Jake, and all the other fans, please note veiled attack no. 99, with my rebuttals : )
I'm taking out the picture links, they don't work.
Aimee Weber's Post:
1. Disguising users with diciplinary problems as ordinary residents. The Lindens CURRENTLY have a policy of disguising users with significant diciplinary problems such that they look just like YOU or ME! You could be standing next to a virtual sociopath RIGHT NOW and you wouldn't even know it.
I'm sure I don't have to tell you folks that this situation is identical to the Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
This is an effort to promote the coloured tags again, from another angle. The idea is to imply that someone who is, say, permanently banned from the forums, is a second-class system, a person whose rights should be denied, a person who cannot participate as a full-fledged citizen of the world, without being identified in some way so they can be opened up to further harassment. This sort of thing is really evil, and yes, like having shaved heads, scarlet letters or tatoos on foreheads or arms. Absolutely. It's especially evil because of the arbitrariness and injustice that goes into so many disciplinary actions for all kinds of reasons.
2. The shunning of Invect Hasp. I oppose shunning of users from groups on the basis of their political affiliation. I find this injustice comparable to the handywork of the Flying Monkeys in Wizard of Oz.
This is a scarcely-veiled attack on me for doing something which is normal, free, and my right -- ejecting someone from a group which I founded for a specific purpose. That's not shunning, that's freedom of choice. After all, I haven't prevailed, silently and tacitly, over a mass shunning of him on the forums, hmmm? Like some I know. In fact, what happened is that I formed an invitation-only group, and in fact INVITED Invect Hasp into the group, how do you like that lol. And when I saw his profile, and also got some feedback from others in the group, I ejected him. End of story.
I don't have to justify or discuss this. It's how the tools are set up, and it is perfectly legitimate. I made the group Group Tools in order to discuss how to reform the group tools -- but with likeminded persons, who may not agree about many things, and may wind up making very different groups, but who at least agree that the group tools MUST protect a person's land purchase and MUST give the founder to chose what kind of system he wants -- all rules set by him, or rules and functions he shares with others.
Not knowing Invect Hasp at all, noting only a few of his forums posts which seemed interesting, when sending out dozens of invitations trying to make the group up, I sent him one. Several people then later explained to me that this was unwise for a number of reasons. There is no way to recall an invitation. He joined the group. I saw furthermore on his profile, something that wasn't there before or I didn't notice:
Please join the Socialist Anarchist Party!
We seek to overthrow capitalism and abolish all government, to seek and to achieve an era of equality, peace, liberty, and justice.
I'll pay $20 lindens to any people who are in the group when I get home from work Nov. 2 evening.
Well, I'm not *required* to have in a group which I and others are trying to establish in fact to *protect* capitalism -- our businesses and our investments -- a guy who distinctly opposes this effort and says he wishes to overthrow it : ) -- and who also appears to *pay people* to be in his socialist party ROFL.
That's not "shunning," it's just not chosing to work with someone in a group. The idea that groups must always be always open to all comers, even to face their own endless debate and their own destruction is one of those peculiaries of the hard left that often finds favour in SL. But being a moderate myself, I refuse to be bullied in such a fashion. People of like mind have the right to get together, and aren't *required* to put everybody in their group. This is done all the time by all kinds of people, whether Midnight City, which choses to ban some people from their land, or the IRC Channel, which bans people, and many other groups.
Invect Hasp isn't barred from joining any one of a my many discussion groups or rental groups, if he wishes to promote his views or rent something. He isn't "shunned on the basis of political affiliation". He's just not *worked with* in an invitation-only group on the basis of his political affiliation which I view as antithetical to mine, and for the purposes of trying to reform these tools AWAY from this awful socialist cast they already have, I chose not to face endless confrontation, bickering, and harassment for my beliefs in my own group.
I wrote Invect that if he'd like to work on group tools reform, he should form his own group. It's normal to have lots of groups on an important subject like that. This is what I once said to Lordfly. Even Lenin, the darling of the left, said "Before associating, you must first disassociate." I profoundly disassociate myself from the hard left, the violent left, and the socialist left that sees its task as "overthrowing" things like my little business in this game. Hell, no, I won't go : )
Like Dr. Zhivago's father once famously said, "I'm a member of the People, too."
I think it's very important to be dramatic, even cartoonish on this matter of socialism. It's because many people of the socialist persuasion always try to portray themselves as "the normal people" or "in the mainstream" or "what the people want" which is the fakest thing in the book. They love to tinkle with laughter in a smug and superior way and make it seem that you are hopelessly McCarthian and backward and red-neck just because you don't um...want to overthrow capitalism, distribute everything forcibly, or adhere to other Leninist norms.
The socialists already own the group tools of SL. It's their beliefs that prevailed when they were first made. They already wish to reform them to make sure nothing else can be done with them, and to try to wrest land away from people they view as rich, evil, land barons. Why should I be assisting that effort? Let them form their own groups and promote their own concepts, that's what politics and interest groups are all about.
Aimee is just trying to be provocative, try to find something to trip me up trying to find something to club me with, to prove me a hypocrite, to go out behind the gym, when she smokes cigarettes, and find something to gossip about before the teacher rings the recess bell. That's all : )
3. The Lawless Trial against Impeach Bush Guy. I don't like his signs any more than you guys. But the mob mentality crying out for his conviction when he didn't break any specific rules is EXACTLY like the murder of Bambi's mom.
Um, another slam not only against me, but many people who have been tirelessly posting and fighting this issue. We in fact have pointed out 3 very specific TOS and CS violations at stake here. Aimee doesn't see it that way. She keeps claiming we're clamouring for Linden discretionary power, of the kind *she'd* like them to use to discretionarily get rid of me forever : )
But we're not. We're asking them to enforce their existing TOS on disturbance of the peace, spam, and interference of the enjoyment of SL. Anshe signs flat on the ground don't meet that test. Even somebody's "creative purple spinning thing" that the sandboxers wish to protect.
Furthermore, there's no "lawless trial" here. There are people legitimately expressing their opinions, on the SL website, at ingame events, in petitions, on blogs. That's not a trial -- but then, Aimee must envision most such free expression as a kangaroo court since that's how she herself runs things : )
4. Resident Forum Moderators. Having residents moderate the forums ... what's that you say? YES! CORRECT! It's EXACTLY like the the murder of that Ewok at the hands of Imperial forces during the battle on the forest moon of Endor!
http://starwarsautographcollecting....ndacaroEwok.jpg
Making fun of this really evil turn the Lindens are taking doesn't distract from its inherent evil. It's an evil that will benefit Aimee and her pals, so she can afford to appear to be flippant about it.
5. The Lack of Furry Lindens. This is pretty much like the big hammer things in Pink Floyd The Wall.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/f/fic!pnkf.jpg
No comment.
