Big Blog Dramha Roundup
by Pixeleen Mistral on 23/09/07 at 1:28 pm
Second Citizen closes – other blogs step in to fill drama gap
by Pixeleen Mistral, National Affairs desk
Second Citizen, a Second Life-oriented over-the-top verbal mud wrestling site/forum has closed. Second Citizen was notable for generating large amounts of noise and drama, and an occasional worthwhile tidbit – much like Second Life itself.
The Second Citizen forum was launched as part of benefited from the great SL forum diaspora of 2006. This mass migration took place after a cataclysmic event – the Linden Lab game gods decided they had seen more than their share of drama moderating their own forums – and then closed all but the most innocuous discussions. At the time there were reports of Lab staff yelling “Will you damn kids and trolls go play on someone else’s lawn now?” – but these reports could never be confirmed.
Apparently the same sort of moderation fatigue affected Second Citizen forum owner Mother FIC – who suddenly announced the closing last week, saying “I can’t be a part of this anymore, and I can’t be the provider for this, either”. Elaborating a bit, Mother FIC also said, “There’s no single person at fault here. And this isn’t something new, I’ve felt like doing this for a while. Eventually things just reach a point of no return, and I did not foresee this place getting back to where it once was manageable/enjoyable for me. Disappointing, but a realistic realization. That’s all there is to this.”
Looking at the bigger picture, the post-diaspora proliferation of forums has fragmented the “community” – but there are positive effects as well. Even with the closing of Second Citizen, today there are more forum venues to ban, and be banned from, with the pattern of exclusion somewhat evocative of in-world metaverse land bans – where opposing gangs work to stifle each other’s members.
blog wars continue
In other blog and drama related news, Marc Bragg is apparently disappointed at being unable to respond to Prokofy Neva’s verbal beatdowns on the Second Thoughts blog. Mr Bragg has started his own Second Thought blog – http://secondthought.typepad.com/ – but it is unclear if Mr. Neva is able to respond to Second Thought.
Mr Bragg joins a number of others who have taken to publishing responses to particularly touching whinescrapers after been banned from the in-world land rental agent’s personal blog. For instance, Benjamin Duranske takes exception with his treatment in a post on his blog here.
And so, as I scan the remnants of Second Citizen that persist in the Google search cache – the forums are gone but not forgotten by Google – I wonder if there is another approach to these sorts of conflicts. An approach that also applies in-world. Why not simply mute the verbal grieftards that bother you? On the other hand, if everyone does this, how will we make the drama that powers our world, our imagination?
Cocoanut Koala
Sep 23rd, 2007
Second Citizen was not launched as part of the great SL forum diaspora of 2006.
It existed (and I was a member) several months prior to that.
I’ll let Prok handle the factual inaccuracies in the portion of this piece that involves him.
Research – it’s invaluable if you want to be a writer.
coco
pixeleen mistral
Sep 23rd, 2007
> Second Citizen was not launched as part of the great SL forum diaspora of 2006.
I just made a trip to the wayback machine (http://www.archive.org/) and you are right, coco. I added a strikeout to the story to fix this. On the other hand, SC certainly benefited from the great diaspora – as did other the other forums. The wayback machine has quite a few entries for SC for the historians to ponder. Now I’ll go back to covering today’s news.
Nacon
Sep 23rd, 2007
Why even bother mention Prok at all? It’s just more bullshits.
I’m guessing SL Herald is next? Surely, where else will bunch of goons gonna go or do about?
*Hint* Close this pool shit *hint*
Prokofy Neva
Sep 23rd, 2007
Yes, Coco was right, SC was founded in something like April of 2006 or June 2006, before the closure of the official forums, which happened in September (the Lindens delayed it a month). Accuracy, accuracy! And it was thought that it might draw the poison off the official forums, and make it possible, therefore, for the official forums to last. But that thought didn’t work, as drawing off poison just gives it two places to be simultaneously not one. And the Lindens could never bite the bullet and discipline their long-time FIC friends and NDA-signers, and that meant they could never play fair.
—-
Um, gosh, that’s pretty tendentious stuff, Pixeleen. And as someone who arbitrarily deletes posts you don’t like, you’re hardly one to get all preachy about people banning from blogs.
Unlike the Herald, which has no policy, written or unwritten about their filtration, I have one clearly stated and followed.
Um…now why do you think Marc Bragg and Benjamin Duranske have been banned from my blog? Not for some arbitrary temper tantrum.
