Free Expression and Moderation Reform

I see nothing here but genuine people arguing sincere points, and going out of their way to maintain a level of respect and tolerance that I never saw in the threads you're referring to. I might agree with you that Coco's approach is over the top, but others on both sides have made some very good points - and it would be a damned shame if this thread were tarred and then shut down simply because a few people confabulate the expression of opinions contradictory to their own with bad behavior.

This thread has metamorphosized into a commentary on global issues beyond any one person's or group's experiences or ideas. It's no longer appropriate to mention specific names or "cases" - certainly not that of the Erased One. If that's your point, then I agree wholeheartedly.

But I cannot agree that careless references to one case should be enough to shut down this thread, just as I cannot agree with those who have claimed that "one bad apple" is reason enough to abandon the debate over individual rights and privileges on these forums or inworld.

On edit: reading some of the more recent posts, I do see that the discussion has taken a personal turn, and I can see exactly when that happened. Too bad.

I'm not sure the difference between a "game" and an "entertainment venue" is significant. I take refuge in Scotty's Maxim: "A difference which makes no difference is not difference at all."

On the other hand, I agree with you completely that the best solution is to transform SL into a more open, hosted source, with the community matrix left up to users, within the context of RL laws and enforcement.

Beryl, these are fair approximations of two of the points I was trying to make. (I think they're good for Ulrika, too, but she can correct me if I deserve it.) Thanks.

I certainly understand your POV, and I respect it. I also think it is accurate for as long as SL is a game. If and when it become something more, however, then this issue becomes critical. In the meantime, those of us with an interest in "what-ifs" (and the Lindens manifestly have that interest) can continue to chew on it.

in a game, ll provides a direction (thus they would be much more restrictive in the fourms), but ll provides a place for people to find their own direciton (thus ll allows a great deal of lattitude). however, even in a venue with a great deal of freedom, there are limits.

Then you guess wrong.

And you shouldn't have to be guessing at ALL, since I have made cogent arguments in this thread for (a) the rule that when a person is banned from the forum he or she is also banned for the game is a bad one, (b) why the problem is not that the forums were terrific until one person came along and ruined them, and (c) why naming names is basically never a good idea.

I even went to the length tof showing you, when you asked, exactly what post inspired me to pipe up.

I was not on a search for posts that seem closest related to my own case for the thrill of talking about it again.

The things I have said, far from being a subtopic to this thread, are entirely related to the main topic.

Which - let's review for a moment - involved you getting a warning and you deciding you did not deserve that warning, and furthermore thinking none of us should be at risk of getting such a warning.

Now I COULD have looked at this thread as you complaining about your warning, and you saying that the rules aren't supposed to apply to you (and indeed, you've broken them several times in this very thread).

One might call that, "What's good for the gander apparently isn't good for the goose." Or a case of, "But this wasn't supposed to mean me!" One could call that all sorts of unflattering things.

I preferred, though, to take your post at its face value, in the way you wished it to be taken, and consider the broader issues involved. Until this moment, and the above two paragraphs, I preferred to think that this threas was about the fact that what happened to you could happen to any of us, and that you are opposed to that, on the basis of free speech.

Now, how again, is that different from what I am doing?

How is it you can complain about your warning and believe what happened to you shouldn't have, and shouldn't happen to anyone, and all have all kinds of lofty motivations to bring this up in public service - but when I chime in on the same topic, using my own experiences as some of my examples to illustrate what I'm opposed to on philosophical grounds, I'm just a pitiful person in desperate search of a thread to work out my psychological difficulties in?

I don't think it works that way.

coco

P.S. The day you're paid as much to write as I am irl, then I might pay some attention to your little writing tutorials.

This is a logical fallacy known as the argument from authority. Because you're in a position of power doesn't mean the advice I gave you wasn't valid.

~Ulrika~

You're right, Ulrika, it doesn't.

