Anonymous, Unaccountable Avatars

An interesting debate cropped up today, but in a maddening way, spanned Facebook, various blogs, and of course the inevitable Plurks and Twitters and inworld IMs so you can't see it all properly. What it boils down to is this:

o Harper Beresford launched a blast on her blog against unnamed charities that she felt were duplicitous and stealing money in SL, but without naming names, so who the hell knows what she is talking about. It was one of those classic provincial, narrow-minded, insinuating catty posts that you see emanating from the Plurkers, and it made no sense unless you were, oh, Dale Innis or something.

o Alanagh Recreant, who runs a social entrepreneurship for charity in South Africa, and is reputable as far as we all know, somehow felt the "shoe fits" after she read Harper's screed, or felt that she had to reply to this barrage from Harper, and put up a long self-justifying post, that only dug her in deep on some points, because she is still open to criticism for a) not sufficiently linking her avatar given her money-taking functions and b) demanding that Linden Lab or "America" or "The North" somehow credential her African charity, help it fund-raise, and certify that it is a Good Thing.

o I took both of them on, especially on Facebook, and said Harper is one to talk, as her avatar isn't anywhere linked with anything. She facetiously, astoundingly, proceeded to claim that her avatar had accountability becaues once there was this article mentioning her in a) an obscure Italian magazine and b) Mitch Wagner's column for the computer industry publication Information Week. I blasted that to bits, as someone who knows what it *really* means to have RL and SL names linked.

o I told Alanagh that she has to expect to adapt to real-life regulations ultimately because we can't have Extropian silly notions about global governance structures being built out of handfuls of arrogant and anonymous avatars online and mediated by private software firms in San Francisco.

o Then a kid named Dave who graduated from college recently cockily claimed that online communities and the gut sense of the gruop online of what they can trust does trump real life, and that I'm evil for not giving innovative ideas a chance and wishing to regulate them before they got going.

o Sigh. Whereupon I told him that real life already regulates virtuality, without me saying or doing a thing -- can you spell VAT, casinos, ageplay, banks? 

o Then some anonymous avatar with 3 alts threatened to sue me in Australia -- ROLF -- because I committed the avatar sin of the year: I said I simply don't believe Eshi Osharawa's story completely. If you'd like to get my entire chapter and verse on this, IM me. Harper was the one who flogged her cause to get a green card; Hamlet joined in; all the FIC were pumping it big time. I remained uninvolved...because I was unconvinced -- and remain so. I don't care if this brings me a big SHUN as an unbeliever -- it has to be said. And it's a good example of how causes promoted by little cliques aren't believable on their own.

Sorry, but here's what it's about: I will claw and fight to the death, and be as rude as I need to be about opposing any attempts to arrogate a handful of anonymous avatars to some global power seat online that gets to decide what is valid and what isn't -- the Wikipedification of all life! Over my dead body. It's just that simple. And I represent not some "old media" or "old way of thinking" but in fact the new, but in fact the actual progressive and innovactive, because I don't wish to have us all thrown back into the Dark Ages, where tribes and roving bands decide who lives and who dies, or where lords and ladies of the castle decide what is valid, and where "our votes don't count, but our count votes".

To Rory Serpentine, in response to his blog:

Could I start out by noting that you are a grade-A asshole? Your gushing, sycophantic and smarmy post about Harper was the first tip-off -- your claim that the U.S. is the problem when African charities aren't accountable was the second -- and now your response here clinches it : )

Do you Australians ever turn your attention inword, to your own country's problems? I never see you do that. You are always casting about with enormous agitation about the U.S. or Israel. Don't you have enough to do at home?

I'll answer the post line by line.

>However on 5 January, 2009 at 1:59 PM a person referring only to themself as "Prokofy" posted the comment below.

If you don't know who "Prokofy" is, use Google, and stop being a dickwad?

I'm absolutely right to take on Harper's ignorant and haughty post because she has been a hugely nasty bitch in Second Life -- and you just don't get to do that when I'm around : )

I don't know what bit Harper in the ass to make her rant in her post about charities -- but if it was in any way prompted by Alanagh, I can only say that whatever criticism I have of her, she is beyond reproach in what she has done in SL, and if Harper is picking on her in this evasive way, I'm even more mad. Again, I have no idea what prompted her to rant about charities, and privilege her own in that way (typical fashionista diva bullshit in SL) but I have to chuckle: three years ago, when I said the same thing and demanded that the Foundation for Rich Content publish some basic things, like "who got their grants" and "how much," I was considered a monster -- ROFL. How far we've come.

>Prokofy, you launch an unprovoked attack on Harper, Eshi Otawara and all those who have commented in support of Harper's Charities in SL.

Oh, absolutely not provoked. And absolutely just. My attack isn't "unprovoked" but is a push back, tit for tat, for every post she put on Facebook today, pretending that she links her avatar to RL, that she has accountability, that a mention of her once or twice in the press is accountability -- and drilling and drilling and drilling on these points to expose her hypocrisy and bullshit. You apparently missed the discussion on Facebook. It may be posted elsewhere. But sorry, "Harper Beresford" does not get to waive the flag of unaccountability SL-RL linkability WHATSOEVER, and we need to call her again and again, and as many times as it takes, on her bullshit.

Harper has behaved badly to me on a number of occasions, but not only do I have the right to push back on those grounds alone, I have EVERY right to push back hard and demand accountability of this arrogant asshole who is demanding accountability of others in her unreferenced and high-handed post. Who the hell is Harper Beresford?! She's nobody. And her charities aren't any more worthy of support any one else's! And she doesn't get to use this claustrophobic, provincial, fucked-up method of getting her own charities a boost by calling into question everyone else's.

>I refuse to rant any dignity to your disgusting and stressful comments relating to Eshi Otawara, al I will say is the US Government Authorities where satisfied.

I'm not. I remain unconvinced. I'm going with my gut on this one. There are a lot of holes and loose ends to the story that anyone outside the Magic Circle of Second Life can readily see. And I'm entitled to express that, and my right to say that, and my duty, is in fact all we have to get accountability from elusive and unaccountable avatars, and I stand by it. The U.S. Government? Like...that's a source of law and order on immigration? Like...THAT is what you are going to source for me, you who hate America and ranted like the typical empty-headed idiot against it only this morning? Please.  Lawyers get deals. Quotas in different states for different countries get used up. Stuff happens. Doesn't mean anything.

