The schome community

Virtual worlds (in education) => Virtual worlds archive => Schome Park Governance => : PeterT November 08, 2007, 07:33:09 AM

: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 08, 2007, 07:33:09 AM
I have suspended Jokester's access to Schome Park due to a serious breach of the AUP which was reported to me by Yankee SParker.

Apparently one or more of Jokester's friends used his avatar yesterday. This follows on from a recent incident when another student purportedly allowed someone else to use his avatar - which led Yankee to clearly spell out to Jokester (and the other students in his group) that this was a serious breach of the AUP which would lead to people being excluded from Schome Park.

This is a very serious issue - it is totally against Linden Lab's regulations to allow anyone else to use your avatar. We cannot allow this to happen because if we did Linden Lab might close down Schome Park.

I have therefore:

I await Jokester's account of this incident ...
I will keep you informed of developments - and may well come back to you for advice about how to proceed.

PeterT



: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 08, 2007, 11:05:30 AM
Can all americans please re read the AUP as some brechs have been made not major one worth reporting like a odd swear wrod which when pointed out they have appolagised and not heard it again but breches all the same

Just err on the side of cation :-\

Topper

[edit] Cooler???
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 08, 2007, 11:11:08 AM
...

[edit] Cooler???

For those who don't know - the Cooler is a small area on Schome Park that we can restrict people to while they cool down or we resolve issues.

It has been used in the past when we were concerned that someone was going to grief Schome Park cos they were very upset about something.

I didn't use it this time - totally banning Jokester from Schome Park for the time being instead - because of the very serious nature of the apparent breach of the AUP.

Once I've heard from Jokester - which I've been told may not be till tomorrow (which might mean early Saturday GMT) - I'll post an update in this topic.

PeterT
PS Great advice from Topper re erring on the side of caution.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Jokester Schomer November 09, 2007, 12:42:57 AM
[hello all of schome park i am totally responsible for my mistakes and i will take all of the blame for this error by my friend where i told him not to go on but he did it any way when i was in the bathroom i am truely sorry for my mistake. I will accept all punishments even bann or being kicked
I am very sorry to the schome  community  :(  If you dont decide to bann me i will really  appreciate it and it will never happen again
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 09, 2007, 11:02:55 AM
I personally feel that that a week i the cooler/total ban and fourm count set to pending for a week will suffice, if jokester is truly sorry.

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Achilles Schomer November 09, 2007, 01:03:07 PM
considering many people have got less for much worse, a week would be quite harsh
(I'd say till monday)

Though it is peter's call
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Baso Schomer November 09, 2007, 01:05:51 PM
agreeing with achilles here
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 09, 2007, 01:53:01 PM
OK - my understanding of what has happened looks something like this:

To be totally clear, we had said that anyone allowing someone else to use their avatar would be removed from the project permanently - because this is a serious breach of Linden Lab terms and conditions (as well as being in breach of the AUP).  So allowing someone else you use your avatar could lead to Linden Lab terminating the project if we didn't respond appropriately.

Having said that - it seems clear that Jokester didn’t allow someone else to use his avatar – in the sense of giving permission - though he did make it possible for them to do so and his avatar was used by someone else.

The question is what should we do now?

My view on sorting out problems is that the key thing is to ensure that we learn from our mistakes and that similar incidents do not happen in the future.  And of course, imposing sanctions is one way of showing that we are serious about the importance of the AUP.

I do think this is a very serious issues - and to be honest I don't agree with Achilles in thinking that this is less serious than previous behaviours - the previous incidents were not ones that were as likely to put the project in jeopardy with LL and we have to remember that we had already warned people very recently of the consequences of letting other people use your avatar.

So - I'd like to know what Jokester thinks a reasonable sanction would be - and then would like to hear more views from the rest of the community.

PeterT
PS I am impressed at the way in which Jokester has taken full responsibility for what has happened. The right thing to do - but takes maturity and courage given the potential seriousness of the consequences.







