Tuesday, August 9, 2011

gV Drama...It started with a little thread about desktop images.

This is the OP.

Lias said:
"I like a dark screen image that's not too busy."
And she included this picture.


So far, so good.

Kita posted links to hers.

Tarzan posted this.
"I have had this one since even before she was famous."

Post #4, Immy posts this.
"Can't. It'll probably get me banned. =^-^="
This is where I imagine veterans of SC MKII, SLU and the SL blogorums roll their eyes, groan and push flashbacks of old threads out of their heads. Non-veterans or the unfamiliar might be doing a combination of "uh oh" and "what?" Regardless, anyone reading that one line knows it's the beginning.

Couple more posts about desktop images. People ignoring the bait.  Here comes more chum.

Immy wades back in and on post #9 contributes a post that has since been edited, debated, defended and derided multiple times with no end currently in sight.  [Warning:  Think twice about clicking the links (here and below).  Immy likes controversial lolicon images and tends to post from the full continuum with the qualifier that one end of the continuum is her wheelhouse and the other end of the continuum is what a minority of other people enjoy, but, ya know, check it out or something.]
"I'll do it this way: #ECCHI# http://darkly-cute.com/images/Desktop 110807.jpg #ECCHI# open at your own risk. =^-^=
It's a dual-screen set up and I make a big enough image to span both, each with its own scene. Set to tile and it fits perfectly. (^_^)y
Oh, I can show off my workplace desktop..."
"Ain't I the narcissist? =^-^="

"WARNING** This site goes even beyond ~MY~ boundaries -- Lolibooru <link broken by me - see explanation below>
But, anyway. (^_^)y"

"#1 rule of online safety: Unless you're clearly aware that you're directly seeking that which is behind the link, DON'T CLICK THE LINK!"

"Blind rage is entertaining."

More postings of desktop images and then post # 19.

Lain (is Bams) said:
"Linking to pornographic images of children isn't exactly above board with the rules, now is it?
It's clearly material we have outlined as inappropriate for posting, I don't see a link to the material as much different, and I'm pretty sure the laws will fall in that direction as well.
I, for one, would appreciate you having more tact and respect and keeping this filth to yourself in the future.
Thanks in advance."
Aaaand we're off to the races.

Here's a quick bullet summary:

  • Immy posted links to potentially illegal pornographic images thereby endangering both the site and the members who might have clicked on the second link.
  • Immy posted links and not images and members were not compelled to click the links.
  • Members weren't warned either.
  • The pictures are of drawings, not actual people.  No one was harmed in the making of them.
  • The pictures are illegal in some countries and offensive to many people.
  • The gV community standards say "child pornography or the sexualisation of a child, real or not, is explicitly forbidden" and no shock gore either and we agreed not to put the site in legal jeopardy.
  • Immy is trolling.  Again.
  • Immy is a hero for being open, honest and vulnerable and exercising such great restraint.
  • Immy is just posting.
  • Immy thinks the pics are cute and on-topic.  She also thinks they express joy, freedom and liberation.
  • Immy objects to her favorite form of art being characterized as filth.
  • Immy hates being an adult, but is forced into it in real and virtual lives.
  • Immy is a married middle-aged man with a compulsion to post lolicon pics, seek attention and cause drama.
  • Immy is like a flasher on a subway.
  • Lias is old enough to be Immy's mother.
  • Lias sounds like colleen's mother.
  • Lias is accused of harping.
  • Tarzan tells Lias to "shut up."
  • Immy wants a cat.
  • Someone shoots a confidential email to PETA.
  • People state and quote laws and rules and so forth.  Jurisdictions are discussed.
  • People tell each other they are wrong.
  • People accuse each other of net nannying.
  • Everyone is just expressing opinions as they have a right to do.
  • Immy wants to know why, if these images are illegal as so many people are telling her, are they still up and why have they been up for years?
  • What Immy actually knows or doesn't know is debated.
  • People are clutching pearls and being provincial and fussy.
  • People are just asking Immy to respect the wishes of the community members.
  • Lain (is Bams) does a pseudo-flounce.
  • Lain (is Bams) returns for a quick summary and chastisement.
  • Lain (is Bams) CoCos the thread.
  • Lain (is Bams) Godwins the thread.
  • Tarzan Godwins the thread with more Freud.
  • Mary invokes the Archivist.
  • Everybody else invokes Wasted.
  • Another image is posted for comparison and discussion purposes.
  • Storm tells everyone he has a picture of Lias on his desktop (clearly baiting Orfeu who posted a pic early on and buggered off before the drama fired up.)
  • Bunnie supplies the thread memes:  pilgrims and reruns.
  • Jolene provides an updated summary on page 14.
  • Lias provides the first list of the thread.
  • Kick interprets and mediates.
  • I get slaphappy.
  • A planet gives out infraction points.
  • Lurkers either mentally slit their wrists or eagerly refresh for more.
Oh, and CaTo posted this:  Tiny-smiley-sleeping-alarm.gif

And Lias made a banner.


