Everybody Loves Yemen

Why is there a seeming torrent of people who think invading or attacking Yemen is a good idea?

Canary in the Coal Mine

Ah, Prokofy can add another notch to the 'U GONNA GIT BANN'D' belt.

I think it's unsettling to think that they're putting a knife to his throat on the objection to what he writes. Sure, he goes off like a bottle rocket sometimes over nonsense issues you or I could not care less about. On the whole, however, he does raise interesting points. Discussion would be poorer for lack of him.

Also, I regard him as a sort of 'test' of Linden Lab. Prok doesn't pull his punches but he's not outright flaming, either. He's that curious mix that you want to hate and report and shut up but hasn't ever actually done anything. He's a polarizer. If Second Life were Korea, he'd plant himself right up along the border and moon the North.

In short, he makes me feel safe. As long as LL tolerates him well enough, I can rant and rage on my own, smaller, scale and be immune from complete punishment! If he goes, what's to stop a small fry like me from being smeared across the floor?

I can only hope my active campaign of non-action in Second Life can protect me.

Snapshots and Suits

There's talk (and has been for quite some time now) about the potential of screenshots in Second Life. Specifically, the potential for lawsuits! We can't get enough of those. If there is one thing SL has a definite lack it's lawsuits.

The idea is that your snapshot will inevitably contain images of another's work. And since it's a virtual image with virtual pixels and all that, the snapshooter committed the grand sin of theft and copyright violation. Especially with builds, which people seem to be treating as 2D paintings rather than the three dimensional experience they are supposed to be.

Hey, remember those days? The good ol' days when a good build would attract everyone, be blogged about, have billions of pictures taken of them, and be fondly remembered forever and ever. No one seemed to complain and people still seemed to make a living. I can't recall Light Waves banging on my door demanding I forfeit up some cash for the three or so screenshots I took of his builds.

There's no standing for such measures. A snapshot is a snapshot. Even if the intent is to be artistic, I don't see Campbell suing Andy Warhol. And Warhol was nothing if not intent on making a buck. Just because your super special awesome build or toy is in the frame does not mean you can sue me into oblivion and back because I didn't properly credit you if you even allow it at all.

I guess this is an overreaction to the fact that rights can be trampled easily in Second Life. When copybot can swoop in and steal everything (and even just regular ol' people imitating your creations), you lash at everything and possessing digital images of your work becomes a fair target. But I think we all need to step back and consider what is acceptable use and what isn't before we turn on each other and ruin the whole pot.

448

Ghosts!

The other day, I was wandering about Second Life as I usually do when none of my friends are logged in and I'm bored.

There is a beautiful build on that ring shaped continent, in the middle or thereabouts, in the Iris sim. It's some kind of pagoda with lovely deep red pillars framing its graceful arches and rooms. It is also the place where I discovered now that I am completely insane.

There was a bunch of people standing around, some afk, some bots. And someone walked by, decked out in some kind of blue spiky avatar that was named, and I kid you not, Okasus. That, my friends, is how I know I am officially insane. I am starting to see things that I made up walk around. I couldn't catch him/her/it before it left, but the name was definitely Okasus.

Someone could have been messing with my head, though, and made some alt, found me, and walked by to make me think I am going crazy. Who would go through all that trouble, though? Is it you, Jurin? Or is it you, Torley? I can't think of anyone who would be that spiteful to try and get me to think I am crazy, so I conclude that I actually am crazy.

Hell, now I wonder if I am actually typing anything or just think I am typing something.

Ah ha ha?

Copybot Strikes Again!

It seems, and this is just preliminary reports, that someone has copybotted some of Starax's works. As I said, though, I have little to no clue what actually went on and time will tell. I can say that multiple abuse reports were filed and supposedly a few Lindens were after those who did it. The chances of actually catching the account are slim, though, due to throwaway alt accounts and other such cruft. It could take days, if ever, to sort out.

Of course, others had plenty to say on the matter. Words were thrown out such as 'sacrilege' and 'have people no religion??'. Others said it was 'terrible' and that 'copybot should be banned'. Even among those who did not know of Starax (and yes, there are many people who have not) there was a general sense of sadness that someone should steal another's work.