: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Decimus Schomer November 09, 2007, 05:03:13 PM
The question is what should we do now?
One thing I'd like to know is how you'd manage to stop someone taking over your avatar; the only way I can see of doing so would be to close SL, which would mean that it'd take a while to get back onto it, which we obviously don't want.
However, if there's some kind of 'lock' feature you can use...
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 09, 2007, 05:22:16 PM
would it be possable for some one to put a script in say the iHUD that when clicked would lock SL and set away until you put in the password/waited for 2 mins etc

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Achilles Schomer November 09, 2007, 06:43:35 PM
can always lock the computer
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 09, 2007, 06:57:39 PM
but that is ahrd

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Achilles Schomer November 09, 2007, 07:13:26 PM
crtl-alt delete then choose lock computer

: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Miss. Vibia November 09, 2007, 08:12:59 PM
Yes.... but there are problems with that- I have had probs when i have left the pc with schome running for a bit when i have had to go downstairs to sort something out and the scrensaver has come on, then when i move the mouse SL isn't responding and I have to shut it down and start again! So that is a probem with locking the computer.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Yankee SParker November 09, 2007, 08:19:23 PM
If I may chime in here ... what concerns Dr. Ferguson and me the most is that we specifically had a meeting about the AUP last week, everyone re-read it, everyone personally re-signed it (I have the originals right here) and so everyone was aware of the importance of staying within the guidelines. Granted, Jokester might not have been able to forsee his friend doing such a thing, but the fact remains, it was his avatar, he's responsible. I am fine with whatever Peter and the community agrees should be done.

The only sure way to solve this problem is to simply log out when leaving the machine. Dealing with a delay upon restart is better than dealing with a ban because someone did something while you were logged in.

Yankee
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Miss. Vibia November 09, 2007, 08:26:55 PM
I can understand why he may have left SL running- I mean I have friends over and had to leave the PC on with Schome still on but I trust them not to use it. I mean I ahve been showing them Schome to get some of them on (its worked with one- she sent her forms in 2 days ago (get off mars- she wan's me to be her buddy!  :P)) but you trust your friends not to do things like that. But I can understand that a certain level of responsibility is needed.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Marsbar9 Schomer November 09, 2007, 08:34:28 PM
 lol

I am beginning to think there is a private board open to all but me, where you label me a buddy thief  :P
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Miss. Vibia November 10, 2007, 04:10:32 PM
lol

I am beginning to think there is a private board open to all but me, where you label me a buddy thief  :P

Ooooh... well you may be right! :p
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Baso Schomer November 10, 2007, 05:07:54 PM
would it be possable for some one to put a script in say the iHUD that when clicked would lock SL and set away until you put in the password/waited for 2 mins etc

Topper
Impossible...sorry


i could incorporate a movelocking feature (stops you moving) but there is no way to lock sl as a whole
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 10, 2007, 08:25:27 PM
OK - my understanding of what has happened looks something like this:
  • There was an incident last week where someone apparently let someone else use their avatar on Schome Park
  • Following that I posted a message setting out why this was a serious problem
  • Yankee specifically talked with his students about this and explained how serious it was
  • Jokester’s avatar was subsequently used by someone else (without his permission)
  • Jokester acknowledged that he had made a mistake and is willing to take full responsibility for it

To be totally clear, we had said that anyone allowing someone else to use their avatar would be removed from the project permanently - because this is a serious breach of Linden Lab terms and conditions (as well as being in breach of the AUP).  So allowing someone else you use your avatar could lead to Linden Lab terminating the project if we didn't respond appropriately.

Having said that - it seems clear that Jokester didn’t allow someone else to use his avatar – in the sense of giving permission - though he did make it possible for them to do so and his avatar was used by someone else.

The question is what should we do now?

My view on sorting out problems is that the key thing is to ensure that we learn from our mistakes and that similar incidents do not happen in the future.  And of course, imposing sanctions is one way of showing that we are serious about the importance of the AUP.

I do think this is a very serious issues - and to be honest I don't agree with Achilles in thinking that this is less serious than previous behaviours - the previous incidents were not ones that were as likely to put the project in jeopardy with LL and we have to remember that we had already warned people very recently of the consequences of letting other people use your avatar.

So - I'd like to know what Jokester thinks a reasonable sanction would be - and then would like to hear more views from the rest of the community.

