Ratings site linked to by Lindens in blog is shady to say the least.

Just a warning to those deciding to participate in any of the ratings systems the Lindens provided links to on the Blog. One of them is designed for griefing and extortion in my opinion. Yes I realize I'm likely to get this thread locked quickly or worse, but I feel people need to know the potential for abuse.

http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/04/12/removal-of-ratings-in-beta/#comment-221564

*shrugs* Well, the system was being abused anyways, so why not just shove the responsibility for ratings off onto third parties? I mean they shoved the discussion forums onto them too.

Of course it is also just like LL not to do research into the 3rd party sites that they are fobbing things of onto also.

They should just not endorse any rating system.

Theres no need for one.

For people who are good, word of mouth reputation is plenty

For those who are bad -

Just allow everyone be innocent until proven guilty.

Except for grid attacks which you cant stop anyhow - no greifing is really serious enough that a land owner cant handle pretty quickly.

Its more just juvinile annoyance.

Ha, I know someone who was just added to Lusk's Banlink list because they were very falsely accused of being a part of a griefer group. Now my friend is banned from nearly every furry sim.

Nice to see that LL is endorsing such a corrupt, abusive system that is used for witch hunting and elitism

BanLink is not a reputation system, nor is it intended to be one. That it was listed by Linden along with a bunch of reputation websites was an error, in my opinion. For this reason, the details about one's personal ban information are not public.

Being banned from a parcel does not automatically make one a griefer, or a bad person. A Ban does not equate to a crime. Being banned is not a punishment nor something to be though ill of.

So your friend was 'falsely accused of being a part of a griefer group'. Did they take the time to IM the owner of the parcel they're banned from, and offer a reasonable explanation for why it might be a mistake?

Surely that's not too much to ask?

Right-clicking on about-land and determining the owner of a parcel takes all of about two seconds.

He did that, still no response from the owner(s). He shouldn't have to do that though; what if he never gets a reply, or the person presses the accusation? Then he is lost in a tangle of accusation and heresay, banned from a large number of sims without recourse.

"Did they take the time to IM the owner of the parcel they're banned from, and offer a reasonable explanation for why it might be a mistake?"

Guilty until proven innocent, eh? We all have seen examples in history of how well that works.

You said above it just happened. Patience, grasshopper. Michi is a pretty reasonable person - if your friend was reasonable as well, I have no doubt it will be reversed.

If he doesn't get a reply, however - there is a dispute form on the BanLink website he can fill out for that very purpose.



Your friend was banned on private property. Ideas about innocence before guilt do not apply there - as much as you are free to ban me from your own parcel for any reason you wish, whether true or false.

If big brother were to come down and dictate to you who you could and could not ban from your own parcel, would that not be an infringement of your rights? Where does it end?

Travis, don't try to play the "We're just giving land-owners tools to control their land" charade here. The problem isn't that the person was banned from a private parcel; the problem is that he was put on a shared ban list that has limited his ability to go to many furry sims. The system fails because if he doesn't "clear his name," he will be banned in a great number of sims just because of the passing fancy of one land owner.

That is why Banlink fails; the little guy who isn't an oldbie and is unjustly added to banlink has little recourse if a someone who bans him refuses to take off the ban, whether the reason is malice, error, or questionable business practices.

You have tried to sell LL on the idea of integrating the banlink system into a future client, and it is clear what your motivations are. However, in my personal experience negative sentiment by banlink is growing, and the more it is established, the more people will directly encounter its fatal flaws.

Also, a question: if one wishes to not patronize business who use banlink, where can one get a list of such places?

Aminom, I don't know of -any- recent banlinks we've added in that context whatsoever. I also haven't heard -any- requests for appeal, on the site or in IM. I honestly do not have any idea who you're talking about. We don't add people to banlink for 'being part of a griefer group" - we do it if they *actually do something infront of us*.

Now, could you possibly let me know who in the world this -is-, so I can even figure out what it is you're railing about here?