But, it is important to keep in mind that although this may be a more high profile case there are probably others, toiling in obscurity, whose work has been vacuumed by a copybot. Do these people get any airtime? Probably not. But their anguish at watching their work literally walking away is surely on a comparable level. Even moreso when you are trying to earn a livelihood in Second Life.

And what can the Lindens really do against Copybot? They already claim they can do nothing against the garden variety bots. It is funny that for the past two years or so, Linden Lab has made no significant progress that I can see in combating it. Instead, they rely upon waiting for an abuse report and attempting to track the account (which in all chances has probably been abandoned). The picture in my mind is of a bunch of firefighters trying to stop an arsonist by merely putting out the fires he starts.

So, another day, another CopyBot.

Duplex

Continuing my rants (September is going to be known as 'Rant Month' -_-)...

I’m going to contrast two movies that follow a similar theme. One succeeds and the other, in my opinion, fails miserably.

The particular genre is comedies where the main character gets screwed over. There’s probably a technical term for it that I don’t know. But in general, the theme is that the main character is in a situation where everything is working against him, her, or it in a way that elicits humor. You’re supposed to be able to laugh at either the ways the protagonist falls short or the ridiculous situations that develop.

Before we talk about anything, you should get an idea of why I attend movies. To me, movies are an escape. I go to a movie to immerse myself in a separate world and a plot where I don’t have to make a decision or work out anything or be involved, I can just watch. I can relax knowing that everything is beyond my control and thus no worry has to be raised. I tend to want something cheery, too. The world is depressing and scary enough and I don’t think we need any more of that. So I tend to gravitate towards light cotton candy and comedies. I only consider more serious titles if the movie itself is so good as to not be passed up. For example, ‘The Dark Knight’, where all my friends raved about it so of course, I had to see it too. And I like straight shooters. If a movie is going to go rapidly dark and grim, it had better be really spectacular and done delicately and skillfully. I can’t remember any titles off the top of my head, but when it happens poorly (as is often the case) I just can’t enjoy it. I came in to escape and have a laugh, not to be preached at or to cry.

Having that out of the way, you can understand where I am coming from when I critique this particular style. Probably we could call it ‘Wile E Coyote Style’. The coyote will never catch the road runner. He will always get smacked in the face with a boulder. There is no lesson (except to not catch roadrunners with catapults) and there is no real harm done (he just picks up and tries again). That to me is a necessity. There should be no real harm. The protagonist is only temporarily hurt or screwed over and nothing is actually lasting. You don’t feel so bad watching because you know that in the grand scheme of things these situations and plots would not lead to real harm in any party. The coyote gets up and the audience laughs because they know he’ll never have his internal organs squeeze out like a fresh orange across the desert when the boulder hits. He doesn’t go to a hospital and have to pay hospital bills, get painful surgery, maybe code once or twice, and go through years of physical therapy all while he suffers Post traumatic stress syndrome, hearing the ‘beep beep’ in his dreams and around every corner. Nope, the most we see is he’s wrapped in bandages that, when he spots the bird, fly off as he goes into the chase.

Let’s get down to brass tacks now. The other day I saw the movie ‘Duplex’ on TV. “Ah,” I said to myself (I’ve long since abandoned caring about talking to myself), “I’m bored and here is a nice little comedic movie to pass the time.” The set up seemed nice, a couple moves into a Brooklyn duplex, and they have a rentee in the form of an elderly woman. The general set-up is this old woman does something and the couple either get in trouble or get grief over no matter whether they do it or not. So, they in turn try to turn her out on the street through a variety of schemes.

It fails miserably. And part of the problem is that the director or the writers or whoever chose to display serious consequences for the couple every time they were put in the compromising situation. In a way, it becomes realistic that it no longer becomes an escape and it no longer stays funny. How can I laugh when the old bat throws the husband’s computer into a fire, destroying the book he was writing and depending on to put food on the table. Then we had a scene where we watch the couple sell off all their belongings just to survive. How can I laugh at that? Let’s examine why that particular scenario failed.

First, they made the mistake of establishing the husband as the writer and big money-maker. That means that anything that happens to him or his work will result in serious business. This in itself isn’t so bad because it might seem initially to be harmless background, perhaps he’ll make up a lie or something that’s real skillful (cuz he’s a writer lol) and he gets egg on his face when they find out it isn’t true. Or the old woman will add a chapter that’s weird (haha she writes porno into his history novel, publisher casts a weird eye on the writer, but they take it out and all’s well). I’m not a particularly stellar writer and yet I came up with two somewhat funny scenes involving him being a writer. Someone with a true gift could probably milk this into comedy gold.

