I guess all that is needed now is action, allow me a suggestion.

Maybe you are already familiar with JIRA. If not, please care to take a look at http://jira.secondlife.com

From JIRA, you can input a request for a new “feature” in the Project Second Life Website managed by Rob Linden. You will need to describe the problem in an objective way, and solution (include name, known alts, extendend description of incident to the police blotter records).

Users can vote on the relevance of issues, and the most voted are usually resolved first.

The site is well documented with faq and wiki, but iI’ll be glad to help if you need any.

By formally entering your request on JIRA, you can be sure to get feedback from LL.

I’ll answer that one:

Based simply on what I have observed and heard about second hand, there are plenty of people in Second Life that would take this information and begin banning entire groups if even a single person from said group or groups was found to have been banned – no matter the reason.

Such information has too great a potential to be abused.

But again, if you have all this “proof” why didn’t you lay it out in the first place? I’m not against “proof” you just rarely use it. Everyone is supposed to just follow your word because you say it. You just don’t like me because I don’t take your argument shifting, word throwing, lack of proof bullshit. I ask for proof, not your belief.

Its not a lapse of memory as to not putting the groups on the police blotter. Most importantly, because I’m arguing against guilt by association. But realistically, if you a resident has a duty to make sure that they are not in a group with a griefer, than at least you can search your own groups for a name.

I’m not keen on posting the name of the griefer and their alts. But let’s look at Tizzer’s again. Accused of crashing the SL4B sim, she stated that she was banned at the time. Other commenters stated that it was her alt that crashed the SL4B sim. With the suggestion I made, that “you’re guilty Tizzers, even if it wasn’t Tizzers that did it, but I know it was you” accusation wouldn’t fly.

And I’m not sure what I exactly did to Prok to make me unwelcome at any further discussion in SL, but maybe he just can’t handle someone that can stand up to him with the slightest bit of maturity. Of course, I would take his accusations more seriously if he honestly answered the question I have been asking this entire time, how can a non-landowning resident know if they are in a group associated with griefing if they are not witnessing the actual griefing? He mentions that if they are on the land and the images are bothersome that’s their clue. But that doesn’t help a resident if griefers are on other people’s land doing the griefing.

Prok, perhaps you should be aware that you have been lowering the discourse here long before this topic came up.

I bet Linden Labs would strongly disagree. Remember, this is about business between residents and LL. Even if a resident is temporarily banned or gets a warning from LL, it is still a customer. So, we are left again with the boring question: would giving more information on the police blotter about the incident (name, etc) aggregate value to the business?

I’d say, not at all. First, because you don’t expose your customer to any situation where he could feel embarrassed, humiliated or furious. It would also exponentially increase the whining. And finally, landowners could simply ban every avatar that showed up in the police blotter.

But I noticed you didn’t include groups in the information you consider should appear in the PB. Is there a specific reason or just a lapse of memory?

I bet Linden Labs would strongly disagree. Remember, this is about business between residents and LL. Even if a resident is temporarily banned or gets a warning from LL, it is still a customer. So, we are left again with the boring question: would giving more information on the police blotter about the incident (name, etc) aggregate value to the business?

I’d say, not at all. First, because you don’t expose your customer to any situation where he could feel embarrassed, humiliated or furious. It would also exponentially increase the whining. And finally, landowners could simply ban every avatar that showed up in the police blotter.

But I noticed you didn’t include groups in the information you consider should appear in the PB. Is there a specific reason or just a lapse of memory?

People invited to the Woodbury group — INVITED TO the Woodbury group — aren’t being invited to SEXYCLUBSPLODERSCAMPCLUB which has 4,120 members and everybody’s a winner. This a group in which some of the avatars leading it are are all in blackface, essentially, that is, they are either sporting the 70s big Afro look as avatars or as pictures in their profile, even if they are white in RL. And while hey, it’s Second Life, this *particular* choice with the posters and “Pool’s out” signs in the backgrounds are *markers, signs, insignia* of the b/tards. In that sense, it’s like the Crips and the Bloods. If you had never heard of the b/tards, you’d still find it troubling and racist — it wouldn’t be your first choice of a group to join.

Jaynelle may have been clueless about this — but I doubt it. If you are looking to learn how to make clothing in SL, there are a gadzillion other sims, events, classes, activities. You wouldn’t pick *this*. You’d only pick this if you gravitated to the culture of the b/tards and either had prior knowledge of them or thought they were “cool”.

When you go to the sim and see the dumb hello kitty, Nazi, and wierd avatars and the constant shooting and particling you might say, “Hm, now this doesn’t see like the sewing circle I thought it was”.

Yes, Jessica is trying to lawyer her way into making the unacceptable acceptable, not by rule of law by by ideological revolutionary zeal. And that’s why I find I strenuously object, because it’s indefensible.