We've added a grand total of -five- people so far this month, for the following reasons:

"Replicating cube attack in Lusk general area"
"Unrepentant nudist in a PG sim"
"Grey goo (lolcube) attack in Perry sim"
"LOLCUBE replicator in several Luskwood sims"
"Indecency - naked in a PG zone - warned - then puts on a prim penis."

The last ban that I can find that even come close to possibly being mistaken for what you're saying was in early March, it was an *UNSHARED* (private) ban, it was a TEMPORARY ban, (four hours) and it was for an individual who was a member of an active 'raid' party who attempted to 'raid luskwood, and has -subsequently- been PERMANENTLY banned from four other sites *individually* (i.e., not by us and not through 'shared' bans.)

None of these were for "being part of a griefer group" - the individuals did something very identifiable every single time.

Are you absolutely POSITIVE you are not mistaken?

One thing that people seem to get upset with about BanLink is that yes, there are actually -consequences- to harrassing people. More than anything else, since BanLink, I've had people come to me and say, "I'm sorry I acted like that a while back, I don't do that anymore."

I've rarely ever -- I don't think ever, period -- not taken someone off who has approached me reasonably like that.

There are several avenues to appeal a ban: Use the site, and appeal it there, or IM me in world (if you do indeed believe it was our site that banned your friend. I have a feeling it wasn't.)

Moreover, I assure you (and everyone else reading) that any ban was not simply because of a group membership.

That said, your "Anti Ban-Link" group gets a few things wrong:

1) Against LL policy

-- LL policy is that land owners may ban people from their land for any reason or no reason. There is no 'right' to spend time or be able to pass into someone else's land.

2) No accountability

-- There are several appeal avenues -- NONE of which you or your friend have even tried.

Sites choose to trust eachother. They choose to opt in to the system; if a single site becomes abusive, then that site will likely become untrusted.

Now, I can understand and do have a feeling that Banlink could indeed "spoil the fun" of many folks who believe they should be able to serially visit sims and cause trouble.

SecondLife has become so large that we cannot be an isolated site managing our own list of (a maximum of 300) bans individually. We need to be proactive, not reactive. Certainly, much to the chagrin of griefers who are no longer able to 'make their rounds' from one "LOL furriez" sim to another. For that, I apologize.

I'd suggest that you or your unnamed friend at least attempt to

1) Verify that it was actually Luskwood that submitted a permanent banlink ban,

2) talk to me in world about why they believe they were unfairly banned, if it was indeed Luskwood that submitted the ban

3) Use the banlink appeal function if they for some reason believe they cannot / should not / don't wish to / will not be able to remain civil while IMing me in world.


You haven't even tried any of the above, nor will you say who this friend was. So you don't even know if it can be resolved, if your information was correct, or if the site operators are reasonable or unreasonable.

"Guilty until proven innocent" -- As far as I know we do not have a 'trial' system in SecondLife. Nor any way to get people to participate in one.

Interestingly, Aminom, We do actually have W-Hat, *chan and /b/ regulars in Luskwood. The determining factor is that these folks don't attempt to harrass people. Even for those who do, we almost NEVER banlink on the first eject. We are AWARE of the 'wide effect' nature of the system and absolutely weight its use with its impact.

That's why we've only issued five or so in the last month or more. I've got no problem sharing these logs with you if you like.

Likely, if not for BanLink, we'd share information over IM and enter it into our lists manually. Would you find that to be an injustice as well?



I can assure you that adding and removing bans is NEVER done for a reason of seniority. It seems that you REFUSE to even ATTEMPT to appeal the ban or speak to me because as you say you "shouldn't have to". We do NOT ban for 'personal reasons', and you DO NOT even know if I would or would not 'refuse' to take him off the ban as you or he HAVE NOT TRIED TO CONTACT ME.

Talking. Give it a shot. Sometimes it actually works. Unless this whole nonspecific complaint is just smoke and mirrors to begin with.