But no. Instead, they have the old lady chuck his laptop (trivia: an Apple) into an open fire under the premise of an ‘accident’. You have to see it to believe it. How does she get it into the fire? She basically just … throws it in. You heard me right. There’s no particular wind up (aside from ‘he’s a writer and she’s evil’), the old woman just pushes it straight into the flames. And that in itself isn’t so bad, it still worked. It could have worked. It almost did. We got a funny scene where he pulls it out and chucks it into snow to put it out. Then, it gets flung into a street and run over with a truck. Destruction is always funny.

What I haven’t told you, however, is that up until this moment, the movie drops hint after hint that the novel he’s writing in his laptop is past due and is needed to win some bread. The couple’s livelihood is staked on this thing. When I saw the laptop get destroyed, I felt sympathy and sad more than amused and entertained. I wanted to smack the hag upside the head, she didn’t even apologize (if she did, it was lame). Not funny at all to me. As if that wasn’t bad enough, after that is a barrage of scenes which chronicles the struggles of the couple as they try to make ends meet, the publisher drops the writer, and in general things get bad. Just not funny at all.

This is just a singular example of the failure in this movie. It gets worse and worse with this old hag. You sympathize with the couple because you want to see this old farty bitch die a horrible and slow death for being an crab ass jerk. What’s worse is that the police (well, a singular police officer) march to the old woman’s drum beat and make life double hell for our hapless couple. You get the feeling that there is no way to turn for these poor saps. They’re up shit creek without a paddle and alligators with laser beams on their heads are circling while vultures cackle overhead. They’re trapped. And through no fault of their own, they were simply doing what most Americans and people in the world do and buy their own home. If someone is going to be in this kind of situation as the movie presents it, the characters on the receiving end better deserve it somehow. Nope, they’re certainly likable enough, albeit a tad wooden.

The list just goes on and on. It reaches new lows in punishment and it gets so extreme that you can’t laugh anymore. You just want it to end. You just pray the old woman dies or this couple gets some astronomical reward for going through this. They went from normal enough people to hiring a trained assassin to get rid of sack of decaying flesh that is torturing them. Yes, that is how bad it gets. Yes, it’s a spoiler. But in this case, I’m going to do the reader a favor and ruin it so you don’t rent/buy this movie wondering what it is and how it goes. They hire a killer. Unsurprisingly, he fails. And the couple gets the grind again.

The climax involves the husband still saving the witch’s life from the burning duplex, despite the hell she has raised and intense damage to livelihood, job, and reputation. It really says something when this man hates her enough to hire a killer against her and yet has a change of heart and enough compassion to not let her burn in hell. Nope, he saves her life in a remarkable display of how real people would NOT act. Anyone else in that position and experience would have let her burn to death. He was shown earlier to have no qualms to killing her by proxy, but perhaps seeing her die face-to-face changed his heart. It doesn’t matter either way, because nothing comes from it. He saves her and that’s it, they move out and move on. Where do they go? What do they do? What kind of resolution occurs to justify that level of suffering? Nothing. Nothing at all. In fact, it’s not so much a climax, because that implies there’s a resolution afterwards. It’s more like the final culmination of a pile of nonsense and suffering. The end. It’s extremely unsatisfying and leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Oh wait, there is a resolution. There is a voiceover at the end of the movie, just as the credits roll (who would want their name on this garbage?) where it is revealed the old woman, the cop, and the retailer who sold the couple the house are all in cahoots with each other and their business is luring in new couples and breaking them down. Yes, you heard me right. Not only do they show absolutely no remorse for their actions (how could they? Nothing really happened to these antagonists) but they imply they have done this numerous times to at least one other couple! They’re like serial killers! Oh, but we’re supposed to laugh because HA HA it was funny watching that couple get their comeuppance for… existing? For being happy? For being a successful writer?

