owner of shelter,why????

They don't have any responsibility except to their own consciences, which as far as I've seen are pretty clean.

These systems were put in place by private customers trying to provide an enjoyable environment for their guests. They even have a dispute mechanism which they didn't have to implement and which you don't seem to have used.

Real simply: you claim to be an innocent victim of someone else's actions. Follow the dispute procedure as Travis described. Explain your position politely; listen hard to what is said in response. If you don't get the response you want, go play somewhere else - the grid is big. If you don't get the response you want and are pissy about it, you'll have likely proven it was earned.

I put in a dispute claim but that will not remove me from that system. And honestly since i see that people advocate use of a griefing tool in its own right I wont be dealing with groups listed on that system. This game has kinda gone to hell in many ways this is one. A bunch of people sharing names on a public site and they dont even know what has gone on.

Let the witch hunt begin!
grrr

I can't believe people would do stuff like this or use tools like this.
...and yes if you maintain a database and say it has a certain use you are reponsible for its contents and how its used that is a given.

well it could be worse, you could be on another ban list, mine

And this one is really hard to get out of (to get into too)

hehe kinda hard to ban me i never do anything "controversial"

i have land and i make clothes in a 10x10 white box and spend most of my time there in my shoebox making shoes and when not there I am usually busy making something "offline" like a jacket or socks or uh a sock puppet

I also have a very controversial blog where i post silly picks of me making shoes in the shoebox ...my second life is truly on "the edge" i tells ya

and when I am not doing that i am trying to script which isn't pretty at times ..

have to admit - any ban list which is spread around from venue to venue without any sort of due process,

is basically character assasination.

I support banning people from a club or two or all venues that the person placing the ban owns.

But sharing that information with other land owners is going beyond the "its my land and i can do what i want" label.

I think they should reconsider carefully that policy.

Not beyond at all; indeed it is exactly as you put it.

It is my land and I can do what I want with it and what I want is to ban people who peers of mine have found bannable because I trust their judgement.

Not beyond - spot on, actually.

My statement isnt reguarding whether you can ban people who you are told are bad apples -
someone has the right to ban whoever they want.

My statement is argueing against the passing on lists of bad apples. That sharing of information goes beyond the "its my land" since you are now actively sending information about residents' behaviour around.

Black Lists - which is what this amounts to , are potentially dangerous.

And like I said - the system lacks any (non biased) due process.

I understand WHY owners feel this sort of system needs to be used becuase LL's policing activities are poor at best (probably as good as they can be realisitically) I just have a sort of instinctual dislike for people spreading rumors / etc about other people.

While you might only use this information responsibly and Travis , and all involved might only use it responsibly -

It does not mean its not a potentially flawed system, particualrily as SL grows.

A serious thought, doggie just in to a PG sim and solve the issue of what mature is? I understand griefers are always a problem on sl, but giving a measure of PG reduces their stupid actions to a point.

No one is sending information regarding player conduct; they are sending presence on a list.

Black lists are potentially dangerous. So also are rocks. So also is a player who has been a jerk before very likely to be one again. And if I'd like to prejudicially, pre-emptorally, wish to keep you from my land, no rule says I shant.

There is no "due process" in free association. I ought be able to not associate with you because your name ends in "S" if I so choose. Due Process is the domain of governments who can deprive one of a "real" right, not that of a private landholder who can deny you an imagined right.

So Wilhelm, you're going to make use of a list that you are objecting to it's existence?
I sympathise with most of your view but this just smacks of sour grapes, making me wonder what the true reason for your presence on it was.
However, I don't wish to know. It's history and people change. You just sound a little harsh on what is essentially a trust system.

One may have followed the ToS but that doesn't mean that they haven't done something to warrant an affirmative entry by a real human in a private database of players who some consider bannable. But as the front page of the BanLink website says:
They mean that and those involved that I know are reasonable people.

You are marginally correct in that there are no formal criteria for inclusion. Something that people often want of "justice" is that there be bright-line critera that say unquivocally upon which side a given act falls. Every truly understanding executor of justice since rule of law began understands that human conduct will always resist codification. This is why we have judges - to mete situational, ideosyncratic interpretation. No person has yet come up with a better system.

Okay ill try to make it more clear:

Someone banning someone else for whatever reason - absolutely fine
Someone Passing on a black list to others - problematic.

If a land owner bans someone off of a black list thats their choice.
If someone distributes a ban list of people they dont like - thats where I see a problem.

One is the personal property rights of a land owner which should be maintained-

The other is whether or not one player has the right to spread negative information about another player to the point it would impact their Second Life.


I see Black lists as potentially more worrisome than greifers. Ive experienced my share of both Drama and griefers. In my opinion Drama is 10x worse than greifers.