I created or started to create a blog with list of places that dont use any of those systems. If I made a list of places that use banlink to avoid them that would make me just like banlink. This is just a blog because I wasnt sure if there was interest you can get a sign from me (stopped selling anying on slexchange due to scam issues at the moment.. ) and then you need to send me a notecard and I ad your place to the list. There are stipulations though they make sense if you dont want to be a part of banlink most people dont like them because they are rules >P

1) you have to display the sign of course
2) you have to use NO other shared blacklist systems

when people hit #2 they chicken out

In other words this is for people who just ban and dont gossip or complain about avatar so and so being a griefer or wearing a blue shirt. My sign presently keeps disappearing (asset server issues) along with other prim objects from time to time let me know if you want one I have to set up yet another one as when I checked (and crashed) the sign was gone. The present viewer has me crashing almost every 60 seconds so i stay in world till i crash which isn't long and then give up and do something else. So disappearing objects are not presently being replaced hehe not until i can stay there long enough for my inventory to download set up the sign etc (hopefully after the 18th)... and yes my graphics drivers are up to date along with the rest of my squeeqy clean system..

Listen carefully to this logic!

when someone accuses you puts you on trial and hangs you all in one breath its not easy nor is it even SANE to think that your going to be removed by going to your accusor. Firstly its very intimidating, secondly half the time you just get people putting you on ignore and snapping windows shut. Lastly its just not the way complains of false bans should be handled REGARDLESS of what people who use banlink think its simply not even civilized for the victim to go and talk to his tormentor and that is basically what it boils down to. Yes you might possibly be banning for all the right reasons and for that I commend you however I have seen enough abuse of the banlink system to know that people in fact do just that use it to torment others and intimidate them. Good for you but if you then expect someone who has been mistreated to go and talk to the person who mistreated him you need to rethink that line of logic.

"Oh please sir *grovel grovel* take me off your list so I can play in your public sim *grovel grovel* "

come now have some sense people use banlink just the word as a method to threaten people and keep them in line. Its in and of itself has become for many people a source of grief. When and if banlink puts in a proper appeals system it may improve. However presently going to the guy that banned you is unfair of anyone to ask. I've watched people who made simple mistakes who are decent people get banned and told by their banner that they will never ever ever ever ever be forgiven. So please dont tell me about this stuff as its just not the way human nature works not in the civilized world. Banlink attempts a barbaric method of punishment which used to include public humiliation. Thankfully that was removed but I doubt it was removed because they were causing public humiliation not in reading the logic and knowing the solution was very easy to implement code wise and had been suggested for almost 2 months. What it took to remove the public humiliation ability was for a person ME to demonstrate how this tool can be abused by those outside banlink by cutting and pasting names from a forum discussion into banlink and taking the names and posting details on a forum. Then and only then did they do something and not before, but honestly anyone who was or is still following the banlink issue knows in their heart of hearts that the public viewing was taken away to remove any possible scandle and to protect banlink users not the general public.

Until banlink looks at it from both sides (which they never will because banlink is all about threats and anarchy) the complaints will never change.

and NO no one should EVER be expected to go to the person who threw them on that list and plead their innocence IT MAKES NO SENSE if the person banned him in the first place they must have had their reason. Turning around and saying "oh it was a staff" or not the owner proves the point that banlink is in fact being abused daily by the hour of every day as no one has bothered to make sure that people banning are doing it uniformly and with total support of the owner. Usually when stuff like this happens the owner stands behind his minions if he is not standing behind his minions then there is a problem with the owner and the minions. Either they know what they are doing or they dont, but dont expect banlink victims to run and beg of a guy who just banned them to remove them that's just nonsense and an excuse for not looking at the situation more closely and objectively

In light of the post on this forum it appears you have knowledge of a person who is unjustly banned. Will you lift a finger to extend a hand of kindness and chat the person or do you demand that he take all the steps to get himself off this list knowing that he likely is upset and humiliated and even possibly intimidated by you. Wil you be human enough to send him a notecard or chat and say "lets talk". If the answer is no then i'm sorry no one using banlink has learned a thing yet. (remember someone has posted to the forum and saying they know of an unjustly banned person his name is here on this forum and is the same as the ingame name take the time to be human and stop being dominating. Your aware of the issue if you are fair like you say you are it wont take long for you to speak to the poster get the name and contact the person involved. If for some reason you find this to be something you cant do then honestly how do you think that makes you appear? )

It's insane to think you're going to be removed if you were unfairly put on?