Frankly, Prokofy, when I read Aimee's thread, I had no idea where it was going. It just seemed like a joke thread to me instead of a big old political commentary. But that is just my opinion on it.
Posted by: Squeedoo Shirakawa | 01/21/2006 at 11:09 PM
Prok ,will you shut the fuck up?
For equity of opinion i suggest that, for example we can read, why you where perma banned from the forum and why you are a dangerous person on the edge of being fully banned (Linden labs just need to find a pretext to get rid of you at the same time they get rid of lazarus)
Posted by: Kyrah Abattoir | 01/22/2006 at 01:15 AM
Someone can't see a joke. Sad.
Posted by: juro kothari | 01/22/2006 at 01:38 AM
Um, no, Juro, I'm capable of seeing a joke, so stow your sadness elsewhere. But I'm also capable of seeing the barbs in a joke. Yes, it's a joke thread, meant to provide some levity on the often angst- and drama-ridden forums, but it addresses real issues as well, and contains real slams as well, so it requires a rebuttal *shrugs*.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/22/2006 at 08:49 AM
No, Kyrah, I won't "shut the fuck up". Um, I guess you'll have to see if you can restore the guillotine, eh? And separate the thinking part of society off from its body?
As for "why I was permabanned," we can't know everything that went into the "business decision," as one Linden explained it to me, while acknowledging that I did not violate the TOS.
I think it's a good example of selective prosecution, by most legal lights, or simply a matter of mob rule, when someone criticizes the Group Think. All these MMORPG wizard and Internet cultural tropes like the concept of "troll" come into play, of course.
As for your zealous and overheated notion that I am "a dangerous person on the edge of being banned" and the Lindens "just need a pretext to ban me," um, could you elaborate what it is you think I'd be banned *for*? For having this blog? But the Lindens don't overreach to try to apply their TOS outside their sphere -- at least not yet! They aren't like Stratics. They are more free, more's the pity for you and your fellow zealots.
And if they needed to ban me, they could do so, and not even find a pretext, or find one -- they have that discretion.
I really think you need to back up a claim like that when you say I am "on the edge of being banned". For what, speech on my blog? Running a rentals company inworld, and arranging public discussions on important topics? I don't think so.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/22/2006 at 11:42 AM
hmm ok..i give up,
where are the Astute Observations?
all i see here are once again Prok is you feeling that the world revolves around you and so anything written by Aimee MUST be about you, and once again you deciding to show off your AADD. Yes you have every right to boot some one out of your group for whatever reason, However, a person of intellect would check out people to make sure they are what they want in a private group before they issued a invite. Well, at least that is the way i do do it to make sure i do not embarrass myself by booting some one who has yet to make a peep. If i was impetuous enough to just invite everybody i met to my group so that it would appear that i had a large following and then realized that i had invited some one such as yourself who i am sure would not really fit in, i would at least wait to see if they would contribute to the discussion, oh wait i forgot, you really do not want discussion as much as a rubber stamp for your wishes. For someone who doesn't have to justify anything, you sure do spend alotta time trying to justify it. hmmmm
makes me wonder, has something finally gooten through to you that ya actually realize that you screwed up?
nawwwwwww not possible.
btw have ya missed me??
Posted by: stpaulsub Clio | 01/22/2006 at 01:33 PM
Um, it was already a private group with invitation-only. I issued an invite. Then people gave me more information I didn't have, plus I read the profile that I hadn't noticed before and realized: this is trouble, and trouble I have no need for. I'm not REQUIRED to keep someone in a group that I myself invited them to. This is the freedom of groups. If the other officers in the group felt sufficiently aggrieved by this unilateral and abrupt action, they'd leave the group, it would disband, and a new one would form. But they didn't. Some had the same concerns. *Shrugs*.
This person had already taken my forums post, lopped off the top part, which explained my critique of criticism, and then kept the bottom half that said groups should be changed so that either capitalism or socialism could be created. He took the part that served his own interest, under the guise of having to make something "shorter" or "more coherent". Well, upon reflection, I decided that was unsupportable.
Life in SL sometimes moves at a fast pace. The Lindens give us almost no time to respond. They announced these changes and groups to discuss them with little time to prepare. I don't see why I or anybody else is required to be FORCED to work with others who are likely to constantly argue and obstruct.
If I'm already cooperating with them, then it would make sense to keep them in the loop -- that was exactly my beef with the way Gwyn did things, not keeping us in the loop, and with what Justice did, not including our signatures in the post after this ardulously drafted and approved text.
I think it's worth justifying something like this, laying out one's reasons transparently. I don't believe in arbitrarily booting someone to prevent discussion. I have open discussions constantly and sit and listen to the worst kind of crap and abuse, constantly. But occasionally, I do like to get things done and get some coherent thought assembled with others. That's what we've been able to do so far.
It's unfortunate when you invite someone, then disinvite them. That happened to me when SNOOPY first invited me, then disinvited me. He couldn't bring himself to explain the reasons for why he chickened out, changed the topic, and then invited Gwyn in stead of me.
Unlike him, I lay out my reasons for disinviting and booting someong, and I think they are good ones.
Go and make your own groups if you don't like it.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/22/2006 at 03:03 PM
>> As for "why I was permabanned," we can't know everything that went into the "business decision," as one Linden explained it to me, while acknowledging that I did not violate the TOS.
No, you got permabanned for swearing and personally attacking people in the forum, then violating a suspension with alts. Don't pretend like you don't know.
Posted by: Hiro | 01/22/2006 at 05:35 PM
Wow! i gotta tell you Prok, i am impressed! and i mean that! that was teh 1st time you have actually answered a question without insults or other attempts at disinformation, thank you!
However, i did not claim you needed to keep him or anybody in your private group, i mearly suggested that you should have done a bit of research (such as reading his profile) before the invite. Nothing moves so fast that you do not have time for that but not i am nit picking so i will move on and address the next part of your post. Call it what you like, put whatever spin you want on it what is going on IS trial by media or more accuratly, Trial by public opinion. The Public by and large wants the big blue signs gone we can agree that far right? What is open to debate is how the TOS and CS are being read. Well i guess the Lindens do not belive that there is a violation so really theirs is teh only view that is correct, we do not need to agree with them on it and try ot get them to change their view, but you cannot claim there is a violation when the people who wrote the rules say there is not!, Now, yes Prok you are askin for descritionary discpline because no matter what you think the TOS says, the Lindens say no clear vio;ation has occured and so as they are teh final judge none has. Now, you can make the that it has but unfortunatly it really doesn't matter what you or i think, does this mean i do nopt think you should tell them your opinion? no but again it is just that..opinion...not rule, I am not a big fan of teh slippery slope argument for doing nothing, generally it is just a way to avoid ruling on difficult issues, but in this case i think it may be more relevent, if the Lindens are to allow popular opinion to dictate what is allowed in SL i will immediatly begin a petition drive to outlaw renting plots for any thing other than commercial use, i do not like that i pay tier abnd so many others don't and have more land than i do, so it is impacting my enjoyment!