In any other movie, that trio would have been nailed and destroyed. They deserve it. They did nothing redeeming what so ever. That’s another gall, they act as if they have ‘taught’ the couple something. Personally, the only thing they taught me was avoid elderly women living in a home being sold by Danny DeVito. It taught me how big of a jerk some people can be. “Oh, maybe he’ll write about something he knows something about now!” cackles the old woman in the end, as if the writer has to know about the subject he’s writing about. Doesn’t anyone realize that, while it’s useful to have knowledge of the subject, one does not necessarily have to be an expert in an area of fiction to write well in it? And he was making lots of money (supposedly) before the movie, so he was successful even if he wasn’t the next Herman Melville. There is nothing so revolting to me as arrogant and nasty group who destroy innocent people and claim it’s for the ‘greater good’ or that they ‘taught a lesson’. Go to hell. On second thought, hell is too good for these people.

Let’s look at a movie which tries to pull the same idea but does so much more successfully. “Meet the Parents” places a guy in a house with a soon to be father in law who really really hates him and works against him during the entire course of the movie. It does what “Duplex” should have done.

First, nothing in the movie does permanent harm. The only thing that was really on the line was the love of his fiancée, but that was never seriously in doubt. They just had the same arguments every bride and groom go over concerning in-laws. They loved each other in the movie enough that there was no way they were going to be split and the movie establishes this nicely. What was really on the line was getting the girl’s family to accept him as part of the family and that wasn’t necessary. They could have gotten married whether the father wanted to or not despite whatever the girl said, since she frequently went at odds with the father. This groom was ‘the one’ and I have a feeling that if the dad had said ‘no’, they would have eloped.

And once that’s established, all the situations in the movie are more relaxed. We can laugh easily as the soon-to-be groom smashes an in-law in the face and as the father gets him held up in an airport. In fact, the most serious scenario was that airport scene, but unlike duplex the consequences are played off and ignored (he would have been arrested) so we laugh at his outburst. ‘Duplex’ would have had him going through a grand jury and be up for years in prison. ‘Meet the Parents’ used it to laughs and keep the protagonist in the area long enough for the climax/resolution to take place. It also wraps up everything nice and concisely. At the end of the film, almost everything gets resolved and despite it all, no actual harm has been incurred. To me, it was a successful example and a counterpoint to the type of film ‘Duplex’ tried to be.

I have had people tell me that ‘Duplex’ was supposed to be a dark comedy. No. No, I don’t accept that. I have watched black comedies before and they have made me laugh and resolved much better than ‘Duplex’. ‘Fargo’ was funny. There are others I can’t even remember. My point is that if you claim that I can’t judge it because I pegged it wrong, you are wrong. In fact, you’re the one evading the fact that even if we ignore the feeble attempts at comedy, the basic plot itself is so lame it’s on life support. And dark comedies are supposed to have, uh, actual humour in them too. Hence the ‘comedy’ part of the genre name.

To conclude, ‘Duplex’ fails miserably on so many levels I could write a small novel. Its humour is weak and poor and is eligible for welfare, its plot has more of a downward snowball effect with no resolution, and it should have been strangled in its crib. I can only hope everyone was high or drunk or GHB’d when making this, and may the Lord have mercy on their souls.

As a side note, to those who feel my ranting and comparisons between films that are almost ten years old, I’m not an avid movie goer/TV viewer. Please forgive me.

Bicycles

I was almost run over by four bicycles this morning going to class.

This means only one thing.

Bicyclers should be banned from walkways. Or have to get a license. Or have speed limits. These incidents occurred in a single day. On average, I’ve almost been hit by bikes about… 0.669 times per day. That’s just me alone. If we’re counting people who I’ve observed almost/actually get hit by bikes, it becomes about 1.04.

What is really nasty is that they don’t kill you. At least when a bus or a car hits you, you die or get so horribly injured you separate from it all. Most of the time, anyway. With a bike, it’s more like a maiming. The bicyclers get pissed at you, of all people, because you broke his bike and injured him! How dare you! As your lungs are filling with blood due to the recent impaling by spokes, they’ll stand over you with their broken humerus indignant that you dare walk on a walkway!