Strange, I've actually removed quite a few people from Banlink - people who ADMITTED to doing wrong and APOLOGIZED! What makes you think that if they were WRONGLY accused I'd take a -worse- tactic? That's ludicrous.

Secondly: your comparison to "hanging"; A bit different. The dead can't talk. The dead can't appeal. Being added to banlink is hardly an 'execution'.

I assure you I do not, will not, and NEVER HAVE muted or ignored anyone attempting to appeal a ban who was not harrassing and assaultive in the appeal itself.

If someone starts IMing me with profanities and namecalling, THAT is the reason I would not listen to them. Not because they're appealing a ban.


Also, note, there are no PUBLIC sims. Public sims by nature would be 'owned by the people'. These are PRIVATE parcels and sims, EVEN IF THEY ARE ON THE MAINLAND.



Threaten people, no. Keep them in line?? Are you saying that people should be able to go to various locations and get "out of line", with no recourse for the sim owner??

Also: How on earth does this differ from the built-in parcel ban system that has existed since 2003! Do you, in the same breath, also believe that parcel or sim owners should not be able to ban people AT ALL because there is no appeals system??? There's nothing stopping any parcel owner from adding them to the SL (non banlink) ban system and saying they will 'never ever ever be forgiven.'

This stuff is in no way exclusive to BanLink. In fact, BanLink -has- an appeal process; the built in Linden Lab parcel/estate bans do not!



Can you tell me where I said that? I'm TRYING to find out from Aminom WHO this person supposedly is! I said quite the opposite: All of the bans we've added in the last month were for VERY SPECIFIC reasons! Where are you getting that i'm "aware" that there is an unjust ban? Just because some person came to a forum and said "My friend was unjustly banned, but i'm not saying who, and we're not going to tell you, either!"



First of all, all of the bans we have performed, again, in the last month, were acted on people who were hardly "kind" themselves, and were in no way "humiliated or intimidated" by me or Luskwood. I remember all five rather clearly, and the people involve were recalcitrant, rude, obnoxious, insulting, and generally extremely ill mannerered.

Moreover, we *DO* IM and speak to people before we ban them. (Even non-banlink bans!) Generally, the only reason we PROCEED with a ban, is if they're rude or profane in response to the request that they stop doing what they're doing.

But I suppose you would feel that asking someone to stop doing something harrassing/insulting/destructive is unjust, too.

.. Let's jsut go over this one more time:



No, he did not. I still don't even know which person we're talking about! If I did, maybe it could shed some real light on this situation instead of just a bunch of what-ifs and suppositions.

I really don't see how this is any different then a single person banning you from all of their sims or areas. No one would ever bring this up if this was just one person who owns a lot of land banning you. With the tools that SL currently has, a system like this is needed. Using a trust system does has some flaws, but then again, trust is hard to earn, but easy to break. Does anyone out there have a better idea to try and control griefers? How can you stop someone from attacking your land, and after you ban them, keep them from going after your friend's land? If there really is a better system, please put the idea out, or design and build it yourself. A system is needed because the built in tools just aren't cutting it.

yup an illogical one if the sim was private it would be locked down if you allow the public onto the sim and dont lock it down its a public sim. Its easy to uncheck that box that allows anyone in and make a group to only allow group members in

my sim is a public sim its obvious its not restricted access in any way shape or form that says public. If you advertise for people to come to your sim its public. Ii'm sorry but you simply dont understand.

sim = 3d website

there are two kinds

1 public sites like say umm google or yahoo or i dunno pick a smaller one. If you can type in the domain name and arrive at it with no restriction its public. (same definition applies to sims if you have no restricted access to say groups or premiums or whatever or have everyone totally not allowed into the sim except you then its public)

