Free Expression and Moderation Reform

Of course, there already are the forums at sluniverse.com, where much-less restrictive policies exist. The goal of this thread, however, 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. An analogy to what your saying is, the press is free in Europe, if you don't like the fact that the US doesn't have freedom of expression, go post your stories in Europe.

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 the LL oligarchy a little more like the RL democratic republic we live in.

~Ulrika~

Everyone in SL has two roles, a real-world role and a virtual-world role. Linden Labs in the real world is a corporation. The Lindens in the virtual world are unambiguously a government (specifically an oligarchy).

In world, they even use titles and terminology that governments use, such a "Governor Linden", "town-hall meetings"; they control land (naming, zoning, parcelling); set local laws (ToS*, CS, and Guidelines); and are capable of seizing assets and imprisoning users ("banning".

~Ulrika~

In every peaceful nation people give up civil liberties for the right to be left alone.

Where I live it's illegal to drink while driving my own car. I can't walk into my neighbor's house and eat his food. I have to abide by any number of federal, state and local laws(adding more than 1000 new laws a year).

I willingly give up my right to walk anywhere, like my neighbor's kitchen, in return for his agreeing not to walk into my kitchen. We both win even though we are giving up rights.

It's not that we are helpless that we require laws, it's because some people need to be told how to act. Most people would never dream of breaking into my home, but for those few who refuse to be civil we require laws with teeth. As long as I stay out of other people's houses I'm safe from the posibility of being jailed.

We agree to abide by LL's rules governing SL and the forums when we sign up. I can't go around shooting people in SL because I don't like their actions, if I do I'll be banned eventually. The same appies here, naming names and defaming people one thinks is bad is worse than shooting them. Words are real things and can do irreversible damage to a persons reputation. Once the post is sent there is no recovering it, even in a retraction.

This I why I feel forums should be restricted to idea sharing rather than gossip and back bitting. If LL has to ban people who refuse to abide by their rules to keep an open line of communication between their focus group so be it, imho

BTW, I do agree there should be a better appeal process when a complaint is filed. I had one once and sought info on the complaint to avoid further reporting and to defend myself, there was no reply to my request for info either.

Just my opinion

Banning Prokofy was a necessary thing. If he were still here he would have destroyed this thread by now. I would have been called a Bolshevik at least three times, Neualtenburg (purposely misspelled) would have been accused of accepting handouts twice, and LOL would have been used to convey angry disbelief at least once. (These claims are trivially verifiable and can all be found in this thread.) Add in the massive length and number of posts, mix in the inability to hear other arguments, or modify behavior and what you have is a source of harassment.

Sources of harassment regardless of intent must be addressed. Personally, I would have liked to see a post and character cap on Prokofy myself. That way he could still have a presence but at a level that would reduce the level of harassment.

Remember one has a right to freedom as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom of others.

~Ulrika~

Of course. Individual freedom ends where it interferes with the freedom of others. I'm asking for complete free expression with the exception of expression that interferes with the freedom of others.

~Ulrika~

Seth, I submit that LL's interest parallels and joins our own interest at some point along that line. It's symbiosis.

The longer this community survives and grows (ie, is welcoming to newcomers), the better LL's business model succeeds.

And the better the compromise between freedom and structured rules here, the better the community will function and the happier most members will be. You can't make everybody happy, so the most reasonable goal is to create a benign or benevolent environment for as many as possible. We cannot expect total freedom but neither would we accept draconian rules.

I understand what you're saying, I think, but framing it strictly in terms of LL's business profit is to ignore the other half of the equation -- us.

Wouldn't the posting of chat logs and naming of names in threads interfere with the freedom of others?

I'm unclear (and I have read the thread) what freedoms are being asked for here that we don't already have, other than a few that preserve a measure of confidentiality, even for TOS violators?

I'm sorry you are still having trouble. As I can only speak for myself, I have felt freer to post in the forums recently than ever before.

Did you AR these posts? While the new policy won't stop people from harrassing, it does provide the tools to stop the harrasser.

I've seen that too, but I cannot for the life of me find it. Here's the best I could come up with:

Discussion Board and email Etiquette

Core Rules of Netiquette

Here's a link to a webmaster's board where the people who actually do the dirty work of moderating discuss the problems. This thread is about public moderation vs. more discrete approach:

How Public Should Forum Moderation Be?

For a more general, humorous, lampoon of forum personality types, this is my favorite of all:

Flame Warriors

I'm in that Roster somewhere, but I'm not telling

Oh, I realise that. I just find it amusing that, reality acknowledged, there are still people who will try to avoid it, ignore it, or shape it to their liking. And I doubt seriously you know what I will say. You have not to date.