Read the sentence again, though. I didn't say whether your criticism is or is not valid. I said the day you get paid as much as I do to write irl, then I might pay some attention to your helpful little tutorials. No logical fallacy in that. It's just a fact.

coco

Yes, I relented. I read it again. The birthday party was, of course, a matter of standing around frozen by lag.

Brief as poss:

1. We are discussing moderation reform and free expression
2. Coco is the one person expressing distress at perceived persecution and unfairness very recently directed at her under these new rules, and remaining unpunished.
3. If true this is highly relevant and on topic.
4. I cant see it. Two requests from me to her for evidence (just link posting) are ignored.
5. Unless I receive evidence, I regard these extremely emotive and powerful complaints to be baseless.
6. Since they have significantly influenced the whole thread, if they are baseless, this IS TROLLING.

Q.E.D.
(quad erat demonstrandum)
(proved)

I don't think I am trolling, because the scale, emphasis and determination of Coco's posts is such that if the intention IS to troll, this could grow to be the thorn which ruins our new start. Why don't we just say NO ? No extensive thread-deflecting complaints from anyone, without evidence. We were all to weak and PC once before. Don't we learn ?

Am I wrong ? Can ANYONE show me three or four posts from the correct time period which would even half-justify these complaints of desperation and "dark hours" ? I am always willing to be proven wrong.

Shall I compile a little list of the direct rudeness I have seen from Coco in this thread ? Not big, but drip, drip, drip. Like a person trying to hold back the flow.
No, I wont do it. But please notice it. No-one but her is doing it that I can see. Am I wrong ?
Normally, I wouldn't post like this under the new rules, but this is a special thread, and forum behaviour and its control is exactly what we are discussing.

This is the place and time to stamp such things out, if we ever want to. If not here, now, then when ? If we are soft, I predict it will end badly once more.

Please note I am discussing verifiable behaviour. Nothing to do with who is doing it. Just that. Behaviour

P.S. Think of it as a living example of what we are discussing. Right here. Right now. In this thread.

I see nothing wrong with your commenting on that, Ellie, in terms of it being breaking a rule, or whatever. You are not breaking any rule, as far as I can see.

I do tend to get a bit distant and rude after being called a troll, when I was trying to reach out to someone I thought had reached out to me.

Like I said earlier, I'm not a friggin doormat, so, you know, suck it up.

coco

"2. Coco is the one person expressing distress at perceived persecution and unfairness very recently directed at her under these new rules, and remaining unpunished."

Absolutely and unequivicably false.

I am expressing distress at the new rule, and the unfairness it will cause to everyone.

In specific, to the instance of Ulrika running the risk of losing her game account, merely because she might have one warning to many, because one too many people decided to report her post.

In other words, I am standing up for ULRIKA. And you.

The rest of it is examples of inconsistancy, and of whether having one's post reported or not can lead to this overkill punishment.

Examples in my case, as well as in Ulrika's case - as she has definitely and rather defiantly broken those rules in this thread.

Examples that point not only to the fact that this new rule is a bad one, but to the fact that it can be gamed to get rid of people not just from the boards, but from SL itself, when in fact others, not similarly reported, have committed worse or more numerous crimes on the forums.

I wish to not see her not banned from the game for this.

At the same time, I wish to see the other rules enforced consistently, and not at the whim of whoever happens to report whoever.

I protest a new rule which ties game behavior to one's ability to play the game. One of the LEAST likely to suffer from this new rule is me. That any of us should suffer from such a draconian rule is the point.

For God's sake, people. Get a life.

coco

And no, I'm not going to be the "thorn" that ruins your "new life."

I'm not going to be anybody's next victim, so don't even try.

coco

huh?

What's all this then ?



If that's your way of "standing up" for me and Ulrika, I'd really rather you didn't.

Honestly, Coco, on reflection can't you see that this is the sort of depressing self-centered combative stuff we are trying to escape from ?

This is the one thread it's fair to discuss it in. Do you want to live in a forum with lots of this sort of stuff ? Shall we all start doing it ? Or is it the thin end of the wedge, and we should express definite disapproval of this example which Coco is so kindly providing ?

