Free Expression and Moderation Reform

How do you know that Kris's post wasn't simply edited to remove the profanity while the other post resulted in a warning but didn't get edited for language?

I don't know that it wasn't warned but left intact - however, many personal attacks that did not contain any kind of profanity have been edited out. I hope that if warnings are given for the posts that both get them - or none at all (my preference, as again, I think all the warnings for being a big meanie and saying bad words are quite stupid).

I agree with you all the way in principle. I'm pretty thick skinned and it doesn't really bother me if someone takes a swipe at me. I look at the stricter policy as something to help bring more sensitive and easily offended/intimidated voices to the table.

That is what concerns me though. Already, I have seen that certain sensitive posters seem to take any dissent as a personal attack, and may be warn post happy. I will reserve judgement until I see what happens, but it seems like unless you say "hugs and kisses!" to their ideas or comments, then it is "you are either with us, or you support terrorists" all over again. Blah. I am going to work on Snapzilla.

Then we'll have to hold both ourselves and the moderators to a higher standard.

Which is what I see Ulrika trying to do. I don't think that her original post about the Erased One was a good idea. However, she thinks it was appropriate and she believes that the Lindens acted too forcefully. So she's making her case in the only way she can. I don't see any "%#@*! the moderators" rhetoric here, or in the previous thread that was closed down. I see an argument being presented. Good or bad? shrugs - that's up to the reader to decide. I don't see whining. I see Ulrika trying to manufacture her situation into a "test case" on policy and enforcement. That's a long-standing political tactic in a democratic culture.

As for SL being a corporate commodity under LL control rather than a world, I believe that it's treated that way when it's convenient for people. And it's treated as a "virtual world" with rights and privileges when it's convenient, as well. There's a tension between those two ideas, and that tension is what Ulrika is exploring.

haha, I soooooo know what you mean. It drives me up a wall!

I dont see, or anticipate, any increase in this. I see a big decrease due to mega-troll removal. I think you may see more people trying to nip unacceptable behaviour in the bud, in concert with working for a higher standard in their own posts. I think we have a big opportunity now to reduce hostility and unpleasantness in the forums, and I think we should all grasp it firmly while the iron is hot. May seem a little flat for a week or two, like adrenalin withdrawal, but I think the benefits will soon kick in. More pleasant place to be. New, calm people arriving. Old ones who were driven away returning etc etc.

If it was only that easy to change service providers.

We do have rights as citizens of the U.S. though which simply do not translate to a commercial setting such as SL. The one that comes up for discussion the most seems to be free speech. We don't have that right.

I give the Lindens a lot of credit for wanting to see SL run itself. For wanting to be able to intervene as little as possible. The reality is that one malicious person can ruin it for 100 mature, responsible adults. Same as in RL. Hence the cracking down in the forums.

The other reality is that those who administer the rules are human and subject to all that that means. Hold them to a high standard, but don't expect them to be godlike in their knowledge and execution. You could not pay me enough to read and moderate the forums. Two phrases come to mind: (1) Damned if you do and damned if you don't; and (2) You can't please all the people all the time.

I'm still very hopeful that the new rules will make the forums less of a trial to sift through. Polite disagreement is simply a skill. One that you need anyway in RL.

On a side note. I know someone has done a basic guide to techniques for civil arguments and discussions in a text environment. Can anyone find a link? It's driving me batty.

Seth. You're a genius, plain and simple. I love how you can take a complex topic and perfectly boil it down to a couple of paragraphs.

~Ulrika~

I hear a lot of folks saying that LL is a company and the argument for free expression is thus moot. Well, what if LL gave free epxression with well-defined limits to us and our virtual world?

I would like LL recognize, that this is not just a game, it is a virtual world. I would like them to grant us true free expression in the forum, provided that that speech does not denigrate, defame, or break local laws. I want to be able to:

1. name names
   
2. bring up possible in-world misdeeds
   
3. link to external sites
   
4. post transcripts of discussions
   
5. post and discuss warnings and infractions
   

If any of these posts denigrate, defame, or break local laws, then the user should be punished.


