1. Guntram seems to have pretty much guaranteed that Anshe will be forever associated with the term "Cyber Rape Porn". If it had been left alone, it would have been forgotten in a week or two, but those three magic words are immortal.

Posted at 8:55PM on Jan 6th 2007 by Tateru Nino

2. There may be one hope, Tateru. If somebody could make a punk rock band called "Cyber Rape Porn", not only would it take the heat off Anshe, but the band MAY even send Guntram a DMCA takedown notice for his unauthorized use.

It really would be a great name for a punk rock band.

Posted at 8:57PM on Jan 6th 2007 by Aimee Weber

3. I guess you kids are too young to remember Julian Dibbell's "A Rape in Cyberspace"
http://www.ludd.luth.se/mud/aber/articles/village_voice.html

Back when Aimee was still reading her pre-teen mags and giggling about boys on the phone, adults had already figured out this sinister online behaviour and discussed it seriously.

I've added my own contribution to this extensive body of literature about the damage caused by anonymous griefers and manipulators on the Internet here:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2007/01/is_cyberrape_co.html#more

Aimee Weber presents these issues with facile and tendentious glee here; for a full representation of the facts, go here:
http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2006/12/the_real_awful_.html#more

Plastic Duck called me in the context of having already griefed and stalked me for a year, hardly a phone call merely to check a number, that's patently ridiculous -- and such outrageous characterization of these incidents is all part and parcel of the enabling climate in SL that makes the PD attacks able to continue.

And linking a RL phone number with someone's avatar takes sleuthing and malice -- especially if it is pushed into calling them as part of a pattern of stalking. Oh, and another little detail Aimee left out of her ridiculous article here is that my RL info was spoofed to make the griefing account that attacked Anshe's press conference with the penises. So I guess Aimee endorses breaking the TOS on the way to "checking a correct number". There's no possible *good* reason why this thug would be checking my number other than to harass me. Aimee's moral blindness to this is appalling.

I hardly think that Aimee, who took an expression I used meaning "cut through the hype and bullshit" as grounds to scream hysterically on the SL forums that I was "stalking her" (I've never contacted her in SL or RL), and even absurdly claims she can't even come to SLCC because of me, is in a position to have credibility on this topic.

Yes, I maintain that somebody gleefully trying to lure someone into sexual poses in SL, take screenshots of them, shame them on forums, and ever after trying to invoke them to pressure and bully the person is indeed a kind of "rape". Sure do. Sorry you're willing to give a pass to this in order to keep up your literalist tekkie-wikinista credentials. It's despicable behaviour, all of it, and I'm glad the Internet will immortalize for your future clients your ability to condone and even endorse such abusive behaviour.

Running a sustained campaign of griefing and abuse for over a year is definitely an assault in my view. As I've explained in my article, I don't make facile connections to varieties of bad experiences in RL and SL -- as Aimee does here, and as Aimee has *always* done in SL (calling somebody criticizing her on the forums or using a flippant remark about her excessive exposure in the media a "stalking" worth of "calling the FBI").

Yep, Aimee's gone too far with this one again, it's good, as always, to have a record : )

Posted at 10:23PM on Jan 6th 2007 by Prokofy Neva

4. 'I hardly think that Aimee, who took an expression I used meaning "cut through the hype and bullshit" as grounds to scream hysterically on the SL forums that I was "stalking her"' -Prokofy

Just so for folks at home know what you're talking about, you said that you would:

"Slash through my frilly panties to get to the truth."

Among a score of other references to my undergarmets.

Posted at 10:52PM on Jan 6th 2007 by Aimee Weber

5. Just so the folks at home know what YOU are ranting about, perhaps that's because your undergarments were already the talk of the town, and you were hugely overexposed:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/8/18

Nice try, tho, it only exposes you more.

Posted at 11:32PM on Jan 6th 2007 by Prokofy Neva

6. Marc didn't talk about slashing through my frilly panties to get to the truth, YOU did.

That's what we call Hyperb... uh Well Genocide!

Posted at 11:33PM on Jan 6th 2007 by Aimee Weber

7. I'm interested in Prok's evidences of a sustained greifing campaign over a year. (Also, in terms of getting the phone number, I heard from Plastic himself that he got your number from a fellow goon, not by trawling the phone book.)

Posted at 1:07AM on Jan 7th 2007 by Jesse Malthus

8. According to Prok, anyone who disagrees with her or asks her simple questions in public forums is a griefer.

At the end of the day, Prok buries her points in so much vitriol that she's a joke. That's a shame, because sometimes the points she makes are good ones.

Posted at 10:10AM on Jan 7th 2007 by Ian Betteridge

9. Amiee, this is a two part comment to your post. We have never met, however, I admire you for what you have done for SL which, I am sure is more than just nice SL clothes.

I think the hyperbole, of which you speak, is only an SL reflection of our RL world. We see politicians using hyperbole and spin in attempts to use smoke and mirrors, for a lack of honesty and integrity. Radio is filled with people attempting to shout each other down. Advertizement is known for selling the sizzle and not the steak.

I for all practical purposes have quit posting on offline forums because of two occasions where innocent, if ignorant, statements I made without any intent of malice or hidden motives were taken in ways which I never intended. The result in both cases was an all out written attack on me, full of accusations, invectives and profanity. This may be a play world. However, the physical and emotional effects on me were real.

Secondly, call it what you want. But, anyone calling a SL avatar in the real world without permission is flat out wrong. Whatever anyone thinks of Prokofy Neva, contacting his real life person is just wrong. It is wrong to attempt to contact you, me, Prokofy, or anyone else in RL without permission. While you may not have approved of his choice of words, I think his anger was real and justified.

