legal threats/actions, death threats, etc

Discussion in 'gV engineering' started by nina, 23 Jul 2011.

  1. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!


    That whole thing was one of the loudest drama-fests since gV started... that and the initial craziness between gV and SCII were probably the worst.
    There was plenty of calls for all kinds of actions and outrage over it.
    Some people laughed, but some people raged.

    Totally did not pass by without any passionate comments.

    just wanted to point that out.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Angel  Harmison

    Angel Harmison Ride Naked..Put some color on your cheeks!

    yes but remember you told me it was "performance art".... so why would there have been outrage, warnings, demerits or calls for bannings?????
  3. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!

    What if it's just trolling the admin, regardless of what the threat topic is?
    As in, what if we consider the topic as "trolling" instead of "threats"?
    Does that make more sense?

    Trolling the admin with "Imma chargin mah redfone!" might be easier to figure out reactions to than "any legal threats".
    Would this mean "the threat itself" could just be considered on a basis of "is it trolling the admin"?

    Then back to the OP, how about threats to members?
    Could it be looked at it as "are they trolling the member or are they commenting on something that has merit" instead of "are they using legal/official threats"?
  4. Lias

    Lias Open Community!

    No one said Wad should be banned for making death threats. Some were pretty outraged with Mulch though.
  5. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!

    Also, Lias keeps pointing out that "asslickers of Second Life" wouldn't make it far.
    I'm thinking this could be taking it too literally.
    Someone could threaten to call the cops about "supporting asslickers of SL", but in reality the report could be "they support illegal gambling and they encourage children to get involved".
    It's not so ridiculous at that point and could possibly get forwarded to the proper authorities.

    That is obviously not what's happening on gV, so we can say it's just being used as a threat to the admin... also known as trolling or flaming.
    Or, if it did get acted on, it would result in the authorities taking a look at the forum and realizing Wasted was just frothing at the mouth and no such thing happens here.
    Either way, it's a member who's granted the privilege (not the "right", none of us have the "right" to post here) to post here that turned around and threatened the admin with destructive behavior.

    I don't think members of gV necessarily need protection from those threats.
    Hell, the forum and nina don't need "protection" either... but as mentioned before, if someone you let into your forum threatens to destroy it... what good reason is there to let them continue on doing the same?
    I mean, Wasted wasn't even banned over this... just given an infraction that auto-suspended because of his current point total.
    Sounds fine to me... even lenient compared to what just about any other forum would do.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!

    I don't remember who said what off-hand, I was just saying there was plenty of outrage in both directions.
    Especially when considering SCII along with gV.
    (There was plenty of joking too, but we knew that already.)
  7. Chaos_Factor

    Chaos_Factor Flying Leprechaun

    Speaking only to the highlighted above:


    If someone is spamming the forum with threats... punish them if you wish. After all, it IS spam, no? If someone feels it's needed to seek legal action because they feel that this site is 'supporting illegal gambling and encouraging children to participate', let them. Who are we (anyone here, including admin) to tell them they cant?

    It'll turn out one of three ways:

    They wont be able to get anyone in the legal field to give them the time of day.
    They'll be able to get a lawyer / court official to take a look at the 'evidence' and they'll get laughed at.
    They'll actually have a case regarding illegal activities.

    As I've always been told... if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. In other words, if you're not doing illegal crap, who cares who cries wolf? Barring people from doing so is not only not any of our right, but it makes it look like there IS something to hide.
  8. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!

    Well, when that person is crying wolf about a forum you own, which is a private enterprise, it's different than just pissing off another member of the forum.

    Each and every one of us has been given the privilege to post here.
    If someone threatens the forum owner with action that could ruin their privately owned and operated forum, Why shouldn't they be tossed the fuck out?
    (I mean, if that threat isn't about some provable illegal activity.)

    And you're right, it's not OUR right... but it is the right of the forum owner to kick out whoever they damn well please.
    So far, it's been handled really well here... at least when compared to just about ANY other social forum.

    I don't think barring people from threatening and denigrating the admin makes it look like something is being hidden... it makes me think the admin just doesn't want to put up with fuckwits who think they know how a forum should be run better than the people who run it.
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Clancy

    Clancy The drama is better at Hungry Jack's

    This thread is becoming a dev/null candidate.
  10. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Lain

    Lain End of line. #resist

    We've tried this 'define trolling shit'. It doesn't work. Hard and fast black and white is what needs to happen. Either threats are ok and we dismiss them as bullshit and lend credibility to no one unless something in Real Life precipitates the forum admin into action deemed needed to protect someone........ OR....... we drop the hammer down on all threats of any kind to any one, period.

    The grey areas are what's causing so much issue here, and there's no reason for it. Either we have a uniformly applied rule or we don't have a rule. Why bother with a middle area when we're talking about something like threats? Do we value this person so much that we endure any type of threats, joking or not?

    Personally, I've learned that most people on the net are full of shit. I've also learned that some aren't. But, until someone actually crosses over into real life, it's all talk. You can't really stop talk..... but that's another thread. So I'm back to my original point.