>On reading your ranting/comment, I thought who is this "Prokofy" and so clicked on the hyperlink that blogger creates on the names of all those making comments.

Uh, gosh, that would be because I don't have an account on this service? Why am I required to put my name and address and linkages on every fucking blogging service out there? Are you daft?! I don't have any blog on blogger. So I don't make a profile? Duh? Google me? I have a zillion profiles with zillions of bits of information on other services? Pull your head out of your ass? Perhaps to post on somebody's anal-retentive moderated blog, I was forced to make an account on blogger. And didn't waste time making a profile. So? What the fuck?

>Prokofy, oh dear your words have, as we say in Australia, returned to bite you firmly on the bum. If you intend to launch unprovoked attacks on innocent people as you have in your comment above at least the moral fortitude not to hide behind an unavailable Blogger profile.

Now...why I am I not surprised that you're from Australia? Have the moral fortitude to go fuck yourself. Google me, and stop being an asshole. I don't hide behind shit. Where is YOUR profile, assfuck?

>1 you are suffering from a genuine medical problem and in need of professional medical help;

Real doctors don't make diagnoses over the Internet; malicious assholes use medical analogies to harm, not heal -- either way, you lose. Heal thyself, physician -- your own country's Internet is in trouble with free speech and filtration. I'm just fine, making use of my freedom of inquiry, freedom to receive and impart information, and freedom of speech.

>2 you are simply a stalker as you appeared obsessed with Harper Beresford;

? I would think it works the other way around. I never heard of her, and then found that not only was she harassing me in various groups, she was writing me little side IMs, alternately flattering me and being abusive that were really just plain...weird. I guess she's one of those typical Internet mediocrities that gains her sense of self by picking on other people with higher profiles than hers. It's uncanny, how that works.

>3 as I suspect as nasty person with no real life and nothing better to do than attempt to gain notoriety by cruel and unfounded comments.

No, and no, and -- if you can't figure that out, well, you're stupid lol. No, I just don't believe Eshi's story. I just don't feel we're getting everything on that story. My gut is, within a year, more will come out. So sue me. Shoot me. I really don't care. That's not sign of cruelty or need of medical help, but just a necessary corrective to the extraordinary amount of anonymous avatar Internet histrionics we're forced to swallow in SL. 

I know that some people reading these lines -- and you know who you are! -- are nodding silently. You're going with your gut. You're realizing I may be on to something, but you were too under the sway of political correctness and the gang bangs and the hive mind to articulate.

>Dark Undertone, etc.

I really could care less who your alts are, who you are, where you live, or what you do. You do not link your alts to your RL name, and therefore your claims of accountability ring hollow.

>Prokofy please feel free to respond to my comments if you wish. However I warn you should you in any way defame me with a libelous or slanderous remark or comment I reserve all rights to take action against you including, but not limited to, your experiencing first hand an Australian Court of Law and our Legal System.

Go for it big guy, give it your best shot, you are "sound and fury, signifying nothing".

My comments about Eshi are not defamatory under U.S. law or ANY law, even the heavily restrictive laws of her native country. And certainly not in Australia. I have a right to say I don't believe her story. I don't. I feel there are holes in it. I feel questions need to be asked. I feel she is a manipulative person, and have seen her in action, up close in SL, and my concerns were only fueled. That's all. My defense here is the truth defense.

Let Eshi or you or anyone under the sun start court actions all you wish -- you only reveal your ignorance. You cannot convince a man by silencing him. I simply am not convinced, and I have the right to express that sentiment.

Comments

[Ann Otoole]

Linden Lab needs to formally address "charities" in the TOS by defining a legal and allowed charity as being properly registered *in the United States where the jurisdiction for Second Life remains* and subsequently filed with Linden Lab via fax or snail mail. Anyone else caught running a bogus charity would then be immediately banned and all assets deleted from the asset system.

People have brazenly claimed (perhaps falsely but the profile fits so it is probably true) to have raised rather large amounts of L$ for charity and then kept it all for themselves. This is why charities need to be banned unless formally registered first.

I have ample opportunities in my spam folder in email if I wanted to donate to anonymous African (or wherever) charities.

[Dirk Talamasca]

Prok, I read the blog post. It seems that Harper was wronged when she participated in a particular charity event and mentioned as much. She didn't name any names and it seems that it got out of hand when people assumed she was talking about them. Perhaps she could have toned down the circumstances surrounding the person she was in dispute with and prevented assumptions but she didn't and because SL is as stagnant as an arboretum pond, the Twits had a field day with it.

But all of that aside, her point is well made that there are many, many people asking for contributions in SL and she outlined some reasonable expectations of people that are requesting you hand over your Linden Dollars. I didn't read anywhere in her post that she called for LL to regulate these charities.

Now I have high regard for several charities in SL. I feel very comfortable that they have satisfied certain criteria that makes them legitimate entities and I do contribute to them by throwing Linden Dollars into the various collection areas throughout the year. I feel like I contribute quite a bit during the year so I do not attend any of the big events and such they put on. It isn't for lack of support, it is just that I think big lag fest events in SL are a pain in the ass. I love RacerX and his snail races though so I am always happy to participate in that because IT IS FUN.

The tons of group notices about these various charities can get on my damn nerves. People asking me to sponsor their teams get on my damn nerves. As I said, I have been throwing money at those buckets all year. I do not need anyone tugging at my shirttails and throwing a guilt trip on me when I have done my part already and couldn't care less about participating in some event. Hell I have more parts in me than a cheap watch. I am an aneurysm survivor, I am a cancer survivor, I have artificial hips and spent damn near 5 years of my life unable to walk.. I KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE SICK.. I know what it means to receive kindness from others and I am very happy and willing to return that kindness in my own way AND I DO. To keep on and on with the IMs and the Notecards and the Group notices is SPAM. There are currently quite a few notecards circulating out there that have photos of disfigured children and a cry for help and contributions etc.. That's not necessary. You can appeal to someone without putting them off their lunch for heavens sake.

As for the remainder of the argument that arose over this; it all seems pretty childish.

I don't think being careful of where your money goes or making sure the person representing trusted organizations is on the up and up is a bad idea though.