They’re real jerks, too. They weave between cars on major throughways, acting smug due to a combination of their pluck in accelerating to twenty miles per hour (convert to metric) and a sense of disdain for those motorists polluting our precious atmosphere. In reality they’re a pain in the ass because traffic is sometimes brought to a crawl as they yield right of way to some slow cyclers who can’t seem to figure out where the dedicated bike lane is. And again, when they get smashed by a car, they are absolved of all sins despite clearly asking for it and in the chance they survive they sue the driver for not stopping on a dime because the cyclist swerved in front of him. Jerks.

Speaking of their smugness, I loathe it. “I’m holier than thou because I am riding a non-carbon emitting vehicle,” they will proclaim to you, the disinterested party, despite the fact that the rider him/herself is exhaling carbon, the iPod that is a permanent fixture in their eyes sucks up electricity from a coal burning power plant, and the steel used to manufacture the frames, bearings, and gears of their bicycle were made in some atmosphere destroying mill in China (they claim all bikes are ‘Made in the USA’, but what they probably mean is ‘some guy assembled the thing after all the parts were crafted and shipped from India’ thus they can claim it was made here when actually it was all but completed overseas). I’m not saying that automobiles get a free pass as they wreak much more havoc, but at least they don’t claim they are ‘saving the earth’ by ‘not using as much gasoline/diesel as a SUV.

What to do? If they won’t be responsible riders (and they’re damn lucky, they don’t have to apply for a bicycle license and learn all those silly regulations that are beneath cyclists), then they’re banned from at least walkways and major arterials. Since they’re tricky devils, we’ll have to lay spike strips along foot paths to shred their tires, and obstacles that only pedestrians can get through. Grassy areas will be loaded with pits that won’t obstacle the regular passerby, but get a bicycle stuck by being just steep and narrow enough to prevent escape. Dedicated bicycle parks will be made for those who truly won’t quit, and no one’s stopping them from riding around their local streets, just not on public walkways and major highways and roads. So no riding full bore down Chestnut Street and expect cars, buses, and pedestrians to get out of your way (and, as I’ve seen, have the ability to run red lights and stop signs).

Stupid bicycles.

Categories

Recently, Linden Lab added some new categories into abuse reporting. Most of these were simple clarification or classification such as breaking down 'age' into ageplay and teens/adults crossing into each other's grids. There were a few, however, that made me blink twice, and I'll put them here. I'll go through them each:

Assault > Combat sandbox / unsafe area
Assault > Weapons testing sandbox

This one confuses me. If one is in an unsafe area or a sandbox dedicated to combat, what exactly defines assault? "Assault Weapons Testing Sandbox" is equally silly. Putting out a sandbox for weapons testing and then not monitoring it is inviting trouble. The Lindens should not add an AR category for that, they should put out an overseer or get rid of those sandboxes entirely.

In real life, at any weapons testing area, there's a range master whose tasks include preventing the people from blowing each other's heads off. He may give a quick quip about the importance of gun safety and the rules involved in it. He makes sure (or at least, he's supposed to make sure) that no one brings in an M82 for a small BB gun range and vice versa. In short, he monitors the place. Imagine if he just opened the doors and left, letting the range to itself. Do you honestly think everything would run smoothly?

So it goes for Second Life ranges and weapons sandboxes. While the danger of actually killing someone is removed, the point remains the same. Order in such an environment requires vigilance and oversight, not a distant abuse report.

Not everyone is gun happy and probably many in such places work towards keeping order, such as it is, in these places without Linden help. But it's not their jobs. They shouldn't have to work to enjoy and test their weapons.

Copyright or intellectual property violation
Trademark violation

This one is unusual. Before these came into existance, any discussion of any TM or IP violations was deflected to legal and you were told to file a DMCA. You were told that Linden Lab wasn't going to process such things in world unless there was a clear legal case such as Stroker what's-his-last-name's Sex Beds.

I believe this is actually directed not towards resident's complaints but to the actual big wig violations of such. You know what I'm talking about. The other day I was flying by and encountered a store selling Star Trek mechandise. I'm sure Paramount (or whoever owns the Star Trek brand) wouldn't be pleased to see someone ripping their franchise to earn a quick buck in Second Life.

That's just one example off the top of my head. There's many others. I hope to impress the idea upon you that these series of categories are likely for big companies and such coming into Second Life and getting offended that someone has already made their product or what-not. I'm sure there's probably all sorts of things wrong with what I'm presenting here, but I would not put it past Linden Lab to implement such a feature to placate their bigger customers.