But because I have rules. Rule No. 2 says that if you incite or cause me SL or RL damage, I don’t have to provide a forum for you.
Both these two have threatened me with libel suits — maliciously, and falsely. Gosh, I’ll be the Herald knows what that’s like!
However, my blog is still running? Which is more than I can say for the Herald, which cringes in fear and begins to filter every post through your little tea-strainer.
Let me provide the link to my rebuttals to virtual lawyer Duranske:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/09/benjamin-durans.html
and here’s another good one:
http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/09/10/american-bar-assc-forms-virtual-worlds-committee/#comments
and a post on Sanitized, Corporate Blogs — like the Herald:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/09/sanitized-corpo.html
Prokofy Neva
Sep 23rd, 2007
Oh, the other operative point here:
Benjamin Duranske first banned me from his blog, not for anything I actually wrote on his blog, but because on my own blog, I called him “a major-league asshole”. Why? Because of his causing of a run on the bank against Ginko, and launching a campaign of prosecutorial zeal, calling it a Ponzi scheme. It may well be, but he has no facts, there’s been no RL investigation or court case or discovery, and this kind of judgement and legal opinion isn’t something he’d practice with regard to another lawyer, Marc Bragg, regarding his actions in SL. So it’s a double standard.
In fact, it’s like a lightbulb joke:
Question: Why, for Benjamin Duranske, is what Ginko does a crime, but what Marc Bragg does not a crime?
Answer: because Marc Bragg is a fellow lawyer.
He also implied here on the Herald that reporters shouldn’t cover stories that he deemed insufficient in legal certitude and fact (the Lisae story) — as if the free press should wait for his lofty judgement — which is demonstrably biased.
After he banned me, I didn’t ban him from my blog, as I had no cause. He kept fulminating, writing stuff at 3:00 in the morning, blah blah, for days, and I continued to counter him word for word and just let him post. I don’t arbitrarily ban people from my blog just because I don’t like what they say, as is well known (that’s readily seen by any glance at the comments).
Finally, he began accusing me of “libel” because I questioned his credentials and his right to keep declaring activity within SL as criminal — he seems to be driven only by a desire to get his sound bytes in a media all to eager to write scandalous stuff about SL. And under Rule No. 2, again, you are banned from my blog if you incite or threaten or commit harm against me. Inciting and threatening a libel suit *is* inciting harm — and BTW, hugely unseemly conduct for any lawyer in SL dealing with the free press.
BTW, I checked out “second thought” and found it extremely lame, and I think probably the best response for it is /ignore. It’s not even a parody, which might have been funny.
Obscure Doodad
Sep 24th, 2007
Yes, yes, the fights are what they are. But there was value on that site too. The land discussions. The marketing discussions.
Where are those going? Anyone got a link?
Jessica Holyoke
Sep 24th, 2007
Ginko had no reported assets, no reasons given as to why they were able to pay out interest to the residents who deposited and when the news that something was missing and that all the faith in Ginko is sort of misplaced was reported, depositor faith fell and the Ginko Perpetual bond scheme was enacted and fell horribly through.
Last I checked, my $1L face value bond is still trading at $0.10L.
The thing about Bragg is that if what he did was a crime and computer fraud, why aren’t the land bots that are plagging residents now computer fraud? Ignoring the bias of Linden labs in the litigation, where of course Bragg’s actions are fraudulent, fundementally how are Bragg’s actions, going to a publically available web page and entering a lower auction price, where that option was available, different than the worst of the land bots, someone entering a publically available price by mistake and having the bot instantly and irreversibly buy the land? I know a few of you might state that the Bragg’s auction page was not linked to the main Linden site and the land bots only use information that’s publically available to all, but does that make a difference on the effect of what both did? What Bragg did looks very similar to buying an unknown treasure at a yard sale or he bought something with the wrong price tag at a store that saved him money. Neither of those two things are criminal.