[Prokofy Neva]

Oh, I just checked this curious Rory Serpente who threatens to put on a wig and sue me in an Australian court and now I get what's up --he's Harper Beresford's SL partner. Duh!

[Prokofy Neva]

But...Harper wasn't wronged. She was *wrong* about her boyfriend being wronged or anyone being wrong.

She got a bug up her ass about something that seemed amiss that was based on her neuralgic partner Rory -- that's all. Just read her latest update. There was something about his auction win and whom he paid, and her sense that this was a rip-off -- and the people involved came on and put full chapter and verse, and she seems now mollified.

So...she gets to write an anonymous denunciation like that, stir up shit, make any number of groups feel they are targeted? Hell, no. She does not. She's an anonymous accountable avatar herself -- as is her little SL partner in the wig in Australia.

You didn't read the Facebook exchange. She isn't the one calling to regulate charities or for LL to certify them. Alanagh and others were demanding that. Harper's new little boyfriend Rory is demanding that. Those with different kind of countries and legal systems that have more government intrusion demand stuff like that. We don't in the US. And Harper, good little libertarian that she is, doesn't ask for it either, and even says she opposes it.

I disagree with her Extropianism. I think it's fine to regulate charities. Ann suggests wording in the TOS; in fact, there is wording about fraudulent stuff like fake lotteries and so on and it's probabl covered. If it isn't, local law could apply anyway. Virtual worlds are not special. They are services from a company bound by local law.

You're right to single out the stupid big lag fests. They are retarded. It's the ongoing work that is more impressive. I'd rather put money in a kiosk that is out for 12 weeks or even only 3 weeks than go to a lag fest, if I see it links up to something real. Racer is a gem for doing what he does so tirelessly.

I realize you have been sick and you've been in pain and are disabled. And it's sad. And we all have sad stories of one kind or another, and you are not special. And I'm glad you can tell people off by invoking your ailments so robustly -- but, at the end of the day, I do not accept them as coin in the realm of Second Life.

Harper's story, and the idealism it engendered from Alanagh and others on the original debate, were pointing to something that I felt definitely need a huge slam: the notion that a handful of avatars in SL in a little Plurk clique like Harper's get to decide what is valid and what is not. They don't. She's as invalid as the next avatar, as is her new little bf.

[Gareth Nelson]

"Linden Lab needs to formally address "charities" in the TOS by defining a legal and allowed charity as being properly registered *in the United States where the jurisdiction for Second Life remains* and subsequently filed with Linden Lab via fax or snail mail"

Because everyone knows that all charitable giving must only be to american charities, right?

How about just acting on the fraudulent cases without wiping out the positive uses of SL for charity fundraising? Personally though, i'd love it if some of the registered charities that have received donations from SL users were shutdown, i'd also be more likely to donate to any ethical charity with an SL presence so long as it could be verified.

[Gareth Nelson]

"Virtual worlds are not special. They are services from a company bound by local law."

Things are more complex than that actually. In a transaction in a virtual world the following jurisdictions are relevant:
1 - Where user A lives
2 - Where user b lives
3 - Where the servers are hosted
4 - Where the company that owns the servers is incorporated
5 - Where user A's ISP is incorporated (in the US, this is rarely the same state as where user A lives)
6 - Where user B's ISP is incorporated
7 - Where the TOS declares as "choice of law" (often the same as point 4, but sometimes different - in SL's case different as LL is incorporated in delaware but operate in SF)

So, there's multiple definitions of "local law" depending on which party you're looking at. You can simplify this however - the company hosting the servers can simply decide to state in their TOS that users must obey the law where that company is incorporated and the law where the servers are hosted. This is what I did with litesim for example - banned users from using the service in any way that would violate the law of england and wales or the state of california (where the servers were hosted).

[Dirk Talamasca]

Thanks for that Prok. But I am no longer disabled. I recovered and I am a very healthy guy. :D I get hassled because of all the metal in my body at courthouses and the airport but otherwise I am good to go! I don't thnk I can get much coin outta that until I die and sell my body off for scrap metal. LOL

[Dale Innis]

"something that I felt definitely need a huge slam: the notion that a handful of avatars in SL in a little Plurk clique like Harper's get to decide what is valid and what is not. They don't."

Of course they do. And so do you (see for instance your classic "invalid interlocuters" posting). Everyone, every person, every group of friends, every Plurk clique and Ning interest group, gets to decide who and what is valid, and what is not, for them. And everyone else is free to agree or disagree with that judgement.

"So...she gets to write an anonymous denunciation like that, stir up shit, make any number of groups feel they are targeted? Hell, no. She does not."

Of course she does. Just as you do (and you do all the time). She's no more "anonymous" than you are; both of you have well-established SL identities that are tracable to RL identities with a little research. Both of you can say whatever you like, express approval or disapproval, and people get to deal themselves with however that makes them feel.

It's pretty ironic really that Prokofy Neva should come out against the right of people to "decide what is valid and what is not" and to "stir up shit". Isn't that sort of your mission in life? :)

[Prokofy Neva]

Dale, you are a tool.

No, they don't, because we don't need to return to the atomized society of the middle ages, where principalities and fiefdoms war for influence, and where some particularly strong fiefdom -- oh, Linden Lab and its pets -- get to decide universal rules for all. That's the situation we find ourselves in, and it won't hold, and shouldn't hold.

They don't get to decide *for the rest of us* especially. Even deciding "for their little group" they face a powerful curb: *the individual*.

Every individual in every group gets to resist them.

A multiplicity of fierce little tribes doesn't make for an open society merely by the proliferation of them. Open societies function by the rule of law, with overarching principles that all are equal before and abide by precisely to make it possible for diversity, and not tyranny to flourish. This very principle -- the rule of law above you and your group such as to enable all individuals and groups to be free -- is a principle that you and other proponents of the tekkie religion and the 'code as law' concept constantly go against.

It goads you more than anything and goes to the heart of your world view. You believe the aggregated will of a coder or coders, or the collectivized will of the group, is king. And that you solve the problem of tyranny merely by multiplying such egoes and rigidities and forcing people into the exit clause of "if you don't like it, leave" and forcing the creation of one more sect and one more set of divas flying other divas (the opensim grids).

That's not freedom, that's Balkanization and endless replication of tribalism and tyranny.

