GetaSecondLife

Another side to the issue: Prokofy Neva

7 Abril 2008 SL® geral 15 Comentários
SL® geral GetaSecondLife 15 https://getasecondlife.net/2008/04/second-life-geral/another-side-to-the-issue-prokofy-neva/#comments
106

Prokofy Neva has answered Gwyneth Llewellyn Petition on the blog Portucalis. He is mistaken because he talks about the media being the main responsible for the spread of Second life(R) knowledge, not blogs. However, as we know, at least in Portugal, the blogs informed the media and the media picked it up from us. So there it goes. And he chooses to ignore the issue of mixing freedom of speech on the internet (blogs) and ToS actually not allowing us to write what we want; if we do not comply with the rules on our blogs, we may be banned from SL. That’s not acceptable.

  • Oh well, Prokofy must’ve worked hard on that to find something he could disagree with. That’s a meme with the man, like “Pool’s Closed” for the Nigras and “I hurd u liek Mudkips?” with the W/Hat crowd.

  • He’s jealous that he didn’t start to fight for his rights first.

    Now that LL is registering “Second” as a brand for services related to “Second Life”, his own blog, Second Thoughts, will also, sooner or later, get a takedown notice.

    Perhaps that will convince Prokofy to join the fight too 🙂

  • Prokofy is the Dr. No of the metaverse so… just don’t worry, say what you say he will say no.

  • Gwyneth,

    I’m not “jealous I didn’t fight for rights first” because I…registered the two entities I had with the name at issue because I respect private property. I ditched the name “Second Life’ out of “The Second Life Record” and changed it to “SL Citizen Record”. And I registered “SL Public Land Preserve”. I don’t have aspirations to take any of these elsewhere, to RL or other platforms, so it’s not a problem. If I had those asperations, I’d call it “Metaverse Citizen Record” or “Cream Cheese” and be done with it *because I respect private property*.

    If I’m told that “Second” as in “Second Thoughts” is registered, I’ll change it to “Third Thoughts” as I don’t have lawyers and resources to create some fight for my own putative private property in rejection of their claims to private property.

    My blogs have fed the mass media, too. But I don’t have illusions that blogs “create the sign-ups”. They don’t.

    You really ought to address the issues in my post about the little totalitarian nasties you are putting in place under the guise of protesting LL’s latest action.

  • Re: And he chooses to ignore the issue of mixing freedom of speech on the internet (blogs) and ToS actually not allowing us to write what we want; if we do not comply with the rules on our blogs, we may be banned from SL. That’s not acceptable.

    When you can persuade me this is the case, hey, then I can get all fired up and protest. But…you didn’t.

    The TOS of SL is already a highly unfair and unfree animal that has no First Amendment protection whatsoever (overbroad definitions of hate speech, etc.) and utterly ignores due process (“any reason or no reason”).

    But one thing that has been hard and fast is that LL does not take action past on *content* of third-party blogs. What Gwyn proposes would help them do that, and that’s wrong. A narrow pursuit of its trade mark protection isn’t the same as a grab at reviewing content, but by setting up a system of police informants, it nudges the grab toward content.

    It doesn’t say you can’t write what you want. It says if you want to call it “Second Life Something” you have to call it “SL Something Something”. That’s all.

  • I guess Prokofy is “against”, whatever it is. That is one of the reasons I’ve became quite a fan reader of his stuff. In a way, it’s amusing to see Lindens’ Nemesis being on the same “side”.

    Anyway, Gywn has answered you, Prokofy, on the Portugalis blog post. As for the rest, and speaking for myself, I have no wish to persuade you, you can read ToS and all the rest. I’m not as assured as you are that freedom of speech is not compromised with the acceptance of ToS. I dont mind, or do mind but I can accept, but I will change the domain of my blog; I have no doubts about my at the time not very wise choise of url and i could change without much noise, if things were very clear. But I am not assured that this will be enough, or that changing Second Life for SL will be enough in the future. When I started my blog, in 2006, the domain name was perfectly ok with LL.

    As for Gwyn’s Petition opening a way of setting up a system of police informants, that’s really far fetched.