I tend to notice that as far as posters who are known to be lawyers to me who have posted on secondthoughts, only katykiwi moonflower is still allowed to post. All the other ones I know have been banned due to pointing out statements of Prokofy’s as libel and defamation. (For the readers at home, that’s myself, Duranske, Bragg and Ashcroft Burnham.(I have a JD that makes me a lawyer, I just don’t like using the word lawyer or using JD behind my name because it implies I’m licensed to practice law, which is not yet the case. (Which if Prok brings it up again, and he will, its because bar results don’t come out for a few more weeks.))) Now here is where I understand where Prok is coming from. Many governments use libel as a tool to stiffle dissent. (Which will bring up the Chinese dissident issue again, sorry folks.) Legitimate reporters are imprisoned due to violations that are actually honest reporting. But Prok seems to ignore the fact that defamation is not solely the tool of the dictator. That defamation is both a crime and a civil tort. Defamation is not something made up by governments to control their citizens. When you place people in a false light without a good faith reason to do so, it harms the person’s reputation and that damages the person.. Especially if you call that person a criminal without knowledge of the crime that person committed. (That would be the I “think” it’s illegal, but I can’t point to a law that they’ve broken, so I’ll just call them criminal anyway.)
And you’re right Prokofy, secondthought.typepad.com is fairly bare boned right now. I’m sure that if Marc Bragg, who seems to be doing the site, just talked to half of your enemies list, it would provide an opportunity for a factcheck.org on you. Of course, should someone be calling something lame when many of your recent articles are just reprinting office hours and customer service calls and show you complaining how badly they went? I mean you printed the same office hours twice, only the second time it had your commentary with what people were saying.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/09/linden-performa.html#more
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/09/anatomy-of-fanb.html
And of course I’m a little sad that you annotated Ian Linden’s office hours and didn’t get down to Chadwick Linden’s office hours, found on both articles, and I didn’t rate capitalized annotations.
Marc Bragg
Sep 24th, 2007
Profky
Your cavalier use and denigration of the concept of “free press” is unfortunate. Your “press” is anything but free and does insult to the ideal that many have labored their entire lives to defend and protect. It is fortunate, however, that the free press will easily withstand even your efforts to censor or characterize it.
http://secondthought.typepad.com
Marc Bragg
Prokofy Neva
Sep 24th, 2007
Jessica is completely misrepresenting the Ginko story again. Ginko indeed had assets, and paid them out to people in high percentage interest for nearly 3 years. From what we can gather, they had some of their investments in casinos, and when casino gambling was banned, they were stuck. Whether this represents bad judgement, poor management, or unfair lack of notification from LL, whatever the case, you can’t claim that Ginko had “no assets” when it did, and continued to enable people to make withdrawls, even after the run began, egged on by Duranske.
Depositor faith falls for a reason — the pressure created by those inciting prosecution, claiming fraud, siccing RL media on the story. I think Nicholas made a good-faith effort to try to clean up the mess, but perhaps the WSE itself has always been in trouble — it’s all very murky. The bonds are down to .10 now from a higher trade of .20. You can’t cash out the bonds reasonably even for that minute amount because of this WIC stuff where you convert Lindens to WIC to dollars, but at a capped amount. Even so, no federal probe has opened; no actually practicing lawyer actually representing a client claim ing fraud has launched any case or spoken; no discovery has been made; no documents have been published; no Linden action has been taken. I fail to see why Duranske can screech gleefully that this is a crime, that these people should be jailed, and Linde prosecuted, too, as their cashier — but on another case involving an obvious exploit, in which there are chat logs released at discovery, in which there is really a court case afoot, he can be cagey and have nothing to say, and focus only on the anti-LL piece of the case regarding virtual property’s validity, or on the validity of holding chatlogs. That lets me know that this is the usual circling of wagons and defending someone merely on tribal grounds — “he’s one of us; he’s not one of us.” Perhaps if Duranske had ever bought on the auction, he’d get it.
Once again, if people incite harassment of me or cause me harm in SL or RL, they cannot post on my blog. That’s reasonable. It’s a rule, and not an arbitrary whim. Accusing someone of libel is about as damaging as it gets. I don’t see why I have to sustain damages like that from neuralgic fucktards who can’t bear criticism of their actions.
Accusing reporters of defamation is a tool of dictators; it’s a tool of petty government officials; it is a tool of military leaders and corporate CEOS; it’s a tool of 30-something lamerz in games who have no lives. The chill on free discussion is caused by these neuralgics constantly throwing hissy fits and accusing people of defamation merely for staying what they believe to be true, and reporting on controversies. The chill is not caused by criticism. A more thorough reading of Times v. Sullivan in the U.S. and Lingens v. Austria in the EU are in order.
I really care not one whit if people make parodies or faux “factchecks” of me. Criticism — and even the sharpest and most forceful criticism — is very much legitimate, and very much in order for Second Life, a closed society run by one company with their coterie of hangers on and friends, without any real restraint of any kind.