When people have an overarching rule of law that they all are guided by that is higher than them, they have more freedom.

For example, the technolibertarian line says "I get to do what the fuck I want on my land, and fuck you." So they put up a 16 m2 extortion plot, and call it freedom, and say move, if you don't like it, or buy the view. Classic, concrete manifestation of this bad ideology of Dale Innis' and a thousand other tekkies trying to shape the culture of SL.

But the rule of law says, no, you don't get to take away other people's freedom by extorting a view buy-back; extortion is wrong. So by putting a curb against the crime that comes from extreme libertarianism, ultimately more freedom is created for all. The individual who wanted to extort doesn't have the freedom to commit crime any more, but that's not tyranny, that's an end of crime. Implementing this rule overall didn't harm his creativity and his right to make an ugly build; it just put a hedge on his ability to do that and extort with it.

And no, Harper doesn't get to make anonymous denunciations. I don't make anonymous denunciations: I am named, and when I write about a problem, the person is named. I don't write this sort of silly vague thing that doesn't refer to anyone specific.

As for Harper Beresford supposedly having an "established identity" -- nothing of the kind. She isn't known beyond your little hothouses, and she is not traceable easily whatsoever. That's her right, but when she steps up and bangs on other people for being insufficiently linked to RL, she has no credible case as she is not linked herself.

If you didn't happen to see these obscure articles, you won't know. Why are her endorsed charities any more reliable, given her non-linked status?

People can stir up whatever shit they like, in whatever manner they like.

But they don't get to decide for all of us what is valid, or put claims on others to be more valid than they are themselves.

That's a given, and twist and turn though you may, you're forced to concede that as a good little technolibertarian.

What you imagine is that such little groups will increasingly expand and take power, overriding existing elected or establish institutions and overthrowing them as "dead". It's an old revolutionary story, and as failed now as it was 300 or 50 years ago.

A substitute for a real-life government validated charity from a tax authority or registration authority isn't a group of anonymous avatars who feel somebody's story is true, or their cause is just, no matter how giddy you want to get about social media, or how extreme your revolutionary and destructive utopian ideology takes you. You'll be in for a rude awakening.

If you think something *other* than that, Dale, then right-click and put US$1000 into the next SL charity object you see at random.

Certainly the numerous stories of fraud in SL help to authenticate this point, and your arrival here in this thread to make it seem that Harper Beresford can decide what is a legitimate charity because that particular diva is on her friendship list is risible.

Harper's "rules" for what she thinks make validated charities are also silly. A dedicated avatar to take the money? Well that's stupid, it's not necessary if there is an entire group of trusted people -- in her own very scheme -- any of them can take the money. Or they might all have the same last name in a corporate sim, let's say. And money can be stolen just as well from a dedicated avatar that everyone paid into as much as scattered avatars -- the avatar isn't the issue, the solid link to real life is the issue -- and that's what she seems reluctant to concede.

[Jane2 McMahon]

I agree with Harper's comments re responsibility to verify that SL charities are in fact, legitimate entitities. I think of the Human Rights event that recently took place...some sponsors were verifiablly legit, others less so. But it is up to us to do our homework before parting with our cash, same as in RL.

And Dirk, I hope with the references to "courthouses" that you work in the legal profession and not a regular defendant...

[Dale Innis]

'They don't get to decide *for the rest of us* especially. Even deciding "for their little group" they face a powerful curb: *the individual*.'

Absolutely. No one's suggesting otherwise, Prokofy; again you're ascribing imaginary beliefs and statements to people, and then excoriating them for beliefs that they don't in fact hold and have never expressed. As I said, everyone (every *individual*) gets to decide for themselves whether or not to accept the judgements that others express. As you would say, duh. Similarly for the rule of law; I'm a great believer in laws preventing force and fraud, and I agree that they enhance freedom. Again, duh.

Harper wasn't endorsing certain charities and telling the rest of us that we must also; she was suggesting some steps to take to avoid giving to fraudulent ones, and some steps charities can take to help people verify their bona fides. She gave examples of charities that she thinks are successfully taking some of these steps. (Although note that she said in her posting that she hasn't seen *any* inworld charity do it entirely right; hardly a ringing endorsement of anyone.)

On the question of anonymity, I just now tried Google (not using any prior knowledge, just obvious search terms like AV names, and "name" and "real life"), and it took me about five minutes to find your RL name, and about five minutes to find Harper's. There is no credible argument that she is "hiding" any more than you are.

"the solid link to real life is the issue -- and that's what she seems reluctant to concede": the concluding paragraph of her posting says exactly that. Which doesn't really suggest much reluctance. :)

I think the problem here is that someone that you for whatever personal reason dislike has said something that you actually agree with; so your attacks ring rather hollow, since you aren't actually disagreeing with the material that you're attacking...

[Crap Mariner/Laurence Simon]

I think Harper makes some good points with her post - especially when it comes to questioning those who are running charity efforts.

- Do they have open books?
- What mechanism is used for collecting and distributing funds?
- Is there a relationship with who they are raising funds for, or is it just a campaign to get people to directly contribute to those organizations with no processing/middleman efforts?

Legitimacy is crucial, so agreed, Jane - especially in the case of organizations that, if you follow the money, lead to groups that say they have "charity" and "military" wings.

I prefer to just contribute to trustworthy national organizations with low overhead, local organizations that I can see the work they're doing, and individuals who are trustworthy or need direct assistance to continue their work for others.

Organizations that have "mission creep" or are contaminated by the growing anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism prevalent in many UN-led efforts end up off my list.

As for this post, I believe Eshi. You're welcome to say you don't believe all she says, Prokofy, but I do believe her.

-ls/cm

[AlterEgoTrip Svenska]

Dear Mr Simon/Crap Mariner- you need not show this Prok/Catherine your REAL name.. it is not up to HER need to strip people of anomynity at the same time doing google searches of your past internet activities and search for your credit records.

IF LL has my information on record, fine, they are not going to publish it unless they want a lawsuit or have a legal matter I am a part of or not to use my information for, nothing more. I personally don't trust giving my E-Post address to Prok's blogg site.. I think the only thing that stands between her taking my information and posting it or selling it to someone is a rather large case of the fact that I myself do not post my name in place on the net and I don't wish for others to do so.

