Should LL employees enable griefers?

Hero Worship? Not likely.

I am far to old and cynical to worship much of anything.

But I do believe that part of being a community does mean respecting each others wishes.

Des stated his wishes and you chose to disrespect them. I called you on it.

Nothing more nothing less.

You have your opinion on the matter and I have mine...the great thing about people is we don't have to agree.

Are you reading from the Linden Lab Community Policy Manual?

Desmond is perfectly capable of posting here if he wants to. Since he didn't post that here, I can't help but think he didn't really wanted it posted here.

Excellently stated!

This is interesting.

Someone does not want to say something in venue A - but posts their thoughts on the same subject in venue B - but does not want those thoughts added to the conversation in venue A. And expects that request to be respected by everyone participating in the conversation. Even though many of the venue A folks are not aware of Venue B.

You know, if he had posted "She is a smelly rotten pants". It would not add anything to the conversation. What he posted was topical and on point and relevant. And I have no problem posting his full thread here to add it to the conversation.

I doubt very much of we preceded each post with 'don't quote me' would it be honored. The exchange will continue as long as we continue to post on the subject anywhere.

You don't want to be quoted? Then do not post on the internet.

Well, in SL we accept a state of affairs that few would willingly embrace in RL and which, fortunately, few of us do have to accept in our daily lives; that is, we're all of us and our virtual property subject to penal actions -- up to and including being "disappeared" without any form of due process -- by an anonymous apparatus that, apparent arbitrarily, enforces rules on a pretty whimsical basis. To my mind, we have a far better chance of changing stuff in RL to which we object, because we've got things like laws and elections and so on.

Nicolae Ceauşescu Linden would have no problems in a virtual Republica Socialistă România; when the crowd started to riot outside the Central Committee building he could just have banned them all and terminated their accounts with very few repercussions.

I LOL'd

Congrats, Lias. With your compulsive and increasingly abusive posts, you have succeeded in robbing this thread of any legitimacy it may once have had in people's eyes. I feel sorry for Darien, who clearly did not intend quite this big a mudbath.

*shrugs and hits the AR button*
.

You should be addressing his opinion on the topic in venue B.

yeah, with all of those "I hate Prok because..." Posts - it was going so well.
Surely your not serious that a thread purposely entitled "Should LL employees enable griefers?" was not inflammatory from the start. Don't be silly.

Other people have raised the "are you beating your wife" complaint, but I find I have to state something stronger.

The portion of the original post quoted above are at best, a disingenuous misrepresentation of what those links actually portray. That chat log in the first link actually contains, as another poster pointed out, a Linden being very polite while the alleged victim was being rude and confrontational to the point of harassment. The second and third links show pictures of the Linden in question that are pointless and irrelevant. Who cares how the Linden was dressed? Dressing that way certainly isn't an act of harassment.

Even if we accept that this transcript took place immediately after an act of griefing, and even if we accept that the Linden in question arrived there as a result of a TP invite from a griefer, there's still nothing in that transcript to suggest that LL or its employees have done anything questionable.

So forget about the personalities involved. Is it ever acceptable for someone to post in this forums that "X did something bad, and here's proof in a chat log" when the content of that chat log not only aren't proof, but the log actually proves that X was being quite reasonable?

Credit where credit's due... THAT was funny!!! XD

=^-^=

You still have no evidence that any Linden was involved. The evidence that you have provided is third hand hearsay. It's "I heard that one of the crooks said that a cop was involved" followed by "a different cop showed up on another occasion and was verbally attacked. He didn't respond to the attack, he made a few polite comments, and left".

You can't even name the alleged WU person who allegedly implicated an unidentified Linden.

And I will tell you the same thing I would tell the AP, to want in one hand and shit in the other and see which one gets filled first.

I was just pointing out to you that not everyone subscribes to your view.

35 cents please. paypal e-mail [email]liasleandros@gmail.com[/email].

Not many said they actually hate her.

Distrust her? Yes.

Think she's barking mad? Oh yes..

Are not surpised that she gets griefed, given the amount of verbal bile she spews on regular occasions? Definitely.

Not sure I've seen anybody here who actually said they hate her or that she deserves to get griefed, though.

You already have my response.

Actually there are several posts that contain some variant of 'she asks for it'.

If that's different from saying 'she deserves to get griefed', in what way is it different?

My understanding of US versus British libel and slander laws is that it's more difficult in the US for someone to win a case where they claim they've been slandered or libeled.

Furthermore, the US has a double standard. Public figures have an even more difficult time proving that they've been illegally slandered or libeled.

In this case, we are dealing with someone who is a public figure in this sense. The rest of the analogy isn't an exact match (harassment isn't the same as slander), but I will assert that the same concept applies. While it's not acceptable to go onto that person's property and disrupt it, it is acceptable to disparage that person elsewhere, so long as it doesn't cross the line into libel. In other words, there is an SL equivalent to "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot". Posting signs saying "Ban so-and-so" for this sort of public figure shouldn't be prohibited as harassment, as long as they don't prevent other people from using SL.

(Aside: I wasn't consciously looking for a Rush Limbaugh example, but I'd be hard pressed to find another example that makes the point as well as this one. If you're unfamiliar with the example, it's from the title of a book by Al Franken, currently a U. S. Senator.)

I believe the issue was centered more on the idea that Linden Lab gave an unofficial nod of approval to harassment of the resident in question (assuming the allegation that a Linden was present when the graffiti was made is true).

It's the difference between "Going out alone, late at night, scantily clad, in a dangerous neighborhood is a stupid thing to do" and "That person deserved to be raped."

From what I understand it's something like this.

Opinion is okay. Things posed as questions are okay. "Allegedly" is okay. Stating "such and such is fact" when it is not, is not okay.

That's an oversimplificaiton, but basically it.

I'm very unclear on this part. Based upon what, are people alleging this?

Proving intent is not easy even in a court of law - stating intent as fact is rarely, er, factual, more often a biased/subjective opinion.

The UK is considered the libel capital of the world, even the UN have raised concerns about our libel laws.