Here's Immy's post about her room. Post #32.  Brace yourself.
"No. That is actually my Windows desktop. (^_^)

And, this is my room. (^_^)"



I'll link you to a post that has the second link, the more inflammatory pic site, rather than repost that link on my own site.  You really want to see it, you can click through to gV, click the link there and head on over to Lolibooru. Yes, I did click. I know what you'll see if and when you get there. Don't say you weren't warned.

Here's the link to the post with the link:  http://gotvirtual.net/community/threads/what-computer-desktop-image-do-you-use.2342/page-4#post-105421

ETA p.s.
My comments on FC explaining the differences in what people might have been seeing with regard to the second link could possibly clarify things a bit.  http://slconfidential.blogspot.com/2011/08/gv-in-uproar-over-immy-images.html

From the rabbit:


  1. And yes, I do get asked to do drama summaries.

  2. I am appalled!

    Pep (wants to know who broke the confidentiality of his note to PETA.)

  3. Sometimes I mix up Ishy and Immy.

    Pep (wonders whether there would be ANY of the LWLs - or should that be LsWL - who would not be up in arms in self-righteous disgust at such a combination.)

  4. I know Orfeu was reading, but he never came back.

  5. /me blinks

    Huh. OhhhKaaaay.
    I didn't click the links.
    I still need eye bleach from the room decor picture. THAT should be internationally illegal! :)

    I have a question, and this is as good a spot as any to post it I suppose. I know what the TLA LWL is. I don't, however, know WHO they are. I get that they are generally overly concerned hand-wringers and tongue cluckers (according, at least, to one who lives in a place where they have large statues of cows as haute art). I hear Nat the Lawyer is somehow involved. But...who? Names! :)

  6. Storm said..
    "I know Orfeu was reading, but he never came back."

    I have seen Immy play this game too many times before...I find this one to be a tired re-run.

    Oh...and nice summary btw Lee. ( except the Orfeu being baited comment...you little minx :-)

  7. @Lee: Thanks for the summary. Keeps me from wading into the faux umbrage at Immy's 'provocations'.

  8. LsWL self-define. Scylla is their Chair, of course, with anybody who has ever posted a lolcat, an image of themselves (including details of the shops where they bought their outfit) or their supposed children, or a view out of their window (usually of some "surprising" meteorological phenomenon, like a flood near the banks of the Mississippi or snow in Wisconsin) being eligible for membership - assuming a lack of ironic intent. Disqualification from membership is applied to those with a sense of humour or a sense of proportion, or anyone who takes politics seriously (sexual or the more corrupt version) or fails to maintain a convincing facade of political correctness. A tendency to rational argument or less than completely hyperemotional responses to minimal stimuli also elmiinate you for consideration from the luncheon table.

    Pep (I'll have a look at some forums and offer some suggestions. Sandra/Pants/Whatever springs to mind as a fully paid up member of the Organic Vegetarian Branch of the lunchers.)

  9. Update:

    Storm created a related thread on SLF. This is the link: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/General-Discussion-Forum/Nudity-Sexual/m-p/1028467

    gV has a "new member" on gV due to this blog post apparently.

    Rudolph Ukka said:

    "I saw this fucking thread written about in LeeHeres blog so I singed up to come and say that you are a bunch of fucking pussywhipped morons leading a fucking wimp of a fucking owner by the nose becuase Immy has not been proved to break any laws not even the rules of this fucking forum. Immy has got an infraction becuase she did something against the kultur of this forum or at least the kultur of the most vocal fucking morons here. You suggest that fucking Lucifer over in fucking SCII has stated that cartoon lolis are illegal in his country but you dont even know what fucking country he lives in. Is it Ireland England or fucking Scotland. And what are you going to do if I tell you that fucking lolcatz are fucking illegal in fucking Tristan Da Cunha? Does that mean that you all have to promise to stop posting fucking pictures of fucking lolcatz or even links to sites that have fucking lolcatz. And get rid of all the fucking posts in this forum that have fucking lolcatz in them. Rudi"

    Charming addition.