PeterT
PS I am impressed at the way in which Jokester has taken full responsibility for what has happened. The right thing to do - but takes maturity and courage given the potential seriousness of the consequences.

Just in case anyone has forgotten what this topic is about  ::)

Waiting for Jokester to let us know what he thinks a fair sanction would be ...
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Jokester Schomer November 10, 2007, 10:35:04 PM
I think that i should be  banned and not kicked but it is up to you  i also think i sould be banned till at least friday but i promise that i will never do it again but it is up to peter
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Sgt. Liony November 11, 2007, 12:25:27 PM
Personally, I don't think that Jokester should be, well, not exactly 'let off' but should not recieve a full punishment either, as he has made it clear that he did not give his friend permission to use SL at all. Also, I'd like to know what his friend did, if it was just talking then I understand that this goes against the LL contract and should be punished, but should not be punished as much as, say, if his friend had gone around shooting everyone with a dragonball, swearing, griefing etc. I think a 3-day ban should be enough, and also, Jokester, I think you should have serious words with your friend :P
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 11, 2007, 06:18:02 PM
Personally, I don't think that Jokester should be, well, not exactly 'let off' but should not recieve a full punishment either, as he has made it clear that he did not give his friend permission to use SL at all. Also, I'd like to know what his friend did, if it was just talking then I understand that this goes against the LL contract and should be punished, but should not be punished as much as, say, if his friend had gone around shooting everyone with a dragonball, swearing, griefing etc. I think a 3-day ban should be enough, and also, Jokester, I think you should have serious words with your friend :P

His friend pushed the emergency help button - which summoned Yankee - which is how we knew that his friend was using his avatar!

I agree that Jokester shouldn't be totally excluded from the project - but a ban should be imposed of some sort - really struggling with how long this should be: on the one hand Jokester had been clearly told that he shouldn't let anyone use his avatar under any circumstances - on the other he clearly didn't intend to let them do so (but did make it possible for them to) - and I suspect that he won't make the same mistake again.

We do need to send a clear message about how important it is to ensure that no one else can use your avatar though ...
So I don't think 3 day is long enough - a week would be my absolute minimum - and I'm not sure if that sends a strong enough message - what do you think?
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 11, 2007, 06:39:28 PM
if we set a hard line by banning him for 1 o 2 weeks possibly 3 as we do need a har line

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Achilles Schomer November 11, 2007, 07:04:49 PM
yes but theres a danger of setting too hard a line
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 11, 2007, 07:18:06 PM
If a 3 week ban for 1 community member saves he project and years of work on peters part surly it is worth it

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 11, 2007, 07:32:00 PM
If a 3 week ban for 1 community member saves he project and years of work on peters part surly it is worth it

Topper

It is getting a balance between sending a clear signal and recognising that this appears to have been a genuine mistake (which Jokester is likely to learn from).

Given that we don't think that it is appropriate to kick him off the project we need to be confident that whatever sanction we impose doesn't mean he gives up and leaves anyway - and given that his group are just getting going this is a pretty important time as they establish themselves and work out what projects they are going to work on.

I recon 3 weeks would be excessive personally ...
What do others recon would be appropriate?
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Fox Phlox November 11, 2007, 08:46:00 PM
I think three weeks is a very long time in terms of the project. Things move very fast in Schome, and the island can change completely in three weeks. For me, it's important that Jokester has acknowledged that he makes a mistake and regrets it. This means we are thinking in terms of the ban being a deterrent for other people. I think a week-long ban sends a clear message that we are taking this seriously. For me a two- or three-week ban would send exactly the same message - so no one gains anything by us extending the ban.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 11, 2007, 09:05:27 PM
I rekon a week is a absotute minumum.

whatabout 3 days baned totally from the park and maybe 2/3 days in the cooler so he can veiw the [park etc

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 12, 2007, 06:26:36 AM
I rekon a week is a absotute minumum.

whatabout 3 days baned totally from the park and maybe 2/3 days in the cooler so he can veiw the [park etc

Topper

This does raise a good question about what a ban means - total ban from everything except this board; ban from Schome Park but not from the forum; restricted to the cooler; ...
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Yankee SParker November 12, 2007, 11:33:38 AM
If I may chime in again...