My point is that the line between SL and RL is very hazy. Little that we do in SL has no RL consequences.

Posted at 10:16AM on Jan 7th 2007 by Jennifer McLuhan

10. Great points Jennifer. I agree with all of them, including the part about it being wrong to call an SLer in RL without some kind of understanding beforehand. However, while I think what Plastic did was WRONG, I still maintain that it was not ASSAULT.

Posted at 10:19AM on Jan 7th 2007 by Aimee Weber

11. Coco, if any of this happens to me, I would hope to get the sympathy and support that befits the event.

If I AM "assaulted," I will hope my family and friends visit me in the hospital, and help with my physical and emotional recovery and the police arrest my assailant.

If an unknown SLer calls me on the phone, I would hope for the appropriate level of sympathy and support that fits that as well.

Posted at 9:08PM on Jan 7th 2007 by Aimee Weber

12. Well it's like the boy who called wolf isn't it. People stop listening after a while and when the wolf really does come, nobody believes the boy. I have to say that I think Prok has experienced this with the Plastic Duck Phone Call Incident. Its also common sense - you have no where to go if everything is a total disaster and all hurts are heinous crimes....

With Prok, I think messages are lost in the repetition and arguing of opinions, as well as the hyperbole. I have no problems with an opinion piece (even with hyperbole) and I have no problems with a rebuttal to an opposing view in the comments section. The problem arises when the response to the rebuttal is also rebutted and then a dance begins that is not only boorish but boring. Prok and to some extent, Urizenous now seem to just take over the comments section of pretty much all articles in the SLH to the point where I wonder why anyone would post there. Frankly I've stopped reading comments from those two because they come across as such bullies (there's a little hyperbole back at ya :-)- people with different opinions get shouted down with the weight of words (in Prok's case) or vented spleen (in Uri's case) if they but squeek with dissent.

BUT

I totally agree with Prok that Plastic Duck's call was uber creepy, especially because her daughter answered the phone. In an Australian court it might actually be considered stalking or harassment, taken in the context of the background to this incident. Some things are judged by their effect on the victim, and harassment is one of those (well in Australia anyway). If Prok felt assaulted then it *was* assault to her and I can empathise cos I've experienced creepy phone calls myself and the feelings are very very real.

It's a shame that this very disturbing incident is getting buried/minimised under the hyperbole of the persona.....

Maybe there's a lesson in that. Extremists of all stripes are generally dismissed even when they do make valid points. I can think of oh so many examples......

Posted at 11:25PM on Jan 7th 2007 by Mabb Dilweg

13. A "brief phone call"?

You make it sound like a business call.

You DO need perspective.

When a griefer calls phone numbers with the same name until he happens on one where a child answers the phone, and he then asks if the person by that name is home, then asks the child if the person is Prokofy Neva in SL, and then hangs up without identifying himself, that is NOT, Miss Aimee, a "brief phone call."

That is taking SL griefing into real life, affecting children even, and that is stalking, pure and simple. And, as you point out rather belatedly here (and elsewhere, and when pinned down), it is wrong.

Seems to me like if you think it is wrong you could write a blog entry about how wrong you think it is, and how we should stand together in condemning it. Which might serve to protect all of us.

Instead, you choose to make the case that people are silly for reacting to these forms of griefing, because . . . they didn't happen to you, and you don't personally like those it happened to!

Now you are certainly one to speak about keeping things "in perspective," and imply that you would not be bothered by any such thing, when you yourself have told people how afraid you are of Prokofy, who would never call you or bother you irl at all.

Or were you not really afraid of him - you were really just trying to get other people to think that he was dangerous? At this point, I really don't know what you stand for, or why you say the things you do.

In any case, I imagine that the world now knows that you wouldn't be unduly bothered by a "brief phone call" like this from a griefer intent on making your life miserable, would you?

Really, Aimee, you have said some poorly thought-out things in the past, but this absolutely is against your own best interest, not to mention that of the rest of us.

It is you, in fact, who is escalating things by minimizing the phone call in the first place, not to mention by then hypothesizing something even worse.

Are you so scared of the griefers themselves that you have to act as their apologist?

Considering your own increasing accessibility, I suggest you take a strong line AGAINST stalking people to real life and bothering them there.

When you get such a phone call, or get, as you put it, "punched in the face," or WORSE - by a stranger on the internet who has decided to grief you in real life - you can perhaps take some small comfort in knowing that I, at least, WON'T be rolling my eyes at you, nor will anyone else with any sense. We will be condemning it unequivically.

Despite the fact that you are certainly setting the stage here for people not caring if happened to you, and for people to tell you you are overreacting.

Frankly, if it happens to you, after talking like this, you won't deserve any sympathy or support.

Fortunately, there are principled people around who will still give it to you, despite their personal feelings toward you; and who will have sense enough to take a strong stand toward this kind of thing, instead of pilloring the victim.

coco

Posted at 3:05PM on Jan 9th 2007 by Cocoanut Koala

14. *sigh*

On the phone call:

Aimee, you are correct insofar as a phone call is not assault. However, your description of it as merely "a brief phone call" is disingenious and shows a willingness to play fast and loose with the truth where the truth is a little inconvenient -- a trait you seem to share, to some extent, with your rival, Prokofy.

You have a lot of popularity, and you can ride that popularity through misrepresentations like that, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. The fact that your description of the phone call is technically accurate doesn't change the fact that it was also deliberately misleading, effectively brushing aside an act that amounts to stalking as insignificant.

As long as you continue to do such things, I can't in good conscience treat you as any more credible than your would-be arch-enemy. Lying "in support of a greater truth" is still lying, and it doesn't matter to me which person is doing it.

Posted at 5:59PM on Jan 17th 2007 by Alex Fitzsimmons