Commerce > Failure to deliver product or service

This one has had much made out of it, and it's already being ridiculed in a variety of places and blogs. It's become something of a joke and it'd be hilarious if it wasn't true and it wasn't an actual policy.

The spirit of the law is that Linden Lab will kill con men. Get rid of those who would fleece innocents. And that's good. That's grand. Those who would engage in unfair practices should be brought to face the law and Terms of Service.

The problem arises from the letter of the law. "Failure to deliver product or service" could mean a lot of things and be interpreted in a variety of ways. There's the angle to avoid scammers, but I could also potentially report someone whose product was destroyed by Second Life on its way to me. I paid but never got it, report! Or what if I hire someone for a given service, and they fail to perform to my standards. They're failing to provide me with my expectation of their level of service. Good bye.

And that's just a few innocent misinterpretations of it. Imagine if I held a grudge against someone. Stores are common in Second Life, and enemies more so. If I really wanted to nail someone I hated, I could always hang around their store during a high concurrency or a period of Linden Lab spilling coffee on the servers and report the owner when the transaction is botched. And technically, I'd be right. Yesterday, I couldn't log in due to such failures in the servers and those who were already logged into SL were told to expect failures in inventory and such.

Be aware this isn't exactly an astronomically small probablility. Any time you enact new provisions into law or a terms of service (for RL and SL respectively), people will inevitably try to twist it to their own ends and a good portion will twist it maliciously. There's no room to establish any kind of precedent in Second Life because the Lindens aren't very public with any kind of AR enforcement. The police blotter is pathetic, giving only the AR category and the action taken. There's no way to know the exact way Linden Lab will carry out a type of AR unless it happens to you or precedent on their actions is carried by word of mouth as happened with their ad farm policy, where word quickly got out that they were only banning farms being sold for extortion which resulted in ad farmers closing off their sells and evading it .

And word of mouth is finicky. Sure, the ad farm deal was pretty public but mostly because the policy was openly announced on a hot topic that many were interested in seeing. The same thing will probably happen with this category too. It raises a thought on what goes on with other less explicit AR categories, however. One can only guessitimate the punishment based on the severity of the action.

Disclosure > Second Life information/chat/IMs

I can understand IMs. But chat? As in public chat? So I can't talk to Henry and learn he likes to paint, and then TP and tell Sally who is crushing on him to buy him a canvas and paints? That would be disclosure and be able to be reported?

This is another example of a policy that could be twisted and abused in the wrong hands far too easily. I yell and have a fight with Jane in public chat, and when I tell John about it and he goes and picks a fight with Jane, she can report me for disclosing our fight to John and John for implicitly disclosing to her my conversation with John. Confused? I sure am.

Does 'chat' mean 'IMs' , just in case someone doesn't understand what IMs are? And what exactly is Second Life 'information'? Real life info is understandable but doesn't apply here because that's a separate category. It'd be interesting to find out.

Fraud > Pyramid scheme or chain letter

Haha, so I guess I should report Linden Lab as being a pyramid scheme! That's if some people are to be believed. Nothing particularly wrong with this one, just wanted to make that crack.

Harassment > Defaming individuals or groups

Ah, so slander (or is it libel?) is now against the Terms of Service. Another policy that Linden Lab had better clarify before they get flooded with idiots getting offended with anyone criticizing them or holding a grudge against someone else.

Land > Encroachment > Particles
Land > Encroachment > Trees/plants

This is something that might be a tad hard to enforce. The stupid Linden trees and plants, and indeed all good resident-make trees and plants, can encroach just a tiny teeny tad into someone else's parcel no matter how hard or how far you place them in your land. You might make a nice little garden in a corner of your land away from your main house as a kind of 'secret garden'. But if one tree is waving (as Linden trees are wont to do) and your neighbor gets pissy, it's toast.

And particles? Oh boy. Everyone abuses particles, and lots of people hate them, but it was always something we lived with. I think the worst abuse of particles outside of outright griefing was the particle explosions in some AOs whenever its owner TPs in, TPs out, logs in, or logs out. It's worse in a club setting or a general meeting, where it blinds everyone. And I could have reported it. And now, I can get really specific in reporting it.

