Free Expression and Moderation Reform

Coco, I think a little balance is necessary here. Thank you for your support, but I am not so much concerned about who did what to whom. While I have some issues with the principles and methods involved in banning a certain person recently, for example, I would very much like to see these discussions centered on ideas, principles, and methods - for very practical reasons.

Lol, Ellie, I thought it was cute either way a person read it!

Chip, it doesn't matter if I defend myself, or Prok, or, you, should you ever need it. That is just not the sort of thing I can "let go." Until it stops, for once and for all. Until everyone has equal opportunity to be heard with dignity.

coco

"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."

I agree - and this is why the battle is so fierce here, and why I don't just let it go.

P.S. Grrrrrrrrrrr Chip! Maybe my posts are accusatory and combative in tone BECAUSE people who mount shunning campaigns and the myriad other things I have listed (it matters not, for once and for all, whether I or someone else is the victim) DESERVE to be accused of such things and combated about them.

Kevin, I'm not arguing that we cannot give up civil liberties in return for order. That's a given. I think the debate is over how many civil liberties, and what kind must we give up to participate in this corporate product? And what do we receive in return, in terms of having influence and control over our "lives" in SL?

All good government in modern times is a contract between the rulers and the ruled. Simply saying that I surrender broad civil rights in return for the right to "exist" in SL does not mirror the "world" principles that LL proclaims. Again assuming that SL is more than just a game.

The examples you've given are all valid ones, but they are also extreme, and I don't think they really nail the point. You are right; but then, so am I.

I have far less experience with Prok than you (or with most folks here for that matter), but I saw someone who tended toward the inflammatory and provocative. That didn't make him a bad person -- I also remember him taking to task the <expletive deleted> people who built the 9/11 parody... and he got push-bombed for it. Had I got to know him better, who knows? I probably would have come to like his irascibility and no-nonsense style. I don't usually attach myself to people who are flat and colorless

That said, Coco, please consider the possibility that as bad as you perceive your past experience here to have been, you do have quite a bit of power remaining. You may not be able to convince everyone else that you're right, but you can keep talking and keep being yourself regardless of who disagrees. (Personally, when I've gotten in those situations I've adopted a "fuckyou" attitude that is almost as bad as being a victim, but nothing feels quite like having a righteous chip on one's shoulder ). Another choice would be to hide in the corner and not speak your mind, but something tells me you wouldn't enjoy it there. The other alternative, of course, is to excuse yourself from the community and find a place more amenable. I hope you don't because I'm one who thinks you have good things to offer here.


From the viewpoint of a former admin, I can almost tell you what was going on behind the scenes. Admins start getting complaints. Admins investigate. They see threads that may have begun as non-confrontive but which gradually begin to spiral into ad hominem. Post 12 may ratchet it by .001%. Post 14 may add another .0012% -- Post 16 may add yet another .002% ... taken on their own, none of those posts warranted banning. But it's like officiating in sports -- usually the retaliator gets caught. And over time the venom in a thread would build until the choices for the admins were narrowed down to banning and/or locking the thread. And in the admin's private board, the common denominator of all the flame wars -- in this case, Prok -- is discussed over and over. Chances are, some of the admins may have agreed with you. But the overarching interest of those admins is and shall always be the tone of the board. If someone is disrupting that tone, sometimes the only way to retake control of things is to kick a few people out. I've seen that, and I've been part of that decision making process myself on many occasions. Admins do what they do for the good of the board or community, not because too many people AR'd and not because there's a plot against one member.

The best way to avoid being the target of that kind of action is to just constrain oneself from flagrant abuse, ad hominem (or anything which can be perceived as such) and inflammatory verbiage. It IS possible to get one's point across passionately without inflaming everyone.


As nasty as that sounds, if you knew you weren't an alt or a troll, how much did it really matter? (I'm not being flip about your personal feelings here. Obviously you're still upset over it. But if you like to think, you'll welcome questions.) Sometimes, isn't a calm, confident consistency more powerful than loud, passionate denial?


I don't think you have to muzzle yourself (unless you want to call someone a f***ing f***ball, to quote from Get Shorty ). You're too intelligent not to know how to get your point -- and your passion -- across without being aggressive or insulting. I've seen you do it.


I know some of those little ankle-nippers! I just ignore them though. They're not worth my time. Usually they've attempted to confront me on an issue, gotten their butts handed back to them, and their only retaliation is a form of assymetrical warfare called "hit and run". Problem is, 'hitting' in a text-based discussion board where everyone is judged on their behavior can backfire if you hit too much. Let'em hit. Be the Teflon.