    Also, Jolene said:

    "Interesting blog post, Lee.

    I'm so glad that Venus won't wade into *faux umbrage* here.

    Maybe she will spare us a recap of this thread over on FC."

    Too late!

    Forum Confidential blogged about this already. See that blog post here: http://slconfidential.blogspot.com/2011/08/gv-in-uproar-over-immy-images.html

    Jolene said:

    "And wow, you DID get on that in a hurry didn't ya, AND got over here to *advertise* quickly.

    Aren't you just rehashing what Lee already did? The difference will be that Lee will have done it by presenting all sides."


    Thank you.

    /me smiles.

  10. @ Pep: Oops.

    @ Orfeu: /me grins and then blows you a cheeky kiss.

    @ Venus: You're welcome. Thank you.

  11. nina said:

    "i dont have much of an issue with the link personally

    that being said, it could be interpreted as a violation of the community standards, so mercury was right to infract imo.

    even funnier, the pages posted by people pointing out the 'uproar' and taking a contrarian stance have consciously avoided posting the link in question themselves..."


  12. Which link is it that Nina does not have an issue with? The toddlers engaging in sexual activity or the beach toddlers?

  13. Hard to tell for sure without actually asking.

  14. I get the feeling, as I mentioned over on FC, that some people aren't aware that there are two sets of images and that the second category contains, among other things, sexually explicit pictures of drawings representing children in forced sex acts.

  15. Immy did, however, provide this helpful post, which might have given some kind of indication.

    "WARNING** This site goes even beyond ~MY~ boundaries -- Lolibooru. But, anyway. (^_^)y"

  16. And as you yourself mentioned, Jolene's post was kind of a heads up to the second category of images too.

    "Hmm...When I saw the first images, I thought to myself, "This could easily be construed as over-the-edge."

    That said. They didn't depict sexual activity, but sexually undefined naked children, so I was conflicted as to whether it would constitute child porn.

    The second link, though? WTF did you post that? And initially without any warning? That link most definitely contained child porn images. There can be NO doubt on those images. I would think THOSE would be considered as having looked at child porn on your computer, should it ever be forensically investigated, no matter WHERE a person lives."

  17. http://slconfidential.blogspot.com/2011/08/gv-in-uproar-over-immy-images.html


  18. 'Course, you're a member on gV, Ima. You could ask her. ;-)

  19. Saffy/Pants said:

    "A couple of things: The witchhunt was started by Lain who described Immy's totally innocent and rather charming desktop as "pornographic filth"

    Immy then posted the link to the much worse, genuinely porno site out of irritation so far as I could see. The more people branded her a pedo pornographer, the more she poked fun at their idiocy."


  20. Immy said:

    "Actually, the first link was never edited. That really is my desktop wallpaper. I posted later with a source site which fall down go boom. Admins deleted that post. (^_^)"


  21. Storm said:

    "Saffy, yes, that's they way I thought it played out, too. Thanks for the clarification/confirmation. Her first posts were totally benign."


  22. Yeah, I know, I'm copying comments from a blog we all read and post on, I'm just doing it in the interest of fair and balanced salacious gossip blog reportage. ;-)

  23. @Lee: I have forgotten my password and have yet to receive the email for the reset thereof. I can't deny that as a mother of a young child, I become hyper-emotional over such subject matter and as such, would probably benefit from not directly engaging.

  24. Excuses, excuses.

    (Do I need to "fine print" the teasing part?)
    (I can understand some concern over the subject.)

  25. Lee said, "
    Yeah, I know, I'm copying comments from a blog we all read and post on, I'm just doing it in the interest of fair and balanced salacious gossip blog reportage."

    Nope "we" don't all read and post in these places. Your recaps are as close to them as I want to get! I still recognize names so it is sort of amusing to see the LeeNotes on these things but I have no interest in reading the whole 9 yards. Heh, if nothing else it makes me feel superior for not wading into the mess!
    /me looks all innocent and superior
    :::cuz we all know I would NEVER! indulge:::
    < / sarcasm>

  26. @Pep and the qualifications for LWL.

    :::making a mental checklist:::
    :::looking worried with each check mark for "omg, I've done THAT" items:::
    :::looking happy with each disqualifier I can check and I CAN check some:::

    /me decides not to ask in public and shoots a worried "omg am I in the running for a LWL nomination???" email to the Great Decider.
    /me nibbles off a finger nail

  27. ...you can't afford it.

    Wait, no, that's not right.

