Where does the line get drawn?

On Thursday after normal office hours, Daniel Linden posted the following:

The diversity of things to see and do within Second Life is almost unimaginable, but our community has made it clear to us that certain types of content and activity are simply not acceptable in any form. Real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depiction of sexual or lewd acts involving or appearing to involve children or minors; real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of sexual violence including rape, real-life images, avatar portrayals, and other depictions of extreme or graphic violence, and other broadly offensive content are never allowed or tolerated within Second Life.

Please help us to keep Second Life a safe and welcoming space by continuing to notify Linden Lab about locations in-world that are violating our Community Standards regarding broadly offensive and potentially illegal content. Our team monitors such notification 24-hours a day, seven-days a week. Individuals and groups promoting or providing such content and activities will be swiftly met with a variety of sanctions, including termination of accounts, closure of groups, removal of content, and loss of land. It’s up to all of us to make sure Second Life remains a safe and welcoming haven of creativity and social vision.

This makes a disturbing ambiguity which really needs to be closed up. Especially worrying is his term "other broadly offensive content" which is neither defined nor elaborated on. Who defines what is "broadly offensive" and what is not, and where do Linden Labs stand on such a matter? If the owner of a banline using plot of land or sim decides that nude pictures of his avatar in compromising situations with another avatar is fine, or a picture of a nude real life model is fine, where do Linden Labs stand if someone disables their camera constraints to look into the sim and reports the content?

I'd very much like Daniel Linden - or any other responsible Linden - to say who would be responsible and what action might be taken under the following circumstances.

1. Open land, no group, no banlines. The land owner places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment? (I figured I'd start off with an easy one)
2. Open land, no group, no banlines. A visiting avatar places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment?
3. Group land, banlines for anyone not in the group. The land owner places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment?
4. Group land, banlines for anyone not in the group. A Group Member places a large image taken from the internet of two nude adults engaged in a sexual act. Is this unacceptable and if so, who gets punished and what would be the punishment?
5. A shopping mall, with an item vendor selling a BDSM item. The vendor has an image of a furry or human avatar trapped within the item, portrayed in an obviously uncomfortable or painful position. Does the owner of the vendor commit an offense meriting punishment? Does the owner of the mall also commit an offense for not returning the vendor? Could either be banned over it?
6. Open sim, free to join group, privately owned island. A visiting avatar leaves a prim decorated with underage sexual images, but sets it to group ownership so that it won't be autoreturned. Would just the avatar concerned be subject to action, or would the island sim owner also be subject to action for not discovering and returning the item?
7. This one's a doozy. Open sim, free to join group, privately owned island. A visiting avatar leaves prims containing explicit pictures of children being raped or tortured while the owner of the island/sim is away (on vacation for example). The content is reported to Linden Labs who then pass the blame to the sim owner and send an email instructing him to remove the content and/or ban the avatar that placed it. The owner, being on vacation and therefore not receiving the email, fails to comply. Would the owner return from vacation to find that their account had been closed, their land and possessions seized and their machine hash-blocked?
   

You can see from these few examples that there is no proper line that has been drawn by Linden Labs about what is "broadly offensive" and who exactly has to take responsibility for it. One thing is for sure, and that is that Linden Labs themselves don't want to be the sole responsible party - but where does the line get drawn? In a civilization specializing in shifting blame to other parties, would innocent accounts not responsible for the placing of "broadly offensive" content be as guilty as those actually placing the content? And are Linden Labs simply giving a free pass to anyone with a grudge against someone to pop over to that persons land, on a fake free account, and placing "broadly offensive" content so that he or she can get the person they hate banned?

Daniel, if you're going to ask the community for help, you're going to have to be far more specific about "broadly offensive" content; what it means, what it includes and excludes, and who will be to blame when it gets discovered. Yes, we all must play a part in keeping Second Life safe, but this isn't the way to inspire confidence. Don't be surprised when people don't use it for fear that they too might be warned or banned.

The discount that costs more than the original

So in preparation for voice being introduced to Second Life, they've partnered with a company to sell headsets, and are offering this "discount" deal costing a mere $80. One should note two things here, however. Number one is that this is the "featured" headset, meaning it's the most expensive, the one they'd love you to buy. If you click the "Selected Headsets" link, there are cheaper offers. Number two is that you can buy it a LOT cheaper elsewhere.

Let's look at some figures. All of the figures don't include postage and packing, but I have no reason to believe that the prices of other stores are vastly different.

The "discount" store has the Plantronics Audio 450 Portable PC Headset priced at $23.42 The cheapest I could find this for was actually from Hewlett Packard's store, where it was $17.28 - no sign of a discount here.

The next most expensive is the Plantronics Audio 370 at $36.82 - ZipZoomFly.com were cheapest for this one, at $28.50; again, no genuine discount in sight here.

Next up we have the Plantronics Audio 510 USB Headset: "Discount" price from Linden's partner: $46.87 - so what price can I get it for with a quick google search? $35.68 from TheNerds.net - three nil down.

Their next most expensive headset is the Plantronics DSP-400 PC Headset weighing in at a hefty $53.57 from the "discount" partner of Linden Labs. Best price I could find? $36.90 from Techonweb.com - can we make it a full house?

Apparently we can. As previously mentioned the "feature" - read "most expensive" - headset is the Plantronics Audio 550 Binaural USB Headset with DSP at a stonking $80.37. Quick search on that one and Mwave.com are the cheapest, at $51.91 nearly $30 cheaper than the "discount" offer from Linden Labs.

So I have to ask, Linden Labs - Where the hell is the discount you (or rather your partner) is promising? Every single headset they're selling is not discounted, it's actually more expensive than other retailers, in some cases nearly $30 more expensive.

This is false advertising. There's no discount. There's a backhander. We're being ripped off. And then they want to us to trust their choice of "honest" companies with Integrity for age verification?

No thanks!