Ok, I've said enough - we all have to decide for ourselves whether we really want this to stop, or whether Ellie is just over-sensitive for raising it, and asking for too much control. Bearing in mind my "thin end of the wedge" argument, tell me folks, am I ? If people I respect say so, I'll accept it. It's so easy to develope blinkers here.

Someone is having trouble moving on. Of course, I don't really mind, except that it happens to be disrupting an otherwise interesting and thought-provoking thread.

It doesn't take a psychiatrist to know when the point of pointlessness has been reached. Nor is it fabulously outside the realm of understanding that some are more concerned with having their feathers smoothed than contributing to the larger discourse.

I am stymied as to how it is that someone can so overtly insist theirs is the only opinion worthy of merit and only the most unreasonable of people will ever disagree (flawed rhetoric from the beginning, mind you), and then find the gall to be surprised when others disagree with them, vehemently.

It is equally astonishing to see someone completely unable to grant value to the feelings and opinions of the world around them. One may as well say, 'Your thoughts and feelings do not matter unless they happen to support my own, in which case I will deign to think them worthy.' which of course, may as well be said, 'It's all about me.'

Most disturbing of all, however, is watching someone completely miss the fact that those they would hold 'to blame' have, for the most part, historically acted out of a sense in the greater advancement or enjoyment of the community as a whole.... while they and their disruptive friends seem most concerned with how well or long they get away with mocking that interest, effort, and ideology -- bandying about all manner of deliberately hurtful and malicious insinuations and accusations under guise of some bohemian edict that still shudders that it were put to such gross misappropriation.

If one were to be forgiving, one would yet say someone has been the cleverly used tool of a deliberately divisive provocateur. Less optimisticly, that one has taken up the 'standard' (such as it is) abruptly dropped to the ground.

Either way, no less disruptive in the long term. I settle in to watch the "little train that could" gather its head of steam.... grinning if not wryly, at least sardonically.

You are right. Coco is interjecting commentary into a productive thread (possibly one of the best deep discussion threads I've seen in the General forum), hijacking it to air grievances about perceived persecution and mistreatment.

This would be the perfect time for a moderator to step in, see the posts in the context of the thread, and send a warning. For those who agree, let's use the little red triangle of doom on the Coco post before and say:

It's worth a try.

~Ulrika~

ummmmm

This from the person who hates the triangle "of doom"?

I think asking people to send an AR would be worthy of an AR. I may disagree with some of the points made in this thread, but I didn't see anything worthy of sending an AR. The closest thing was personal attacks. And now the call for readers to AR a post that someone feels is off topic.

That's my opinion. Then again, I'm disconnected from the discussion

As someone who is always pushing the Lindens for democratic reform, I often hear these two arguments:

1. LL is a corporation and they can do what they want.
   
2. SL is just a game.
   

I've addressed the first point by stating that the we all have two identities, a real-world identity and a virtual-world identity. For instance, in the real world Linden Labs is a corporation and in the virtual world the Lindens are a governing body (a corporatist oligarchy). My goal is to convince the corporation that they should put a more democratic face on their virtual-world oligarchy.

More relevant to your post is the argument that SL is just a game. I agree and often times I find myself calling SL a game to friends and family. However, there are many individuals and groups who have very real investments in SL. For instance, the Neualtenburg Cooperative, of which I'm a member, has thousands of person hours and thousands of dollars invested in project which has both real- and virtual-world liabilities. The thought that inconsistent moderation could ban me from my project makes me nervous as an investor. (I received an email that said one more infraction within a week would see me banned from the game for three days.)

Further, since our project also has its own local government, I keep a close eye on the larger federal Linden government to which we are subordinate. Policies which do not share the same fundamental philosophy as a democratic republic or social democracy threaten those rights within our smaller but growing government.

I think asking for the right to have rules and policies reconsidered right now is acceptable as well. After all, provided they reform their moderation practices, why would they not be able to allow free expression (provided that expression does not interfere with the rights of others)?

