« Rebuttals Page | Main | The Unverifieds »

04/19/2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

lorelei patel

"If you persist in linking yourself with, and taking the side of, people who harass, stalk, and intimidate, and persist in using my RL name, Ian, I'll take it as a sign that you wish me harm in RL and SL, and you will be banned."

Are you against posting real life names in general, or just yours?

Prokofy Neva

I'm against posting real-life names in general, lorelei. I don't post them. I don't link to them. If someone themselves signs a post with a RL name, as some do, or if they seem to insist in every thing they write that both of their names show, like Forseti/Giff, then I write about them that way, but I'm a big believer in the sanctity of a second life.

Why, were you thinking you could trump up some charges against me in this regard?

Prokofy Neva

Here's the exact paste-up from this Lansing thing, and as you can see, it's confusing. Why? Because it's an entry that says "My home town paper" and then appears to have a signature by the person writing "my home town paper" so it doesn't sound like it's the author themselves. Furthermore, it has two names starting with a "B". .

Only in tiny type underneath can you see somebody else posted it.

Gosh, hope you feel all superior and special for catching that, Lorelei, I'm sure life accords you few moments when you *can* feel superior!

"Lansing State Journal article on Second Life

My own home town paper did a nice article on Second Life today that mentions the Michigan Library Consortium among local users and entrepreneurs. And, refreshingly, not one mention of SL porn, Anshe Chung, or Prokofy Neva.
Second Life bring virtual, real life together
Barbara Wieland
March 8, 2007

Posted by Betsy Stoll at 6:17 AM 0 comments Links to this post

Labels: Article, Michigan Library Consortium, MLC"

lorelei patel

Well, Prok, you sorta posted mine in this post ;-) And it looks like I said something I didn't. Could you please fix?

Prokofy Neva

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't see there's anything to fix. My, are you sitting there anxiously refreshing pages?

Perhaps you need to start your own blog where you can address these vital issues at length.

lorelei patel

I didn't see the last post. Yes, saying posted by Betsy helps, and I'd appreciate it if you could add that last line to the post to make clear that I was not the one who posted the blog comment. It might seem a little thing to you, but it does matter to me. It wouldn't be professional to post congratulatory remarks on blogs about things I myself had written. Thanks.

lorelei patel

Thank you very much.

Prokofy Neva

"Again, saying you'd "cheerfully strangle" somebody stalking you even into RL isn't inciting violence against them. That's just plain fucking retarded, and we all know that : )"

>No, we don't. You didn't have to respond with another threat, you could have taken the high road. Regardless of context, saying you'd cheerfully strangle someone is a threat.

No, it's not, it's a colloquial expression, appropriately said about someone who is being exasperatingly obnoxious and annoying.

I'm glad to hear you have such a keen valuation for "the high road" and a deep sense of what you feel is "right".

So I hope you'll take those concerns right back to the creepy stalker Joshua Nightshade and address the issues that prompted the use of such a colloquial expression, which is legitimate and tolerated on blogs:

o obscene actions with busts made from my RL picture in SL
o stalking me and reporting sitings of me in RL
o disseminating a picture of my RL door
o putting up a nasty and libelous Wikipedia about me
o lying repeatedly about his very own stalking actions

and so on -- I've reported them amply here and on the forum.

Do get to work soon, C. Beaumont, as we really need moral people like you to set straight some of the maladjusted and malicious youth in our midst.

Ian Betteridge

Prokofy: "Yes, Ian, dredging up an old NY Times article and stalking someone and linking their avatar and RL persona repeatedly, permanently, inworld, outworld, with the aim of trying to intimidate them and prevent them from speaking out is wrong. It's not my choice, and persisting with it is harassment."

As you probably know, I generally refer to you by your given name rather than as Prokofy Neva. I refer to you as Prokofy here simply because it's your expressed wish to be known that way, and it would be rude to come into your own internet back yard and not respect your wishes.

However, in general I do not support the use of avatar names *except* when referring to someone's actions in-world. That goes for you, and for anyone else.

The reason for this is simple: when you post on a forum, you are not the avatar "Prokofy Neva". You are you - the person typing your words is not an avatar. This is why I don't sign myself, here or anywhere else, under my avatar name.

I write in the real world, just as you do. I don't write in SL, although occasionally I write *about* SL - but either way, it's me that types the words, not my avatar. And it's completely right that I'm responsible for those words.