You've said you haven't used that power, but you have it too. 'They' don't have any power you don't have, do they?


I think I have enough online experience in other communities to be equipped for such a fight -- if it happens. "Fight" is a misnomer, though, because I think civility can itself be a powerful weapon in these fora. If it happens, I'll deal with it but it will be behind the scenes, without drama, and ultimately if my experience is too unpleasant I simply won't come around any more. Problem solved.

Hi Seth,

I agree LL should seek out the input of the residents as they go about the business of creating a better world, after all, it's in their best interest to please the residents. I think they do a good job listening. They hold town hall meeting regularly, they read the forums and they talk to people willing to offer ideas. I see LL making changes and it's usually in response to suggestions and ideas found in the forums.

I believe well thought out ideas that benefit SL are instituted when possible.

That's why I'm all for free expression of ideas as opposed to personal attacks and back biting. I would prefer we discuss how to fix the problems than to complain about them.

But of course, this is just my opinion and I'm no authority


I'm sure there is room for improvement

It is not as 'black and white' as this, and it seems a bit like fear-mongering to present it as such, even rhetorically. It is not as if these changes went into effect and the next day, jack-booted gestapo were seen standing on the figurative streetcorner, giving you the evil eye, suspecting you before you so much as left your house.

This is a very simple thing, this change. It is an admission that yes, Linden Labs has the ultimate responsibility to enforce the personal responsibility of its customers. Especially when those customers refuse to do so themselves.

There are a number of ways to encourage community discourse without letting every screaming id in the universe pitch tantrums that detract/distract/disrupt from that community discourse. The method LL has chosen is but one of those ways. Add to this it is a method that has been demonstrated to work well for many corporate-run forums.



To the extent we're talking about the forums (pointing up to the topic name), I would say there is no room for discussion. The forums will never be owned by the players, nor should they be. Order and control belong to the entity who pays for these forums and assumes all responsibility for making them available as a community venue. Again, this will never be the players.

The philosophical discussion of various ivory tower notions may be a fun way to pass the time, but it is irrelevant to the reality of things. That reality being simply this -- no matter how many $L you buy, no matter how much Linden Land you own, no matter how much time you spend in the metaverse, you do not own the metaverse and therefore, you have no right of control over the metaverse. You have only what Linden Labs deigns to give to you. You knew this when you signed up, you were not duped.



This 'black or white' rhetoric fails due to one, simple reality -- this method has been one utilized with consistent success across the entire genre (MMOs) and game offerings (read: Product market, service model) for the last eleven years and throughout the twenty years prior thereto in venues ranging from BBSs to MUDs/MOOs/MUSHes, etc.

All of this is only slightly older than the 'gloom and doom unless it is done this way!' rhetoric you are presenting. (grin)



There is no 'unless'. We all knew it was a game when we signed up. No matter how wildly popular it may become, it will always and forever be a product being offered to the marketplace. This is not a bad thing, nor does it in any manner condemn Linden Labs to be so. The notion that it can only be 'just a game' or 'Uptopia becoming!' is itself an insidious bit of manipulation against Linden Labs that frankly, they do not deserve.

I agree with you Cienna. I think a couple of simple questions for people to ask themselves would be "are the forums better now than they were a few weeks ago?" and "is there more productive discourse now than there was previously?" In both cases, the answer for me is a resounding yes.

If I had more time, I would quote and make this post look nice and neat.

Coco, everything you are saying is happening to you now, it was twice, three times as worse as what a certain individual did to me. He even made up lies about me to make my statements seem less valuable. So I can empathize with you and I'm sorry things are hard for you now. I'm glad he is such a good friend to you, everyone needs a friend, but you have to realize he was as mean or meaner to others as those you perceive as being mean to you now. As much as you want people to stop attacking you now, think how others must have felt as well.

I support your right to express your opinions. And I would hope people would concentrate on your opinions and not be mean to you.

I'm here for you, I want you to know.

I too, would reply 'yes'. I have been back about oh... three days now, and there isn't a single negative thread in 'general'. I'm almost nonplussed. Almost. Mostly I'm just very happy to see it. They should have done this long ago. I am glad it is done. Very.

Here is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

It's a valid point, Ulrika, but as I read the declaration I found that most of it either doesn't apply to LL/SL or is already in place.