Ridiculas? hell yes, but would you care to wager that i could get 500 people to agree? and to be vocal about it?
or in a more realistic direction, i am very involved inteh SL D/s community, a community that many find offenseive, what is to stop them from wroking tolimit us or ban our activities and as soem one also involved RL where yes we have been banned from places because of our activities in private i know it can happen! So i know you soem how feel that because Aimee opposed to the disctretionary approach she must some how feel that it gives her soem sort of advantage buty i guess my question is Prok..you say you want a even feild for other aspects, press etc but now you argue against a strict by teh rules which makes everyone even aproach to the TOS?
Posted by: stpaulsub Clio | 01/22/2006 at 06:57 PM
Sigh.
Hiro, there's no "pretense that I didn't know." There's a disagreement about the facts -- you view them through the lense of your considerable prejudices.
Swearing? Huh? You have *got* to be kidding. Where's your example of me swearing, any more than many people who enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, utter impunity when they swear?
I know the IRC channel believes -- falsely -- that I called people "fucktards". I never even heard of that word until I came on the forums and saw it there, out and open and used without a mod blinking an eyelash. I once *collectively* referred to the "fucktards on the forums" -- not singling out any one person for some kind of personal abuse -- and this is wrongfully booked to me as a "personal attack with swearing" by the IRC Channel's hysterical zealots -- but not even the Lindens, except for Pathfinder, made any comment and it was NEVER a subject of discipline. (He, too, like you, pasted it to me once, too, in sync with the IRC gang, claiming it was an example of how I "abused everybody". Baloney. It's an example of how I referred collectively to the people on the forums -- and indeed they are fucktards, for bullying, harassing, and twisting the facts as they do.)
I also didn't "personally attack" people, either, Hiro, that's another common mistaken belief. Go back and read the article on this blog documenting blow-by-blow the whole Aimee Weber Hates Me thing. It's a good exegesis.
I think it's also helpful to remember why I came back on alts that were obviously mine, to comment. Commenting on alts is not in itself a "violation of suspension". But becaues I did not attempt to hide my identity, I could easily be seen as circumventing a ban. Now, why was I doing that? Because there were entire threads claiming falsely that I had committed a RL crime -- plagiarism -- which in fact I had not committed.
The people who made this claim about me, including Merwan, never suffered even a mild wrist-slap.
Hiro, honestly, you need to re-read the archives more thoroughly and follow these threads. I think if you weren't mired in the Group-Think and the bias you are mired in, you'd see that it really is quite appalling that I was singled out for banning, and others were not.
Some day, I hope someone can review my file and take action to reverse this injustice. I just haven't pursued it myself because honestly, I don't wish to remain in the company of the thugs on that forum.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/22/2006 at 06:58 PM
stpaul, you're talking jumbled nonsense. You really should work at spelling correctly, capitalizing, and trying to write coherent sentences.
It's hard to keep explaining over and over again, under the din of Aimee's rants, that in fact we are not calling for discretionary action by the Lindens on the Bush signs. That's essentially what you are claiming, and then going off on a wild tangent about making popular opinion dictate stuff. That's silly. Nobody is calling for that. We're calling for them to enforce their existing TOS and CS. It's been spelled out very clearly in our petition, which I will publish soon -- 3 very clear-cut, very detailed items in the TOS and CS that address this issue, especially when all 3 are taken together.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/22/2006 at 07:02 PM
>>
Swearing? Huh? You have *got* to be kidding. Where's your example of me swearing, any more than many people who enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, utter impunity when they swear?
There's a difference between an exclamation like "Oh fuck" and a personal attack "Fuck you". Or "Oh Shit" vs. "You're a piece of shit".
>> I once *collectively* referred to the "fucktards on the forums" -- not singling out any one person for some kind of personal abuse --
You haven't done your homework. Libel and slander qualify when it's patently obvious who you're insulting, or if it's a small group (generally accepted 20ish or under.) This is a clear case where ... gee whiz ... you were referring to a small group.
>> and this is wrongfully booked to me as a "personal attack with swearing" by the IRC Channel's hysterical zealots
This was not the extent of your swearing, and you know it. Nor was it hardly the extent of your personal attacks.
Let alone the fact that you know very well that you were skirting the TOS for months and months, and de facto violating the spirit of the law. So which is better? A person who consistantly belittles people and their ideas while barely remaining within the scope of rules and law? Or someone who occaisionally breaks a rule but generally keeps a civil discourse?
>> I also didn't "personally attack" people, either, Hiro, that's another common mistaken belief.
Look, although you're more aged and you think you're way wiser than 99.9% of us, it's pretty obvious that you were always beligerant and demeaning to people.
As for Aimee, she hasn't posted about you in literally almost half a year, and you're posting article after article. That's just plain creepy, frankly.
>> I think it's also helpful to remember why I came back on alts that were obviously mine, to comment. Commenting on alts is not in itself a "violation of suspension". But becaues I did not attempt to hide my identity, I could easily be seen as circumventing a ban. Now, why was I doing that? Because there were entire threads claiming falsely that I had committed a RL crime -- plagiarism -- which in fact I had not committed.
Rewind the tape. You were banned. You came back and posted. You were banned again. You came back and posted. This "I'm not touching you" back-seat-of-the-car-on-the-long-family-trip
antics that you are pulling is just as riding-the-line-of-the-law as the Impeach Bush guy that you condemn. Hypocritical? Always.
> The people who made this claim about me, including Merwan, never suffered even a mild wrist-slap.
You are in no position to make this claim as punishments are private. (With exception of banning, which is pretty obvious.) You didn't read Merwan's e-mail and you can not say whether or not he was punished.
>> Hiro, honestly, you need to re-read the archives more thoroughly and follow these threads.
Prok, you know very well your tirades were removed from the forums. Why even pose this bluff? I'm sorry, just because "You say it didn't happen" means that the 500 people who did are wrong.
>> I think if you weren't mired in the Group-Think and the bias you are mired in, you'd see that it really is quite appalling that I was singled out for banning, and others were not.
(a) the fact that you're calling so many things you disagree with "group-think" should clue you in that maybe you're the one who's a bit off.
(b) SL is full of people who are generally intelligent, white-collar, tech-savvy, etc. If there was "group-think" then the group think is probably intelligent.
>> Some day, I hope someone can review my file and take action to reverse this injustice. I just haven't pursued it myself because honestly, I don't wish to remain in the company of the thugs on that forum.
To quote willy wonka, "You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir!"