In regards to moderation reform, I would like to see:

1. an attempt to place posts in content
   
2. an attempt to apply warnings consistently
   
3. published information of who is reporting whom (no more anonymous complaints)
   
4. clear reasons why a post is being edited (defamation, verbal attacks, denigration)
   
5. clear reasons why a thread is locked (off topic, to restore order)
   
6. a resistance to allowing folks to game the forums using the red triangle of doom
   

Did I miss anything?

~Ulrika~

Some of these I agree on (mostly in the first half-list) but I think it is unreasonable to expect LL to shoulder this burden.

How computer literate are you, Ulrika? Why dont you set up a forum of your own, based on these principles ? You would need to pay for a hosting location at maybe $10 per month, but the software is free (lots of choices) and its quite easy to set up. I ran one for a year or so but handed it over to another when the moderation became too tedious. My intention was virtually no moderation but theres always that one person who will push push push, libel libel libel, just like a little toddler.

I have heard that SL Herald has a sort of forum, but that it won't allow posting of conversations.

If you would find the moderation too much, I'm sure others would volunteer. But from this posting you seem the right person to mastermind it. I think it could be really valuable to have an attractive independent SL forum. There isn't one I dont know about, is there ?

If LL likes to experiment, and this virtual world proves that they do, then I say...

GIVE THE POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Time for us to get involved in the forming of not only prims, but also in the direction our freedoms and choices take us in this virtual realm. Time to step up to the plate and...and...oh...wait..my favorite tv show is on. Be back in an hour or two..

As I just pointed out, David, some power we can just take if we choose. Making a success of an independently run forum would be a first step toward demonstrating our fitness for running at least some of our affairs, wouldn't it ?

So, you effectively want to:

1. encourage gossip and other unsupported discourse of questionable value
   
2. encourage mob rule via postings by alts, friends and instigators
   
3. broaden the scope of communication to that of outside any control by the Lindens" when the forums here are SPECIFICALLY set up and intended (per LL's own words) to further SL community discussions, not to bring non-Linden/non-SL things into a forum thread
   
4. submit as "evidence" supposedly accurate "transcripts" which could only "officially" be vetted and verified by LL itself from its "tapes" thus further burdening the current moderators with a new task
   
5. get into other people's business like a bunch of old busy-bodies in an old-folks home
   

And, of course, YOU want to be the one who decides what constitutes posts that "denigrate, defame, or break local laws". Oh, btw, whose "local laws"?

If I understand your post correctly, you "also want to see":

1. a way to second guess loudly and as arrogantly as YOU wish any moderation by LL
   
2. a means to identify people so that you or other may lable them as "enemies of the state"/a clique/a particular person
   
3. a means to tell LL mmoderators that they haven't go a clue how to apply their own TOS
   
4. a clearer way to say you think that LL is feckless
   
5. something that will comfort you at night because you fear that you cannot control your own posts/reactions and thus might actually warrant someone else "using the red triangle of doom" appropriately when you DO post something that violates the forum guidelines
   

Do I have that correct?

"Did I miss anything?"

There already are the forums at sluniverse.com, where what I've suggested essentially exists. The goal of this thread is to bring those freedoms that exist elsewhere into the official SL forums. After all, behavior in this forum is now directly tied to our account status and thus our freedom in world.

Think about it. To maintain our in-world freedom, we must submit to forum censorship. If our freedom of expression is limited, so is our in-world freedom. What is proposed is a way to make our LL oligarchy a little more like the democratic republic we (USians) live in.

~Ulrika~

Three words:

Ulrika for moderator.


I'm all for resident moderators in more of these forums. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to make that "fairly unbalanced."

To maintain our inworld freedom, forum participants must submit to forum civility. If our freedom of expression is under rein here, our freedom of thought is not.

It is the manner, not the matter of our expression that we are held accountable for in the forums.

It's both.

You'll note the tone of this post is quite nice (manner), however I cannot post this link (matter) because it has text that was censored by LL moderators.

I cannot "name names" either, so if someone is doing something like reselling free animations, I could not warn folks in the forums to avoid them.

We are also not allowed to "repost". So if a thread is locked, regardless of the merit of that lock, it may not be restarted. Remember that some threads are locked without explanation.