Applies:

Article 4 deals with slavery. Irrelevant. Article 5 deals with torture and inhumane treatment. Unless a broken TP system qualifies as torture ...

Article 9 says "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile" and here we have a conundrum. Being banned from SL and the boards is not the same thing. And there is recourse -- whether that recourse is acknowledged by LL is up to them, of course. But it's hard to put banning into the same big pot as living in a dank cell in Morocco for 5 years.

Article 10: "entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing ". Irrelevant, due to confidentiality issues.

Article 11: Presumption of innocence. I haven't seen anything yet to lead me to believe LL doesn't already view it this way, but then I haven't crossed the line either.

There's things to ponder there, and it was an interesting idea. I'm not sure how applicable it is, though. What did you have in mind? Maybe a draft of "Second Life Declaration of Member Rights"?

Good post, Cindy. You are a very empathetic person. Your post comforts me.

I do understand the dynamics of the administrator. I even understand the need to get rid of the one person who somehow is always at the center of it; that is to say, intellectually I understand it. But I also contend that things should never have gotten to that point, never did get to that point on my other boards, and would not have gotten to this point here were it not for this Lord of the Flies behavior. That is my point.

That I may be next up for the same treatment probably lends a bit more desperation to my pleas, and a lot more drama to my voice. Understandable, don't you think?

You are quite right; I don't enjoy being off to the side, and anyway, I discovered there IS no off to the side; the same people come in there to say the same things about me personally anyway.

As for the "F-U" attitude, I have to admit, I have sunk to that, even going so far as to say "bite me," to someone, a very un-Coco like thing to say. (Felt real good, though.) I don't like being that way, though, and beg forgiveness for it.

I also have the voices of in-world residents - people no one here probably even knows - who stay away from these forums for the very reasons I have elucidated here (so often, lol). I have not solicited their comments. I heard them when I first got on the game, and would say something like, why don't you go say that on the boards?

You don't hear those people here. Those are all the people you don't hear from, because of the forum climate epitomized - not caused by, but epitomized by and exaggeratedly seen in - the Prok incident.

The rules did go wham right into effect, Cindy, and the next day someone like Ulrika (who I would rather talk to than AR when I disagree with her) ends up writing a thread like this.

coco

P.S. Lurve ya, April!

P.S. Sorry, that last paragraph there - I see it was Cienna who said that about the jack-booting, not Cindy.

I think you're overreacting. My historical example is in response to the implications of Beryl's company community model.



I agree. And we are discussing those ways, right? And my initial point stands - "many corporate-run forums" may not be the best model to use for this particular product.



No, this discussion has evolved more globally since the initial post, as it should. Simply resetting the context and then making a declarative statement is not convincing. The forums are simply a smaller subset of a greater cluster of issues, all of them interrelated. It's simplistic to think otherwise.



There's no question about this. And there is no question about the "ivory tower" rhetoric that Linden Lab and many residents, myself and you included, have "indulged in" concerning the unique characteristics of Second Life. My point is, you cannot have it both ways. Either it's unique - in which case the arguments about rights and privileges stand - or it's a game. If it's a game, you're correct. But then we cannot turn around tomorrow and say it's not, if it's convenient for us.



Again, I think you're overreacting. Oddly enough, I find these kinds of debates fun, informative, and interesting, and I'm glad to see them occur - rather than the usual forum dramas. So I go into this with a smile on my face and a happy heart. No clouds above my head!



Oh, come now! "Insidious manipulation?" Who is exaggerating here? Do not confabulate my rhetoric with someone else's just because you place me (wrongly) in their "camp".

Has it occurred to you that if SL is but a game, some of us like to game political debate? As we should be able to, since SL is given to us as a place where anyone can imagine any kind of "Second Life". If SL is a game, I am content to play - in my own way. If SL is a utopia a-borning, then I am content to be a part of that, too. Either way, I'm having my own kind of fun, and no one can stop me.

I place you in no 'camp', Seth. Promise. Just tired of the incessant lobby. LL made a decision. I think it is a good one. 'Nuff said.

Here's my 2 bit opinion:

LL is a business.
The forums are Second Life's face (as someone described it)
LL needs to keep Second Life's face looking good in order to stay in business and make it grow.
They need to make whatever decisions they need to in order to keep the business growing and the majority happy.

This is not a government, it's not real life.

For you, Cienna. And I respect that. But not for me.