The record amply shows, from avatar radar, from just your own human eyeballs, from chatlogs — and obviously the Lindens have all this — how Tizzers over and over and over again joins the Ravenglass group; tries to rent; comes to the office; flies around on recon missions; annoys tenants. This isn’t innocent; she isn’t injured.

You’d have to ask: but why join the tenants’ group of a columnist you hate on the Herald? Only to annoy. If you were expelled the first time, because you weren’t renting, and it was discovered what you were up to and which groups you were with, *and you joined again* — one time, two times, six times doing that — that’s abuse, that IS harassment. It doesn’t matter if the group is open; it’s open on principle for the convenience and freedom of legitimate tenants who are 99.9 percent of the tenants.

If, after being expelled repeatedly, you keep renting, or have your little boyfriends or girlfriends rent, and then begin griefing escapades with fake cries for help to come remove griefers (that’s what Runny Panacek/Hazim Gazov did), then obviously the landlord documents it, he says, you know, this isn’t just people exercising their freedom to rent in an open rentals, it’s people coming to break the place and disturb everyone with particles, shooting, textures of Jellowned, etc.

What Jessica refuses to acknowledge is that after *more than a year* of this behaviour *from these same people* — with week after week of them doing the same thing with a very, very, very standardize M.O. of harassment, hey, you can conclude: my God, this is deliberate! Hey, this isn’t an accident! wow, this is a conspiracy.

Because normal griefers, so to speak — script kiddies who fly around and shoot and cage people — usually make an attack or two, then they stop — both they and their targets are bored, and they either find something better to do in SL or find new targets. They don’t repeat.

THESE people have devised a standard menu of behaviour that they repeat over and over again like a mantra, deliberately, both to let you know that they *are* deliberate and a conspiracy and that they *are* going to keep lying about it, and getting off the hook.

So when the latest alt KILLyou Yifu materializes and sends the latest JOIN ME IN BAKU last night, a frequent technique, that’s the signal that a) this is W-hat territory, and is connected to W-hat even though they will vigorously deny it up and down and say, but anybody could invade and send TPS and we don’t even like these people (a lie if you read their website) b) this is the latest Hazim or whatever alt who will harass by constantly sending “JOIN ME” invitations (Tizzers and Intlibber also stoop to this low level of petty harassment, repeatedly sending me JOIN invitations to fill up the screen, and hope that in the process of clicking on a lot of transactions, that I might click on their dumb forceport.

If this happened to Jessica by a group she didn’t like, say, the Holy Roller Bible Society, where they constantly stalked her, sent her TPs to their strongholds, sent cards with propaganda, passed puppets of her to her inventory, rented on her rentals, joined her groups, flew around tracking her friends or tenants — she’d grasp that, OMG, this is planned harassment, designed to look like “nothing”.

If you assiduously document this petty, recurring harassment, and the Lindens start to see an avatar who piles up dozens of these incidents or has multiple targets, that’s grounds for banning or even entire removal of the alt; it’s understood then that it’s an alt that has returned to continue griefing.

So for Janelle to immediately join in on a templated, practiced, recurring, repetitive griefing M.O.s in between her um sewing classes is an obvious marker.

What Jessica is denying is that markers like this are legitimate to monitor and take action on, and surely not “guilt by association”. Indeed, after an alt sends you JOIN ME IN BAKU, the Plastic Duck Edutainment object, shows up trying to rent or fly around the office, you’d have to be nuts not to ban him from all the usual haunts.

When somebody like Tizzers joins a group to harass a dozen times; comes on land and is banned and keeps flying around trying to find a new parcel to land on from where she isn’t banned yet, she’s a griefer.

Normal people who aren’t griefer, who are college administrators, trying ostensibly to keep griefers out, don’t arrive on your sim on a broomstick, and flit from one parcel to the next as you ban them from one after another. This is the typical behaviour pattern of a griefer; even Jessica would be forced to acknowledge it once the facts were laid out.

I’m done trying to speak sense to Jessica, or to make indirect points over her head, to those who might find her arguments persuasive. Maklin has summed this up; she’s not in good faith. Lawyering is a weapon in fervent ideological hands here, furthering a sectarian agenda. Continuing to reply to her remarks only legitimizes that sectarian agenda.

Does anyone *DISAGREE* with the notion that the Police blotter should list a resident’s name, known alts and what they did in order to get banned or booted?

I’m not excusing actions. I’m partially questioning if being in a SL group is the same thing as associating. And if you are in a large group and your actions are being judged by the actions of someone you’ve never even met, then how is that fair without more information being available?

And you seem to be suffering from Prokitis a bit. How is having HUD avatar radar helping you to determine what people are doing when you are not around?