    Either allow it or don't but you can't allow it sometimes and others not. It should NEVER be ok for someone to make a threat in jest and then to punish another (because we have no way to determine what is really jest, do we?) With language barriers and crazy people flying around the Internet, it's near impossible to lend credibility to some random post on the forums.

    My PERSONAL opinion, humble as it may be, is that we ban him for SPAM and make him the standard definition of trolling for purposes of future situations. But that wasn't the question posed to us, so I digress.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. nina

    nina still prettier than you

    i know most people arent going to like this, but im not really wanting to ban him (as in perma-ban).
    i suppose its a result of my own experiences. although i never trolled quite like wasted, i still dont like perma bans. i feel that, in a fucked up kind of way, wasted does have a place in gV. that being said, he is the trailblazer of sorts. he does have a way with finding limits. before any long-term action is taken against him or others we need to have clearly defined policies. id like to sort out how people feel on the following issues:
    1. legal threats against fellow inhabitants.
    2. death threats against fellow inhabitants.
    3. threats to 'hunt down' or physically bash fellow inhabitants.
    4. inhumanity against fellow inhabitants.
    bear in mind that the above are certainly not cool in no-drama zones, so think area17 when mulling those over.
    • Like Like x 2
  13. Lain

    Lain End of line. #resist

    I, personally, see no reason these things can't be deemed 'over the line'. I've been fairly vocal in the past on having some tact, and I have allowed myself on occasion (not to dodge any blame I might have coming to me) to be drawn into that sort of lower form of trolling...... I would like to think that I have never even come close to stepping over the boundaries that some members have decided to test.

    Arguing is one thing, if you just want to be a vile person then I don't feel like that's what I want to experience when I come here.

    I hope that helps you out, fwiw.

    Live long and prosper. :hug:
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Kick Frenzy

    Kick Frenzy HUZZAH!

    1. I don't think there's many cases where that should get an infraction, unless it's continuous hounding/trolling of someone about it.
    2. I'd like to see most get an infraction, if apparently meant to disturb someone instead of being silly or even regular trolling.
    3. Almost all of these are just jibba-jabba. Like turning to your friend and saying "Don't make me kick you in the nads."
    4. Not sure what you mean here... like, rape or cannibalism?
  15. Saffs

    Saffs Accredited batshit buster

    All threats involving anonymous people are idle threats and not worth a dime
    Only two things should earn a ban:
    1. Malicious speculation about someone's real life (you neglect your kids, you are a convicted sex offender etc)
    2. Boring members to death by endless repetition of the same thing (Wasted unless he reforms)
    • Like Like x 1
  16. nina

    nina still prettier than you

    pretty much any action taken would come in the form of an infraction.
    thats true for nearly anything.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Lias

    Lias Open Community!

    1. Legal threats against fellow inhabitants: As long as those threats do not include correspondence to compel the forum owner to reveal inhabitants real life information - it should not be policed by the Admins here.
    2. Death Threats against Fellow Inhabitants: We are all anonymous posters - so a death threat against an avatar is not a big deal - But if someone is being scary. creepy and/or obsessive about it - then they may need a chill pill from the admin.
    3. threats to 'hunt down' or physically bash fellow inhabitants.: One warning and then: I hope you have copies of your gV albums and PMs - because you are going bye-bye.
    4. inhumanity against fellow inhabitants: I assume this one is like "You are a bad Mother" and other snark that crosses someone's line. This one is very objective. I say name calling and personal attacks are all equally bad. If people are engaging in the name calling game for months and then decide to get insulted (or attempt to fake that they are insulted so they can emotionally blackmail a Admin to ban their adversary), then that does not count for anything.

    TO ADD: If adopted, these rules will very touchy. The public shaming of posting these sort of sanctions for all to see would make a bad situation worse. I say do it in a private message. The offender can share it with the other kids on the playground if they want to.
  18. Clancy

    Clancy The drama is better at Hungry Jack's

    Threatening to cause physical pain or mental anguish through direct violence, indirectly, by sending the police after you or another law enforcement agency shouldn't be allowed, none at all. Because if you allow it sometimes, or in some cases, then some guy will take up the challenge to find the limit of how psycho he can get before he is banned. By not permitting it at all you save yourself a lot of trouble, and you can't be more clear about what you mean. The quantity is NONE, you can't threaten, period.

    Why the fuck does anyone need to threaten others in a forum, anyway? Tell it to your therapist, not us.
    • Like Like x 1
  19. colleen Criss

    colleen Criss Your life will never be the same again.

    Still zero tolerance for any of the above, no matter what *area* it happens in.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Liona Clio

    Liona Clio Poetry in Motion

    I would say that if you are hesitant to take action against Wasted's actions so far, nina...then threats should not be an infraction. If threats are not grounds for punishment, then IMHO the line should be drawn when action is taken, i.e. legal notices, police inquiries, RL evidence of stalking, etc. At that point, the user as demonstrated harm to other users and/or theforum itself.

    Talk is cheap, actions speak volumes. But I would point out again that no matter what action you take, you'll never satisfy everyone. I for one will respect the decision of the admins, even if I don't fully agree with it.
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page