There are exceptions to this. Where someone has made best-efforts to keep their real world identity secret. In your case, though, you haven't done that - you gave the NYT your real name, and that was your decision. Had you not done that, I would never have known your real name, and thus probably never used it. That was your choice - not anyone elses.

So I'll continue to use your RL name to refer to the person doing the writing. If that earns me a ban, then so be it - that is your choice, and I'll respect that.

Cocoanut Koala

I'm glad you don't know my name, Ian.

Since you have made that decision for everyone.

And gone further to also judge whether or not you think they've made enough effort to keep their real name secret.

coco

Ian Betteridge

Coco, as far as I know you haven't given your name, linked to the name of your avatar, to an internationally-distributed newspaper.

Which is fine. If you don't want your name linked to your avatar name and don't give it to anyone, that's OK. I'm not going to try and force it out of you (like I could!) and I'm not going to insist that you post under it (like I could!). Nor am I going to insist that you use it. You have a right to keep your RL name to yourself, if you wish.

Prokofy, however, made the decision to give her name to the NYT - which is also fine. No one forced her to do that. She can't then complain if people refer to her by that name, as if it's some big secret that's been uncovered by people stalking her. She gave it, presumably of her own free will, to a reporter.

Prokofy Neva

Your notion that you can violate a social norm of Second Life, defended by the TOS within SL, and generally accepted outside of it, lets us know the low level of ethics and morals you have. That's typical of the tekkie class, as we know. It's wrong.

When you post on an SL forums, of course you are your avatar. You have only a limited and linear notion of avatars that others simply don't share. And some tekkies (like Hiro Pendragon) have a persistent concept that an avatar is something you "role-play" or "should turn off" but it's as much a part of yourself as your right arm.

In any event, any author has the right to use a pseudonymn, especially if they write under different genres or topics.

Bye, Ian, you're gone. You can pick up your harassment of me on your blog to continue your lowlife thrills.

I totally stand by the idea that no one should have their real life name outed or linked to their avatar, and that blogs and forums should never publish people's names against their will.

People who circulate notecards inworld or via email from their avatars linking their RL names are obviously an exception, but generally, I see no reason whatsoever to depart from the convention that you don't out people's RL data on a virtual world-related forum unless they themselves have created that linkage.

Your belligerence in this is definitely something new, as you haven't pushed this particular form of harassment on me before. It's part of a pattern of trying to silence my dissent by trying to using illegitimate means, like creating intimidation through invocation of RL information.

Just because the New York Times insists on the use of RL names, and I give my name, doesn't mean that I am therefore then able to be harassed, bullied, and intimidated on my blog or inworld with insistences that I always write my RL name or that my RL name be introduced into every discussion.

An avatar who took the RL picture of me from the Times and put it in their avatar's profile picture slot and used that account to grief me with that RL picture inworld found the account banned. The Linden rule on this is that if it is not on the First Life profile, it is not fair game to be used, even if somewhere some link it dredged up on the Internet. A consent to be quoted on the record for the readers of the Times or the Los Angeles Herald isn't a consent to be harassed by fucktards using RL pictures and information to grief you in the Second Life sphere.

Your malice in this regard is evident, as you are calling me by my RL name to intimidate and harass and forge what you imagine are "compromising" links on Google or something. You aren't doing it out of any simple belief that the name is publicized in the Times.

Notice that no one else does this RL name calling and intimidation with RL information *except* the Toxic 20 types like yourself.

Maxwell

Notice that some do not care either Prokofy. While I could not possibly care any less as to who a person is behind a Screen Name or any other such false information, I personally make it a habit to use real information when I have it.

I do this because a pseudonym of any sort allows a person to be anonymous. There is little one can do if something truly troubling crops up and the only information available is either a pseudonym, or in the case of Screen Names and other user names for differing services.

I suppose that you could say that I and those like me deal with hard facts, the sort that can be backed up with irrefutable evidence.

Keeping the above in mind I will state this only once "Mr. Neva": Those of us that deal with hard facts are perhaps the worst sort you could attempt to argue with when it comes to virtual anything. At this time all the facts point in the direction of Second Life and all other "Virtual Worlds" being about as real and able to be "lived in" as my Internet Service Provider, the service which handles my E-Mail, the various services which I use for Instant Messages, any web page I visit ... Actually the bulk of the internet really.

You have your opinion of second Life and other "Virtual Worlds", that is fine, however you treat your opinion as fact when at this stage of development there is absolutely nothing to back such an action up.