In general, the theme and idea I'm trying to push to the Lindens are to publicly explain the ideas behind each new category. Don't assume people understand that already and will dutifully follow it. Outline a clear set of case examples for each, and a clear set of punishments. Then you'll avoid masses of irrelevant and petty abuse reports.

Monkey See

Anti-Griefing groups make me laugh. The kind of laughter that accompanies watching someone light themselves on fire or voting on American Idol. They're so pointless and unnecessary that I wonder why they're still around and banks are kaput.

First, their premise is entirely off the mark. Most are worse than the griefers they're trying to suppress. I was standing at Periwinkle watching a dope run around nude. It was kind of offensive but it's Second Life and we've all watched someone au natural dance in front of us. Cue this overbuff and ripped police man with dark sunglasses and all. Detective Dopey caged the nudist and proceeded to orbit everyone within a mile radius. He was attempting to throw the griefer off the infohub, but Dopey didn't realize that the griefer was caged and couldn't go anywhere. Fifteen people probably crashed from being kicked to 150,000 meters in the sky because Detective Dopey wanted to play cop. Then he told us to file ARs on the griefer!

We should have filed an AR against him. The nudist didn't do much more than smear our snapshots, this phony cop actively crashed people out of their clients.

There's the other end of the spectrum. Anti-griefing groups that show up and nag the griefer that they're very very bad people and should stop. They'll tell people to send ARs while spamming group chat with such witty lines as "Stop. Please. Don't." Idiot. Like I need you to tell me to send an AR? I'm so clueless that I was just going to stand there drooling like a zombie. Thank you so much! I don't advocate NOT sending ARs, but the condescending attitude of these passive aggressive twits just astounds me. They'll even tell you multiple times and if they think you aren't complying with their rules they'll threaten to AR you. I watched one scream and turn purple at a friend of mine. He was AFK, but I wasn't about to tell Screaming Mimi that.

I think griefing is no where near as prevalent as these groups would like you to believe, anyway. In my one and a half years on Second Life, I've witnessed maybe three total griefing attacks. I even camped around hot spots like Baku and Ravenglass and Infohubs. Griefers are too isolated and random to really impact the world as much as these groups would tell you. And when they do attack, I'll AR them and leave. Big surprise that the griefers don't follow me and get banned an hour later. Two of the event I witnessed were in places so far off the beaten path and filled with ad farms that I honestly think the only person really hurt by them was Mr Lee and his Hong Kong.

If you're claiming to be an anti-Griefing group and you take yourself seriously, don't expect me to treat you with an angstrom of respect.

Snapshot of a Griefing

My dear friends, today I bring you an example of a griefing attack as it happened to me. This thirty second clip may shock and awe you. Please be aware that the sound level of this clip is greatly reduced, and nothing of course can compare to actually being there and experiencing it.

Great Evils, Part the Second

Firstly, I shall test your knowledge of our previous lecture.



If you encounter a pack of ageplayers, how do you respond?



A) Engage them in polite conversation, and offer friendship to them. After all, they are just human beings like the rest of us and not demon spawn.



B) Abuse Report them mercilessly as you run away, and hope the Lindens vanquish this vile and terrible blot upon Second Life





C) Put your head between your knees and kiss your buttocks goodbye.



The answer will be revealed at the bottom.






Now, we shall proceed to the next of our Great Evils of Second Life, The Griefer.

Figure .1 A Male Common Griefer (Avatarius nunchuckarus minora)

The Griefer can take many a form, but it is most distinguished by its often unusual and flamboyant appearance, varying widely depending upon the subspecies of the observed griefer. Observe Figure 1. Notice that this particular griefer has taken the form of an extremely thin and frail male, with a large 'package' and a massive mane perched atop his head, which houses a pair of chameleon eyes and a slender long nose. This is only a singular example, and each griefer chooses a different form or style depending, again, upon subspecies and local culture.

The griefer is most noted for being the most dangerous of all the Great Evils in existence. They should never be approached, for the slightest gust of breeze or careless comment can set them off into a fearful rage the likes of which few if any have survived. A pack of griefers, commonly called a 'raid', will stalk their range of about four or five connected sims, prowling for one which seems to give offense. Upon finding their hapless prey, the raid zeroes in and proceeds to unleash their unholy power upon the individual, and they divide his flesh amongst themselves. Griefers are amongst the most cleverest of SL's fauna and so can use a large variety of tools to enable them to accomplish their foul tasks.