I have to laugh out loud at the idea that Marc Bragg imagines he is defending the free press, when he is the one swaggering around filing orders of retracting on people’s blogs. This is some kind of litigation strategy to chill public debate around the case as it picks up steam.
—-
This constant moral/legal equivalency of bots in SL scooping up land, or swoopers buying land set to the wrong price, is completely out of place.
Because anything involving a hacking of the auction involves conscious malice and knowledge aforethought about the workings of the auction and how to exploit it. If bots or swoopers scoop up land, they are merely doing what they do automatically. People need to be more careful about setting their land for sale. My God, there are certainly enough safety menus now with no less than three times when you have an opportunity to undo something that is mistakenly set to anyone for $1. Sure, your hand can slip, you can be stupid 3 times, we’ve all done it, but then…that’s life in the big city.
Now, is it too bad for Linden that their fingers slipped, too? No, because their auction has a certain set of rules, an opening bid, and a procedure, and a mistake or hole is what enabled the circumventing of those procedures. That is different in kind that a set of rules that involve one person putting his land for sale and making a mistaken, and another simply buying it because he can. That person buying it because he can didn’t reach into the land, put in a jimmied URL, or hack the client or manipulate it in any way.
The Lindens have been hard-hearted about not reversing mistakes. I suppose it’s because they’ve put in so many fail-safes. Before those were put in, they were just as hard-hearted, however, and that invites an analogy for some about how they should be if they themselves ripped off. However, as has often been pointed out, it’s their game, and they do what they want, and for them, loss of $250 US for somebody’s land set to sale wrong and lost is nothing compared to, say, their lost $2500 island income from an auction. And that’s unfair, and unjust, and should be protested, but under their TOS, not only do they have the right to take this position, they have no means, once having decided to stay out of the transactions in the economy, to rectify a swoop of land inworld without also becoming available as babysitters, parents, mentors, bankers, lawyers, and priests on every transaction that happens in world that somebody isn’t happy about.
DaveOner
Sep 24th, 2007
You guys are dorks.
But I guess this is much easier than actually doing something worth mentioning in your real lives!
In other news, a flying turtle pressed charges against Mario for “Unlawful trampling and use as a projectile”. When asked about the incident Mario replied “I was on mushrooms”.
Cocoanut Koala
Sep 24th, 2007
You have the gall, Marc.
You ban Prok from your blog; go onto his to threaten a lawsuit; then complain because you are banned from his blog.
You use an exploit to buy land on auction for a fraction of the auction opening prices, then have the gall to sue Linden Lab over it.
You know, originally, I was on your side regarding the rest of your assets they froze. I expected them to take back the land you took illegally, but I agreed that you should get back the money you didn’t obtain illegally.
I actually thought you were throwing in all that stuff about “owning the land for real” just as some extra argument or wiggle room.
Now I know that you actually believe everything you say. You believe you didn’t do anything wrong by using that exploit, and gaining auction land for far less than others. Well, you’re wrong.
You believe that you should actually “own” land in SL forever and in perpetuity, no matter what happens and no matter what you do. You’re wrong about that, too.
And you think nobody can call you a thief for what you did with the auctions, in the mistaken belief that it is “libel.” You’re wrong about that as well.
But gall is about all you have to offer. You harm residents, and resident businesses, and you harm LL. I wish you had never come into SL.
coco
Mabb Dilweg
Sep 25th, 2007
Oh snore! Yet another Herald article that is of no interest to anyone but those involved, who already know way more than is written here and is hijacked by people talking on and on about completely unrelated things, ad naseum.
/me removes the SLH RSS feed from iGoogle *again*
I don't get it
Sep 25th, 2007
Lemme get this straight…
Prok said on his blog something negative about Mister Bragg, that may or may not be true.
Then mister Bragg told Prok to remove that, as it would damage his reputation and buisness, or he’d sue.
Then, Mr. Bragg was banned from Prok’s blog, for saying that he’d sue, because that would damage Prok’s reputation and buisness?
Did I get that right?
So, basically, Bragg was banned for libel about Prok’s libel?
Sadako Shikami
Sep 25th, 2007
Damn, I had just got approved and posted only one naked pic to the forums. And they close down right away?? Poopies.
Marc Bragg
Sep 26th, 2007
Coco,
What’s the matter with you? Why do you make up facts to defend your position?
Prokofy is not banned from my blog….
