Anyone see Idiocracy? Anyone remember the court scene and the President addressing Congress? Yeah, it’ll be kind of like that.

As long as LL is the sole service provider for Second Life then this is just a game, or simulation if you will, of a faux economy and society without advanced laws.

No lawyers. No chapter and verse codification of law. Just two parties and an unpaid judge who makes a simple decision – who ripped who off? Make this inworld and make the decisions stick inworld and you’ll eliminate 99% of people wanting to go to RL courts over piddling matters. And like it or not, most issues in SL are piddling to the outside world. Since the issues are in SL, so should the remedy be.

Then Prock posts. It’s like someone lit up the Prock Signal and she bumbles her way in on the Prockmobile, hitting a couple trash cans and saying “…LIKE A GLOVE!”

Prock is the very reason such arbitration will not work in SL. There are too many entitled nut jobs that seek legitimacy on a 2001 era computer game that would find their way into such a system and ruin it for everyone.

If SL was ever to become a realistically suitable platform for legitimate commerce (that is, trade of actual services and goods instead of sex beds and series of 1s and 0s) losing your anonymity as a business owner is inevitible…as is the anonymity of the customer.

L$ will go away and transactions would be just like how they are on the regular internet now. You give up your CC info and they charge you. People won’t be able to hide if they want to buy or sell anything. Then people like Prock couldn’t thrive in the safety of their obscurity.

Unless that happens you’re all just playing house without leaving your’s.

I know there’s a knee jerk immediate response to this question, especially from fans of the various games, “No, the game belongs to the creator and not to its users.” This may be partly true, but what of the game where the users create something of value, or the game developer claims to be selling the user something that is accessible only in the game, or the game developer claims you own what you create.” The short answer “no” is simply not sufficient to cover the rights involved, though it is the easiest answer to provide to ignore what is fundamentally at risk; loss of the game. As in all things, then, it is a question of balancing the interests at risk.

I would think that it may be possible under established legal principles to modify a TOS.

For example, once a user clicks the “I Agree” button, and then proceeds “to play”, whay cannot a user send an email to the company stating that “In consideration of my continued participation in [name of game], we both agree that the TOS agreed to on [date] has been modified as follows [modification terms].”

Would not the user’s continued participation, for example in SL, provide legal consideration for the modificaiton as their “commodity” seems to be the number of registered users that frequent and return thereby giving them presence and value in their marketplace. Perhaps that same consideration is applicable across games.

Mutual assent, that is the company’s acceptance of the user’s modified terms, would seem to occur by the company’s receipt of the modification and then continuing to allow the user to gain access thereby accepting the user’s contribution to the success of the game (i.e., without users, games might exist, but have no commercial value). I suppose the company would argue that they weren’t aware of the modification because they don’t / can’t read all emails sent them; however, applying the same principles as have been applied to those that click “I agree” without reading the terms but are deemed bound, why wouldn’t the company too be bound by receipt of an email which announces both the modification and confirms it by the user’s actions (accessing the game again). It is at essence, that same quantum of communication and conduct that courts have repeatedly upheld in favor of the company in determining whether there has been assent by the user that simply clicks “I agree”. In games where the TOS is periodically modified and for a paying user that already owns assets in the game, to get to those assets, the user must again click I agree…. well, that doesn’t strike anyone as legally or morally equitable. Especially for this class of users, seems the law would have to carve out an exception (which eventually may swallow the rule) providing that for such a class of users, a modification sent by the user to the company would be legally binding on the company, especially where it affected that user’s previously owned assets.

Just a thought…… not a legal opinion…. and not legal advice.

M

You are an idiot. Of course, you can libel and defame ‘Jessica Holyoke’. By saying that my identity is harassing you, when you come to the Herald to lie about me, by misrepresenting what I say in order to show how superior you are, and taking every opportunity to do so, then you are affecting how I operate in Second Life by making these accusations against my name. What you are engaging in is exactly why there are defamation laws.

If you understood the point that I was making above about revealing personal information, then the majority of your first point was SOLELY made to harass me. And I’m getting tired of it. I wouldn’t even READ your blogs if you stopped writing about me.

I’m banned from posting from Secondthoughts because I pointed out that you were implying that I was engaging in illegal activity, which I am not and was not. Saying that I shouldn’t be admitted to the Bar because of illegal and immoral activity is stating that I engage in illegal activity. Trying to palm off the accusation of illegality on to someone else “I didn’t say that you engage in illegal activity, I said other people would say you engage in illegal activity” is still libel because you are implying that I’m a criminal without anything remotely related to a law that I would be breaking. And I’m apparently banned now from the Record because I posted “Prok, why is everyone wrong about what their own bills say and they need to submit proof to you?” in relation to the addition of VAT charges. I followed up with a why is that a nasty comment, and my follow up was never posted. Obviously you feel that what I had to say had no merit and now I’m banned from your new public newspaper for that. And then you come here to verbally assault me more. And once again, Prokofy Neva pulls his standard practice of muting someone so that he can get the last word.

So if you don’t want me to even read your blogs, stop writing about me. If you don’t want to engage in a fight with me here, don’t start one and think that I’ll just accept your constant lies, manipulations and harassment.

SECOND LIFE: SRS BSNS. IT IS NOT A GAME.

I’M NOT KIDDING GAIS.
THIS IS NOT A GAME.
I’LL SUE YOUS.
THIS IS SRS BSNS.

Hi, Nolan Nash.

—

Hi, Jessica, you’re an annoying twit.