Posted by: Hiro | 01/23/2006 at 02:13 AM
Prok >> stpaul, you're talking jumbled nonsense. You really should work at spelling correctly, capitalizing, and trying to write coherent sentences.
This made me laugh so hard.
Hey, weren't you just telling me in the other post that you don't need to write coherent paragraphs because it's a blog? Oh, and seriously, you could use a run-through spell-check once in a while too.
Posted by: Hiro | 01/23/2006 at 02:15 AM
"There's a difference between an exclamation like "Oh fuck" and a personal attack "Fuck you". Or "Oh Shit" vs. "You're a piece of shit"."
Yes, Hiro, so again, please find an example where I unilaterally, unprovoked, not responding in kind, engage in this forum sim. I challenge you to do that. If you find an example or two, it won't be the norm.
Instead, the norm will be things like Schwanson Schlegel saying "Fuck you, Prok" on a weekend, when the mods are away, and then hastily erasing it on Monday morning before they catch him.
Referring in a general way to "forum fucktards" is not libel or insult, it's just a characterization of a group -- and here I'm going to plead the truth defense, because people on the forums who insult and bully others with impunity *are* fucktards.
>> I once *collectively* referred to the "fucktards on the forums" -- not singling out any one person for some kind of personal abuse --
Gosh, Hiro, your youthful arrogance never ceases to astound me. You haven't done YOUR homework. "Group libel" or "collective slander" is a terribly weak concept, not only in domestic but in international law. You'd have a tough time even in a Russia or China being able to muster up a case like this.
Of course, when we're in Lindenland, the rules are more narrowly construed. But let me suggest that if we're going to play the game of "it's patently obvious," then when your gal pal Aimee says crap like "I have a stalker that I have to call the FBI about" or "I know this boy who harasses me and must have a crush on me" or "We need psychotherapists for people with gender dysphoria in SL," then *cough* it's patently obvious *cough* and I guess we can see a police blotter about this, hmmm?
I'm laughing uproariously at your notion of "a small group, 20ish or under" as some kind of legal precept, in US law or on the forums under the Linden TOS.
I guess you think if you just "make up stuff" because it's "Hiro's Law" that we'll all just buckle and say "oh, that's true, sorry, my band."
If you believe that it is a crime on the Linden forums to insult a "group of 20 or less," then please come up with a police blotter illustration, or even a TOS clause, explaining and justifying this wild claim.
Hiro, you're preposterous.
>>This was not the extent of your swearing, and you know it. Nor was it hardly the extent of your personal attacks.
Could you find an example of my swearing, please? This one really does perplex me. Swearing is very common on the forums, and one of course falls into bad company and begins to swear like a sailor oneself. But that's not my norm, so I'd challenge you again to find it -- and for extra credit, find it unprovoked.
>Let alone the fact that you know very well that you were skirting the TOS for months and months, and de facto violating the spirit of the law.
Actually, this is a claim in which you'll be finding me fighting to the death. I know it's common FIC and IRC "lore" that I "skirted the TOS". Gosh, the TOS has more petticoats than Scarlet O'Hara then.
I don't "skirt" the TOS. I just engage in my normal expression. Unfortuantely for you, Hiro, the TOS *protects speech like mine*. That is, it enables you to have the freedom to criticize things broadly speaking. That isn't skirting, that is the TOS's proper protection as it has been devised, for better or worse.
For example, you could describe Lazarus Divine as "skirting the TOS" with his signs, or you could say there are two problems: 1) there is nothing in the TOS to apply to him or 2) there are at least 3 things to apply but the Lindens don't have the will to apply it -- at least not yet.
When 2) happens, the community begins to clamour for enforcement. When little fanboyz like you kept their fingers weighted on the AR button and drove the Lindens nuts, they felt they had to "take action."
I'll never forget what a Linden said to me, that I didn't violate the TOS, but that he "had a riot on his hands." The right thing to do, when the TOS is not violated, is to either change the TOS (which, BTW, they did to try to instill fear into chronic violators with impunity like Ulrika and Cienna) or to make a discretionary move.
They continue to enforce the TOS very uneasily. The answer to the dilemma of Prok was first and foremost to enforce their own TOS.
We would not even be having this conversation if Jeska, Jesse, and Pathfinder, or whoever was in charge, had seen a thread like Pahoa Jade's "I don't get it and they sure don't" or April Firefly's "I need help with a bad build" or that Midge thread where I had to take a ration of shit merely for inviting people to collaborate together to build an interesting sim (something only Anshe Chung was able to do with Midge ultimately) -- and CLOSED IT and DISCLIPLINED THOSE WHO ATTACKED OTHERS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL, HATEFUL THREAD BY ISSUING WARNINGS.
When someone new like me comes in and sees that all over, right and left, oldbies are able to harangue, hector, harass, bully, and attack others in individual threads with impunity, why, surprise, surprise, the discover the age-old theory of "The FIC" in this setting, and they either withdraw...or they stand and fight.
>So which is better? A person who consistantly belittles people and their ideas while barely remaining within the scope of rules and law? Or someone who occaisionally breaks a rule but generally keeps a civil discourse?
I think my attack on the FIC as an entrenched institution living above the law, with favours and perks and enjoyment of privileges, including the right to bully and attack others with impunity on the forums, was and is a legitimate cause. The entire system is corrupt and needs to be fixed by equal enforcement of even existing, unchanged TOS.
How is it that Nolan Nash, Charter Member, Mentor, and Forum Favourite can attack me, attempt to blackmail me on the forums, poke around the Internet and dig up my real life information, spread some of it on the forums, attack me on other sites with the *wrong* RL information and so forth and so on (this is all well rehearsed in my thread called "My So-Called Second Life" on this blog)? And all that happens is he gets a public informal warning -- that is, to be effective, informal warnings are supposed to be delivered in private, but in this case, was delivered in public so as to provide a broad signal, loud and clear, that it was open season on me.
Originally, I thought Pathfinder did this by accident, being new. When I discovered later that he was a resident himself for a long time, and a favoured one at that, before becoming a Linden, and when I saw the IRC Channel behaviour, I realized it was more deliberate than I knew.
I return to this incident again and again because it's very exemplary of the kinds of things that went on, on this forum, with impunity, so that anyone attacked in this way had to fight back. Fighting this monstrosity then merely tainted one with some of these same "offenses," and set it up so that the mods could handily in narrowcast fashion ban you over a technicality.
>Look, although you're more aged and you think you're way wiser than 99.9% of us, it's pretty obvious that you were always beligerant and demeaning to people.
I *fight back* against people who are beligerent and demeaning *to me* -- read what I just wrote. I know it astounds your youthful innocence, Hiro, that someone *attacked me first* and that rather than cave to group-think, I fought back, but there it is. Track it, and know it.