First, as leaders of the NJ, USA group, we respect the community's wishes and want to uphold the processes that are in place for determining punishments.

Second, the special circumstances here are that this was an honest error by one of our best students, but it occurred AFTER we had just reviewed and re-signed the AUP. Jokester immediately took responsibility for the situation (he could have tried to deflect the blame). It was not a deliberate, malicious act, but rather an oversight (and a mistake to trust his "friend.")

Given all this, I'd recommend a ten day to two week ban (with recognition of time already served). If I am reading things correctly, that will be the longest ban in the history of Schome Park, which, for an act of this nature, sets a very hard line indeed.

Yankee
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 12, 2007, 01:19:07 PM
I agree to a extent

So what about 2 days with fourm accunt set to pending and out of SP and5 day full acess to fourm and in cooler then back to normal works out at a week and taking into accout time already serverd will be a hard line

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 12, 2007, 03:59:35 PM
Ok - we seem to have agreement that we are looking at a temporary ban.
The suggestions for how long that should be and what it should include range from 3 days up to 3 weeks - and from being a ban from everything to a ban from Schome Park itself (or even being restricted to the Cooler).

We have recognition that letting folk use your avatar (or, as in this case, making it possible for folk to use your avatar even though you have told them they shouldn't) is a very serious matter cos it puts the whole Schome Park Project in jeopardy (cos it is a breach of the Linden Lab's terms and conditions).

My personal view is that we should ban Jokester from Schome Park until the 16th November (i.e. he would be allowed back into Schome Park on the 16th). This would represent a ban of just under 9 days (the incident happened on the 7th November and he was asked to leave Schome Park at that point, which he did).

I'm going to assume that this is agreeable to the community unless you respond to this message within the next 24 hours to explain why you think some other sanction would be more appropriate (it is only fair to Jokester to let him know our decision asap).

PeterT


: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 12, 2007, 04:43:44 PM
let him in the cooler on the 14th please

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 12, 2007, 04:55:44 PM
let him in the cooler on the 14th please

Topper

Why?
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Marsbar9 Schomer November 12, 2007, 04:57:36 PM
I see no problem with that date Peter.
I do see it as a shame though, we've got some really amazing new students that have brought some interesting things already - we don't want to be too harsh when it comes to punishments.

Just remember Hapno and Edi - how long did they get banned for, compared to how often they were banned,
 :-\
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Marko Schomer November 12, 2007, 05:08:11 PM
I think a ban until the 16th will be fine. Jokester made it possible for his friend to go on his account after resigning the AUP, but this was by no means intentional, and he has been willing to own up, explain, and accept a punishment. Myself, I'd be inclined to a shorter time period, but because of LLs regulations, and the fact that Jokester himself recommended a ban until Friday, I'd go for that.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 12, 2007, 05:25:50 PM
let him in the cooler on the 14th please

Topper

Why?

As from there with camera controls and IM he can see the island and communicate s he can see whats going on so he isent isolated form the community too long

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Yankee SParker November 13, 2007, 03:02:28 PM
Ok - we seem to have agreement that we are looking at a temporary ban.
The suggestions for how long that should be and what it should include range from 3 days up to 3 weeks - and from being a ban from everything to a ban from Schome Park itself (or even being restricted to the Cooler).

We have recognition that letting folk use your avatar (or, as in this case, making it possible for folk to use your avatar even though you have told them they shouldn't) is a very serious matter cos it puts the whole Schome Park Project in jeopardy (cos it is a breach of the Linden Lab's terms and conditions).

My personal view is that we should ban Jokester from Schome Park until the 16th November (i.e. he would be allowed back into Schome Park on the 16th). This would represent a ban of just under 9 days (the incident happened on the 7th November and he was asked to leave Schome Park at that point, which he did).

I'm going to assume that this is agreeable to the community unless you respond to this message within the next 24 hours to explain why you think some other sanction would be more appropriate (it is only fair to Jokester to let him know our decision asap).

