Free Expression and Moderation Reform

i still see no need for any fear here. It's not questioning LL authority, strategy or technology that gets people into trouble, it's being a relentless jerk.

Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

The lindens response is a logical and necessary one given that the recent turmoil in the forums was a group effort on the part of all of us. Sure they banned the gadfly, but there are some pople posting today who went every bit as far as the gadfly did. As a community we had forum after forum break down because of overall uncivility. People have asserted they if the gadfly attacked them, the should strike back, or if the gadfly posted thirty paragraphs they should attack him back. And thats just the gadfly. Certainly others have spit venom back and forth, my self included, in ways that are not keeping with what the standards of civil conflict should be.

Well now we have a mopre draconina policy designed to protect the forums from the "shit-stirrers" who are "detriminetal to the bests interests of the community." I don't like the rules, I think we could all act more repsonsibly regarding outbursts on the forums. I think the forums are spearate from a game, in that conflcit here is limited to one or two issues whereas int he game we focus more on common interests. But I do understand where the lindens are coming from. We all need to be sensitive to personall attacks, and not the lindens have restricted some of the freedom because it was not used responsibly in the first place.

The fourm community drummed out the gadfly for disturbing the peace, and now we must accept the consequences of our clamour and uproar. I for one, am glad to know that enforcement is going to be as even handed as possible.

A=product sold by company. X=product bought by consumer. C=distance between A and X. C=cognitive dissonance.

value of x varies from consumer to consumer (or citizen to citizen). a positive correlation exists between c and business failure.

Yes, odd sort of courage to admire, isn't it, when at that time there appeared to be nothing to fear but a temporary forum ban of just one of one's alts? There are always people who will admire bullies, even safely anonymous ones. (I'm not saying Beryl is one of them, I don't know her.)
Such "lack of fear" of attacking SL, or of endlessly abusing and insulting others, was exactly what forced the Lindens to finally put teeth into their punishments. Worked wonders so far (nearly).

My sentiments exactly, Jake.

It seems hypocritcal to me to whine, cajole and insist that LL get rid of one bad element, to celebrate that victory once it's gone, and then to turn around and say that we shouldn't be gotten rid of for our behavior on the forums. We not only asked for these rules, we demanded and insisted on them. Now, we shouldn't have the gall to try and say, "No, I didn't mean for me, just them!"

I've received 2 informal warnings in the forums. One I disagreed with, and one I more than earned. I'm very opinionated, and there's a decent chance I may be one of those taking a forum/game forced vacation in the future if I don't exercise some caution when I post. This doesn't make me afraid to post, or afraid that someone will try to manipulate LL to ousting me... What it does is make me consider how others might view my posts before I submit them, which is something I should be doing anyway.

Kim Anubis, did you fail to notice I was called a troll?

Everyone else, ANYONE else, was this lost on you:

"Coco is interjecting commentary into an otherwise productive thread, hijacking it to air grievances about perceived persecution and mistreatment. We feel a separate thread would be a better place for this discussion. While no single post violates the rules individually, could you look at them in context and issue an informal warning, if you feel it's justified?"

coco

Ah, so by being called a troll, it gives you cause to whip out the proverbial dick and lay it on the table with a comment about that how much money you make somehow determines the credibility of one's advice? I dare say I probably make a lot more money than you do, Coco - should that now be the criteria for the value of an opinion?

As for precisely why I went into so much detail about my own and Prok's case in this thread,

CINDY CLAVEAU! ARE YOU OUT THERE LISTENING?

It was to give Cindy my point of view about this, since she is new.

That was for the benefit of CINDY. Cindy had engaged me in conversation.

Do you see now what is happening, Cindy? Because I dared to fill you in on the history, from my point of view?

A person who got the warning for breaking a rule makes a thread to protest that, in which she also breaks rules.

I get on the thread to say we don't need to have anyone kicked out of the game itself; and give you this history of me and whatever else I told you about.

And now that person is calling for my head on a platter for practicing my own right to free speech in this thread, even though I have broken no rules. Several agree I should not be allowed to add to this thread, and even that I deserve a warning for doing so.

Surely, I cannot be the only person among us who sees something very wrong with this picture.

And that's what I meant whenever I said when they got rid of Prok, they didn't excise the cancer.

Ironic, too, this whole thing, in that I support the right of of the very one who calls me troll, and wishes to see me warned away, to say what she wishes without threat of being banned from the game.

coco

Shall I try a paraphrase for those who find the weather too hot?

If what enough of us think we should be getting is too different from what LL intend to sell us, there may so much dissent and dissatisfaction that SL may fold.

Thats 31 words. I'm sure someone can do it much better in less. Competition in a new thread ?
Nargh - maybe not! The original is really more fun.

Ulrika,

This post is incredibly over the line. Are you going to start calling for warnings for every off topic post in every thread? Just because you started the thread does not mean you get to dictate the direction it goes in. It seems quite hypocritical to be fighting on one hand for freedom of expression in these forums, then calling for moderation because you don't like what someone has to say.

Ellie,

Over the course of several threads that I have read your posts in, I have become a fan - they are always well stated and thought provoking. I would have sent you a PM to say so, but your messages are turned off.

That is NOT what this thread is for, Coco. Or what the forum is for. Send her a PM or notecard if she is interested, or tell her to search the forum for posts by Prokofy Neva. She can then draw her own conclusion, without influence from anyone.

This is just another excuse for going on, on, on trying to retry a case which is over. Please, please, do it elsewhere. Start a proper thread for it. We are discussing the new situation.

Someone suggested "healing after the ban", or you could try "was Prok unjustly punished?".

Just stop messing this thread up. I'm far from the only one asking you.

As for your personal jibe/gloat about earnings, it was unjustifiable, unacceptable, going way over the line, and you should apologise.