Anyway -- I rather like the fact that Linden Labs is willing to say, in essence, 'Look, this is our sandbox. We enjoy having you over to play, but we're not going to let you make it a place that others dislike visiting.'

I like that Linden Labs is willing to make people responsible for disruptive behavior, up to and including banning them from their world.

I have no issue with Linden Labs defining what constitutes 'disruptive' and other norms because it is their product, their company, and ultimately, their success that is at stake. They take more risk, hence they are easily deserving of more control over what happens.

And, of course, I have no concerns over ideals like 'freedom of speech' here because, outside of all the above, if that's what I'm interested in, chances are I'm not playing an online video game to exercise it.

Jeska, Pathfinder, Linden Labs et al -- well done. Just keep in mind that less than 5% of any online world's population actually visits or participates in forums like these and let that be the sauceplate upon which any heated thought may rest and be remedied by the cool air of reason.

Ah, but the press is ALWAY biased one way or the other, to some extent, Ulrika, and since media outlets (newspapers, TV news stations, websites, etc.) are privately owned, they control every piece of information that they pass on to the public. But, in our country as well as many others, nothing is stopping people from setting up their own websites, radio stations, or other media venues to express their own point of view. And that's the way it is in SL, too.

Now, if LL were actively going after people who posted material that goes against their TOS or CS on other sites, I would be complaining. However, all LL is doing is restricting the material that is posted on the forums that they own, in order to maintain a certain level of behavior for all residents while using LL resources.

We actually don't have as much in-world freedom as one might think. For instance, in real life, I would be well within my legal boundaries to own and display something like Nazi paraphernalia (which I do NOT own and have no intention of owning, by the way). However, in SL, LL has decided in several cases that displaying images of this sort in-world is unacceptable and a breach of TOS or CS, or both. That's just one example of the differences between the rights we have in SL and those we have in RL.

As much as we'd like to think of ourselves as an independent community, and as much as Philip touts the idea that he isn't building a game but a world, we must all abide by the rules LL has set down, in-world and on the forums. And I guess if we don't like the rules... we can go start our own game... oops, I mean, country... um, community... or something.

Coco, I've been reading your posts with interest since I got here. On most issues I've agreed with you. On this particular issue I think you and I would find we have some things in common -- but I don't think it's helpful to over-dramatize. What you're calling the "dark days" is merely the result of the admins trying to return some courtesy and common respect to the atmosphere in here. When their board-only solutions didn't work, they decided to link board behavior to in-world behavior. And as I and some others noted, they're not the first to do that. Sony did it with EQ. Cryptic did it and so did Mythic. It makes sense. It's the ideal enforcement tool.


If it ever does happen to me when I haven't (a) reposted chat logs, (b) called people names or insulted their heritage, (c) consistently sought to sow discontent and discord on the boards (as opposed to engaging in reasonable discussions on important issues), then I will at that time agree with you. But honestly, I do not think it's going to happen. I just don't. If I get banned, I'm confident it will be because I've done something to deserve it -- not because LL is borrowing a "survivor" style method from another board I post to, where majority vote can actually get someone banned even if they didn't do anything. (Guess who doesn't go to that board any more, and I didn't even get banned?)


It seems to me that they've realized their mistake and are trying to reassert their authority to enforce the TOS. They're human. They make mistakes. So do we.


Personally, I don't see it as "freedom from denigration". I see it as an attempt to preserve civil forum discourse, to protect the confidentiality of all of us. You can be "civil" and still express your opinion. You don't have to hide in a corner. It simply takes some thought and some craft to form the appropriate, non-aggressive phrases to express yourself. Right?

Maybe it was easier for the Lindens before, but it was easier for us to flame away too. Now we actually have to formulate our responses in less confrontive, abusive ways. I don't see how that is necessarily a bad thing. We wouldn't call our neighbors vulgar names in public, but neither should we be able to do that here.


Actually, that's the whole point of revising the enforcement process. A chaotic, abusive free-for-all is actually MORE oppressive to free speech than one that is moderated in a reasonable fashion.


Drama, Coco. I don't feel very fearful right now. Does that mean I just don't get it?


And complete freedom is not desirable, either. Try Sociolotron for a living example.


Here's something you and I agree on 100%. It should never be any other way.

I gave up more freedom, along with the rest of you, but I HAVE no right to be left alone. in fact, now I have less ability to defend myself from the "truths" that get formed, bantied about, and spread, unless, of course, I AR people right and left.