PeterT

Works for me. If he can be let in the cooler as Topper suggests, great. Otherwise, this should stand as written.

Thanks everyone, this has been quite a learning experience...

Yankee
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 13, 2007, 05:58:55 PM
...

Works for me. If he can be let in the cooler as Topper suggests, great. Otherwise, this should stand as written.

Thanks everyone, this has been quite a learning experience...

Yankee

I have set Jokester up so that he can log into Schome Park but is restricted to the Cooler. I will let him out on Friday.
In the meantime Jokester still has access to the forum and wiki.

PeterT
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Jokester Schomer November 13, 2007, 10:42:27 PM
i cant get on and thank you everyone for not kicking me and thank you peter for letting me on today
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 14, 2007, 02:13:15 PM
i cant get on and thank you everyone for not kicking me and thank you peter for letting me on today

Sorry Jokester - there was another setting I forgot to change. Try again now - it should work.

PeterT
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Miss. Vibia November 14, 2007, 07:49:21 PM
Where exactly is the cooler??
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Decimus Schomer November 14, 2007, 07:50:29 PM
Where exactly is the cooler??
Next to the volcano, in the direction of the beach.
If you right-click on the area around there, you should see a box outlined in yellow in the middle of the sea floor; inside that box is the Cooler.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Miss. Vibia November 14, 2007, 07:51:30 PM
Ah right... thanks! Though hopefully I should never need to know where it is!  :D
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: PeterT November 16, 2007, 10:08:55 AM
There has been another twist to this incident ...

Jokester has told us that JPskater was the person who used his avatar. However, JPskater is denying it.

This leaves us in a situation where the evidence we have is one student's word against the other. We are clear about who we believe, but our evidence base is not sufficient to be able to make a definitive judgement.

In the circumstances we feel we have no option but to let this drop. However, to know that a member of the community is dishonest with other members of the community is disheartening. The one thing that our community has been up till now is a place where people feel safe – this is in large part because they trust the other members of the community.

If we don't have each other's trust then that is a huge problem in my view.   :(


: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Kali Schomer November 16, 2007, 10:49:02 AM
It isn't a nice situation to be in.

I think we should let this drop, as there is nothing else we can realy do. But we should make it clear to all the new people entering SPii what the rules are and how they are there for a reason, not just because we all feel like being killjoys. Any breach of rules should be dealt with, and the person in question reminded what the rules are. Anyone that continues to break rules obviously has no intention of following them in the first place.
We have worked hard to get where we are, and i know we have all put alot of effort in, but especially the staff. We all want this to work, so we should be honest. We try to not judge and try to be as fair as possible. Everyone has to understand that.
Everyone has to follow the rules, not just a select few. As a community, we have even set up a government in SPii to make sure that everything runs as smoothly as possible. We try to be as democrtaic as possible and make sure that everyone has a say, and i feel that we can al be honest with each other. Sure, we have disagreements, but this is inevitable in any community. We just try to sort it out as fast as possible, so that everyone is happy with the result.
Our community is built on trust. We trust the staff to keep it all running in both RL and SL, and the stff trust us to help each other and make the community work. If no one trusted each other, then we would have a big problem, like Peter said.
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer November 16, 2007, 11:09:37 AM
Igree with kali and peter. I can't really add, but will stress to all comunity members how important trust is and we all need to work together.

Topper
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Yankee SParker November 16, 2007, 12:58:46 PM
I agree this is an unfortunate turn of events and also that we have no choice but to let it drop and move forward.

I do however want to say I really admire the way Jokester stepped up and publicly took responsibility for what happened. Regardless of the particulars, it was his avatar, so he did the right thing. There is an expression ... great leaders "take less than their share of the credit, and more than their share of the blame." Jokester's actions bear that out. Props, dude.

Moving on...

-kj-
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Marsbar9 Schomer November 16, 2007, 05:18:15 PM
What a shame, trust means a great deal to this community - it has taken months to get where we are now.
I agree with all that's been said already, so I can't add much more.

 :(
: Re: Breach of AUP - Jokester
: Topper Schomer December 02, 2007, 09:00:51 AM
Topic beeing archived as it is no longert relivent

Topper