1 private sites = you pay to get in you sign up its restricted for certain purposes say umm members of some kind of group are only allowed on that site. They sign up send proof they are in the group and then and only then are permitted into the site to post or read etc. (this is a private sim where you have restricted access to only those who are allowed in)

also you can stop screaming and typing in bolded caps font you simply are not understanding SL my sim is public its obvious its public there are NO restrictions I have no banlines I let everyone in to come play and I ban the greifers without saying a word or gossiping or sharing the name and it remains open to all

If you were not a public sim then you would not need banlink because your entry list would consist of only invited group members and your indignation and caps and bold type on this forum would not exist!

Okay, so, now you're saying that unless a sim is locked down, private, and invite only - it shouldn't be able to ban griefers, should generally be anarchy, and is somehow owned by the public?

And we're moving on to bypassing my arguments and instead attacking my fonts?

And the so-called unjustly banned person is still an unnamed ghost who nobody can identify?

Allrighty then.

Enjoy.

nope but then your not banned from every furry sim due to a person disagreement with one owner. Typically people who are banned just leave and dont return regardless if its just or not. An argument over the colour of the sky can get you banned bye ONE individual who disagreed with you because you said its blue and he thinks its purple. With banlink this means that he not only is banned from that one small area because some guy is being an idiot and doesnt like people who dont agree with his every word on his property but gets you banned across every furry sim if he is a furry or 10 "hot spots" to which he may be a frequent visitor if they are all say umm gorean. Banlink is not just for personal use by one user if it was then it would not have been published as a "reputation system" by linden labs hehe its a tool used with a very broad scope. This much is pretty obvious

oh and I should post the usual as a result of disagreeing with someone who uses banlink int his thread I fully expect to be banned from sims as a result of it (as do others who dare to speak up about it ) Anyhow such is life.

its not one parcel we are speaking of its many parcels simulatenously as names and lists are shared. Try it sometimes create an alt go to a sim with a theme possibly one you enjoy if you like gorean or umm say you like the non profit places like the shelter or NCI . Take that alt in there do something outrageous just to see how far sweeping the effects of a ban would be. (no i am not advocating griefing what I am trying to get you to understand is what can happen if someone doesn't like you because of something silly so getyourself on the list somehow obviously the easiest way is to actualy do something that you know will get you banned just to see call it a social experiment if you will) then take that alt to all the other places in that list of gorean sims or non profit sims etc and see if you can get in?
Now say you have an argument with a guy over something stupid and he is on "duty" in these same sims maybe he never liked you but you are not a griefer and you get banned (yes it happens) what will you do then ? you will find yourself on all the property ban lists not just that list for that property.

this isn't rocket science you know hehe its actualy not that hard. Anyone has the right to ban on property they own if they screw up fine they screw up I question the right of individuals to bar people from properties they dont own as a result of a shared list which may or may not be valid

You clearly don't understand how the system truly works. If you'd like to chat with me reasonably, and have a genuine interest in finding out actual facts, feel free to IM me. If you wish to be publically obtuse just to create drama, that's your perrogative - but don't expect me to continue to engage you in it.

You've made this a personal crusade since February, Animom - and now you are inventing facts in order to "prove" your point.

BanLink is doing a good job of reducing grief load for the locations that subscribe. We dont advertise - people like you do it for us, along with positive word-of-mouth from locations that subscribe. Did I mention it was also Free, and open source?



Could you please show me some evidence of where I've done that, or even thought about doing that?

Unless someone slipped me a rohypnol when I wasn't looking - I think you're making this up in order to prove your point.

Much like its becoming clear that this vaporious friend you're mentioning in this thread is also made up in order to prove your ill-informed point.


One cannot.

Strangely, every time one of these threads pops up, we get a sudden surge in new BanLink signups. Thanks for giving it attention so folks are encouraged to find out for themselves what its all about.