In fact, one of them, before someone else says it, is just because I experience this and complain about it, is that I am a "professional victim." That's just ONE. People feel free to make those personal attacks on me - who won't AR back - regardless of what I say. That phrase, along with several others, get picked up as "forum wisdom." That "forum wisdom" eventually becomes the excuse to get a person banned.

That is the flaw in this system. The many may be protected from the one, but the one is not protected from the many.

Jeska, Pathfinder, Lindens, NOT well done. Very poorly done.

coco

Coco, I am completely lost here. How come I haven't noticed any of this extensive persecution of you by "jackasses" since the new rules came in?

All I've seen that might be a bit doubtful is my own carefully coded implication that perhaps you might be an alt of prok, which I accept was out of order in forum, and which I therefore hereby withdraw. I'm trying hard to be a more meticulous poster under the new regime.

I'm pretty disappointed though, coco, that I have to accept that I'm barking up the wrong palm tree. Like sort of half-hoping Hitler made it to Peru. Just for art's sake.

It would have been so absolutely perfect.
Right down to that gorgeous, gorgeous "yes it's me!" under your name.

And your posting style and belief system seem so similar to his I find it remarkable. (male pronoun because I only saw male alts)

Anyway , if you are being hunted down here right now, I'm missing it. Could you post links to the three worst examples ? I cant find any. Then I can either sympathize or join in, depending on what theyre sayin, lol.

I think people should be free to feel as persecuted as they like, I think we all know the simple act of claiming to be persecuted is not evidence that one is being persecuted. Regardless, the change to moderation and linkage to access to SL definitely insures that anyone who is caught persecuting another can be brought to bear for it. This is a good thing.

If I'm not mistaken, most of what anyone is complaining about happened almost a month ago. Perhaps some folks should learn to move on and let things go? Of course I do realise that doesn't help in supporting one's worldview of being persecuted. Maybe there are fresh acts of persecution that I have not seen, only recently returned as I am. Then again, perhaps it is merely that, in the face of no further issues, one clings to the past in hopes that it may be a weapon in the future.

Hmm. Who was it that said, "The only thing required for a persecution complex to thrive is that there be differing opinions." It seems the only folks I see upset with these changes are those who (for whatever reason) believe it means they won't be able to speak. In reality, it is not that they cannot speak, it is that they must constrain themselves to speaking civilly. Once one accepts this is the only matter at issue in all these protests, things become less blown out of proportion.

Increased responsibility for one's words and actions is the best way to handle things. The only ones I see trying to avoid this are the ones who enjoy manipulating the system to their own ends... something I think will also become less an issue with the current changes. Also, by the way, a good thing.

Cindy, to me it has been dark days, VERY dark days, and I am not talking about the Lindens when I say that.

I joined the game three months ago. I joined the forums. There I saw Prok, this friend of mine from a prior game, with whom I have now shared three forums. In neither of the other forums (TSO and SLH) was he ever someone who needed banning.

Nor WAS he ever banned from either of those, including the far more fastidious TSO forums, where you'd get chastened for looking sideways at someone (and where, in the beginning, it was also tied to your ability to play the game).

Maybe the reason is, when he put forth his ideas there - and he pontificates everywhere like he did here - people didn't start blasting him right and left with personal attacks.

Prok was Prok; Prok was ALWAYS Prok; yet only in these forums was he considered intolerable; his sociological commentary considered personal attacks on the "community." In my estimation, I could have reported him once for sure (more for a false statement than a personal attack).

I could have resported those who responded to him with personal attacks dozens of times over.

The first thing I said about him when I got here, before I had really read much of this junk, in a thread where people were saying how divisive he was and how he should be gone and all that, was:

"I like Prok. I don't WANT him gone! He makes me think."

I spent a month or so thereafter being accused of being an alt, then a bedazzled follower, a sycophant, a wannabe troll, and now - I guess, I'm a full-fledged troll. I was treated like a total dog, then, and only a few treat me better now. Whenever I put forth an idea, it is INVARIABLY translated into personal terms - as if I only said that because I'm jealous, petty, a crybaby, lazy, untalented, uncreative, etc., you name it. And yet, I have managed not to hit that AR button, so far, no matter how frustrated. I don't want to because I want people to behave better towards me out of reason, not from fear. And, oddly, the harder it gets not to hit it, the more proud of myself I am for not doing that.