  28. I have been aware of Immy for quite a few years. She is someone who has been quite active…both in SL…and related fora.
    She can be a fun poster….and a fun hang in SL.

    She plays this Child picture game quite adroitly…often creating massive shit-storms.
    Naked children playing on a beach….how could anyone see this as sexual…you all must have filthy minds etc etc etc.
    These pics originating from a site where ( I am informed…I cant verify personally)…all manner of horrendous kiddie-fiddler shit exists.
    She assures us…that she carefully filters her search terms to only include cute…and to eschew the depraved and damaging stuff.

    Having pulled this shtick on several forums before…and witnessed the resulting furore…one hypothesis we can dismiss…is that Immy is a blameless innocent in this forum game.
    She must have a very clear idea, about what will result from her provocations.

    She draws her line in the sand Cute ONLY….and then dances carefully on this line…while others charge about…some staying way clear of the line…some overstepping it, to see what the fuss is about.

    One cant know for sure, what her real motivations are…but to me…it has always seemed about the idea of complicity.

    Simon Cowell does a similar shtick….HIs act involves cruelly dismembering sub-mental hopefuls, in the name of a Talent Show…and then leering at the camera…as if to say…"Well you watched…you enjoyed it…you are no better than me"

    Immy seems to get some gratification from looking at ( choosing words carefully here) representations of scantily clad or naked pre-pubescents….. and by unfurling her rallying flag of Innocence…seeks our complicity.
    If we defend the idea that Nudity can be innocent..perhaps she feels justified in her proclivities. She is not alone….her tastes are not unusual…like-minded peeps enjoy the freedom and innocence that childhood represents.
    She surely cannot be surprised that others see these representations as the sanitized face of something altogether more disturbing.
    The Gateway to a hellish realm…where that very innocence is trampled upon…and perverted in such a way…that any Mammal would cry and moan at this despoiling of youth.

    I emphasize that none of us can look over Immy's shoulder…to check that she filters these kind of sites as assiduously as she claims…we have her word on the matter…that is all.
    The fact that her rallying flag is INNOCENCE….and yet she so knowingly baits the forum trap…and then dances about this line in the sand…makes some question the honesty of her Flag waving.

    Immy has many charming qualities….but Innocent ????….Seriously ???

  29. Immy is just too smart for most of them.

    Pep (But then, a trained bonobo would be too.)

    PS Bonobo DNA has been calculated as 99.4% similar to homo sapiens; before you get too excited, potato DNA comes in at 70% on the same measurement.

  30. @Pep..I have days when being as smart as a Bonobo..would represent an ambition, rather than a put down...and being genetically Irish means 105% of my DNA IS potato.

    In other news...5 out 4 kids struggle with fractions these days.

  31. I ate a potato last night. It was quite yummy.

  32. Do my genes look fat in these chromosomes?

  33. Ima said:
    "Do my genes look fat in these chromosomes? "

    The only way to be sure, is a thorough inspection...now...if you are looking for volunteers....

    ( sneaky smiley )

  34. I have 23 pairs, how much time do you have?

  35. Ima said:
    "I have 23 pairs, how much time do you have? "

    I prefer to take a holistic view of how they operate. Genes can be a tad selfish individually...but how they make the whole booty shake....coughs...er...that is the whole organism fit for survival is my principal concern.

  36. Pfft. You are a lazy potato!

  37. I am very enthusiastic in my research.
    How well the organism looks in Jeans is srs bizness.

    sorry...what where we talking about...

  38. The gelatinous nature of genetically inferior booty.

  39. @Orfeu: Since you are the genetic equal to a potato, I think I will, from this point forward, call you potato chip. Or maybe just Chip. Or maybe Tater Chip. Yes, I like Tater Chip. Do you find this displeasing?

  40. Nah...he does not seem like a dick tater.

  41. @Ima..no...not at all...I am easily pleased...I offer all the crap I ever posted on the interwebz as evidence.

  42. LEEEE!! Embed this!! http://consumerist.com/images/31/2009/03/033009-005-att-nurse-ratched-supervisor.jpg :D

  43. Hello is this a blog where you dont have to be a skaarpie to post.


  44. orfeu said...

    Storm said..
    "I know Orfeu was reading, but he never came back."

    I have seen Immy play this game too many times before...I find this one to be a tired re-run.

    Oh...and nice summary btw Lee. ( except the Orfeu being baited comment...you little minx :-)

    The OP made that post knowing full well where it was going to lead and I believe that wholeheartedly. What I find the most sad is the damn sick cycle that seems to be repeated *since 2007* rolls my eyes.


Blog Archive