You “wish” I had never gone into SL? Which SL, your’s? It’s not big enough in “your imagination” to allow for everyone?
My side? What side is that? This isn’t a popularity contest.
Marc
Simondo Nebestanka
Sep 26th, 2007
That ‘Second Thought’ must be a hoax site, and faux posts by ‘Marc Bragg’. The spelling and grammar mistakes, general language usage, explaining to us what alliteration is.. all extremely juvenile.
Bah. I got sucked in too
“You sets em up, you knocks em down, you wins da game.”
Peace
Pollster
Sep 26th, 2007
How many people hope Bragg sues Prok?
Cocoanut Koala
Sep 27th, 2007
Maybe I have you mixed up with that other lawyer, Marc. My apologies, if so.
As for which side, I WAS on your side (and I do believe you have one, considering you have taken it to court) regarding getting your money back for the land that you legitimately purchased.
Yes, I wish you had never gone into SL, the SL belonging to all of us. It could be, though, that I’m also attributing to you one of the actions of that other lawyer (the one having to do with Ginko).
In which case, my apologies for that as well.
As far as your threatening to sue Prok for calling you a thief for helping yourself to that land through an exploit, no apologies there. And as I’ve said before, you’ve got an awful lot of people to sue on that score.
coco
Jessica Holyoke
Sep 27th, 2007
You know what Prok, No.
My biggest peeve is that you are using neuralgic incorrectly and frequently. It means related to neuralgia or related to pain that courses along a nerve. So calling people neuralgics, unless you have made up another word, again, doesn’t make sense.
“From what you (plural) gather” is not a good enough response to “no reported assets.” I was there at the meeting when Avix was going to be purchased by Ginko in order to fix their liquidity problem. That would have been a perfect time to announce that their assets were casino based, but that’s not what happened. You (singular) did not mention that Nikolas had assets. In fact, on July 31st, you wrote “What, don’t I know Ginko is a pyramid scheme? Well, of course I do, as I’ve known it longer than any of the people commenting on it. But it’s been around now for so long — three years or so — and has worked for so many people, that you have to start asking whether the impossible can happen, that even Ponzi/pyramid type rackets work when you have a synthetic world. ”
So the fact that he had assets seems new, and something you didnt’ mention earlier. Also oddly enough that you were agreeing with the Ponzi definition before and not now.
Now lets look at Times v. Sullivan and Lingens v. Austria. First off, Lingens v. Austria was more about what someone’s opinions were on someone, essentially the defendant was saying that someone should not hold office because he used to be in the SS. That was determined not to be libel. But Lingens did not dissolve defamation for reporters.
Now Sullivan is a bit different. Sullivan states that a public official in the course of his official duties has a higher standard to be met when it comes to libel known as actual malice. Actual malice is defined as either knowingly false or reckless to the truth of the statement. It does not say you get to say anything you believe to be true and nothing can be done about it if you are a reporter. If you are reckless about the facts in getting to your version of the truth, then you are still able to be sued successfully for libel.
And suddenly the Lindens are once again able to determine criminality. I’m not wading through the discovery just yet for Bragg v. Linden, but nothing has been shown that Bragg used a hacked client, or an exploit beyond typing in a different value in the browser window. Of course the Lindens are sort of backed into saying Bragg committed fraud because they seized his assets and fraud was the reason why. But the Lindens also have qualified immunity in their court filings. They can libel Bragg under the rules of libel and not be sued. And calling a person a criminal without facts and law backing up your words is libel per se, the easily sued upon kind.
And lastly, with the bot purchases, I like how the fact that the Lindens could not have set the web page up correctly so that it would not accept low starting bids, and not only are they not at fault, but its a crime against them and everyone else in SL that they did that, which honestly, why is there no mention now of the complaints lodged against LL about the mistake then?
It is annoying to hear, oh people were protected already, if a bot swoops the land and you lose out, well, there is no recourse, too bad. And you try to work it out with the person operating the bot and they want to sell you back the land they procured for $1L for 6.5L per sq m (as reported in the Avastar) that’s wrong and all the same ills as Bragg is being accused of, but its a bot so its ok.
Its also annoying how in RL, sometimes you have to turn to your government for assistance and that’s normal. But in SL, if you turn to the closest thing you have to a government, the Lindens, somehow it makes you a whiner or a baby.