I will end this by stating that I respect your opinion and your entitlement to it. This comment was not made to begin an argument, it was simply made to state a few things that had been on my mind for some time now.

Before you ask, Maxwell is my real name. It is also the only part of my name that I give out on the Internet, there are no exceptions.

Prokofy Neva

Sorry, Maxell, you don't get to play literalist tekkie asshole like that, giving "my first name only" when it is not a recognizable one-name sort of persona like "zefrank".

If you can't supply an SL name, you can't post here.

And you're wrong. You have one sectarian opinion about the Metaverse. Don't mistake that for "what is reality". It's not.

People use nicknames for email and chat handles and have done so since the dawn of the Internet. People will go on having a mixture or public and private and avatarized manifestations of themselves. Those companies and individuals who can learn to respect that will prosper. Those that behave like bullies and out people and scrape their data will not.

Maxwell

It appears Prokofy that you have no manners when responding to those who have been polite with you and have followed your rules as they are posted, in particular supplying either a Second Life user name or a Real Life name.

You will get no Second Life name from me for the most basic of reasons sir: My interest in Second Life and all other similar services is an academic one at this time.

I truly do detest this sort of debate, but I must inform you that facts bear out my 'opinion' far more than your own at this time.

You may do with this response what you will, it is meant for you and not your readers and I fully expect you to remove it and replace it with a second response devoid of any of the manners present and required for polite society.

Maxwell

Oh yes, and as an addendum to my response to you Mr. Neva, I am hardly a 'tekkie' as you put it. I know how to turn my computer on, I know how to use the Internet. The only mildly technical thing I know is that when my DSL router loses the connection and finally gains a new one it resets my IP.

If by 'litteralist' you mean "A man who deals only with facts" then you are correct in that assumption, however I am far from being an 'asshole'.

There will be nothing further from me Mr. Neva ... I do not make a habit of conversing with impolite, ill mannered persons of any sort.

Prokofy Neva

Maxwell, people who evade blog bans are asses. They illustrate graphically why people need to ban them in the first place. They respect no boundaries.

You don't have a Second Life name. Or a real-life name. You just have the equivalent of a nickname, "Maxwell" which is not an identifier, it could be anyone's first name.

Taking the requirement that someone must have a first-life name very literally and stupidly to mean "I can get away with just having my first real-life name" because the rule-maker didn't put "and when I say real-life names, I mean first and last name" is what I mean by the absurd extremist literalism that tekkies will reach for in their bid to be griefers and trolls.

Anybody can see the cunning malice of this approach, the desire to bend and break rules, the desire not to behave with good will. Bye! And I don't see why I'm required to create endless opportunities for people to anonymously grief me on my own blog.

Prokofy Neva

P.S. Gotta love it how people who themselves make rigid rules like "I never give out my last name on the Internet and my first name is all you'll ever get from me" try to break or flaunt somebody else's rule which is "I insist on SL or RL names, first and last, on my blog" ROFL.

Khamon

The last printed issue of Information Week has no mention of Second Life that I can find. That's the first issue in a while that hasn't at least published a letter or some other type of reference to the software.

I suppose this should go in the Herald's decline of news coverage thread. Are there any nontoxic venues where people just post and talk about Second Life like reasonable adults?

Khamon

When people call me "sir" in an anonymous atmosphere, and inform that they'll say things only once, I rate their comments just below ones that include hehe. The rough English translation is "have a nice day, goodbye."

Solar Legion

Prokofy, you may not understand the way an Internet Service Provider works or for that matter what an Internet Protocol Address really is - hell for that matter you do not seem to understand the mechanics of any sort of Internet related application, let alone your Service Provider.

I'll put it in simple words that even you can understand: If you are going to use an IP Ban you had better damn well ban the entire IP range that belongs to a service. Otherwise the next time someone's router has to reconnect or resets your ban will be null and void.

In this day and age of optional static IP addresses ... IP Bans are only as effective as the last router reset.

Prokofy Neva

Solar, um, I've know about these things for oh, 10 years or more? Having had to manage offices and servers and contract IT people for ages.

I loathe smug, arrogant IT people who think their little rote learning is some secrets of the ages that you have to be initiated into a priesthood to understand. It's ridiculous.

Der. Your IP address *may not be* a static thing. It *may be* dynamic. *Some IP addresses* keep changing up and down a scale, etc.
But not all. And increasingly, with DSL lines, they aren't dynamic. How do I know this? Because I follow the numbers on my very own IP and talk to my ISP, duh. And I watch others.