Posts such as these should be allowed, with punishment given to those who post material that is defamatory, slanderous, or illegal. The key is to allow free expression, punishing those who use it destructively. After all, if we're going to have tough new rules, shouldn't we have some new freedoms that go with it?


Finally, to really make a point by example, imagine if the SL forums were USA Today Online. Imagine if our government could simply "lock" a story removing it from the front page. Imagine then if it were illegal to discuss the locking, to reference that story, or to link to the same information in a paper in another country. Imagine too that all one had to do was to anonymously complain about a story to get the censor's attention. What countries does that remind you of? Don't you think LL can do better?

~Ulrika~

My point is, Ulrika, there are, and can be, other forums where all the freedoms you want can be available, and which anyone could move to if they wished. Forum-running is the one area where technically the Lindens have no monopoly and no control.

Here, things are done their way. Since there is now a real sanction in the offing, those who dont wish to play Linden rules would be safer playing elsewhere, and I see no reason for hard feelings.

The "Linden way" is far from a dictatorship, at least in this respect, but has come about from bitter experience and from seeing how unpleasant things had become the old way.
I personally heartily approve of the new policy. Even if this official forum is trying to be the "good-mannered" partly "censored" one, there can easily be others. If they are more desirable, people will come to them.

I understood your point, acknowledged it, and provided you with an example of it myself. However, I then interjected that this particular forum has a special relationship to our virtual world, as is directly tied to our account status and thus our virtual freedom. Perhaps you could comment on this relationship.

Technically the Lindens are an oligarchy, which is rule by the few, as opposed to a dictatorship, a form of autocracy, which is rule by one individual.

I understand and agree with you that an oligarchy is better suited to controlling citizens compared to a democratic republic. I, however, value a government's ability to support freedom of expression over its efficacy to implement censorship.

~Ulrika~

The special relationship? What is it ? I suppose:
1. Membership of the world is at risk to undesired behaviour
2. Linden announcements and responses to residents queries and requests appear here.
3. Members identity is guaranteed by needing their SL password to enter.

Can't think of anything else.
An independent forum would escape (1), presumably a benefit for some.
It would miss out on (2) unless someone put in the slog of transcribing. Not necessary I think, people could use both.
There is no difficulty replicating (3) for those who wish a verified identity. They just IM a chosen forum password to the moderator in-world, who then sets them up with their in-game name plus a "verified" marker on the end.

I expect I've missed something big ?

The question, however, is what % of forum users would see the extra "freedoms" as a sufficient advantage for them to switch their posting habits. And what % see more discipline here as benevolent, and tending towards a more enjoyable and harmonious discussion environment. People would vote with their feet, and choice has to be good.

If it's just a question of an outlet for posting, and reading, occasional "forbidden" stuff, then I guess the SLH forum is already used for that, and is maybe adequate fror the purpose. Doesn't interest me - looks like everything Ive been glad to escape. But if one had someone one hated and wanted to deride or attack, it might be ideal for ones purpose, except for the tiny audience, and the waiting troll-fest.

Warning: Here comes a little story from my past . Though it's relevant, those who bore easily might want to skip it

Some years ago I set up and ran an open forum, precisely to parallel an over-censored one with a much more free alternative. It became a horrific experience. Somewhat as we have seen here, one individual ruined it for everyone. It was bizarre. Not only did he repeatedly post extremely agressively and libellously about local politicians, so that I actually received threats from their legal advisers. Unbelievably he also started threatening legal action against a couple of other posters he claimed had maligned or "outed" him. Including all sorts of devious and aggressive strategies to try to deduce their RL identities.

This forum had been highly successful, and had attracted about 85% of posters away from the original. At one point I was getting about 2000 posts per day, about 50 of which were from this individual who stamped all over every thread with his bullying, insults, and paranoia.

The particular software had no ip banning capability, and to change would have lost us a database of literally tens of thousands of posts. By making me ban him he was making me violate the very principles on which the board was founded. No registration, no email address required - absolute anonymity and so total free speech.

It all made me sick, people began to leave, I had to start editing things out of posts which I had never wanted to do. Someone else volunteered to take it over, which he did. He very soon swapped it over to a fully verified registration system so that he could exclude the mega-troll, and have everyones RL address in case he was sued. It died, of course. It now fumbles on with about two posts a day, and only 5 or 6 regular participants.