Cocoanut Koala
Sep 27th, 2007
Jessica says:
—–
And suddenly the Lindens are once again able to determine criminality. I’m not wading through the discovery just yet for Bragg v. Linden, but nothing has been shown that Bragg used a hacked client, or an exploit beyond typing in a different value in the browser window. Of course the Lindens are sort of backed into saying Bragg committed fraud because they seized his assets and fraud was the reason why. But the Lindens also have qualified immunity in their court filings. They can libel Bragg under the rules of libel and not be sued. And calling a person a criminal without facts and law backing up your words is libel per se, the easily sued upon kind.
—–
Oh, give me a break. Marc took pieces of land that hadn’t been listed on auction yet; found a way to go about it backwards from the normal way of doing it; put in a number; got the land for far less than anyone was ever supposed to; then resold it.
Knowing perfectly well, all the while, that land was never auctioned for less than a starting bid of $1,000.
That’s “criminal” in our little world; and that’s thievery – taking something that wasn’t meant to be sold yet for far less than its intended value, through a discovered exploit (and all exploits get discovered at one time or another)- and then reselling it to others for a tidy profit.
Anyone who wants to can call Marc a thief on the basis of this (and plenty have), and no one is ever going to be successfully sued for doing so.
The Lindens weren’t backed into anything. They took back what he gained through an exploit. And then simply explained why.
My only beef was they froze the rest of his assets, too, but he’s lost all my sympathy on that one.
coco
Prokofy Neva
Sep 28th, 2007
Jessica, you’re ignorant. Reporters and bloggers reference Lingens. It’s not like there is a special status called “journalist” that special laws have to be made for. And there’s also a Sunday Times of London case affirming the right to report on crimes, too, to shore this up further.
Um, there’s nothing reckless about my reporting on the Bragg case, I understand the mechanisms involved intimately. Sorry, no sale there.
As for your defense of the use of exploits, well, As the Stomach Turns, another day at the Herald and the Voice of Pixeleen!
I’ve just explained that for someone to set their land to $1, they’d have to pass through 3 screens and knowingly, willfully, blindly, deliberately ignore their questions. Even if their cursor slips or there’s lag, there is still a failsafe screen.
So the equivalent would be if the Lindens each time they put up an auction, had an opportunity to failsafe their options 3 times, “Do you really, really want to put this to auction?” Etc.
But that’s not what happened. It would be like someone reaching into a land parcel for sale and forcing it to sale, for $1. Bots are utterly NOT an analogy, and any logical thinker can see that. However your need to be right often blinds you to common sense and logic.
My, you’re tiresome.
Jessica Holyoke
Sep 28th, 2007
Prokofy,
Its always interesting to be called both ingnorant and tiresome by someone who exemplifies both.
Because my previous post made no distinction between blogger and reporter, I’m not sure why you mentioned any distinction beyond making an implication that I think a blogger should have less rights than a reporter, something I did not say.
And I wish when you use something to back up your facts that you would give just a little bit more information. Because the Sunday Times article might be talking about the ability to report on crime in a defamation sense or the ability to report on crime due to the UK’s limitations on trial reporting.
And reading over the Linden counterclaim against Bragg, I can see how preventing the recuperation of server costs, which the Bragg scheme did, even if it wasn’t his scheme, is different than a land bot capitalizing on the mistake of a resident. After all, the Lindens were already paid when the land bot made the purchase. The economic effects are similar by obtaining land cheaply and reselling land at normal prices. Bragg’s position in regards to the Lindens and your stated position to the resident that was ripped off are also similar in the “too bad, so sad” sense.
But based on the Linden counterclaim, I’m still not sure what exactly the Bragg scheme was. In most of the earlier averments, the Lindens suggested that the way the data was accessed was more than just typing URL’s in a web page. They made it sound like a web page was created to access the Linden’s computers so that the island was able to be auctioned off earlier and cheaper. But when the Lindens’ came down to actually alleging computer fraud, they stated that URL’s were synthesized or that the Bragg scheme was just typing information in the browser window, which goes against the earlier statements. And if the auction page was available through backwards browsing, then Prokofy, your analogy does not stand up because the auction page allowed for the imputation of different starting bids. And again, that’s the Linden’s fault.
Say, who’s really the Linden Fanboy here …
Cocoanut Koala
Sep 28th, 2007
No, Jessica – no matter how you parse it in the next-to-last paragraph there, it was an exploit. Moreover, Marc KNEW it wasn’t supposed to be done that way.
