Free Expression and Moderation Reform

This point here is where our opinions differ.

We have complete control over what we choose to post. It's not alerting Lindens to a post that gets a poster in trouble, it's what we post that does it. The only thing that will result in us being prevented from playing the game is our actions. 20 people could AR this post, but if there's nothing offensive or against the ToS in it, it won't even get me an informal warning.

I like the new rules. I think it was high time the Lindens put the smack down on the chaos this place had turned into. I'm not worried about anyone else denying me the ability to play the game. If it happens, it will be because I screwed up, and I'll take responsibility for that.

Thank you for your initiative, Ulrika. I would also like see the rights of residents strengthened and more fair, consistent forum moderation with freedom of expression applied.

What I can not approve of is how discourse with Prokofy Neva was handled. Silencing those you can not agree with certainly does not strengthen your point. If it was really his insults and not his arguments that lead to this relentless efforts by some to get Prokofy booted then my name is Daisy Duck. The real scandal here is not Prokofy's temper, but the conspiring of residents with Linden staff on platforms like IRC to get another resident silenced. Prokofy brought up some thesis and arguments that some here really hated to read, because, while certainly not always correct, they still contained more truth than a few people here could bare.

Anshe, Prokofy lied about people. Not just little ones big giant whoppers that were nothing but assumption and fabrication. Freedon of speech does not mean freedom to slander and libel day after day. That's not something that should be tolerated here.

Sorry Chip, but slander and libel never were reason for banning people from this forum. I just say: "Anshe bashing".

Well, I hope that banning of Prokofy indicate one fundamental change in forum policy and that slander/libel coming from other people will be treated equaly strict in the future.

No. Even more so than the first idea. Not only do all the previous points about resident moderation apply - but tack onto the end of them every reason I disliked the player run world government idea.

Not only would residents be able to effect what is posted etc... but now the are selected by a half-assed popularity contest.

Utterly heinous idea.

Siggy.

i agree.

thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.

Looks to me as though Anshe just renamed herself Daisy Duck.

But if Prok was not banned for the insults, he should have been. They were enough to get him banned ten times over, and ten times sooner. Issues we can all accept disagreement on, and argue over civilly, without Prok. The insults we cannot and will not accept.

Just you all watch, so long as Prok does not reappear in a new guise, or have an emulator who restarts the insulting behaviour, once this thread is over, you will see how much more constructive and mutually respectful the forums can be.

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. May I respectfully suggest that we could now let the question of Prok and his banning drop ? And also the questions of how it upset Coco, and how fearful she is of victimisation via the AR button. I think we have all "got" these two points now. Many here have taken this upset and fear seriously, and given her lots of attention and importance. And tried their best to reassure her that the Lindens are intelligent and independent enough to treat an AR simply as a request to read a post or posts, and exercise their own uninfluenced judgement. Nothing more. And unreasonable button pushers they will soon ignore.

Similarly several here have pointed out to Ulrika, our other main malcontent in this thread, that we are all volunteer consultants, able to flag up what we think are problem posts via the AR button, and that this is not a limited "one post" facility, because anyone can type in a long essay on overall posting patterns and so on, and have it considered.

In my opinion both people have a had a full hearing and have been reassured as much as we can. May I suggest that if after all this they are still unhappy, it now becomes a question for them, no longer needing time in this thread, so the rest of us can get back on topic to see what mileage is left in it. Full hearing, substantial reassurance attempts. There is nothing more we can fairly be asked to do, in amongst trying to post our own views, unmodulated by theirs.

I would like you send me examples of Prokofy TOS violation to [email]anshe_sb@yahoo.de[/email]. I have read lots of his posts and not find anything wrong, but maybe I missed some recently.

Still, the IRC conspiracy chat log I read recently should ring big alarm bells everywhere and really screams for one fundamental review of the whole abuse management process.

Ulrika can darn well talk about whatever she wants to talk about, and as much and as often as she feels like it. Elsewhere, and, particularly, here in her own thread.

There is no "we," or "the rest of us," that does not include Ulrika, that stands at the side and decides when "we" have heard enough from her. Ulrika is part of "we" and part of "us."

Ulrika is not someone stupid, who merely needs you and/or others to patiently "point out" where she is going wrong, and "reassure," at which point she should naturally say, of course all of you are right, pardon me for living.

There isn't a "we" versus "malcontents."

Ulrika is every bit as much a part of "we" as you are, Ellie.

Needless to say, all the above is true of me as well.

coco

I have to agree with Cocoanut on this point, the idea one can be removed from the game due to actions in the forums seems unreasonable to me. The point of a banning is to stop the continued abuse. I don't see how removing a person from the game protects the flow of ideas within the forum. If the offending party is found to be causing trouble in world, the ban should be extended to the game. If the offending party has limited the abuse to the forum their in world rights should remain in tact, imho.