~Ulrika~

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. An AR is not a jury vote in a war of beliefs. It is a polite suggestion to the Lindens that there may be something that they should look at and exercise their own judgement. Judgement about the post being reported, and of course, indirectly about the judgement and fairness of the person reporting. Abuse your reporting privilege, and your reports will soon be delegated quietly to the bin.

They can't read and follow the logic of every thread in detail, and we can't afford to pay for them to do it. Simply flagging up things that need their consideration is giving them a bit of help with a task most of us want them to be able to perform well. It in no way forces them to judge as we do.

So, really, Ulrika, I think probably your suggestion is unnecessary, as well as encouraging feelings of persecution. Unless they are horribly overloadeed, I suspect one report is enough for them to come check it out. Thats all we can ever ask.

Coco, remember what I wrote to you the other day? I'm telling you, this sort of thing makes it all worse. You know that I made a real effort to stop this nasty cycle. I got out on the limb with my defenses down and tried to speak to you directly as a compassionate person, in the midst of this ongoing unpleasant situation. But despite that, even just this one comment from you was enough to make me want to respond with something unpleasant, starting with how much I'm paid to write irl and whether that means I can pull rank on you. It makes me angry, that despite the effort and time I put in trying to bring conversation with you to a less combative level, that I'm seeing stuff from you in this thread that's making me want to fight with you some more. This is just one line I'm highlighting, but it's far from the only one in the thread that made it harder for me to hold onto my sympathy. You're contributing to the perpetuation of the situation about which you're complaining.

Bah. This is like a stupid standoff in a bad cop show with lousy actors shouting, "No, YOU put down the gun!"

This show sucks. I'm gonna change the channel.

/me chucks gun into the corner and goes off to look for chocolate

I think Ulrika said it best here. People who use the "red triangle of doom" to manipulate the moderators should be reported.

The request isn't just about what is sufficient to generate a review. The request is also a call to send moderators a cohesive statement, suggesting that they look at the entire thread in context to decide if there is a problem, as no single post in the thread alone violates the Guidelines. Consider it activism.

You see, the problem with moderation is that it's geared towards the single-post violation. Moderators are looking for personal insults, names with accusations, illegal content, and so on all wrapped up in a neat package that they can act upon. This is one of the primary reasons that it took so long to ban Prokofy. He was a master at never truly violating the Guidelines in a single post although his entire oeuvre in and of itself became harassment, which is a violation.

I'd like the moderators to become more sensitive to context and to address problem individuals before it comes to the dreaded "this thread has outlived its perceived usefulness" catchall.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, I understand and sympathize with your situation as one of the proponents/founders of Neualtenburg. You're in the same position we all are in SL, one of desiring to have SL be more than just a game, but ultimately being at the whim of Linden policy and the limitations of the software and hardware of the game.

We probably all know by now what we're getting with SL: a loosely-organized world built and run by residents where we do have a lot of surface control, but also a world where at any time, our possessions can go poof and we can be told "tough luck, we're not legally responsible," or "you're being warned for saying a bad word and you may lose your account as a result." I accept the forum limitations for what they are right now, because of the sense of order they have brought to forums in the short term, and I think that's the basis of my posts in this thread.

I understand why you're asking for more from LL when it comes to being "masters of our own virtual destiny," or something like that. I think that's where we're headed eventually, as Philip and others seem to indicate when they talk about SL as the metaverse. I know you will continue to "fight the good fight," Ulrika, and I don't totally disagree with your vision, in the broader sense, of the way SL should be in the future.

In the spirit of allowing all voices to be heard, though, I have to say (and I have very ambivalent feelings about this, mind you) that I miss Prokofy's posting on forums... well, maybe not all aspects of his postings, but his absolute lack of fear at questioning the LL/SL status quo.

Ok, Ulrika. On reflection you're probably right. I guess its no different from asking that if people agree with you, they should speak up and say so. "Please stand up and be counted if you want to assist with these improvements" sort of thing.