I have many friends who have had problems with real life stalkers, I follow their advice, it doesn't matter where you live either..I think linking your RL name to your SL avatar is probably the worst thing you can do. I find that if you do your work, charity or otherwise in strict confidenciality and not allow unautherised people this information that it USUALLY works. I am more suspicious of this when it comes to something I buy such as LL, I am buying a service, they need my information, they have sensitive information, infomation I wouldn't post on the internet, I trust they are ethical with this, but Prok, my RL name, don't ask for it because you know when you asked for my e-post to post on this site, you already got it.

I think that LL should allow the AVs to be confidencial to each other and let it be a choice rather than disclosure system... I think if they allowed people who are not purchasing this, to varify who they are, that will also create a safer or at least one that FEELS trustworthy.

You, Prok, and your requests are not trustworthy and I would not be filing any forms and signing them in blood for you, dear... since thats the kind of accountablity you wish for, that's what you want from Vint, after all.

You want to know I'm a human or something like that, visit Youtube.

[Prokofy Neva]

Crap,

Harper has no credibility questioning charities in this blanket fashion when her REAL beef happened to be with one transaction that her SL boyfriend didn't feel comfortable about. When she aired this without reference in typical slambook fashion, the fashion designer came forward and told her in fact it had all those very safeguards. Everything seemed to hinge on the money going to one avatar versus another, and even Harper seemed to relent when it was pointed out that the money was still all ultimately collected on one avatar, and that those records could be made public.

Harper has no credibility when she herself does not link her own RL name and RL business to her SL avatar on her SL profile. Demanding that of others then simply seems hypocritical. Of course it's her right to give to whatever charity she feels comfortable with.

But it isn't her right to demand of others what she herself does not do -- and it's especially duplicitous to claim, "Oh, my avatar is linked," when it isn't -- you'd have to Google-sleuth, look for articles, follow to Linked-in etc. etc. and you can't even be sure then you'd have the right person.

Open books aren't enough. Anybody could forge an Excel sheet and copy it.

Collecting funds only on one avatar isn't enough, and isn't a marker for reliability, one avatar can abscond with the funds as easily as 10.

The only thing that counts is a verifiable link on the SL profile to a website that has RL address, phone number etc that leads to a company with a TAX ID and the ability of the public to get a 990 from that state, or its equivalent in whatever country it's in. Other countries do indeed have these equivalents.

Anyone raising money in SL by definition already has overhead that is more than perhaps the traffic needs to bear -- sim purchase and tier costs, staff costs, cashout and conversion costs, event hosting costs. Even getting people to volunteer tier contributions and time, you still have a hurdle to clear. That hurdle may be less than RL if you use SL entirely as a substitute for bricks-and-mortar -- but...who can do that? Most people would add on SL to their existing bricks and mortar.

As for Eshi, she's your SL partner. And obviously you trust her and have your reasons for believing her. For me, her grabbing you as a partner is one of the red flags. There are a number of red flags for me, and while half of them could be fixed by showing this or that legal document or news story, the other half can't be. For me, my friendship with you and concern about you being manipulated by this very obviously social-climbing and manipulative person is a red flag for me. I can only say, return to this subject in 6 months or 12 months and see if one of us has not persuaded the other.

[Prokofy Neva]

Dale, you are a tool.

1. Once again, the hypocrisy of Harper Beresford comes in demanding that people in charity meet a higher standard than she meets herself. She does not link her name on her profile.

2. If you didn't know where to look for Harper Beresford, you wouldn't necessarily find her. I'm a lot easier to find. But neither of these finds are relevant because they do not result from *linkage on the avatar profile*.

I don't set up rules for the community to follow that I myself don't keep. She does.

3. Harper's rules still amount absolutely to her little Plurk and SL clique getting to decide who they trust! All that she cares about is that one avatar be getting the funds, and that this be visible and known to the community. All she cares about is that people can pass around copies of stuff to each other. But neither of those things are reliable! Neither of those things are a substitute for a website URL linking up to a RL address and 501-c-3 status -- and that, frankly, is what Alanagh is closer to having than anyone.

4. Harper and her little clique, which includes you, are not an arbiter of rules for me in first or second life. New York State and the International Revenue Service are. If your SL gig hooks up to those things or their equivalent, great. If it doesn't, shut up. Harper can't help imposing the libertarian Extropian fantasy on all this, implying that rules for verification can be set up among avatars, and believing minimal or no external government is needed.

5. No, someone I dislike has said something I think is wrong. If she said something I would agree with, I'm happy to reflect that. For example, as already noted, she and I both agree that Linden Lab has no business getting into the certifying act, that's wrong.

So let's go over it again, shall we? parsing Harper's every word, as that has become necessary:

* Upon request, the address of the charitable organization can be provided and a means of contacting them so there is proof that they have approved of the charitable event and use of their logo for such.

No. It should be put right on the SL avatar's front page, or the first life tab, not merely produced upon request, that forces too many steps.

* A separate avatar made solely for the purpose of gathering donations and accounting for those donations. The donations should NOT go to a private avatar.

This is merely her own concoction based on her own set of biased experiences. I don't mind at all if a prominent SL avatar, using their Slebrity, decides to collect money for their charity. They can put it on their profile, they can put it on their website, and we have the phone number of that charity to check if we so wish. I wouldn't require of that person that they go through the exercise and hassle of making an alt, an alt that in fact we can't be sure that prominent SL personage does in fact tie up to. In fact I see more problems developing with an unknown, collective alt, that a number of people might have the password to, than a prominent person who wouldn't be giving out their passwords, cashing out money in PayPal and sending it to a charity with a receipt they can provide. That seems a far more reliable set up.

So again, this is just Harper's imaginings, and she isn't someone I trust, or find reasonable, to make rules for charities in SL, based both on her poor track record in claiming she links her avatar, which is bullshit, and in her using the megaphone of her blog, in this latest round, to settle scores she had with one diva.

* An accounting of the donated items that have been provided with an estimated value. This includes designs OR performances. This is so we ALL know that the content providers' time and efforts are being matched at least minimally with donated money.