Sure, it can change in a year's time or whatever, and sure, there are some that change all over. So? It works *enough of the time* to be a routine thing on the Internet -- your friend Cristiano can tell you all about IP blocking and tracking.

The company Six Apart that runs typepad, like the Lindens, offer tools to make *IP bans*. Those tools provide the option to block specific addresses.

They don't say, Oh, we can't offer this service because IP addresses are dynamic and you can't catch them.

They don't say, Oh, don't even attempt to control comments because people keep reconnecting, or using anonymizers, blah blah blah.

instead, they offer the tool *shrugs*.

And they offer it because it works *good enough,* not 100 percent, but *good enough* -- a concept that tekkies who master little clusters of rote learning don't seem to comprehend.

It doesn't matter. You can keep resetting it anyway if people are asstards enough to keep coming back from their mom's computer's IP or their work IP or using anonymizers or whatever. But what I've found, interestingly, with some frequent flyers is that in a year, through all their log ons and alts, the IP address is exactly the same.

I've discussed this at length with a wide variety of tekkies, including even Lindens. Some tekkies get especially fierce with their zealous defense of the concept of "the dynamic IP that makes all IP blocking irrelevant". They can't see reason on this, but you'd think when other, wiser tekkies explain it to them, they get it.

The Lindens tell you matter-of-factly that they need to get your IP address to be able to log you on to SL. And they block accounts with IP bans (but not only IP bans). It's not rocket science.

I wish people like you would grow up and get your heads out of your asses.

Solar Legion

I wish people like you would get with the times and lose the smug arrogance that comes with thinking you understand what you are talking about.

Let's review shall we? Take my ISP as an example of the norm: Static IP is an option. A static IP endangers your system.

Kindly do not spout off as if you've somehow got all the answers - you do not and clearly you think you do.

Here's the plain and simple fact for you: corporate types use a Static IP, those who travel often use a Static IP - Joe User does not.

Want an effective ban? Ban an entire Provider.

Solar Legion

Addendum: I do not have all the answers either - I do however understand how Joe User connects to the Internet.

Cocoanut Koala

I've been reading today a discussion on the SL forums about LL FINALLY requiring a verifiable email address before allowing people to sign up for SL.

This is a step that every other place provides, but LL, for some reason, didn't. Someone has tried to make a new account and discovered that the e-mail address now has to be verified. Yay!

Still, there are people popping up to say all the reasons why this isn't foolproof. Which, of course, it needn't be. And why therefore it's pointless to even do it.

As someone else wrote, that type of thinking is tantamount to a store saying, "Well, a really determined thief could just kick in the door, so why bother locking it?"

I've come up with two theories as to why we keep running into people with this all-or-nothing argument:

1. People like to brag about what they know. People who know some technology will post ways around any plan just to show that they know that there are ways around it.

2. People become too steeped in technology, with no reference to much else, little education in anything else, and little interest in much else. They rather quickly become become ensnared and limited by the very 0-1 religion they have come to idolize.

The entire word becomes a 0-1 proposition. If it's not 0, it must be 1! If it can't be completely 1, then you must let it stay at 0. There can never be anything in between, or if there is, it's worthless. Even .75 is worthless.

This has got to be the single most idiotic philosophy I have ever run into.

At the same time, these people in the 0-1 cult consider any law as completely impotent. If it CAN be done, then it will, and no law can ever deter any wrong-doing - only technology can deter it. (And if that technology isn't completely foolproof, there is no point turning to it at all.)

For both these reasons - wanting to brag, and actually being brainwashed by technology and/or elevating it to a religion and/or whatever intellectual limitations these people have imposed on themselves - we end up with a small but sturdy subset of the online population who are constantly joining an otherwise reasonable discussion of a problem to pipe up that since there will always be exceptions, and since nothing is foolproof, we should never attempt anything.

I'm just real, REAL glad this type of thinking is not prominent in real life, as then we would have no protection from anything, not to mention no law, and not a solitary smidgeon of common sense.

(Of course, in real life, people wouldn't put up with such a fantasy for a moment anyway.)

What's really tragic is these people not only suffer from the 0-1 fallacy to the point where they recognize nothing in between, and recognize no law, they actually believe all law is pointless in any online environment.

It's a criminal world view at base, in the belief law cannot be implimented and a deterrent in itself, and in the constant and willful giving away of all our goods and our society to whoever can come up with the latest technological feasibility.

Maybe it's a hacker mindset.

coco

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)