>Your lies and attempts to put me in disrepute is tiresome.

Your own writing and bad politics do that all by themselves for your, sweetcakes.

>And I find it interesting that if your standard of libel is the belief of the truthfulness of the statement that is being made, then my rightly accusing you of libel is not a false accusation of libel.

No, there isn’t any libel, and you know that, but you think that annoyance value you can get from continuing to incite this is great — instead, it just makes YOU look stupid. And wannabee lawyers who keep accusing people of crimes without merit really begin to harm their reputations, in SL as well as RL. So knock it off if you care about your career.

>For instance, now I’m a stalker by using a public forum.

Um, a stalker is someone who persists in coming to my newspaper blog and persisting in making provocative and deliberately annoying comments to be an ass. Stop it.

>That’s a very interesting interpretation. One that shows your own viciousness and tendency for lies and manipulation, like your constant attempts to belittle everyone else that you deal with that doesn’t toe your line.

No, I only belittle people who are pompous asses like you : )

>And you missed the entire point of what I was writing. If I sued you for libel, then I *must* reveal *my* identity to you.
That is the point I was making, which I suppose your rage and incapability for working with others has blinded you to.

Um, I got that point ages ago, when you were desperately trying this ridiculous fandango of trying to get me to submit to an inworld kangaroo trial.

If you continue to accuse me of libel against your avatar that you never hope to connect to any real person, then you really look retarded. One could argue, as some might, that libel of a cartoon character is like saying something bad about Mickey Mouse. And your case has about as much merit — but not because you are a caricature, but because I haven’t said anything libelous, even of a mouse.

—

>I should be thanking Prokofy for presenting a perfect example of someone shouting and threatening someone with a frivolous law suit in order to silence their opponents. It does prove the point of a shouting match as a means of fighting over a dispute.

Live by the sword, die by the sword, sweetcakes.

Did you know a lifetime of translating propaganda makes me an expert on everything? Have you seen my picture in the New York Times? If you have, pretend you don’t know who I am – did I tell you the Herald outed my RL identity? *cough* That is the gift that keeps on giving – and I’ll make sure everyone knows that – it’s a secret, I’m going to take a stand – and you better take a stand with me.

Coco? would you like a present? I’m happy to do verbal beatdowns on pretty much anyone on a whim – particularly if they threaten my land rental business. That asshole Dingo Chamberpot for instance – where does he get off complaining about the instaVAT 20% price hike for the europeans? They wouldn’t have that problem if they would just do exactly what I say – what the fuck is wrong with those socialists, anyway?

Did you notice that Philip Linden has the most amazing hair? I’m sure Philip really likes me more than Robin Linden – but we all hate Marc Bragg since he got some pretend land for less than me – and anything that threatens Ravenwood Zinfandel Rentals (my pet business) is a personal attack on me – so I’ll have to ban you from commenting on my blob while I attack you – but don’t ban me! I’m special!

The Lindens will have to face the occasional *cough* subpoena and turn over names. I’m not for this being misused or to make frivolous use of this procedure — but it’s one that has to remain open, just because people are virtual, like my faux intellectual ideas.

Did I tell you about how I got banned from the Linden forums for calling Aimee Weber a cheerleader? That was years ago but some stories I cannot tell often enough. Have you noticed? In fact I devoted an entire post on my Second Blots blog to bragging on my bans – check it out! One of my whinescrapers can clear a forum faster than the W-Hat criminals can shock a noobie out of one of my rentals – and that costs me all of 75 cents! This sort of high profile criminality is what keeps Philip from having time to talk with me – I know he wants to – if Robin and Jeska would just bugger off. *cough*

Just because Aimee is a cheerleader doesn’t mean the Woodbury University Provokey Fan Club frequent fliers can’t be frog-marched into mediation tribunals coded and controlled by nasty tekkies and smug virtual lawyers. Open Source – No thanks! I’d prefer to say the same thing 50 times – copy and paste journalism is my specialty. I want real-world justice, fame, and thanks, as virtual justice has so far proved horribly wanting, with the most atrocious bodies being formed taking the most awful of political and legal positions. I mean come on – can’t they get the horrible, atrocious legal poseball positions right? Did I tell you about my no-tell motel? I have other more upscale places for rent as well.

We should never make concessions to some addle-brained hippie concept that every dispute in SL requires “arbitration and mediation” as if it doesn’t involve a) an offender b) a victim c) a violation of the TOS or RL law d) Ravenswood Zinfandel Rentals – IM me if you want a place – what’s good for Ravenswood is good for “teh metaverse”.

This is a classic tenditious problem of the rights-based approach versus the tenditious reconciliation-based approach, and in SL, where tenditious crimes are very real, costing upwards of 3 dollars, we shouldn’t be distracted from tenditious thinking of the consequences and be hammerlocked into a tenditious reconciliation approach. That is why I prefer the personal tenditious insult approach. *cough*

Let’s take me – Provokey Evah – for example, non-law-student-who-didn’t-pass-the-bar-yet, vicious and false accuser of others of libel, arrogant and condescending Herald commentator, harasser and stalker on forums, promoter of Ravenswood Zinfandel Rentals — and much more.

I’d hardly want to sign away my rights to someday pursue her with a lawsuit, should it become necessary, accusing her of libel or harassment, should that be worth the time and treasure. She doesn’t get to hide behind her anonymous nick with impunity forever, especially since the Herald outed my RL identity – did I mention that? Anyway fuck you especially since I anticipate a career as a crusading blogger with an ambitious political agenda.