With free expression and moderation reform, Prokofy would still have been banned. As a matter of fact, with moderation reform, he would have been banned months ago.

Finally, is there more order in China then there is in the Europe? The answer is a resounding yes. The question is, do you value order over freedom?

~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~

I've been thinking about analyzing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Polisci forum for a while and seeing what parts could be applied to virtual worlds. It was included in the poll above as I have plans for it at a later date in another thread.

In this thread, I'm simply holding up Article 19 as an example of a free-expression guarantee and then showing how destructive forms of expression can nonetheless be limited. We should have unrestricted expression up and to the point where it starts hurting individuals, groups, or SL as a whole.


As an example, in a previous post, someone referred to Prokofy as "The person who was just banned", because of a literal interpretation of the no-names clause in the guidelines. Yet we all know who was banned. It was Prokofy. We all know why he was banned. It was because his behavior had a detrimental affect on the community. Yet because of the inconsistent moderation and limits on speech even for trivially verifiable facts, we cannot say his name. It's silly. This needs to change.

~Ulrika~

I see your point. But ultimately, I think their decisions are not made in role playing frame of reference but a real business one. It has to be that way or the company will not survive.

I look forward to seeing it. I did a similar variation of the US Bill of Rights for another forum once. Interesting comparison.


I'm in the crowd who thinks we do have that freedom, now. I guess I won't know for sure until I try to test the limits.


Hehe. She said "Prokofy."

Seriously. I don't think anyone's going to ban you for that, are they? It's about context. You're not debating his behavior or making him THE issue, you're simply using him as a point of reference. It's a bit different than reproducing his chat logs here or calling him names in public. Right?

Myself, I prefer the much more dramatic "He Who Shall Not Be Named". I loved the movie The Village and it just sounds cooler, more ominous.

In my RL I am free to drive my car anywhere, anytime, for any or no reason. However, I must drive on the right, I must have insurance, I must have a drivers license and license plate, I must obey all traffic signals, in Florida I must buckle up, and I must follow the speed limit. They do those things in China too. But I don't feel I'm living in China because I follow similar rules.

All these restrictions don't take away my right to travel about. I can still get from here to there. My freedom isn't restricted. We agree to basic rules of the road to make it safe and fun for all. I doubt anyone would suggest we have freedom to drive any way we want just so we can say we are free.

Rules don't take away freedoms just because they require a level of obedience.

Why would their business fail if they allowed free expression (except in the case of destructive speech) and reformed their moderation practices?

~Ulrika~

Because you're asking them to let go of the reins. And clearly we can't be trusted to run their business. hehe..

A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy

From: someone

* Free speech can have too much freedom. Says Shirky:

Quote:
Communitree was founded on the principles of open access and free dialogue. "Communitree" -- the name just says "California in the Seventies." And the notion was, effectively, throw off structure and new and beautiful patterns will arise.

And then, as time sets in, difficulties emerge. In this case, one of the difficulties was occasioned by the fact that one of the institutions that got hold of some modems was a high school. And who, in 1978, was hanging out in the room with the computer and the modems in it, but the boys of that high school. And the boys weren't terribly interested in sophisticated adult conversation. They were interested in fart jokes. They were interested in salacious talk. They were interested in running amok and posting four-letter words and nyah-nyah-nyah, all over the bulletin board.

And the adults who had set up Communitree were horrified, and overrun by these students. The place that was founded on open access had too much open access, too much openness. They couldn't defend themselves against their own users. The place that was founded on free speech had too much freedom. They had no way of saying "No, that's not the kind of free speech we meant."

But that was a requirement. In order to defend themselves against being overrun, that was something that they needed to have that they didn't have, and as a result, they simply shut the site down.

(who you are addressing is kind of confused.)

anyhow... just anwsertng seth's question "Why is the LL's ownership of the world and these forums constantly trotted out as though it's the final word?"

the answer is that ll is business.

and in stating that there is no implication that they are forgetting the customer - us. if they forgets the customer, they go out of business.

sl makes an effort to involve the sl residents in decision and policy making. they work at fostering an sl community. they do it be cause the believe in ll, and because ll is their bread and butter.

civil rights do not attain in business tractions actions in quite the same way as they do when interacting with governments. ll works pretty hard to give as much of what people would consider civil rights as ll knows how. but there is a limit to how much ll can give before ll has to draw a line.

and again, if ll forgets the customer, they go out of business. i don't think ll has forgotten that there are people involved.