Should LL employees enable griefers?

Wow. This is absolutely fascinating stuff.

The simple answer to Darien's question is, of course, "no." I doubt that anyone would answer differently, in the abstract. And I would agree that it actually IS "chilling," if it can be demonstrated that this is happening.

The problem here is that all of the sources of information here are seemingly untrustworthy. Prok, so far as I can see, is a largely illiterate delusional paranoid whose "celebrity" in SL utterly confounds me, but I am quite willing to believe that he IS the victim of constant and unfair griefing and harassment. However, I've seen nothing, including the material on Prok's own blog, that proves his allegations.

The Linden in question strikes me as rather unlikable on a number of counts, but that's hardly a crime.

I'd love to know more about WU, but again, whom am I to believe? A Herald story written by Prok? or another by Pixeleen? Puh-leaze.

I rather suspect that there is something going on here, but in the absence of any real information, as opposed to highly subjective scuttlebutt, I'm inclined to go with what Dag says:


I'd LOVE to get all hot and bothered about this . . . but I can't work with this stuff. I need better material, people!

PS. How do I get Prok to give ME a cute and derogatory nickname????

and instead of this big long thread naming names and linking to supposed chat logs (where is the proof it even took place, anyone can make it look like it did)

instead of alllll that... why didn't you just simply start the thread with the very line above?

disregarding the whole who did what to who and history etc....

a simple answer to the above question is... no, it is not right...
and anyone should know that, so why this was even brought up other than to shed light onto the whole alleged situation... is beyond me

I have no problems with people disagreeing with me. But go back and look at what I posted and how you responded. There was zero logic, zero, zilch, nada. Not one thing I commented on was answered coherently. Do you REALLY think you responded with logical arguments? If you do, then I will gladly bow out of this conversation because I refuse to take part in a argument when I have an unfair advantage.

Good. I am glad we established that. Was worried for a moment there.

Who? The person who arrived at Prok's sim is in Texas, not California, and is unlikely to have been involved in the chalking incident. The chat transcript shows him being perfectly polite despite being verbally abused by Prok. Or is there someone else named who I've missed out on?

Yeah, I was referring to the one on the chat log. I agree that he was perfectly reasonable in that context, and will go further: I have seen nothing here to implicate him or anyone else at LL in anything resembling griefing or harassment, in SL or RL. My suspicion that I would dislike the Linden in question is purely speculative, and based on material on his own blog.

ETA: I DO find it his appearance in the chatlogs in the company of Tizzy and Kovino mildly disturbing, but I haven't even really seen enough conclusive evidence that they or the WU group are really objectionable to be more than uneasy about this.

Bit of a loaded question there, Darien...

Do I think it's ok for LL to be harassing people in general? No, of course not.

Do I think this was just a stupid joke that has already gotten too much attention. Yes. Absolutely. Far too much attention.

Do you really think this is an actual attack of some sort? On the front of LL's own building with the names of griefers in chalk?!?

Spare me, please.. This is somebody saying "let's take 2 minutes and do up something that makes it look like we were griefed." That it.

Somebody may lose their RL job over this. Y'all should be ashamed of yourself raising such a stink over this sillyness when there are so many other things that residents can be upset about.

Don't you people have anything better to do?

Hers?

And i don't know prok seems to think she can say whatever she wants and not reap any of the consequences.

Heard the story of the boy who yelled wolf?

Chat logs is good!!

I heard the wolf was on a party bus with a dirty martini in one hand and sidewalk chalk in the other.

And actually, I should add that there is one other thing about this whole thread that is making me a bit uneasy.

I have given my opinion of Prok above; I don't much like, respect, or believe him. And yes, I agree that he probably feeds off all of this drama: I think that is how he has become a celebrity in the first place.

However, I think it is undeniable that he HAS been griefed and persecuted. And, in the context of his history, I don't think the chalk scrawling is JUST a joke that can be tossed off lightly.

This thread is in some danger of becoming the "how much I hate Prok" show; I may be guilty of that myself. And in the context of the very real harassment that Prok HAS suffered, that seems to me unfortunate. It's a bit too much like blaming or discrediting the victim for my taste. I don't think that the personal attacks on Prok are necessary to demonstrate that his allegations are really lacking in evidence.

Allegedly, if she is to be believed.

So Prok acts like a jackass in a blog. Does that excuse destruction of her property in SL?

No, it doesn't.

ignorance is her only defense.

Prok calls this stuff down on her own head. She basically called me pedophile because I don't like Aristotle.

If she doesn't want people to hate her so much, she should stop going so far out of her way to encourage it.

Meade, are you justifying harassment and griefing on the basis of the admittedly outrageous things that Prok says?

Jesse is not ignorant. And just posting to call people names is a waste of keystrokes. I give you more credit than that.

Meade is pointing out that Prok seems to go out of her way to piss people off.

If you go out of your way to piss people off, if you make up things about them, if you call them child molestors when they're actually the ones speaking up about the stupid rules that don't protect children, you will get some number of pissed off people trying to make your life miserable. Is that news to anybody?

Agreed. I think your characterization of Prok is fair. But there is an admittedly subtle and nuanced difference between objectively noting that Prok makes people hate her, and suggesting that "Prok calls this stuff down on her own head."

What the latter seems to imply (and Meade may want to clarify this) is that Prok is ultimately to blame for her own griefing and harassment. And that is blaming the victim. Prok's rants should be countered, verbally, or ignored (by far the best solution); they should not make her a target of abuse.

I'm just sayin' bad behavior on Prok's part does not justify or excuse worse behavior by anyone else.

And I'm just agreein'

Guess I could have quoted Meade or Sindy on that last reply.

Sometimes I get carried away editing quotes.

Nah, I got it. I was just making unnecessary noise.

To me it's well worth a bit of potential back-and-forth to point out that a statement such as "___________calls this stuff down on [his or her] own head" isn't just an expression of dislike of some particular person's behavior---

---it's an explicit justification for committing acts of harassment.

(Even if the person who typed that didn't intend to say that it's perfectly justifiable to commit acts of harassment in certain circumstances, they pretty much DID say that---and maybe they'd welcome the chance to re-affirm this as their belief, or instead say 'no, that's not the message I hoped to convey.')

Yep. I don't know whether Meade intended to suggest as much or not, but it is an underlying assumption of many of the responses in this thread. And that really does make me a bit uneasy.

Me, too.

I don't know if the person who chalked "Ban Prok" on that building did it out of real animus, or out of a wish to elicit a knowing laugh from the others in the group. I would suspect the latter. And let's face it, far more hostile and malicious words than "ban" could have been used.

But the human tendency to pile-on was as evident in that chalky act as it is in this thread.

We do love to be part of the "us" that's against the "them" (or the "her".