I'm sorry Daisy (you did suggest it), the insults were so regular and widespread that all but very few of his posts were spattered with them. If therefore you never saw them, the only explanation is that you and I have totally different definitions of what insults are, so listing them for you privately would have no function. You would just fail to see them again.

Besides which I am choosing to post here in a forum, and such private communications on forum topics have no interest for me. Are you inviting us all to open a thread on "Prok's worst behaviour", and post a whole thread full of it for everyone to see? I think it is now time to drop all this and move on. Past rudeness and nastiness is best forgotten, not endlessly mulled over.

I personally know nothing of any IRC channel, and unless it is Linden-run, it has no relevance here. We cannot legislate for what people care to say to each other elsewhere, and any attempt to censor such independent discussions would be totally wrong.

I never suggested for a second that she should admit she is wrong. You entirely misunderstand my post. Simply that she (and you) might be considerate enough to agree that these particular points and concerns had been given a good airing, been listened to, understood, and been offered some empathy. And that, given this had been done, we might be permitted to move on.

Totally different from what you seem to think I said.



We will have to disagree on this. Forum ettiquette, and common politeness in discussion with other equals, does put some limits on us posting in one thread "whatever, as much, and as often" as we feel like. This must be true at the limit. What if I choose to post the same paragraph to a thread, every five minutes for three days?

I would be outcast, shunned, muted, and fairly quickly banned. That shows us that the absolute right you claim cannot possibly exist, and that there must be a line, and it must be drawn somewhere.

I am simply suggesting that the full attention and respect these particular viewpoints have been shown would be thought by any reasonable man to be more than adequate, and that they are coming close enough to the line of impoliteness for me to ask that the thread be allowed to move on, unless either of you feel you have something significantly new to say on these three particular issues.

To be honest, they are boring the pants off me. Coco thinks something was unfair, coco is upset by this, coco is fearful for herself. So?

Ellie thinks the same thing was more than fair. Ellie previously felt insulted and is glad it has been stopped. Ellie no longer feels intimidated and harassed, and so is less fearful now. So?

Shall I keep posting to insist we discuss these feelings of mine? Aren't they as valid as yours ? Would it be polite and considerate to others for me to drown out more fruitful, more interesting, and less personalised discussion by posting on this "as much and as often as I feel like it" ?

If you think about what the thread would be like if we all started the "as much and as often as I feel like it" thing on our own pet upsets and fears, I think you might see how destructive it would be.

You really don't seem to get it, Coco. Most of us are rooting for more respect and consideration for others here, not less.

PLEASE cooperate, and try to do the same. I find your overall posting pattern self-centered, damaging to useful progress of the thread, and to the natural give and take of discussion.


Am I alone in feeling this ?

It was my understanding that this had been the path that was taken previously. But this had to be changed because people were coming back with alts and feeling they were beyond the rule. By linking forum behavior to the in world avatar, the hope was that the person would think twice about posting in a manner that violated the TOS.

And I have to add, it's not the reporting of abuse that gets the person banned, but the abuse itself.

Yes, Kevn, it does seem a bit draconian, doesn't it. But in most places where you find a draconian rule, it is a fair bet (particularly if the rule was not there from the start) that it was introduced reluctantly because of people taking serious advantage of the lack of teeth in an earlier, less draconian version.

It is entirely as a result of repeated abuse that LL were forced to finally give themselves some bite. If appalling forum abuse of other residents was punished by nothing more than forum bans (and it was) then this could be repeatedly laughed off (and it was). If we are now all sitting under this threat (and we are) we have the abuser(s) to thank, not LL.

But do not fear. Do an advanced forum search on the postings of Prokofy Neva, read any ten or so, and you will learn just how far you have to go to attract this sort of punishment. I would be amazed if you went anywhere near it without very very serious bad intent.

Every teacher knows that with really badly disruptive children there is no control without a sanction they genuinely fear. This one they do. Sad they forced it to be necessary, but they did.

*struggling to be charitable and use plurals*

Thank you April, yes, you are absolutely correct, the banning is a result of the offender's actions. Although I do think a mob of complaints might bias a moderator in some way. Hopefully that isn't the case.

As for banning people from the game as well as the forum, I was under the impression LL can detect alternate accounts. If such an account would start causing the same problems in the forum, it could be detected and quickly removed without any warnings.

The idea my opinions(and sometimes my frustrated outbursts) might cause me to be banned from the game bothers me.

My game actions would be seperate from my forum statements in a perfect World

I totally reject the concept of "own thread". The thread starter doesn't own our discussions, or have the right to control or moderate them, in anyway not available to us all.

Where is this "own thread" concept established ? An explicit, erroneous asssumption simply to support an argument.