"As for Aimee, she hasn't posted about you in literally almost half a year, and you're posting article after article. That's just plain creepy, frankly."
You have GOT to be kidding. Go back and read "My Enemy, Aimee Weber" for an exhaustive, exhaustive documentation of all the posts in all the last months and weeks, right up to yesterday, with their veiled and not-so-veiled references exactly to me.
And Hiro, I'm sorry, but not only do I reserve the right to rebut every single attack, especially when veiled and an attempt to "skirt the TOS," I'll also push back against the BAD IDEAS like colour-tagging names based on past offenses. You'll just have to live with that.
>Rewind the tape. You were banned. You came back and posted. You were banned again. You came back and posted. This "I'm not touching you" back-seat-of-the-car-on-the-long-family-trip
antics that you are pulling is just as riding-the-line-of-the-law as the Impeach Bush guy that you condemn. Hypocritical? Always.
Um, could I get a comment on the scores of people who violated the TOS on the issue of "disclosure" and the issue of "libel" in revealilng my RL info and attacking me with the *wrong* RL? I don't have a recognition that was wrong, Hiro. Not from you, and not from any of the parties involved. Cristiano recognizes in some abstract way that this was wrong, but he never takes responsibility for it and never understood that when a bad thing like that happens, and you run a site where it does, you have to publicly set the record straight, especially in the forum that matters, which is the SL forum where scores of people were even doing stunts like Maxx Monde putting up a gif of a woman on a bicycle in a bikini top because they thought I had been involved in some plagiarism about a bikini story -- which was something that belong to somebody ELSE's real life, not mine. Geez.
>You are in no position to make this claim as punishments are private. (With exception of banning, which is pretty obvious.) You didn't read Merwan's e-mail and you can not say whether or not he was punished.
Um, it's safe to say that if weeks go by, and there is no police blotter saying "libel" or "verbal attacks" or "disclosure" -- and there weren't! -- that nobody was punished.
>Prok, you know very well your tirades were removed from the forums. Why even pose this bluff? I'm sorry, just because "You say it didn't happen" means that the 500 people who did are wrong.
? There aren't any tirades removed from the forums. Go and look them up. It might not be possible to do a search on my name, not sure how that works, but look up Pahoa Jade or April Firefly or Nolan Nash or Merwan Marker to see all these threads noted here.
>(a) the fact that you're calling so many things you disagree with "group-think" should clue you in that maybe you're the one who's a bit off.
No, I'm afraid not. The Group-Think of the forums, which has posses that even send you over here to "set me straight" is a very deep-seated phenomenon and as I've come to realize more recently, probably impossible to break up because it is rooted in some kind of very conscious Linden sanction.
I'm happy to go on being MORE than a "bit off" when it comes to THAT group of evil fucktards -- and I say that knowingly and deliberately -- on the SL forums -- a small but vocal minority even on the forums who ruin SL for others.
>(b) SL is full of people who are generally intelligent, white-collar, tech-savvy, etc. If there was "group-think" then the group think is probably intelligent.
Actually, no. Not any more. It was. But the game got bigger, Hiro. It now has lots of people who might be intelligent and white or pink collar, and they know how to fire up their computers or fix the insides of their game, but they aren't tekkies. And this is a force you'll have to conjure with.
>To quote willy wonka, "You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir!"
At some point, Hiro, if things don't change to reflect the changing population of the society of SL, people will drift to other worlds, other games, RL. And you'll be playing the puddle of a dead game. That often happens with virtual worlds, that have only a certain shelf-life.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/23/2006 at 09:23 AM
Prok >> please find an example where I unilaterally, unprovoked, not responding in kind, engage in this forum sim. I challenge you to do that. If you find an example or two, it won't be the norm.
Once again, your comments serve as a baseless bluff. As I just said, those threads have been removed. If I were to post it you'd probably say I doctored it.
>> Instead, the norm will be things like Schwanson Schlegel saying "Fuck you, Prok" on a weekend, when the mods are away, and then hastily erasing it on Monday morning before they catch him.
If this was so true, there was the report abuse button, you were free to report him, and that stores the original text.
>> Referring in a general way to "forum fucktards" is not libel or insult, it's just a characterization of a group -- and here I'm going to plead the truth defense, because people on the forums who insult and bully others with impunity *are* fucktards.
Are you even reading me? IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT IT IS A GROUP. If the group is small enough it still qualifies under slander / libel laws. Here's a link that took 2 minutes to google. Go do some research, sophomore.
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/class/law/1.5libel.html
QUOTE: "1. Identification of a person or very small group of individually identifyable people allegedly defamed. "
>> "Group libel" or "collective slander" is a terribly weak concept, not only in domestic but in international law.
"Group Libel" has been held up in American courts many many times. Why not do a Google search instead of relying on your false-omniscience? :D
>> when your gal pal Aimee says crap like "I have a stalker that I have to call the FBI about" or "I know this boy who harasses me and must have a crush on me" or "We need psychotherapists for people with gender dysphoria in SL," then *cough* it's patently obvious *cough* and I guess we can see a police blotter about this, hmmm?
Honestly, I didn't know who she's talking about. Perhaps to you it's obvious, but that's like you turning around in a crowded room when someone yells, "HEY JERK!", isn't it? :D
>> I'm laughing uproariously at your notion of "a small group, 20ish or under" as some kind of legal precept, in US law or on the forums under the Linden TOS.
Not everything needs to be in legal-speak-ese.
>> I guess you think if you just "make up stuff" because it's "Hiro's Law" that we'll all just buckle and say "oh, that's true, sorry, my band."
That's exactly what I just said about you. What is this, a Pee-wee Herman film where you go, "I know you are, but what am I?"
>> If you believe that it is a crime on the Linden forums to insult a "group of 20 or less," then please come up with a police blotter illustration, or even a TOS clause, explaining and justifying this wild claim.
TOS clause? Find the section where it states you cannot use SL to violate US law, and realize that Libel / Slander is illegal.
As for practical examples in the blotter, once again, you know very well that the details of these are not public.
> Could you find an example of my swearing, please?
Again, even if the thread wasn't moved off the forums, which I've stated, the words themselves would have been in-line edited.
>> I don't "skirt" the TOS. I just engage in my normal expression. Unfortuantely for you, Hiro, the TOS *protects speech like mine*.
Not when your speech is harassing or defamatory. If this is your "normal expression", then your normal expression is harassment.
>> For example, you could describe Lazarus Divine as "skirting the TOS" with his [Bush] signs
I agree, the shoe should have dropped on him, and I'm hoping that the reason they haven't is because they're working on a technological fix. Plus I think it'd be frigging hysterical if they let him do this a while, then give a technological fix, and he's stuck with a ton of land that he can't offload. :)
>> We would not even be having this conversation if Jeska, Jesse, and Pathfinder, or whoever was in charge ... DISCLIPLINED THOSE WHO ATTACKED OTHERS WITH AN INDIVIDUAL, HATEFUL THREAD BY ISSUING WARNINGS.
