sense you can "throw customers out of a store owned by LL" - by banning people you can cause them to leave SL, or decide not to buy L$ or go Premium. Now of course if the person is genuinely a pain in the backside then probably LL would thank you for doing that. And for them there used to be a check and balance - non-assholes banned from a parcel for no good reason could simply go to a different build, and then the person who banned them would be the one to lose out, by having a less popular area.

But that check and balance is breaking down. Networked banning is one way (you can't just go to another Star Wars sim because you're network banned from every Star Wars sim!). There's also consolidation, which is inevitable in a capitalist system such as SL. There are already individuals on SL without whose friendship, approval and assistance you will have practically no hope of breaking into certain markets because they or the locations they own exert defining influence over the customer base. Is it so wrong to say that, given this, those individuals should also have responsibility for that customer base?

I agree that people who pay for the land should be permitted to do whatever they want with it, including banning whoever they like. However, this is only a "should" - a moral goal for ideal circumstances. There is no de facto force preventing the Lindens from changing this and it's valid to discuss whether this might need to be changed in the future. For example, suppose that a large corporation sets up an island in SL, it pays lots of money to LL and attracts a great deal of publicity. A very large number of landowning residents don't like that corporation and so they make it publically known that anyone visiting the corporation's island or supporting them in open chat or group IM will be banned from all land they own and that of everyone they trust, which in this example could be 99% of SL - would LL act?

Of course this is very unlikely to happen, but if the answer to the question "would LL act" is yes, that shows there are some circumstances under which they would break this rule and there may be others.



Yes, but they still retain their own council house. The equivalent here is that the council charges a person for housing, but actually has them move into your house with you, becoming your housemate. On the first day you decide you don't want them in your house and throw them out. But then the council refuses to refund the rent, saying that they provided their part of the service, and they can't impinge on your right to your own house. The person's counter-argument, which is quite reasonable, is that the council chose this weird-ass system of putting people into other people's houses in the first place and should bear the responsibility and risks of that choice.

What about being able to set your land so that no one can enter the parcel at all?? Seriously, it's our home, it's like putting up a chainlink fence to keep people out. You pay your mortgage, property taxes, ect, it's your HOME. There is no where that says you are entitled to enter someone's property, even just their yard, just because you pay premium.

Even if it's a store; if you see someone, and you ban them, odds are there's a reason. It may not always be apparant, but it's probably there. And if there isn't a reason? Whooptie-freakin-doo. You can't say jack about it, because it's their land, they paid for it, and if they don't want you here because your avatar has a lopsided face then oh well. Life goes on, there's thousands of stores in the world, go find another and stop crying about it. Not that I think one more person telling you that is going to stop you from trying to keep this debate going, by thinking of something more insane to say and get everyone riled up about it. You seem pretty good at it... Seven pages later.

This dude is acting like... Well, like someone who deserves to be banned

As far as the blacklist thing goes, I'm against that too.