  • “that’s really far fetched.”

    No, that’s par for the course for a man who calls people who hang around Welcome Areas and Infohubs ‘terrorists’.

  • Cat Magellan™

    Laetizia, maybe he forgets to take his pills…
    (or maybe he sees the world in B&W, some people are like that)

  • Well, I’ve got now some assurance from Robin that the won’t be overzealous clicking the ban button, which is a first good step.

    The second good step (which LL is probably going to do) is to clarify this — publicly — where we are able to use it as a reference.

    Then there are a lot of steps that might be taken next, if people are willing. All of them have one purpose in common — showing LL that we’re on their side, not against them. We only want that we’re allowed to do that without fear.

    The issue about “control” is not a peaceful one. It’s also not consensual. But something needs to be clarified. What does the “inSL” logo stand for? An affiliation programme? Is it mandatory just to display the logo, or is there more to it?

    Lots of questions. Fortunately, LL seems to be available to discuss the answer to them.

  • I am going to be very honest with you Gwyn, if there is something I will never do in this specific issue, let alone the whole mess LL has been doing lately, is to victimize them. I will not move a single finger to show them whatever besides the fact that I couldn’t care less about ‘em or, beong more precise, I don’t really give a shit about them. They are the ones who keep on showing by their actions they are against people! We are the victims here not them! Hold on your horses!

  • Gwyn, I think if they are willing to clarify the issues, that will be very good news. If they clearly state that the ban thing will not go ahead, that will level all this a bit.

  • I am sorry cat but I see it very hard to level whatever? Customer relations aren’t something you can “terraform” by clicking a mouse button… To regain credibility they will have to do a lot more than just “that”. They should have started by approaching their customers in a more clarifying way since the very beginning shouldn’t they? It is quite clear that whilst they have a tremendous achievement they (us as well, maybe?) can be proud of, they have totally faultered on the customer relationship side. And, until all is “crystal clear” I remain watching prior to a final decision on all this (if I don’t get banned in the meantime?).

  • The thing here, Miguel, is that you are right, costumer relations suck, but in order to not get banned, or at the very least, to be assured that we will not get banned (that “crystal clear” you want and so do I), some effort (a lot of it, actually) is being done by some people. You cannot terraform costumer relations? Oh you can, that what they do, flatten us. 😀 They don’t care that you are pissed off, they have 13 million accounts, plus a lot of new and cheap sims; they are on sales. 😀 But I dont want to be banned for what I write and you cannot think they will go back on that just because they wake up feeling nice to costumers for a change. You want something, you voice it.

  • No, that’s par for the course for a man who calls people who hang around Welcome Areas and Infohubs ‘terrorists’.

    Laetizia, you’ve exaggerated before, but lying? That’s beneath you. I call “terrorists” not people who merely “hang around” infohubs, but people who repeatedly, deliberately, systematically, keep orbiting, harassing, stalking, and griefing in infohubs. Difference!

  • Reality

    You know – I hope Linden Lab takes a decidedly America Online approach to the issue of content hosted on third party sites: If you post a chat, IM or other Log on your site without prior, verifiable, written permission to do so – you get banned.

    That would really keep some of the more aggressive and quite frankly idiotic bloggers at bay – now wouldn’t it?

    I know who would end up being the first to get a ban as well – or at least I hope that becomes the case. After all Prokofy Dearie – On most other service types out there you have to have permission from all parties involved before you can post such logs anywhere. Second Life should be no different.

    On the subject of your precious Infohub: Full screen shots of orbiting are required as real proof of your accusations against anyone, as well as full logs showing that someone really was ‘stalking’, ‘harassing’ or ‘griefing’ anyone. Your word and idea as to what constitutes such things is really quite laughable – If someone is there offering any sort of help whatsoever you will go off on them and presume to tell them what to do and where to go. If you are not the land owner – and the last time I checked Governor Linden owns the Ross Infohub – you have that right to REQUEST that someone move on, you have the right to be there and to contribute to the discussion so long as you do not verbally harass anyone or ridicule their methods. That’s it – nothing else.