Games Without Frontiers

Jack has wrapped up the mainland discussion forum post and there are a couple issues about this that I find greatly concerning, the main one being "What the bloody hell are they upto?"

I feel there's a classic bait and switch going on here that is going to lead to some unrest. Advertising is a key issue, and I feel they've got something up their sleeve that I'm not going to like.

Jack said "We need to professionalize all aspects of advertising inworld. This includes our relationship with the advertisers, the conditions under which advertising (especially by large networks) is controlled and the guidelines that we wish advertisers to adhere to."

Besides using a Z instead of an S, for which he should be thrown into the channel, I don't like the implications here. They're throwing a fig leaf to the very people who have caused the problems. Those of us who put adverts in our own malls, for our friends, customers or merely because we like something, are in for a raw deal over this I fear. Not all advertising = ad farm. If I want to attach to the wall of a store an advert advertising my private island or another store I should damn well be able to do so. If my neighbour tells me it's too bright, it's too big, it's blighting their view (and attached to a wall this is unlikely) then i'll be a good neighbour, I'll change it, I'll move it, I'll compromise.

However I really don't want to have to pay one of the big ad networks to carry my adverts, I can advertise myself thank you very much. There's no point putting an advert in a place that is going to piss off your neighbours, that's common sense, I don't need a policy to tell me that.

973 posts later Jack closes the thread and says : "No surprise that advertising is your highest priority for things to tackle. You want action as soon as possible and so do we. I would hope to have a clear policy statement in front of you very soon and to see the situation inworld change dramatically for the better in September. Remember that this isn't just about removing ad farms, which we clearly need to do and soon, but also about providing a scaleable framework to control responsible advertising in terms of where and how it happens and how much we allow."

A scaleable framework? I thought at the time when Ancient Shriner of TAG posted in that thread that he was too happy. How much they allow? Where it happens? This is mainland isn't it? Largely unzoned mainland I should add. The issues with advertising and griefing are covered in the terms of service, buildings can and are removed if they are deemed to be grief builds. Items are removed for encroachment, the tools already exist to deal with adverts that cause offence, enforcement has been the issue. What the heck is going on here?

A lot of people in there were complaining about extortion plots and banlines, this is a technical fix, well roll it bloody well out and remove that complaint.

There's something fishy going on here, something isn't quite right. I've read about people who have AR'd extortion plots, heard nothing back, built screens and then found those screens returned because they block access to a 16M plot. Blocking access to a 16M plot with nothing on it but banlines is hardly what I'd call an abuse.

I've had items returned to me but in my case I guess they were overhanging the extortion plots so hands up "It's a fair cop guv'nor"

However other situations don't appear to be a fair cop, check out this incident reported by Happy Clam Island Citizens, particularly this part:

Minerva Linden: This is a gray area really. Given the fact that you've put the walls up on two sides and is banned from one of the parcels, and he needs to have access to his parcels other than tping, I'd say no. Again you'll probably want to get a second opinion.
Minerva Linden: Nostrum, I can promise you that something should be coming soon.
Cinco Pizzicato: JubJub is not banned.
Cinco Pizzicato: let me make sure.
Minerva Linden: The parcel next to it is no access
Cinco Pizzicato: it is not my parcel
Minerva Linden: The one owned by Gorajarne
Cinco Pizzicato: yes.
Minerva Linden: Yes, I know you don't own it, but everyone is banned from that parcel :)
Cinco Pizzicato: I have no control over that.
Minerva Linden: So there's only a tiny gap.
Cinco Pizzicato: that is the ONLY SIDE on which he is banned!
Minerva Linden: Again, if you've filed a ticket, it will be answered.
Cinco Pizzicato: I have not banned him.
Cinco Pizzicato: I have only put up phantom prims to avoid looking at eyesores.
Minerva Linden: Harry will have the ultimate say on whether or not my judgement wasn't sound.

How on earth can someone be accused of blocking access because a parcel another side blocks access to everyone? There is something decidedly fishy about the way these AR's are being handled.

Maybe I'm missing a point or two here, but I really don't see why they need to make policy changes to deal with advertising. The terms of service already deals with it. I can understand the need to look into policy changes for situations when one or two plots on a sim are using all the resources and making the rest of the sim unusbale, say for example there's a busy club or a store full of camping bots that prevents others from teleporting in, but advertising? There's something wrong here.