A Black List in the hands of an angry/jilted/irresponsible person - much more troubling in my opinion than some naked idiot on a flying cow shooting off a prim gun.

So your issue is "in principle" not "in actuality". Fine, you are entitled to that opinion and you are entitled to post it here.

So are you implying that the founders and subscribers of BanLink are irresponsible? No, I think that you are just imagining they could be. I suggest that you communicate that suspicion of drama-mongering to others people, perhaps through a web mediated service, and perhaps land ban them as well.

And yes, I do think that irony is a little amusing.

*laughs*

My arguement is entirely on principle-

I do not accuse BanLink or anyone else of doing anything.

Im not even imagining they could be - I never mentioned Ban Link at all.

I believe I mentioned earlier that its entirely posisble Travis and the rest are completely responsible in this. Its actually probable they are since those involved in the list have good reputations.

My concern in any of this is the potential abuse in Black lists.

I wouldnt ever start a list of drama mongerers even if there were people i knew guilty of it.

Okay, say some influential person dislikes me for being a dirty capitalist or doesn't like my choice of words in a public forum or thinks the purple highlights in my hair are ugly or is mad that I won't have sex with them or something...

They can get me banned from a ton of other sites by abusing this tool? People will put my name on a ban list not even knowing WHY someone put me on the list? Heck yeah, there's potential for all kinds of abuse. Sure I could appeal, but that's assuming that a reasonable person is on the other end. Land owners have every right to use it if they think it helps keep the bad guys away - but I'd sure stay away from it.

I don't know about this particular site, but I'd have to argue that being able to slander someone like this and ruin their reputation without having to show any proof to back it up is unethical at best, illegal at worst.

hehe yes and yes

its fine to ban just dont publish your bans people have all kinds of reasons for banning

your art is ugly
your house is ugly
your ugly
your mean
you stink
your rude
.. the list is endless

but since the list was made for griefers that is pretty much whaty our labelled as

and yes I am implying that those who run that website are irresponsible for doing this

simply seeing my name up there says to me dont trust any names on that list

/shrug

in my case i am on that list due to a land dispute the guy put up this huge fence but my side was invisible prims people would port in and get stuck. I had to move. I put the land up for sale with the intention of abandoning after 2 weeks. I had to put in a report to LL etc. Then he bought the land and stalked me and found my new house and threw a bunch of garbage on the land.

so yeah who is being griefed here?


can you tell it was a duspute I asked him to remove a piece the fence and put texture on the side facing me so people could come and go etc he refused. Yet he had formed a tenants association on top of it. He ruined my place in an effort to make his better so it was a neighbourhood disput but the invislbe barrier on my side caused a huge problem one which i had to report because you wuold port in and then go to leave and hit this invisible thing and get stuck usually because I had a 4 foot fence up. So if you weren't careful you got stuck between this insible wall and the fence. It was a missearable experience he was buying up every inch of land around me and I was pretty much the ony one left so I was forced to leave as well

I lost money on that big time my life was made misereable and then the finding me after the fact and throwing stuff on my new lot was like the last straw

so he was reported again for harassment

I have no idea what happened with that

but yeah i was griefing?

looks like I should be adding his name to that list however I do not use such tools due to the fact that they can cause more harm then they solve



here is the bottom line
he was likely forced to take someo f the barrier down and probably slapped on the writs for harassig me and so he is mad at me because he feels i "made" him buy the land which is impossible because I can't force him to buy anything its his own free will


he broke tos he was reported lol

yet he has me on a public ban list
i broke zero tos

never even entered his property or griefed him


and i'm adding this here since i have no othe recorse

this is a lie
"IMed my customers because I was blocking the door to "his" road." I Im'ed exactly O (zero) people and was not even aware he had any customers. He is truthful about one thing he was blocking me period.

" He was always allowed free passage and was never blocked, there was simply a privacy fence on one side of his land. I even made a gate for him to use if he absolutely had to walk. " - there was no gate and no free passage just a huge wall that was 10 feet high on his land that was invislbe transpartent textures MY side and textured on his. people would fly into it including me repeatedly beacuse we could not see it!

two people were involved in this dispute HIM and Me he was unreasonable and stubborn about the entire thing and he put the thing as close to the land line as possible even though he had at least 10k worth of land around him at that point as he was busy buying up every single lot that went up for sale

meanwhile you have a liar and a griefer on your list who was also an unreasonable neighbour and the fact he knows I reported to LL means that he in fact was dealt with officially by linden labs TWICE.


/shrug

While I welcome the debate & feedback, I'm a little uncomfortable using this specific thread to do it in. I wish there was either a seperate thread to discuss it specifically, or even better yet - discussed over at SLUniverse or SLCitizen where we can all speak freely. This thread has drifted beyond just a simple resident answer, not to mention it was a temporary ban that wasn't even submitted to BanLink - and I fear it could be closed at any time before the discussion has had a chance to run its course.