Again, warnings are not public. I've seen Jeska / etc give friendly "hey let's keep it clean" type messages. How do you know people weren't warned and just didn't choose to share that info?
>> When someone new like me comes in and sees that all over, right and left, oldbies are able to harangue, hector, harass, bully, and attack others in individual threads with impunity, why, surprise, surprise, the discover the age-old theory of "The FIC" in this setting, and they either withdraw...or they stand and fight.
You know, maybe I'm starting to undestand why you think there's a conspiracy. The forum *is not* reality. The forum is filled with drama, it's like a play. It's an exagerration of reality. Do you base your conspiracy theories on the forum?
>> I think my attack on the FIC as an entrenched institution living above the law, with favours and perks and enjoyment of privileges, including the right to bully and attack others with impunity on the forums, was and is a legitimate cause. The entire system is corrupt and needs to be fixed by equal enforcement of even existing, unchanged TOS.
Okay, let's *assume* there's some FIC conspiracy. Why then do you see threads on a fairly regular basis of OLD_PLAYER_476 saying "OMG LL really screwed me because of XYZ patch and/or my inventory is gone." If there's an FIC conspiracy, why do you hear "FIC" people telling LL when it needs to change things? I guarantee you for any FIC person you name, I could ask that person a time they've been "wronged" by Linden Lab and they'll come up with something.
>> I *fight back* against people who are beligerent and demeaning *to me* -- read what I just wrote. I know it astounds your youthful innocence, Hiro, that someone *attacked me first* and that rather than cave to group-think, I fought back, but there it is. Track it, and know it.
You know, I had defended you in the forum several times, and I've told specific people to back off, and I thought there were others that should (and probably were) warned / given short suspensions (and didn't talk about it).
But -- you've taken those attacks from a few individuals and directed it at a whole slew of people who don't deserve it. Aimee's one of them. Bugger off.
>> You have GOT to be kidding. Go back and read "My Enemy, Aimee Weber" for an exhaustive, exhaustive documentation of all the posts in all the last months and weeks, right up to yesterday, with their veiled and not-so-veiled references exactly to me.
1. See above comments that things may be "obvious to you" but not "obvious to everyone".
2. Maybe instead of posting "My enemy Aimee" you could have restrained yourself and been an adult back, rather than assume every comment is targeted on you.
3. The fact that you're reading all of Aimee's threads is a bit creepy in an of itself.
>> And Hiro, I'm sorry ... I'll also push back against the BAD IDEAS like colour-tagging names based on past offenses. You'll just have to live with that.
Yeah, I agree that wasn't a good idea either. Why must you get sanctimonious about it? People brainstorm and come up with bad ideas all the time.
>> Um, could I get a comment on the scores of people who violated the TOS on the issue of "disclosure" and the issue of "libel" in revealilng my RL info and attacking me with the *wrong* RL? I don't have a recognition that was wrong, Hiro. Not from you, and not from any of the parties involved.
I thought that incident was not cool. I stated so, if you missed it, then I'm saying it again here. As for other peoples' actions and their punishments, again, you have no idea whether they were punished or not. Much like you were given, people have warnings, then suspensions before they're banned, and so it's probable that one or more persons were punished and didn't admit it.
> Um, it's safe to say that if weeks go by, and there is no police blotter saying "libel" or "verbal attacks" or "disclosure" -- and there weren't! -- that nobody was punished.
You got a link to a blotter history?
> There aren't any tirades removed from the forums.
No, your tirades during your banning were moved. Period. There's a Linden forum where the worst of the worst threads wind up.
>> group of evil fucktards
Are you even reading what you write? Now people are fucktards AND evil? Osama bin Laden is evil. People who do drama in forums are hardly "evil".
> Actually, no. Not any more. It was. But the game got bigger, Hiro.
Contradiction: You've called the FIC the people who are talented and accomplished. These are the people you call group-think. So the growth of SL with people not involved with "FIC" is not important to this discussion.
Posted by: Hiro Pendragon | 01/23/2006 at 12:52 PM
Wow, my name appears in someone elses print! Go me! (Sorry its my touch of vanity. I took the above post in the forums as a joke, and really did not connect it with you in any way. That being said I can se why you read into it what you do. I am aimee's freind, not a fan, and I don't support her blindly, we just don't let minor differences of opinion take away from the things we like and respect about each other. I would say the same thing about you-we disagree about something and agree about others-to me this is part of SL. IRL I have friedn who are democrats and others who are republicans. Mercifully I am not required to agree with either group on every issue.
As it happens I am oppsed to branding and labelling. For all the same reasons you are, and then some.
I don't think kicking someone out of a group is shunning. Kicking somone out of a group and telling everyone else to kick them out of thier groups is shunning. But essntially, you have no obligation to keep someone in your group who does not want to be there, except for purposes of harassment. If that was the case then you had every right to remove him.
As it happens, I agree with aimee on the impeach bush guy, though to me it is land use issue and not a free-speech issue. I am all for allowing people to hold these court so of public opinion-I am just opposed to LL acting on them, as they did in your case. People can clamour to the wind about how aweful the impeach bush guy signs are, and I say more power to them, but the moment LL once agains bows to the masses and bans someone simply because the forum mob of the moment is pissy, then I'll just leave. Fuck it-LL's enforcement in the forms has been random at best.
Just about the only thing that I have ever agreed with ebony on is that you should be brought back. What LL did to you was wrong.
I haven't seen anything yet that shows me the impeach bush guy was forcing anyone to do anything, as far as I know what he did was within his rights. LL has chosen not to zone SL land and this is the consequnce. If people don't like this consequence they should have ll change positions on zoning-that is the issue, imho.
I am of course hugely for transparency in the system and LL doing somthing about the rule of law problem.
As far as resident mods-i don't think it will be much different than thigs are now, but hey I support the notion if I am a mod.
Posted by: Jake Reitveld | 01/23/2006 at 01:58 PM
>Once again, your comments serve as a baseless bluff. As I just said, those threads have been removed. If I were to post it you'd probably say I doctored it.
? I just tested one and it was still there. Could you provide evidence that threads in which I was involved were removed?
>>If this was so true, there was the report abuse button, you were free to report him, and that stores the original text.
As I noted in my post called "My So-called Second Life," one of the interesting things about my story is that I never pulled the AR button on these people, never dreamed of it, because I viewed it as part and parcel of a KGB-type informant/police state society. Only on the very last 2 days did I try to report some of these posts after a shower of false allegations against me, but it was too late.