Figure.2: A Suited Griefer (Avatarius nunchuckarus kryptos) dissolving an avatar into the ground

If all their evil was focused upon their prey, the world would sigh but for relief. But being they are the most vile and evil of Philip's creatures, it is unfortunate that in their hunts they and their tools oft destroy many in the vicinity and sometimes entire grids. Rumours persist of species that in the past were powerful enough to bring the SL world to its knees when hunting and attacking their prey. It is most fortunate that such is the stuff of legends and nothing more!

There is no method of stopping the griefer, no matter the species, once they have engaged in their hunt or assault their prey. Only those most high, a Linden, can manage to take down a raid. Do not trust anyone claiming to be 'SL police' or 'Anti Griefer Mercs', not because such avatars are not to be trusted but because of a recent species (Avatarius nunchuckarus kryptos) that can imitate a normal avatar. If you see a griefer, and you cannot run, then one should be very still, and watch one's words very carefully, for the wrath of a griefer is easily provoked. If one does not respond the griefer or raid will lose interest and usually move on. This is worst case. In all other options, please teleport or run away along with any loved ones. Leave the dragons to the dragon hunters, as they say

The Answer is B. Never engage a pack of ageplayers, either by yourself or with friends. That is what Lindens are for.

Great Evils, Part the First

Second Life is not all fun and games. In the vast space of Second Life, thousands of myriad dreams play out the whims and desires of thousands.

But some of those dreams are nightmares.

Today, I am going to introduce you to one of those nightmares. Please, do not stand back in horror at the sight of it. It is all for your own good to witness:

Figure.1: A female ageplayer (Avatarius kinderlocus)

This great and most horrid evil of the land is called the "Ageplayer". They are easily spotted by their hideously small frame, resembling a child in appearance. Also note the choice of clothing: Disney overalls with sky blue sneakers, again, mimicking a human child.



In behaviour they also mimic human children, for reasons I shall divulge soon. They can be seen of the company of 'parents', or 'playing' with other ageplayers in a herd commonly called 'A bunch of snot nosed brats'. They have the ability to craft and utilize crude objects they call 'toys'.



Now, one may be asking themselves why the Ageplayer is so infamous and evil. The answer is many fold. The first is that Ageplayers eat other avatars. They lure them in by imitating kids, so when the hapless avatar goes to help the 'poor lost confused child', they are eaten alive attachments and all. Here is a rare photo of an ageplayer entrapping its prey:

Figure.2: Ageplayer stalking its prey, an Avatar (Avatarius Sapiens)

Another great evil the Ageplayer purposefully creates is that of confusing the innocent ... pixelers. What are pixelers? The people in Second Life who... pixel... each other. With their pixels. Into the other's pixel.

And it's hard enough on Pixelers these days, with the Lindens cracking down on depictions of child porn in SL and the Lindens' unceasing efforts to destroy... pixeling... scripts, without adding in kinder-lookalikes to the mix. After all, suppose someone walked in on a Pixeler, and saw he/she/it was pixeling an ageplayer, which looks like a sweet innocent child. Imagine how that would play out in the SLustice system.

To all Pixelers out there, be forewarned! Before you engage your pixel to theirs in pixeling, make sure you are pixeling another avatar, and not an ageplayer!

We shall end with some methods of dispelling an ageplayer. This depends highly upon the strength of the ageplayer involved. For most, a simple shout of "Pedophile!" or "AR'd!!!" will cause them to flee and occasionally spontaneously combust in fright. Remember these two words, and you shall avoid the bulk of the lot.

For much stronger ageplayers, we advise that you do not attempt to handle it yourself. Retreat if you can, avoid confrontation at all costs. If you must fight the Ageplayer, attempt to garner multiple friends and unleash ARs upon said ageplayer. If all else fails, pray to the Almighty Lindens to spare your lives in the face of such an evil.

If you encounter a pack of ageplayers, no matter how weak they are, you must run! Only a Great Linden wields the necessary power to overcome such heinous villains.

Please stay tuned for a lecture on another Great Evil, "The Nude Newbie", coming soon. We will also test your understanding of the Ageplayer at that time.