EVERYONE knew land auctions started at $1,000.
Responsible residents would report the exploit to the Lindens once they discovered it; not take advantage of it to enrich themselves.
coco
Prokofy Neva
Sep 29th, 2007
Yes, Jessica’s moral compass spins wildly, broken horribly, never any True North.
This fake legalese crap, “the auction page allowed for the imputation of different starting bids” — is like saying “The store allowed for shop-lifting because the merchandise wasn’t locked up under glass” or “the window allowed for breaking because it was made of glass”.
Fortunately, genuine and real judges in real life, unlike the pixelated Internet monstrosity called “Jessica Holyoke,” aren’t going to be ruling with this sort of specious, cavalier and mendacious argumentation.
We all know the auction wasn’t supposed to work that way. It never did work that way. If it worked that way then, it ws due to an exploit. An exploit quickly closed off.
To keep arguing backwards away from this wrong is to step on reality, morality, legality. We all know the rules of the auction and the normal mechanisms of the auction. They were broken. That’s not the Linden’s fault; it is their error in letting a loophole slip by that they should have contemplated could be abused.
Jessica Holyoke
Sep 29th, 2007
Its amusing to see someone who does not realize that morality is more than just screaming at those he doesn’t like accuse others of being immoral. It is the fact that I can see beyond a self-righteous rage and mob mentality that makes my morality more accurate than Prokofy’s and Coco’s.
Here’s why I question your’s Coco. You admitted that the Lindens taking all of Bragg’s assets were wrong. You agreed with the position that the Lindens should not have taken everything of Bragg’s. But now you are arguing that the Linden’s actions are ok because Bragg is not a good person, either by trying to shut Prokofy down by threats of libel suits or by not admitting that what he’s done is a crime. That does not negate the Lindens taking all of his in-game and US dollar balance to correct what was supposedly a fraud where they already were compensated, by taking back the island and by keeping the money from the auction. You are essentially saying that its ok that the Linden’s wronged someone more than that person wronged them because of what kind of person they are.
Prok, besides your mindlessness, both in temperment and argument, here’s where you go wrong. While Bragg’s culpability is great in this case, he did know that the opening bid was supposed to be $1000 and he found a way around that to his commercial advantage, the greater policy is not to find him guilty of theft or fraud. If a person designs a web page in a certain way, and a user uses the web page to the extent of the design to the designer’s detriment, its not theft and the user should not be punished. If Bragg is found to be guilty of civil fraud, then the balance of power shifts way too much to the tekki wikki crowd you are so fond of complaining about and away from the normal user. Imagine saying to someone you didn’t use my website the way I intended you to, but rather in a way that I allowed you to, so that makes you a thief and a fraud. In other contexts, if you mistakenly make a contract, you rescind or reform the contract, not take the money, resell the product and accuse the other person of theft.
And if you go back and argue mens rea over actus rea, everyone will know that you really do need other people’s help to make an argument.
Prokofy Neva
Sep 30th, 2007
No, it’s all pretty clear. Jimmying a web page open to buy a sim on the sly for anything less than $1000 is wrong, and unlawful.
Everyone in real court situations, not in this Internet legal bubble that Holierthanthou finds herself in, realizes that there are matters of common sense, common usage, good faith. You don’t twist logic and sense into a pretzel and pretend that someone just “used your website a different way” lol. That’s definitely not going to fly.
In fact, the defeat of Bragg, far from pouring water on to the mill of tekkie wikis, will in fact provide a hedge against lawlessness and connivances like this. That will be very desirable. That’s why this case is important.
It will be very gratifying to see the judge do the right thing in this case.
Marc Woebegone
Sep 30th, 2007
Prokofy,
Why are you always so intentionally ignorant? You are so foolish to think that I will “lose” this csae…. simply not going to happen. What will happen will be a good result for eveyrone as it has already been proven to be; even good for you though you rattle and babble incessantly about how its all the end of the world…. and such a little world it is too that you parade around.
Marc
Marc Woebegone
Sep 30th, 2007
And coco, really… how ridiculous an assumption. To suggest the “right” t thing to do was to report a method of exploiting? That’s the point of the game, isn’t it? To try and “make money”? And aren’t all monies in the game made at the profit of someone else? Including your’s? Landlord / tenant, buyer / seller, etc…. how easily your draw moral conclusions. By what authority?