>Are you even reading me? IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT IT IS A GROUP. If the group is small enough it still qualifies under slander / libel laws. Here's a link that took 2 minutes to google. Go do some research, sophomore.
http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/class/law/1.5libel.html
Um, what I need are not somebody's term papers, but some real case citations. For a libel case to succeed in the United States, it would have to involve a) someone who is not a public figure, since U.S. Supreme Court decisions exempt, and provide less protection for, public figures and/or b) prove that material loss, or loss of income was suffered. Neither test is ever met with anything that is ever said in the virtual world of SL.
QUOTE: "1. Identification of a person or very small group of individually identifyable people allegedly defamed. "
*Shrugs*. Go back to your computers, Hiro. I hope you are better at your chosen field. You're barking nonsense here. How small or how big is the FIC? What is the FIC? None of this could ever in a million years meet the test for a judge to accept the case in the U.S., and I don't see evidence that even the Lindens mount this type of effort.
For a time, I recall Pathfinder trying to figure whether they could move to some kind of "group slander" concept a la Russia or something. But their zeal to always let threads about Anshe or other big businesses hang them out to dry for days overcome their zeal to use "group libel" as a prosecuting concept. Hence, they always let posts about Ginko, anshechung.com and other big businesses sit there for ages, usually with only the mildest of responses, because they like to have "the people" have an outlet to bash big business -- which some of the Lindens hate as much as their little FIC fanboyz.
I assure you the Lindens, as they themselves go for the million customers, and become a big business themselves, are not going to go with this "group libel" stuff so easily as you might think.
"Group Libel" has been held up in American courts many many times. Why not do a Google search instead of relying on your false-omniscience? :D
? Hiro, I have no idea what you are talking about. Cite a real case, not your imagination. Concepts of "Group Libel" are far, far more restricted than you imagine. Take this quote just off a typical student legal website:
"Group Libel
Individuals can be defamed; groups of people cannot be. The key question is whether a statement about a group can reasonably be interpreted to refer to a specific individual in the group. While there is no hard rule, several courts have indicated that individual members of a group larger than 25 will have a difficult time proving that they have suffered individual harm. On the other hand, individuals in a smaller group may be able to claim that their reputation has been damaged. For example, the generic statement, "the tennis team is being investigated for substance abuse" could subject a publication to a libel suit if the team consists of just 12 members."
You'd have a hell of a time a) identifying what the FIC was and what its membership class and numbers are and b) proving that it was libeled.
You're looking at this without that context of a) and b). But I realize I'm dealing with someone who is just googling, and has no RL experience in this matter, so I won't pretend to prevail in this debate : )
>>>Honestly, I didn't know who she's talking about. Perhaps to you it's obvious, but that's like you turning around in a crowded room when someone yells, "HEY JERK!", isn't it? :D
Um, yeah, can't imagine who she's talking about suuuure.
>>Not everything needs to be in legal-speak-ese.
Well, it does in the TOS, son. That's the law for us, good or bad.
>>TOS clause? Find the section where it states you cannot use SL to violate US law, and realize that Libel / Slander is illegal.
Hiro, if what you said was true, there'd be dozens -- hundreds of libel cases related to SL, a place where passions and ignorance and hatred run really high. But there isn't even one, because they cannot meet the legal test for this. Ask Jake or katykiwi or some other RL lawyer and they'll gently but firmly explain these realities to you.
>>>As for practical examples in the blotter, once again, you know very well that the details of these are not public.
Huh? If someone has committed libel, it will be listed on the blotter as such. I've never seen this, ever, and actually doubt it exists, precisely because of the definitional problems.
>>>Again, even if the thread wasn't moved off the forums, which I've stated, the words themselves would have been in-line edited.
? I don't get what you're talking about Hiro. You seem to be labouring under this concept that my posts are removed, edited, etc. But they aren't. Nor are the bad posts of other bad people. Pick a forums celebrity, do a search on their names, read them, I guarantee you, you'll find SOMETHING that qualifies for a TOS violation and that they have faced impunity.
>>>Not when your speech is harassing or defamatory. If this is your "normal expression", then your normal expression is harassment.
I don't think it's harassment to fight back against attempts to blackmail, smear, and harass me. And I think pointing out the cases where there was no equal enforcement, and fighting them using the truth defense, and on the merits, was a public service, and one I'm proud of.
>>>I agree, the shoe should have dropped on him, and I'm hoping that the reason they haven't is because they're working on a technological fix.
Ugh. I'm sure that will make our world a WORSE place. And let me take this opportunity to note that you, as a tekkie wiki creator-fascist, Hiro, have the temerity to call for a Bush sign to be wiped out with some invisi-prim, but then scream when somebody's 140,000 prim hoochie-hair invades my horizon and I dial down my settings a notch. You are too, too, TOO funny!
>>>Plus I think it'd be frigging hysterical if they let him do this a while, then give a technological fix, and he's stuck with a ton of land that he can't offload. :)
I'm sure the Lindens who helped Lazarus already recover from being missing from the list, being in the cornfield, and doing what he does with impunity will be available to help him out of this one.
>>>Again, warnings are not public. I've seen Jeska / etc give friendly "hey let's keep it clean" type messages. How do you know people weren't warned and just didn't choose to share that info?
Because if they were warned, they'd either stop their behaviour, or if they didn't, there would be police blotters, and some would be gone from the game. So they aren't. Good way to tell ROFL.
>>>You know, maybe I'm starting to undestand why you think there's a conspiracy. The forum *is not* reality. The forum is filled with drama, it's like a play. It's an exagerration of reality. Do you base your conspiracy theories on the forum?
Um, of course the entire thing is a "drama" or a "play," Hiro, but that doesn't make it morally right. The forums are a cesspool and an abomination and I join with Coco in personally addressing them right personally to Philip Linden as something that he has personally decided to allow to portray him -- thereby showing him in a decidedly unflattering light. When he's ready to do something about this, he only talks in terms of closing it down -- thereby lending enormous impunity to the perps. What he needs to do is personally come on and set people straight, and tell them that he's tired of them bullying newbies, attacking people, impugning their motives, etc. and that he will be personally spot-checking its policing.
Instead, he's doing just the opposite -- letting the resmods take over, which means Jeska's Possee. This is the worst possible thing one could imagine, and again, I lay directly at his door as an illustration of something that definitely makes him look bad and is a big disappointment to me personally.
>>Okay, let's *assume* there's some FIC conspiracy. Why then do you see threads on a fairly regular basis of OLD_PLAYER_476 saying "OMG LL really screwed me because of XYZ patch and/or my inventory is gone." If there's an FIC conspiracy, why do you hear "FIC" people telling LL when it needs to change things? I guarantee you for any FIC person you name, I could ask that person a time they've been "wronged" by Linden Lab and they'll come up with something.