I guess the lesson is - dont use forum software without ip banning. However high your principles at the start, don't imagine you can get away without censoring people. They will push and push however hard they must (as little children do), till they force you to declare a boundary. Then revile you as a censor of their freedoms, when it is they who have cornered you into violating your own ideals.

Some of it sounds familiar, doesn't it? And explains the strength of my opposition to any similar behaviour here.

Who here said "it all arises from an inappropriate sense of entitlement".

When I look at the options in this poll I see why people don't trust polls. By the phrasing of the options one's choices are limited. Of course everyone wants to freely express their thoughts, that not even worth asking.

The questions should be:

1. Do you think personal attacks are acceptable in a forum?
2. Should SL forums be for discussing SL and issues concerning SL?
3. Should SL forums be completely open to any speech, including discussing what others are doing within SL?(a sort of black list attacking people one thinks is wrong or bad)
4.Should moderators have the power to lock a thread if it is outside the scope of allowable topics?

It's my opinion there is a place for everything. I love the little sign in my friend's pool, "we promise not to swim in your toilet if you promise not to pee in our pool". Sure you have rights, but those rights end when they step on other's rights.

Most of those who post here like to discuss issues concerning SL, they don't want to discuss personalities.

Another thing that I think is outside the boundries of a forum like this is self proclaimed police reporting on the behaviour of other residents of SL. In RL a newspaper can be sued for wrongfully claiming a person is guilty of a crime until the court has ruled. The press has to abide by certain rules to avoid lawsuits, such as naming a person as a suspect, or that it was alleged by the police this person did this crime. First the allegation, then the grand jury, then the judge/jury, then verdict. Do we want one person to be the police, judge, jury and executioner? I prefer we limit the discussions to the scope of the forum, which is listed on the forum.

Just more of my humble opinion, by the way, I loved that story of trying to run a free and open forum

When you are naming the names of someone who has wronged you, do you expect Linden Labs to verify that the alleged offense actually occured and took place?

If not, then it leaves all sorts of innocent people at risk.

Lets say I have land for sale for 15,000 Linden. Joe Avatar offers me 12,000 for the land and I refuse to sell to him because I believe my land is worth 15. Joe then comes to the forums and says how I tried to lie and cheat him and makes up all sorts of things about me so that noone will buy my land. 3 weeks later, my land is unsold and Joe offers me 12,000 for the land. Do you see how this can easily be abused?


Transcripts are VERY easily forged. The only chat logs that can be relied on for any sort of accuracy are those chat logs that are verified by LL as accurate, as they are the only ones with the resources to ensure the accuracy of the logs.


One could argue that this violates a users right to privacy. Granted, I agree with this and would like to see LL publish VERIFIED infractions and warnings with names, places, and events that occured (to keep the infraction in context). However, the question of a users right to privacy must be considered.

I agree with many of your opinions and ideas in the second list (moderation reform).

Textured

I assure you that the forums at SL Universe are anything but a troll fest.

In addition to providing many of the suggested free-expression reforms, they are also well and fairly moderated, as far as I know. Prokofy himself was banned from the SL Universe forums. This is convincing proof that free expression and good moderation can exist hand in hand. As a matter of fact they should go hand in hand, which is precisely why I titled this thread "Free Expression and Moderation Reform".

We need less limitations on expression coupled with fair, consistent, well-defined moderation.


Regarding your forum anectode:
This is an example of a system that I do not support. Unlimited expression without moderation is a disaster waiting to happen. Remember, one is only allowed free expression as long as that expression does not interfere with the rights of others. It is consistent moderation which is crucial to limiting this destructive expression.

Additionally, I think LL waited far too long to ban Prokofy. He had brought the forum to its knees weeks before official action was taken, simply because they were unable to recognize that a body of work, just like a single post, can be taken as evidence of destructive behavior.


The comparison of a citizen to a child, that needs to be controlled and taken care of, is a common tactic of oligarchies and autocracies. I imagine most people here are not children and resent being treated like one. Instead we should have free expression tempered with consistent moderation.

~Ulrika~