Proponents of Cause and Effect

[Cygna]

An awareness for everyone, especially the OICs and the estate administators:

As everyone has been noticing, our "random n00b" rate has increased by a few factors due to the Titan/Chronus estate being featured on the Linden Lab's Destinations list. We have received an avatar today with a completely blank profile (literally everything) and in library-default avatar attire whilst av flying in the HUB. A hasty judgement was made on his situation and he was ejected from Chronus via standard Ordo estate policy toward blank profiled avatars. This was the proper method of approach for this situation regarding the current policy, albeit there is obviously a flaw (as brought to my attention by Garion)-- the avatar was, most likely, not a danger to our weapons or gear and was simply a curious newbie that found Chronus via the Destinations list.

[11:09] STINKY Wasp: AND FUCK YOU TOO

STINKY was kindly informed post-ejection as to why he was removed from the sim and apologized to.

In my opinion on the matter: While Titan/Chronus is on the Destinations list, it would be in the OIC/Estate Managers' best interest to evaluate the situation less hastily and come to a viable conclusion based off the collective knowledge of veteran experience on sim. This is where all that time and effort within the Ordo comes into play: based off the OIC's knowledge of copybotters and newbies one must come to the conclusion of eject or let be. It's a tough choice but I don't think it would be in our best interest to go banning every blank profile that comes along to our Estate, else we will look very paranoid, they'll tell their friends, we'll develop an undesirable reputation, and LL may ultimately remove us from the destination list prematurely.

Thoughts? Comments?

[Crash Silverfall]

You do have a good point there intus. And like you said, we have to pay very hard attention to copybotters/newbies!

[Ron Bleac]

Generally you should take into account the avatar age/clothing/profile content. No groups or bio doesn't necessarily mean that the person is going to walk over and lop our heads off with a freebie longsword, especially now with the entire destination guide thing.

Go with gut feeling, most new avatars aren't copybotters anyway as they probably don't even know about such thing, unless they're alts in which case it might be obvious, usually it even is. We had a case earlier with an avatar called "Kittyfish", suspected alternate account of Dagger Exonar. If there are clear indications that an account may be an alternate, it should be removed. If there are none, it should be allowed to explore. Sometimes you have to stare danger eye to eye and accept the fact that you have no real control over these things, only resolutions to certain derivatives of the original situation that may or may not affect the end result.

[Desereck Creeggan]

I honestly believe we should be steadfast with our policy. The influx of noobs and blank avatar profiles, we should look at the age of the account at first, if it is just over the month limit or under it (thank you chronus) to remove it. The more people we have coming through the gates means the evermore presence of copybotters, so why should we lower our security rate, not higher it?

Sure this new hotspot listing is really cool, we're in the top five, and its overall a cool thing to have more traffic coming through. But the paranoia of 'omgwe mightlose ourspot' is just plain silly. We've done absolutely great without it, and I believe we can do great without it again. Not to say we should do anything to encourage our removal from the list, but we shouldn't be worried about it.

As for the reputation, Ordo has had a bad reputation with the military community yet we still get applications and retain our 80% denial percentile, and we're pushing 300 strong. I can't imagine just because we kicked people out of our sim because of their avatar age or blank profile would damage us, even if they go around shouting at the top of their lungs how evil we are and how we should not be visited...

How many people have done that again? Again, we shouldn't do anything to warrant their bad outlook on us besides our policy that has been in place for about a year. I don't see why we should change /our/ rules to fit a community that isn't interested in military, but in the views of our sim and the social community (so far to my knowledge, people who have had no experience with a SL military are showing up just because we're in the hot spot list).

[11:09] STINKY Wasp: AND FUCK YOU TOO

This only solidifies that it was the right action to kick this individual out of our sims. If he had been told to not go somewhere, or to stop doing something, he very well may have had the same response. Its these people we don't want in our sims.

[Kynnaria Merlin]

As I was telling Intus earlier, it's not about lessening the level of security, simply about being more diplomatic in how we carry out existing policy. The real issue with all the visitors from the Guide is that the majority of them have little to no exposure to the SL Military community. They've no idea about how or why we do things the way we do. As such, instead of the good ole ban first, ask questions later, I'm simply suggesting we be more diplomatic about things. IM them first, give them a chance to leave of their own accord, and then, if necessary, eject/ban/send home.

Since the Lindens deemed us noteworthy enough to feature in the guide, I simply think it important to be polite to those who show up on our doorstep with courtesy and respect.

[Agares Tretiak]

Completely blank profiles, with newb clothing, that get into our hub past the age checker, should be banned, I think. Or informed they are, just prior to being removed. Being at least courteous, if not friendly, will make a difference.

[Kynnaria Merlin]

Being at least courteous, if not friendly, will make a difference.

Exactly what I'm trying to say, just with fewer words. Well done, good sir.