Um, see my theory on the SIC, Hiro. The SIC is taking over from the FIC in places; there are also new wannabees and actual FIC replacing some played-out FICS -- look, it's complicated running a conspiracy, dude, as you should only know, but trust me, you are only in the lower foothills of this conspiracy and can't be expected to understand all the counsels of your elders : )
>>>>You know, I had defended you in the forum several times, and I've told specific people to back off, and I thought there were others that should (and probably were) warned / given short suspensions (and didn't talk about it).
LOL, I'd love to see chapter and verse of that, oh, brave Sword Boy.
>>>But -- you've taken those attacks from a few individuals and directed it at a whole slew of people who don't deserve it. Aimee's one of them. Bugger off.
Um, Bugger off yourself, champ. Aimee's a big girl and doesn't need to send out Hiro Sword-Boy to slash at me. I will continue to rebut her bad ideas, and her attacks on me, without hindrance from you : )
>>>1. See above comments that things may be "obvious to you" but not "obvious to everyone".
Please. We all know the gender dysphoria thing wasn't referring to um...I dunno...Kendra or somebody. Spare me!
Regarding reading all of Aimee's threads, well, that's not hard to do, given that she dominates the forums more and more with these bad ideas, that find a lot of resonance.
>>>Yeah, I agree that wasn't a good idea either. Why must you get sanctimonious about it? People brainstorm and come up with bad ideas all the time.
Um, gosh, it took like 2000 words for you to get to this very basic point. It would have been the more noble thing to tell your little gal pal Aimee off in the forums, rather than slash at me here.
>>>I thought that incident was not cool. I stated so, if you missed it, then I'm saying it again here. As for other peoples' actions and their punishments, again, you have no idea whether they were punished or not. Much like you were given, people have warnings, then suspensions before they're banned, and so it's probable that one or more persons were punished and didn't admit it.
Um..."not cool". Wow, what an er...*ringing* denunciation, Hiro! Gosh, thanks! I'm um...touched...I think. And like I said, not only there weren't police blotters, I have a written communication from LL, after I filed an appeal for their lack of action, saying that the had some new technical thingie that made the posting to the police blotter not work for a time blah blah blah. In other words, they messed up.
>>>You got a link to a blotter history?
No, do you? The Lindens hide it after 5 days. As well they should, it covers their tracks, which would show in spades their horrid bias in the types of prosecution they do, and the types of forums posts that wind up there, too.
>>>No, your tirades during your banning were moved. Period. There's a Linden forum where the worst of the worst threads wind up.
Hiro, you seem so certain of this, and yet threads to these famous things like the Pahoa and other threads are all still there. I can think of only one or two that they "sequestered" and didn't return, but that's a rare practice, that happened before I was banned, not after.
And...my, you're showing an awful lot of familiarity with what appears to be an internal Linden practice? Mind explaining how you got this? And it doesn't appear to be true.
>>Are you even reading what you write? Now people are fucktards AND evil? Osama bin Laden is evil. People who do drama in forums are hardly "evil".
I disagree. The aggregate soul-killing nastiness on the SL forums is tremendously evil.
>>Contradiction: You've called the FIC the people who are talented and accomplished. These are the people you call group-think. So the growth of SL with people not involved with "FIC" is not important to this discussion.
No, actually I never said anything as hilariously uproariously funny and sectarian as "the FIC are all the people who are talented and accomplished."
That's something the FIC themselves say to try to fend off my criticism. But I never said that, and it's not true. There are plenty of people who are talented and accomplished who aren't FIC, or even if they are rather cosy with the Lindens, not the nasty fucktards on the forums.
In fact, as I've gotten into this more, I've made the discovery of why some of the five-percent-forum-FIC is as nasty as they are: they don't create anything anymore. They are played out...and were rather mediocre to start with.
So any effort to whip up sentiment among other, accomplished people who aren't forum fucktards by screaming "Prok says all you talented folks are evil" falls on deaf ears. Those people know exactly your worth, and see exactly what's on the forums, and that's why the best of them don't post there or even bother with it.
OK, done, Hiro, bye!
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/23/2006 at 02:04 PM
Jake, re: >>>I haven't seen anything yet that shows me the impeach bush guy was forcing anyone to do anything, as far as I know what he did was within his rights. LL has chosen not to zone SL land and this is the consequnce. If people don't like this consequence they should have ll change positions on zoning-that is the issue, imho.
I disagree with this position strenuously, as you know, but I am happy to concede that it is a valid position, it has its own legal argumentation, in RL and SL, it is consistent with the non-enforcement of the TOS that LL practices, it is consistent with their reluctance to engage in the use of the discretionary passages of the TOS, etc. etc. It's all good. It's why it's the way it is.
I just happen to think that in fact their TOS does contain perfectly good language for them to use -- and then some. If the three items I always mention are invoked, as a kind of evidence of systematic, intentional, gross abuse, then it works. The climate for enforcement is such that the Lindens don't take that kind of conceptual approach to their TOS. They like to have it as limber and narrow and simplistic in its interpretation as possible to have these hoards of very young Lindens and Linden helpers like Mentors function in this complex system.
I still think that a more robust and mature interpretation and enforcement of existing language is possible for them to get out of this dilemma without them doing violence to freedoms and creating technical solutions to people problems which our insider FICster Hiro is now telling us they're up to. Meh, that's awful.
And Jake, you know perfectly well that Aimee's veiled posts about me with the "boy who has a crush on me" and "OMGODZORS call the FBI" and "OMG crazy nutter gender dysphoria" are all about me.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/23/2006 at 02:11 PM
Hmm Well Prok so,..if i call all people who buy land to rent to others bottom feeding, scum sucking fuctards, that is not insulting? it is just a characterization of a group? Kewl thats good to know,
Now Prok Again please get past youir bias of my spelling and actually read my words and don't bother thrying to say that you can't because any body of at least average intellect can just fine, at no point did i challenge your interpretation of the TOS i mjust said that it was irrelevent! as is mine! the only interpretation that counts is that of LL and they say there is no violation so i personally like your petition idea as a way to get teh TOS changed to deal with such things, that is working withing teh system to bring about change, even tho i have a strong idea i would really like what you are asking for at least i can say good job on the effort. Because until LL is convinced there is a violation it really doesn't matter a hill of beans if you or i or Aimee thinks there is
Posted by: stpaulsub Clio | 01/23/2006 at 02:52 PM
why have you IP banned me you coward? can't stand to take your own medicine?
Posted by: buffalo bill | 01/23/2006 at 05:34 PM
IP bans for all who refuse to come on here with their SL names, Buffalo Bill. It's not about censorship. It's about openness : )
If you want to be nasty, do it with your SL name : )
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 01/23/2006 at 05:52 PM