This seems like tedious diva bullshit. What if it is a silent auction, where you are trying to get the highest bid? A dress or car isn't worth the $50 an hour you spent making it as a designer; in an auction, you are trying to get somebody to bid, say $500 US, not $50, to raise money. So valuation isn't so relevant, and it's not like we can open up Sotheby's and find out the value of the typical big-ass SL dress now, can we?!

I'm willing to bet in real life, this woman has never had to run a charitable event or organization in her life. I have -- including huge ones. And I know very well what goes into them. You have to be scrupulous about documenting in-kind donations, but trying to assign value to them in a vacuum would be absurd; what's important is that you document the auction win or gift with that numbered item, say, from a catalogue. That's the sort of thing the IRS would want to see.

* Information about how one can contact the organization for a receipt if the donation exceeds $25 USD.

This is just pedantic bullshit. There's no reason why $25 US should be the cut-off. The IRS requires you publish the names of those who give more than $10,000 on the 990s, but you still have to keep records of even every $5.00 contribution. People get their tax exempt letters for a $15 membership. $25 is just an arbitrary number.

In short, what happened here is that Harper, who thinks she is some kind of big deal in a community of fashionistas, filled with exasperation about her boyfriend's misgivings about sending money to some diva related to a charity, blasted out a blog.

Oh, I'm all for blasting out blogs like that -- but at least describe the source of your very biased and particularist irritation du jour (as I do).

She then tried to draw on her past irritation and tried to universalize it into a set of rules, and then set up her little bunny boy there to write gushing praise of her in the blog. Amateur hour.

That's what I object to: process. The making of rules by little cliques on a sim.

[Laurence Simon/Crap Mariner]

AlterEgoTrip Svenska-

My RL name is on my 1st Life tab, a WHOIS of my domain, everywhere I've bothered to put it, and I sign all my builds -ls with a turning gear. blah blah blah.

I was typing in the comments, the auto-fill put my RL name in there, and I figured "What the hell?" and typed it that way.

As for the credit search, well, when I last checked, nobody has credit anywhere. We're all doomed. Eeeeeeek. (And now, these commercial messages, thank you for watching Mainstream Media News)

-ls/cm

[AlterEgoTrip Svenska]

Ah but CM ( I can't bring myself to address you as "Crap")I feel its important to "hide", especially when I know people don't want to look up your home address to send you a huge box of love and would rather be petty and cruel.. possibly get someone to spray paint "Tool" on your home if you know what I mean ;)

And credit history is just that.. knowing Prokofy, she would look up a real last name to see if you "own" anything of value at all.

Oh and Prokofy, I had a car once..;) do I own one now? Do you care? I hope not.

A dress in SL which was auctioned off for large amounts of what you call "real money".. well, its like a conceptual art purchase, you don't buy a dress but rather an IDEA of the dress.. just as with anything else, INCLUDING land (which is like more of a web hotel in 3-d)but still.

I want to avoid the issue of charities in SL because it has nothing to do with people and the law here.. so I can't really address some of these issues under the law and taxes.. ect.

I don't know what the problem is exactly, but if I had to choose sides on the issue, I won't be paying tips for tier, because this is AVATAR welfare..and I don't believe in that. Sell me something and I say its going towards teir even if its an idea, and maybe, I (well not me) or other people will find interest. Isn't tips for tier a charity by Prokofy?? Well that I find unscruplious.

[Dale Innis]

Prokofy, you are silly. :)

(1) Harper isn't claiming to be a charity and asking for contributions. This is like saying that I'm a hypocrite for claiming that stop signs should be painted red, because I'm not painted red myself.

(2) "f you didn't know where to look for Harper Beresford, you wouldn't necessarily find her. I'm a lot easier to find." Nope, not true. I found both of you in basically the same period of time by looking for the obvious search terms that had nothing to do with knowing where to look for her.

"I don't set up rules for the community to follow that I myself don't keep. She does." Again, she's making *suggestions* to charities. She is not a charity. See note on stopsigns above.

(3) "Harper's rules still amount absolutely to her little Plurk and SL clique getting to decide who they trust!" Well, of course! You're against people being allowed to decide who they trust??

(4) "Harper and her little clique, which includes you, are not an arbiter of rules for me in first or second life." Yet again, duh. Of course they aren't; they aren't claiming to be. *You* get to decide who to trust, who to give money to. And you (and Harper) get to talk about how you make that decision. Isn't conversation wonderful? Someone saying something that you disagree with is not automatically an attempt to control your mind, or to assert a right to decide for you. (Ref. "Neuralgia")

(5) Hey, are you trying to tell me how to decide what charities I should trust? How dare you! Or no, wait, are you just telling me what you think are good and bad criteria for making that decision? Either both you and Harper are illegitimately trying to control my mind, or neither of you are. I know which interpretation seems more plausible to me. :)

What you actually seem to object to is people that you dislike ever saying anything at all...

[ichabod Antfarm]

" Isn't tips for tier a charity by Prokofy?"

No, a tip is a tip. It's a gift given as a token of recognition for a job well done. I tip tier buckets when I am flush because I think the people asking for the donations provide worthwhile services in SL (like the Public Land Preserve).

Perhaps I am being thick but why could a charity organizer not simply organize, educate, and coordinate in Second Life but use existing, verifiable, external channels for fund raising? Yes, I am being thick, I forgot it's about the power of micropayments. Off the top of my head, could not the Lindens create a Charity Linden? Or a Linden avatar for each charity that applies and passes the Linden's own criteria? Yes, it's overhead they might not want to take on. Maybe they shouldn't, I haven't thought it through. Would seem to avoid all these issues though. Probably get some good press out of it too.

[ichabod Antfarm]

oh yes, that would create a charity FIC and I am sure perfectly worthwhile and decent charities without significant pull would be blocked from fund raising. Oh well, if SL really was a better world, this wouldn't be an issue.

[AlterEgoTrip Svenska]

ichabod Antfarm- I only used the Tips for Teir where Prokofy is "begging" on her blogg.. I find that offensive, especially when she's so proud of her buisness skills and often enjoys talking about the many sims she personally owns, I can see where that maybe a problem for others, but Prokofy and her impecable Second Life buisness sense often loves to tell people when they are wrong, where they are failing and scoffs at the creative sims that are being sold to keep the creative content alive...