M
Prokofy Neva
Sep 30th, 2007
Winning this case, Marc Bragg, will do far more to harm your reputation than any blogger could achieve by writing about it. That is what you will have to live with for the rest of your life, First and Second ; )
Losing it gracefully by dropping the immoral and unlawful part of your claims — especially if you can at least win on the narrow point of the right to reclaim that part of your wealth unjustly seized — won’t help your reputation any, but it will be a good thing for Second Life that will at least be conceded to you.
It’s your choice how you would like to go down in history.
just sayin
Oct 1st, 2007
>Winning this case, Marc Bragg, will do far more to harm your reputation than any blogger could achieve by writing about it. That is what you will have to live with for the rest of your life, First and Second ; )
Prokofy’s a great example since her nasty, foul-mouthed behavior ruined her reputation for the rest of her life. First and Second.
Marc Woebegone
Oct 2nd, 2007
Prokofy
“Win”? Ur ridiculous.
M
Simondo Nebestanka
Oct 2nd, 2007
/me humbly retracts earlier statement that Marc’s website was a hoax. I have been mulling this over and submit the following thoughts after the quote..
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-08-2006/0004356685&EDATE=
‘Bragg learned of a way to purchase virtual land significantly below market values, and invested thousands of US dollars purchasing land in an attempt to resell this land at a profit.’ – quote from Marc’s press release in May 2006. My apologies for re-quoting this as I had done in a post on Marc’s blog, but I think it’s important to be clear about the intent of the initial action.
A read of the TOS sections 1.4 (currency), 3.3 (ownership of data), and 2.6 (termination of account) indicates that a) everything in a resident’s account is owned by LL, not the resident; and b) a resident’s account can be shut down for any reason and for no reason. One becomes a Second Life resident after accepting those conditions.
If those TOS sections were in place at the time, why would one pour thousands of US dollars into a virtual land profit scheme, which relied on an exploit for said profitability, ensuingly running the risk of forfeiting everything in that (LL owned) account?
When I see Marc frequently referring to a ‘game’ – is this meant in the sense that ‘life is a game’, or more specifically a game-like business approach to profiting using all available means? Is the game ‘I am running the risk of losing thousands of dollars on this investment’? Or am I reading too much into it, and Marc is simply referring to ‘Second Life’ as a ‘game’? I don’t mean for these questions to sound facetious, as I do realise folks interpret SL in many different ways.
Peace
Whadaya Know
Oct 4th, 2007
So word is that Linden Lab settled with Bragg and his account has been reinstated. Guess his activity wasn’t “criminal” after all.
Next up: libel suits. Yippee!!!!
Simondo Nebestanka
Oct 5th, 2007
‘..why would one pour thousands of US dollars into a virtual land profit scheme, which relied on an exploit for said profitability, ensuingly running the risk of forfeiting everything in that (LL owned) account?’
I can now answer my own question. I guess one would pour thousands of dollars into an exploitative scheme, and forfeit their investment, if a secondary goal was to lay the foundation for a law suit.
Fun game hey?
Prokofy Neva
Oct 5th, 2007
A settlement in a lawsuit isn’t winning it; it’s just settling.
Usually the terms of such settlements involve both parties agreeing not to discuss the terms themselves and indeed the case. So I wonder how much Marc Woebegone is going to go around babbling about this case.
I don’t view the settlement as a positive outcome, but it’s not a win for Bragg, although it’s a loss for all of us, and for LL, and for morality and legality in general.
Still, his outrageous gambit is not vindicated in any way, as it did not lead to a judgement in a court of law, thank God.
His actions are not declared lawful.
They are not recognized as lawful by any court.
There is merely a settlement of the case out of court.
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/10/linde-lab-caves.html
I do have to wonder — what kind of person or company would hire a lawyer who would start a frivilous and harassing lawsuit, make constant outrageous comments about it to the media, bully and harass bloggers and reporters who comment on the case, make a spoof site of a critical blogger’s site to harass them, call people who disagree with the outcome “a big butt” and go around smugly saying “I won, I told you so” — when it’s merely a settlement?
Would anyone hire such a lawyer?
A Wikileaks Supporter
Dec 11th, 2010
This whole Wikileaks fiasco is pretty crazy. You should check out http://voteonwikileaks.com. It’s a recently launched website that seems to be going viral. They got something like 50,000 visitors in the first 24 hours of launch. It’s sort of like a crowdsourced collection of arguments against and for Wikileaks. As a blog owner, you’d probably find some of the opinions there a good read.