I agree with you here, teeth are needed for a punishment to be effective. You have a point, taking the World away is a much harder spanking.

I'm not completely convinced it's fair in all cases. In some cases a person may be fair minded and decent in the forum, only to be baited into breaking some minor rule. If I'm not mistaken, I get one warning, then a ban. I may be misaken on that point.

This is something I think is a great point to discuss in a forum. At least we are aware of the danger. And maybe it can be a discretionary thing... allow the moderator latitude in setting a ban in the forum only, or both the forum and the game.

Just a thought

It is my contention, Kevn, That it is fundamentally impossible for LL to detect all alts by technical means. I could elaborate on that but I am posting too much.

If PN himself appeared here today with a different name, the only way he could be detected would be by his language patterns, posting style, and by little flickers of his true personality leaking out from the necessary self-control. Only other residents would know him well enough to spot him, but how could they prove it, particularly if this "survival alt" had been carefully groomed over months to give it a convincing separate existence ? So yes, alt detection can be a real problem.

It obviously does matter when on said IRC channel one Linden employee and certain residents discuss how Prokofy is not "technically" violating TOS but how they should still toast him. Especially given that one of Prokofy's main "insults" were his repeated claims of exactly such kind of corruption going on.

Now in this case somebody took one chat log and made it public. What do you think in how many undocumented cases we have similar things going on?

In the light of such serious failures in the system, banning exactly the person who repeatedly has been pointing to these problems is very troublesome. There better be some very serious reasons. What I have seen sofar does not justify such action. I saw Prokofy bring forward thesis about topic like economy or favoritism in SL. I saw people jump his throat in response. Did I read the wrong threads? Then please mail to [email]anshe_sb@yahoo.de[/email] Accusation without proof is slander, so please provide proof.

Hmmm, yes, I see your point. People can use someone esle's credit card and be completely invisible to LL....

With these new rules, where one can be removed after one or two warnings maybe LL can spot those alternate accounts.. I'm not against tough rules for the forum. I think we should be held to a standard that allows an open debate.

I'm way to new to the forum to think I know what's best

Hi Daisy. Nice to meet you.



The only thing this proves is, if one is odious and malicious enough, eventually those around them will turn to look for agreement that the odious and malicious one is, indeed, just so.

It is worth noting that every last person found in that chat log you mention can be documented to have REPEATEDLY try to communicate, include, and defuse the abject hatred of the odious one.

It is also worth noting that no one at LL ever went looking to 'toast' him. It is dishonest of you to insinuate otherwise.

I find it interestingly the selective memory at work with regard to things, truly. If you wish proof of ToS violations, seek them out in the archives with an impartial eye. I assure you, they are there.



No. You are certainly not alone. If I had a $L for every person I've spoken with in the last week who has told me with relief how they now contemplate bothering to interact in the general forum, you would be astonished. And no, some folk do not 'get it'... I think by either choice or design.

If a Linden employee can be proven to have participated in such discussions in public, Anshe, I agree that is serious.

What puzzles me is this. Unless this was a Linden IRC channel, which knows the SL passwords, surely anyone can impersonate a Linden by simply choosing such a name ? How therefore can anyone possibly accuse a Linden of such a thing, a much more serious accusation because of its threat to their employment. What proof of identity could an accuser possibly produce?

Please help me with this. How could you possibly be sure it was indeed a Linden ?

It's history, Ellie. Pathfinder admitted voicing his frustration and both was taken to task for it and has humbly and sincerely apologized for it. Guess some folks only believe in forgiveness when they're the one who has transgressed.

Personally, I think the log in question demonstrates nothing in the way of LL bias. Indeed, in light of the fact that so many were so fed up with the odious one and still looked for ways to give them chances to behave (all refused, of course) demonstrates clearly that bias was the last thing in play insofar as LL was concerned.

Give a good search of the archives, Ellie. Don't let the various agendas at work here lead you.

Thank you, Cienna.
If I only caught the fag end, it must have been going on a hell of a long time. Talk about a run for your money.

(I hope no-one thinks that is a gay reference, just means "last deteriorated bit" )

Well, Ellie, see, for one thing this is Ulrika's thread to BEGIN with. I hardly think you can say, "so the rest of us can get back on topic [without Ulrika] to see what mileage is left in it."

Or that you should call Ulrika "our other main malcontent in this thread."

Seems to me that this is HER thread, and it is ABOUT her discontent.

It is arrogant of you to decide when we are all done with saying what we want to say, as if you were in some moral majority and everyone else were to be marginalized.

Saying she is some sort of malcontent ruining the thread for "the rest of us" overlooks the fact that it is HER THREAD IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It's especially ridiculous when you are saying those things about the very person who created the thread and brought up the whole issue. But none of us is lesser than you.

coco