Where as if I visit a sim and enjoy the creative content and they ask for tips for tier, I am more inclined to give something IF the content has brought me some enjoyment. I went over to Ravenglass, (accidently mind you) and I seriously don't see anything going on...

culture? well it seems there isn't any, rentals, well there must be.. I guess, but I didn't see any of that either, life.. absolutely no evidence. You have to attract renters and would be donations with content... there was NULL.

Being that FIC IS a Prokofy invention, the tips would be going directly to her in that case too.. if there were actually signs that say "Tips to the FIC" ;)

[Prokofy Neva]

Dale, you are a tool.

1) Harper is claiming to serve as a "spokesperson for the community and endorse charities". She is not merely making a mere suggestion as some individual. She aspires to *leadership*. As she is the PR and executive assistant staff person for a prominent fashion designer and island mall, she is trying to climb to the top of the heap with her pronouncements. She's not some random avatar saying a stop sign is red. And I'm going to call her on her bullshit promptly, regularly, and often. RFrye is quite the little precious set up. And I object to those people setting themselves up as charity-endorsers. That's what Harper aspires to. And I resist it, because she's wrong. Her methods are wrong; she herself is a hypocrite regarding demands of avatar linkage.

2. To find Harper Beresford's real life name, you'd have to know a) that she was in Second Life, and b)that she was in Information week. Nothing in the first page of returns for the Google search name "Harper Beresford" turns up a real life name. Nothing. Her blog doesn't link it. Nothing links it on that set of returns. So cut the crap, we can all Google, and we can all see this. Stop fisking and stop being a douche.

Meanwhile, my SL name IS linked to my RL name, not through my choice, because Sean Percival is a douche, and he deliberately linked it on Mahalo because he's one of those dweeby little tekkie assholes I've criticized on SL, and he imagines that he brings me to "greater accountability" in this way, but of course all it does is bring me stalking and harassment.

3. Um, no, I'm not against people deciding whom THEY trust. I'm against them deciding FOR ME by setting themselves up as leaders of the community and demanding memes and rigid conformities for thecommunity that they enforce through harassment (like her insinuating blog).

Once again, you've handily sequed from the ACTUAL point, which is I reject Harper as an authority and a leader and push back when she attempts to spread her memes and exercise control over the community, into making a FALSE claim that I deny her the right to speak at all, or I deny groups the right to make their values known, or some other crap like that. I do nothing of the kind. I PUSH BACK because I deny them to do this FOR ME and the rest of the community. They don't get to do this. I don't get to do it either.

That's what parliamentary debate among factions is all about. You, like so many tekkies immersed in opensource and corporate conformism and collectivism can't grasp how factions and debate and democracy works. One group does NOT get to decide for all. Groups debate, and one pushes another. They may devise overarching *compromises* that they can reach through debate. All of this seems utterly lost on you, because in fact you're mired in the pre-Enlightenment world of the tribe and the village and the medieval craftsmen guild.

How can we make tekkie wikis go through the Enlightenment? I imagine they will only be brought kicking and screaming. But it's a job that has to be done.

4. Once again, Harper gets to decide for her little group, and I get to push back and say her little group is wrong. That second part isn't what you can concede. And I really have a duty to do that because Harper isn't just saying to her little friends, "let's go with these divas and not those divas," she's saying "Here is what thecommunity should do, because I say so, and I, executive assistant of RFrye has spoken".

In fact, if Pennyfeather had any sense, she'd tell Harper to stop gassing on her blog. It only causes drama and conflict. It's not good for the corporate image. Harper is crossing too much of her personal political beliefs, her tastes, her need to flash her new boyfriend, her need to call into question people she doesn't like, etc. etc. in her blog. It's not a blog that serves the corporate image of the fine RFrye brand very well.

I think a mediocrity like Harper Beresford forgets some time that her blog, her Plurks, her Twitters, they are read outside of her immediately close little circle of 20 friends. She forgets that there are aliens who don't agree with her.

It's the kind of provincialism we often find in Second Life.

I'm always waiting for Second Life to become a more urban place, with more diverse and intelligent people. We're getting there...

Her saying what we ought to do, and laying down universal rules is indeed cause for pushback, and not merely something you pass by.

It's especially the case because the axe cut deep and wide, and Alanagh, who realized in fact it was not about her at all, still came running to respond. The topic was actuelle.

5. Hey, yes, I sure to get to forcefully call for the rule of law -- real life law, that governs charities -- because this isn't just your libertarian disposition of your disposable income (that's how libertarians let the gambling and banking crisis of SL occur); this is about fraud and the need to place hedges against them.

Are you suggesting that because you are online in a virtual interface, Dale, that you are freed from the norms of civilization and the laws of New York State where you reside? Does something magical and extropian happen for you when you log on with an avatar?

Er, do you imagine that New York State is trying to control your mind, Dale? They have laws governing charities, and there are also federal laws. Do these bother you in some way?

What I dislike is idiotic utopian libertarianism, and small groups of people online setting themselves up as arbiters of "law" that isn't law, because they aren't legitimate, don't represent anything, and don't hook up to anything.

[ichabod Antfarm]

AlterEgoTrip Svenska - your posts are too mushy. Please make concrete assertions from time to time so that we may know what you are thinking rather than just hear what you are disgorging.

I imagine the FIC is only a deranged figment of Prok's paranoid imagination until you become a proud card-carrying member of it. Unfortunately for you - AlterEgoTrip Svenska - no amount of your tiresome Prok bashing will elevate you above the sordid rank of wannabe.

[Dale Innis]

Prokofy, you are silly. :)

(1) 'Harper is claiming to serve as a "spokesperson for the community and endorse charities".' If those quotation marks were actually around something she said, you might be right. But I think that you have, as usual, put quotation marks around something you made up yourself, hoping that people won't notice? Show me where Harper calls herself a spokesperson for the community, or says that she's endorsing some charity.

She doesn't.

(2) "To find Harper Beresford's real life name, you'd have to know a) that she was in Second Life, and b)that she was in Information week." Nope. Both your RL name and Harper's are findable in Google in something like five minutes using nothing but the avatar name, and obvious combinations of the words "real", "life", "world", "name" and "identity". That's what I did, as a simple test of your claim that you're so much more open and out there than she is, and that was my finding.

(In fact in your case it was slightly complicated by the fact that one of the first hits said that your real name was "Svetlana Stalin" or something, and I had to click on the link to look at the page and see that it was some silly joke.)