I fully understand what you are saying, but I have friends in SL and if they told me to ban so and so, I would. I probably not even ask why. I trust these people to not steer me wrong. I don't see banlink being any different. This system is not where anyone can ban anyone for whatever reason. At least to my understanding. If you are part of the banlink system then you get to pick who's list you trust and who's list you don't. If Travis and Michi trust each others judgment enough to want to share a ban list, why shouldn't they be able to?

Well, I am going to assume that it was just a bad assumption on his part. Rumor has it that LL likes the idea of banlink and are thinking of something that would be integrated into the system. It would be natural to think you might have been pushing the idea.

But then again, it could be another Speedtree, HAVOK 2, MONO, etc.

Sounds to me like if you visit one of these places - and genuinely cause grief - the consequences will not be much more widespread than just being unable to visit that one single parcel.

Increased consequences for griefing? Wow.... what a novel concept!

Perhaps you'd prefer folks simply filed an abuse report. Of course those get prompt attention - its amazing anyone subscribes to BanLink at all!

Well, it is, though, because it's automatic. Most people don't IM every single person they know to get them to ban someone they've just banned, and even if they did most people would not be bothered enough to actually enact the ban unless there was a specific threat ("X said he was going to your place next". Moreover it activates even if the landowner is offline as far as I recall. Someone with power to add to a BanLink list which is trusted by a number of others thus has quite a powerful weapon to wield, or to threaten with. (If they didn't, that would take away some of the point to the system wouldn't it?)

I don't think that LL likes the idea of that sort of system because Travis has pushed it. Obviously Travis likes the idea of BanLink and would no doubt tell you so. But I think that LL are just generally keen on resident governance ideas which don't require them to investigate issues and kick people out.

Just for clarification, I'd like everyone to know that Aminom and a friend were banned from Lusk -- Note, NOT BANLINKED, but simply parcel banned, for extremely offensive and profane behavior.

I do indeed have screenshots of the whole "oh sh*t it's Jesus's birthday" incident that you and your 'innocent friend' so innocuously performed at 10:33 PST on Dec 28 2006, Aminom.

Note, that even so, we didn't put it on BanLink. It was simply a parcel ban, as it was a 'first strike'.

You, however, Aminom, *were* subsequently put on Banlink later on, in early January, for "incessant soundspam and repeatedly hitting people with objects" - AFTER already having to deal with you on the Dec. 28 incident.

You filed this appeal which I responded to on Feb. 07.

Aminom Marvin: "On January 13 at 12:07 AM i did something fairly silly and hit some people with tongs in luskwood. Back then I was still fairly new and I've learned much more about SL since then, and how stupid such acts are." / "Is it possible to get a second chance?"

My response was:

"Yes, it is. This is good enough for me."

I then unbanned you on Feb. 05; and you remain unbanned to this day.

I suggest, Aminom, that you find out who did put you or your friend on BanLink, using the appeal function, and we can clarify this further.

But not only were you not 'falsely' put on BanLink, but

1) The first time, you were not even put on banlink.
2) You admitted to doing wrong, and spoke with me reasonably.
3) I unbanned you for (successfully) using the appeals system.

What I don't understand is, if the appeal system worked for you, then why are you saying it cannot for your 'friend' (who still remains unidentified)?

Please let me know. If you can point me to an appeal or IM (IMs in world DO get lost or capped) - please do. I always have and always will respond to an appeal.

Fair enough - I suppose I took his comments as if he was purporting as fact.

For the record, I haven't been in any sort of talks with LL in order to get BanLink into the viewer - nor do I think that would be a very good idea unless they took it all the way through.

Its more than just giving folks a way to share out their banlists with others - there's a lot more to it than that. If they didn't provide a built-in dispute mechanism, and didn't provide some sort of database to document both accusations and disputes: I fear it could indeed become something grossly unfair.

Knowing how Linden tends to operate, it is quite possible they'd just do the sharing part - and overlook the dispute & documentation part. That'd be a shame.

Well, if one of the people I knew that had the power to ban abused their ability, they would lose it quite quickly. If I was part of the banlink, and a group had a number of wrongful bannings, then I would most likely remove them from my trusted group. I still don't see the fatal flaw in the system.