So, in light of the new thing that causes people to get banned from the game if they do respond with the emotion they will feel when hounded around the forums with personal accusations, and some people, just popping in to say something snide - I'm not even sure I have that much self-control, so I try to stay out of the heat of battle. Except now. Not when we are talking about the very thing that muzzles me and makes my life on these forums miserable. And talking about it as if it were a good thing.

From my beginning as an alt, I lived through the Shunning, a shameful event the likes of which I have never witnessed before anywhere, and throughout all this, Lindens were silent, probably because neither I nor Prok AR'd people, it turned out; though toward the end he started. Instead, he neg-rated people in game. I was always most opposed to that, and said so, both to him and on these forums.

Now, though, as of a few days ago, I finally began to understand it. When you feel so impotent, against a mass of people who persist in misunderstanding and mischaracterizing you, first dismissing you as a human being entirely, and come into your OWN threads to paint you in unflattering terms no matter what you have said, and treat you with contempt, you wish you could go neg-rate a few of them, or maybe just slap them in the face. Especially the little ankle-nipping dogs that just pop up wherever you are to say something snide.

But - I won't AR, I won't neg-rate, and I won't be this board's next victim. If I'm not careful, pretty soon a case will be made of me, using quasi-logic, about how "divisive" and so forth I am. So I tried, instead, to post my ideas and opinions somewhere other than general. I had, in specific, two good faith ideas that I thought would help things, which I posted in Poly-Sci (and one of them in here). All that brought me were the same personal attacks.

You know, all of you, that I could have made countless ARs against many here and made some of them stick, and still could.

Then I watched Prok get banned. Then I watched people cheer over his body. With, by the way, absolutely no sensitivity to how I or anyone else who was his friend might feel. Roasted and burned at the stake he was, and afterwards, there was a party. I read thread after thread, post after post, in the General forum, in which people flocked in to flay him further, absolutely certain that he really was a menace to be destroyed.

Having been on two other forums with him, and also knowing him, I know that he was not.

Like Lord of the Flies. He was supposedly the monster, when in fact he was one of us. I am supposedly monstrous, mean, petty, jealous, the one to "take up the torch" where "troll" Prok took off, etc. etc. etc. because - and this is my true crime - I agree with many of his ideas. Ideas. Little wonder why I am dramatic and why they have been dark days for me ever since I got on these boards.

Linking forum comments to the ability to play the game in this case, Cindy, means these same people have even more power, and the fact is, that does quieten people like me. There is a middle ground between little supervision and little supervision plus you'll be banned. Both the latter and the former means that Lord of the Flies behavior will always win.

I know, because I know if I can go down this way, so can any other independent-thinking, reasonable person, including you, Cindy.

If you want to preserve civil discourse, and protect people from having their real life divulged, you are bring coals to Newcastle to talk about it with me. The flames continue, the abusive personal comments continue. You just haven't experienced it. Yet.

coco

I think people should be free to feel as persecuted as they like, I think we all know the simple act of claiming to be persecuted is not evidence that one is being persecuted. Regardless, the change to moderation and linkage to access to SL definitely insures that anyone who is caught persecuting another can be brought to bear for it. This is a good thing.

If I'm not mistaken, most of what anyone is complaining about happened almost a month ago. Perhaps some folks should learn to move on and let things go? Of course I do realise that doesn't help in supporting one's worldview of being persecuted. Maybe there are fresh acts of persecution that I have not seen, only recently returned as I am. Then again, perhaps it is merely that, in the face of no further issues, one clings to the past in hopes that it may be a weapon in the future.

Hmm. Who was it that said, "The only thing required for a persecution complex to thrive is that there be differing opinions." It seems the only folks I see upset with these changes are those who (for whatever reason) believe it means they won't be able to speak. In reality, it is not that they cannot speak, it is that they must constrain themselves to speaking civilly. Once one accepts this is the only matter at issue in all these protests, things become less blown out of proportion.

Increased responsibility for one's words and actions is the best way to handle things. The only ones I see trying to avoid this are the ones who enjoy manipulating the system to their own ends... something I think will also become less an issue with the current changes. Also, by the way, a good thing.

Ellie, the "yes it's me!" was code to my friends from other games, where my name is also Cocoanut, so they could find me here. (And they have.)

Early on in my forum life, I wrote several posts, including one lengthy one, explaining how I was a different person. I was patient. Yes, I said (go look it up), I could understand why people might have thought that, but it was not true. I was nice about it for quite a while.