And of course anyone conducting this hypothetical search trying to determine who this was talking about charities would *know* that she's in SL, because the title of the posting is "Charities in SL". So that's sort of a tangent anyway.

And most of course this is all completely irrelevant, because she is suggesting criteria for charities, and she is not a charity, so it just doesn't matter.

(3) Yet again, Harper is not claiming to decide anything for you. She is not setting herself up as a community leader. She is not harassing anyone. You are reading all this stuff into her words just because you don't like her.

(4) "Once again, Harper gets to decide for her little group, and I get to push back and say her little group is wrong. That second part isn't what you can concede."

Of course I "concede" it; of course you can disagree all you want. The thing I object to is that you are saying that she had no right to express her opinion in the first place, that just by posting some suggested criteria for charities in SL, she is somehow trying to force them on you.

That's just absurd, and taken to its conclusion it would mean that no one has any right to say anything that you disagree with, because they are "trying to decide for you".

'she's saying "Here is what thecommunity should do, because I say so, and I, executive assistant of RFrye has spoken".'

Again with the pretend-quotes! Harper never said this, or anything like it. How would you feel if I were to say, I dunno: "Prokofy Neva really amuses me when he goes around saying 'I am an eggplant! Please water my feet! Ook ook ook!'"? Wouldn't you find that slightly annoying of me? So why is it okay for *you* to make up fictional quotations?

"Hey, yes, I sure to get to forcefully call for the rule of law -- real life law, that governs charities": Prokofy, there's no real life law that governs charities that says that a charitable organization's address "should be put right on the SL avatar's front page, or the first life tab, not merely produced upon request". That was you making up a suggested rule, just exactly like Harper was making up some suggested rules.

If it's terrible for her to do it, why is it okay for you to?

"Er, do you imagine that New York State is trying to control your mind, Dale? They have laws governing charities, and there are also federal laws. Do these bother you in some way?" No, they don't. And I said nothing whatever that could be interpreted to suggest that they do.

'small groups of people online setting themselves up as arbiters of "law" that isn't law': *again* with the pretend-quotes! Not only did Harper not use the word "law", she did nothing that could be reasonably interpreted as setting herself up as an arbiter of law.

You have every right to disagree with someone who expresses an opinion. Where I object (or maybe where I "push back" :) ) is when you falsely claim that they are in some way trying to force that opinion on everyone else. Not only do I have a problem with false claims in general (I know, I know, "http://xkcd.com/386/"), but it also bothers me when the particular false claim is an accusation against people that I know and respect, of having done something that they did not in fact do. I have a real hard time just ignoring that, and letting it sit unanswered, where someone might read it and think it was true...

[Prokofy Neva]

Dale, you are a douchebag *and* a tool.

that just by posting some suggested criteria for charities in SL, she is somehow trying to force them on you

Of course that's what she is doing. And here's how. In tone, manner, and substance.

First, the blanket statement, characterizing all charities, speaking as if she is the Sage of the Sims, as if we have all been waiting for the Oracle of the Ages to pronounce on this subject:

"It's time for me to reveal to you all what I think about charitable requests in SL: I think the way they are handled sucks. "

Next, the blanket -- and unfair, and ungrounded statement -- about charities that aren't run by her friends:

"I see many people--some of them treasured friends--collecting monies on behalf of charities. I know these friends are good for their word, but if you don't know them personally, how do you know?"

Casting aspersion and doubt on to anything that isn't her friend.

"To be honest, I suspect I have been scammed out of more Lindens giving to "charitable" causes than I have to anything else in SL."

Exaggerated, blanket statement. Ridiculous.

"I think you all kind of got a whiff of that last month when I posted RFyre's official statement about charities. I have come to solidify some of those thoughts based on the many charitable requests that have come across my virtual desk recently."

Pompous, diva bullshit. Officiously letting us know she posted "RFyre's Official Statement" and pompously and arrogantly letting us know that she is SO important that she has "many" charitable requests coming across her "virtual desk".

No pretend quotes, Dale. Real quotes. Actual. *Read them*. I merely summarized the officiousness in my description. I got it *exactly* right. You are a literalist tool.

Sigh.

A legend in her own mind.

I mean, geez, she's basically running a toy store in a doll house, and is an errand girl to an autocratic persona who creates stuff, typical of SL. What is the volume of business of RFyre, with all due respect? Does its owner clear US $50,000 a year? Perhaps it does. Could it be clearing more like $25,000? Who knows? They don't have open books. Obviously Harper didn't quit her day job!

Does that make her an authority on all charities in SL? Of course not. It merely makes her an officious busybody.

"One special offender set up an "auction" for Relay for Life in SL wherein we put money in a box, but when our auction was exceeded, we did not get our bid returned to us."

Huh? Since when do you get your bid returned to you in an auction?! What sort of hilariously stupid concept is that?!

"I honestly have not looked closely at the American Cancer Society thing, though people gathering money on behalf of Relay for Life have been, at times, suspicious."

I've been very critical of RLF. But I've never heard or seen any credible report that anyone gathering money on its behalf has been suspicious. For one thing, when the kiosks are put on your land, the money given goes from you, off to another avatar designated for the collections.

I can't imagine writing so pompously, but with such officious and provincial empty-headedness, "I haven't look at this closely, but here's my feeling about it: they cheat". That's a remarkable claim to make. No one has ever made it. I certainly couldn't see making it about ACS in SL.

On what grounds does SHE make it? The grounds of officious assistant diva-hood?! I don't know what her claim is based on, but basically I think I've diagnosed the problem here:

*provincial officiousness rooted deeply in provincial insecurity*

And that's what I am more than happy to push back against because I don't want to live in a village.

Harper is trying to land like a ton of bricks on the community with these pronouncements. I get to whack back hard at that, especially as on Facebook, she began to beat up others for not linking avatars, when hers is not linked.

Normal people typing a name into Google to see what comes up don't think to add all kinds of geeky key words like "life" or "real life" or whatever. That's retarded!

Harper is indeed exactly going about making customary law. Again, your literalist and stupid-ass comment simply reveals an inability to reason by analogy, or to think conceptually.

I've come to realize you aren't so smart, Dale. It can take awhile to realize that about a technical mind, as they can obfuscate it.