That said, BanLink is not perfect. No solution is, including Linden's own abuse reporting system. In fact, I'd dare say that Linden's system is one of the most flawed of all.

I've said this before: As Linden continues to take a more lax approach to their grief enforcement, and throw the onus on residents more & more, it is absolutely inevitable that resident-provided solutions will fill that void. And they already are.

I strongly believe that, while admittedly it has its flaws, BanLink is the most fair system out there right now. If BanLink is ultimately unsuccessful, all the alternatives I've seen that landowners will actually use are much, much worse.

BanLink was designed with an attempt of balancing the rights of the banned vs. the rights of the landowner. Many other systems out there don't do that. Even within BanLink, I get pressure daily from the opposite end: many landowners don't want their bans to be publically viewable, and don't want their bans to be disputed. A couple folks have ended their participation due to the lack of anonymity issue alone. That's unfortunate, but I feel that taking into account fairness for the accused is just as important is protection for landowners - and I'm unwilling to reduce BanLink's openness in that regard. If anything, I'd like it to be more open.

I understand why folks may have difficulty embracing a system like this.... but... its working. Unfortunately, its difficult to see how well its working unless your a participant.

Most genuine griefers wont take the time to file a dispute, or if they do, its just to troll. As a result, 75% of the disputes that have been filed up on BanLink get results. Results meaning: One of three things happen: The original filer of the ban lifts it, the sites that trust the original filer override the ban for their sites, or those trusted sites choose to stop trusting the bans issued by the original filer any longer.

How many of you have disputed an LL abuse report, and gotten results like that?

The whole point of this 1-way trust & dispute system, is to discourage people from filing frivolous bans, and apply social pressure to those that persist in doing so - without needing some central committee that could abuse their power. Everyone in the system wants to be as widely trusted as possible - but to acheive that, you need to submit bans that actually make sense, and reasonably follow up with any disputes that are filed against actions you take.

When Mera & I started work on this project, I started a discussion to get community input on this, and many changes were made as a result of the concerns that were brought up in that original thread. Additionally, we're not done - this is a work in progress - one of the most challenging projects i've been involved in since my time in SL. Feedback on how to make this system more fair for everyone is not only welcomed, but wanted.

With that, I'll leave the rest of my comments to a seperate thread elsewhere for discussion.

travis a griefer tool was created

also i was not around i was away and not playing for 6 months now i return to a game i was chased away from to be griefed again on a public list

the database owner is responsible for the integrity of his database period
bottom line I DID not grief but was in fact the person griefed
yet my name was on that list

is your "tool' being used correctly
the answer is no
please remove my name from that list
it was a land dispute

i suppose i should join up and put his name up as he was in fact reported to LL and action was taken

but that is not going to happen as i refuse to use griefer tools on griefers


i dont stoop

this happend like a year ago and he is still mad

meanwhile i run the risk of having my life made miserable(again)

I wont be letting it happen if i find that banlink lists are reponsible for my ruined gameplay a report will be filed with LL because its migrating from your site to this game then it becomes LL's issue as welll as yours

yes thanks for letting this guy cause me more grief thanks a lot for that

on that list I have zero rights you gave me 200 character to explain myself and that guy gets like 3 paragraphs worth so yeah

anyone using banlink i will be looking at with a great deal of suspicion please take some responsibility for your database and make sure the names on there are legit



anyways i'm done with this issue

i simply wont be donating to the shelter or nci or anyone on that list every again I dont advocate the use of tools which can easily be abused and are being abused and since orginizations on that list see fit to use it so be it i can't in good consciense support them either

/shrug

I am making a thread for discussion of this over on sluniverse.com.

coco

/me wishes i could see anyone on "the list" - site isn't working for me but one can assume it's operator error. If others are able to complete a search, please let me know how.

/me tosses Travis a martini-flavored chew toy, just in case nobody else has lately.

Thanks, Coco

my post hijacked! still no answers lol *goes off to cry in corner*

this of course exposes the other problem with 3rd party forums - I use them so rarely I always either expire or forget my password
*****

Travis I appreciate you are between a rock and a hard place when trying to decide how to handle griefers.

I dont know how your list works since I cant actually see the list.

I dont know the particulars of the poster on this thread who was (apherently) mistreated by your list. But his expressed difficulties would be the sort of things I would be concerned about could happen.

I dont know whats a good solution - a black list seems to me a dangerous one. Especially as the number of people reporting banees increases.


Someone in another thread mentioned theres over 90 participants. I am not being alarmist - Merely suggesting that the more people who have the ability to get people added to the list, the more likely someone will be banned from all member venues unfairly.

you were only banned for 2 hours =p, thats over already

maybe instead of hijacked you post just expired lol