To find personal comments my character and motivations, and the nipping dogs as well, look at virtually any thread I've posted. Try, for instance, the one in Poly-Sci ("War and Political Parties." My ideas may be unpopular among most regular posters, but they should never warrant personal comments. That's what I mean.

coco

Well said, Cienna. I need to find who said that about persecution complexes, because I want to steal it for some other boards I frequent


I don't know enough about Coco to include her among the manipulators. It sounds to me as though she simply experienced some very unpleasant attacks prior to the banning of He Who Cannot Be Named and associates her experience with that banning and with whatever LL does from here out -- even if it's a reasonable compromise.

If you weren't referring directly to Coco, then forgive me for the assumption. Sometimes perceptions don't fit reality but that doesn't mean they don't have a reason to exist. I admire Coco's passion and articulation, even if/when I don't think she's 100% accurate in her perception.

Reads wrong. I don't mean join in persecuting - I mean join in and defend them if I judge their posts to be reasonable, inoffensive and non-personal.

Could we try not to make this another 'me me me' session? The topic is the forum reform and how/why you like/dislike it. It is not intended as another venue for those who feel persecuted to drone on about how unacknowledged they feel in their persecution.

Thanks.

I'm still looking. Hell, I may be quoting myself. I'll let you know soon. (grin)

Beryl, with respect, I think you've missed my point. Whether I can post anything I like on a non-corporate website has no bearing on this debate. My argument is that if LL is truly serious about creating a diverse, pluralistic, open-ended online community - one that can be called a "world" in a social and economic sense as well as an environmental sense - then the users have to be formally granted certain rights and privileges, and must have systematic influence over policies and decision-making. That's true as well if LL wants to model SL along realistic lines, as they have stated on many occasions.

Simply telling people to take their issues to another venue avoids the issue.

We have a long history of company-owned communities in the United States and other nations, and that history demonstrates fairly conclusively that company-owned communities do not work. They do not encourage creativity, they do not serve the residents, and they are not pleasent places to live. I seriously doubt that an online company community could provide its users with a better experience, given the relative comparisons.

As far as LL allowing users carte blanche to use the forums as they like, that's not the argument I was making, as you no doubt know. Of course there has to be order in the forums, just as there has to be order inworld. The spectre of (erroneously defined) anarchy has been raised too many times in these debates, and perhaps we need another Godwin's-type law to keep people from tarring arguments with that brush. My understanding is that we are discussing the idea of the extent of the individual's basic rights and privileges, and whether and how individuals might have input into LL policies regarding behavior and enforcement. No question of anarchy there; it's a question of order and control, and by who. Ulrika says the residents/users have to have a greater say. I say she has a point worth discussing.

LL does have the ultimate right to decide what is appropriate in the forums and inworld. If they exercise that right except in the most extreme circumstances, however, they will nullify the principles underlying the world they are trying to create. If a way is not found to systematically involve the entire user population in the policy- and decision-making process regarding broad aspects of the product, those principles will be nullified. If a way is not found to correlate corporate necessities and limits with user-rights and privileges, those principles will be nullified.

Nullification of those principles may have a serious effect on a product that has been advertised as the truest approximation of a world online. Unless, as I've said before, SL is just a game. If it's just a game, then I have no problem with LL making these sorts of decisions, because, as you say, it's their product.

Coco, if every post you write is accusatory and combative in tone then that's what you're likely to receive in return. Let it go. If you can't, how can you expect to move beyond your bad experiences or for anyone else to? I understand the temptation to think "you first," but the golden rule applies here. Speak the way you wish to be spoken to. If people continue to treat you poorly it will only reflect poorly on them. If you continue to be a combatant then you're equally culpable.

You broke my analogy. I'm not talking about bias in the press.

I'm equating LL to China. If one tries to express themselves in a way that the government does not approve of they will be arrested or exiled (banned) and the content in question will be censored. People do not have the option of starting another newspaper in China, as that too will be censored. The only recourse one has, is to express themselves outside of the country, where the audience is significantly smaller.

Starting a forum or website outside of the secondlife.com domain, where they have no authority, would be equivalent to a Chinese dissident being forced to publish censored material in a foreign country. While I recognize that this can be done, it is not a solution to the restrictions in expression or limitations in moderation on this site or our virtual world.

It is against the law to discuss, own, or propagate Nazi-related content in many countries. That is not a violation of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as that form of expression can be shown to be detrimental to the society as whole, one of the exceptions to Article 19. Personally, I favor the banning of all hate speech but that's a different topic altogether.

I agree with Phillip, myself. Given that this is one of the first true virtual worlds, shouldn't it be founded on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights instead of the censorship that comes with oligarchies like China? A little reform never hurt anyone, especially not a company as resilient as LL.

~Ulrika~