6 Responses to “A Sticky Wicket”

1. Ah yes….a sticky wicket indeed.

   Someone steals a texture or an outfit or whatever…they are caught and punished. They then go on to sell apparently legitimate textures or outfits or whatevers.

   Do we continue to punish them? Do we shun them for a past mistake? Can they never regain our trust? What’s to stop them from just doing the same sort of theft, but now more carefully? Can someone suddenly gain ethics due to punishment?

   Needless to say, these are decisions each private individual must make, hopefully on a case by case basis.

   However, you are NOT a private individual, Cel. Not when it comes to fashion in SL you aren’t. You are a jounalist. So is Lo Jacobs, so is Willow Zander, so is Sabrina Doolittle, so is Salome Strangelove….so are many others, including myself in my small menswear niche.

   As such, there is a responsibility to inform the public. You know, that shapeless, faceless mob with the notoriously short memory. That amnesia is even more acute online.

   For example, say a na’er-do-well steals designs, get touched for it, and gets transported into exile for a month, say to WoW. When they return, very few will remember the crime. In fact, there will be tens of thousands of newbies who never even knew of the crime to fleece.

   It is the responsibilty of jounalists to INFORM the public of the past, and let them make their own, now INFORMED choices and decisions. As a blogger you cannot convict someone, but you can certainly keep their past before a jury of their peers. If they are indeed now blameless, then they will succeed despite their past, and may even thank you for holding them to a higher standard now.

   As for accepting reviews or ads from former (or never quite proven) thieves…I would say the need of a jounalist to remain above reproach trumps a need to be scrupulously fair to everyone, all the time. Once you have proven you can’t be trusted, a blog such as this one should not allow you to use reviews or ad space to restore your credibility. After all Cel, if a designer tells you tomorrow they slaved for 7 days on a new design, and based it on a print found in their mother’s boudoir, are you going to print that amusing sideline or first fact check it and get a corroboration? Obviously in this case you will give them the benefit of the doubt and print. That is the way ALL blogs work, on all subjects. An honour code. Once you violate it, there is no easy way back. You can’t unring a bell.

   If you want to restore your good name, you will have to do it the hard way…in the court of public opinion, without the benefit of postive advertising, or jounalists giving you the benefit of the doubt. It is just part of the price you pay, in my opinion.

   Of course, your milage may vary.

   Z

   Posted by: Zealot on July 3rd, 2006 at 4:47 pm

2. It was me, Iris Ophelia who wrote this BTW. Celeb’s still AWOL. ~_^

   Posted by: Iris on July 3rd, 2006 at 5:19 pm

3. Totally depends on the person in question and their attitude during the original ordeal.

   If they were apologetic and truly sincere, then unless they give me further reason to distrust them, I’d give them a second chance.

   However…

   If they were false in their apologies and their sincerity and there is proof enough, then I feel my lindens and my conscience would be happier in a different pocket.

   Would I buy from them though? Person A…I’d be open-minded. Person B…Why don’t I just help stab the person that was originally ripped off?

   I think as a blog, you have a responsibility to give the facts according to both sides and let the reader make what they will of it. Much props though for asking opinion about it before acting. For an expose on the problem however, again, it depends on the situation. If it was a newbie not realizing it was wrong, embarassment can be enough… if it was the person who ripped off say… Lash Xevious’ skin… where’s the venomous ink to start writing?

   Posted by: Eternalynn on July 3rd, 2006 at 7:03 pm

4. Ideally, it would depend on how long they’ve been doing original designs, how apologetic they are now, and how apologetic they were when they were caught. If they are and were contrite, and if they’ve spent time only putting out original designs (or designs at least not stolen from other SL designers; checking for non-SL sources can be hard, especially if those sources are offline), then I’d hesitantly give them another chance.

   However, this strategy requires a lot of information. It’s hard enough for me to keep track of people who have been accused of theft in the first place, let alone figure out which ones are repentent and now churning out original work. So I suspect I’d just avoid them, to be on the safe side.

   Posted by: Miriel Enfield on July 3rd, 2006 at 11:40 pm

5. blacklist for life.
   Appologies are useless because they stole in the first place.
   They showed lack of ethics and morality and I think there is no excuse for that.

   And whats to say their new stuff isn’t ripped off from something else?

   Posted by: Wanda Rich on July 4th, 2006 at 9:51 am

6. Well, i’d be generally for granting a second chance, as long as someone is actually showing will to repent. If just because alternative of ‘blacklisting for life’ … well, it leaves one with zero incentive to ever change their ways, if they’re to be damned forever no matter what they do. And in the “new wonderful world” of readily available alts if someone actually decides to stay with the old name and the old baggage attached to it, then it can be seen as at least bits of ethics… if just in the sense of being willing to live with one’s ‘past sins/crimes’ even though easy getaway and clean slate are provided.

   Now if the thing repeats… then it’s another story altogether i suppose :/

   Posted by: Joannah Cramer on July 4th, 2006 at 9:15 pm