Great reply. I understand what you're saying.

I fully support Prokofy's ban from the forum for several philosophical and personal reasons.

From a philosophical (or judicial) viewpoint:

1. I believe that he had would often hijack and derail productive conversations. His freedom to express himself interfered with the freedom of others to express themselves.
   
2. He would often make libelous statements towards individuals or groups. Again, this is an example of one's freedom interfering with another's.
   
3. He would target threads created by specific individuals or groups and fill them with negative comments. I often felt like I was being harassed and would cringe when I saw him post to one of my polisci threads.
   
4. His quantity and length of posts made them very difficult to ignore using the forum tools.
   

For personal reasons:

1. I am a democratic socialist. Prokofy seemed to equate the word "socialism" with totalitarian Eastern European governments instead of the Western European governments such as Germany and France from which I draw a lot of my views. He would not negotiate terminology.
   
2. He called me a lot of nasty names. I was often called a "Bolshevik", a "Leninist", a "Stalinist". One quote that sticks with me is when he said that Bolsheviks like Ulrika should be strangled in their crib when they're babies.
   
3. He also disliked my pet project, Neualtenburg. We were often accused of being beneficiaries of favoritism and special treatment from the Lindens. Despite being a diverse group, we were collectively labeled as "socialists" (his definition of the word).
   
4. He seemed to motivated by base emotions such as envy, suspicion, and paranoia, whereas I'm motivated by freedom, equality, and brotherhood.
   
5. His view of reality did not correlate with my view of reality and we could not negotiate an understanding. To contrast, in our discussion above, I feel like we came to understand and respect each other's viewpoint.
   
6. Finally, I felt like his pseudo activism was a caricature of the real activism that I had started before he had arrived. He succeeded in terminating any threads that sought to discuss change based on concrete ideals (such as freedom of expression) and replaced them with issues that served him personally.
   

While I agree that he could be fun, the collective loss of freedom is too high a price to pay.


Wow. That felt good. Maybe you should ask me next how I feel about the Lindens letting that go on for months. If the text above doesn't get this thread locked then that probably would. Oh well. It's run its course.

~Ulrika~

I think you need a refresher course in freedom of expression, Ulrika.

coco

Ulrika,

How do you feel about the Lindens letting it go on for months?

I don't think they'll lock it, Ulrika. I think I hear the distant sound of clapping, even if slightly sorowful clapping. After all it isn't us that insist on KEEPING ON talking about this individual. It's mostly one person who keeps on so curiously and combatively defending the indefensible.
If she would take it to her own new thread, we could choose whether to participate, rather than have it endlessly rammed down our throats.
If the thread is closed, I would put it down to her refusal to do so.

Incredibly over the line? Where's this line of yours?

I am experimenting with ways to bring about moderation reform, which is part of what this thread was created to discuss. The request isn't just about what is sufficient to generate a review. The request is also a call to send moderators a 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~

I wish I could find all the quotes and posts right now, but I've gotta go get dinner started. I just wanted to state that for a very, very long time the Lindens have hinted and even flat out stated that they really wanted for the Linden run forums to be formal for information only. And that they really wanted to see third party sites take on the more informal conversations and such. This keeps in line with their goal of being more hands off as well. And letting the residents "build" the community.

I think this latest decision will push that goal even more so.

Of course it was.... and now you might tell us all precisely how Cindy is benefitting? Because all I am seeing is the rather dubious benefit of someone keeping the spotlight on themselves.



Yes, Cindy -- kindly see what is happening -- someone is deliberately derailing an otherwise productive thread and people are getting annoyed over it. It is an unfortunate truth that sometimes, some people are ignorant of the context of their actions, so wrapped up are they in laving tenderness upon their persecution complexes. Kindly note, however, that expressing annoyance with someone for derailing a thread is not the same thing as some would have you believe.



Tut tut, kindly stick to reality and facts. This thread is a poll asking in particular for people to vote on what they think should happen. The discussion was long ago derailed by you, yourself, in your insistance upon rehashing a history that will not change.



You get on the thread to provide your rather revisionist version of history, complete with chest-beating wails of how unfair life is and how wrong and mislead Linden Labs is to possibly side with anyone but you. Several people ask you to kindly stop trying to derail the thread. You refuse. I believe the term most apt at this point is 'Par For The Course'.



I think this apprenticeship in the school of over-dramatization is coming along nicely, there is much improvement evident at how to turn any conversation on practically any topic into being 'all about you'. I wonder -- how well will you follow in your mentor's footsteps? To the brink? Beyond it?



There definitely is something very wrong with this picture -- namely, that people who will not move on are the ultimate cause of long-term disruption in environments like this. Will you never learn?



They excised one cancer. Whether the other cures themselves or turns rampant remains to be seen.



Perhaps you should research the definition of the word 'troll'.... from where I sit, if the shoe fits, you might as well wear it:

The Definition Of A Troll

I wish the moderators WOULD look at this thread.

And would consider exactly how quickly they do wish to respond to reprimanding me, because Ulrika has decided that I am a problem player.

Not only does Ulrika not want the regular rules applied to herself, she also wants a new rule instituted, where certain players aren't allowed to speak their minds, even without breaking rules.

Lindens, this is all the more reason, and what I have been saying all along, why being banned from the forums should not be tied to being banned from the game itself.

And not just to protect Ulrika, who admittedly breaks rules but wishes to protest the rule itself.

This is also tied to anyone who breaks no rules, but whose voice the others don't wish to hear.

While it would be unfortunate and unnecessary to lose someone like Ulrika from the game over breaking sometimes somewhat picayune rules in the forums, merely because someone decided to report her - and what does it take, just two? That's mighty easy for someone to end up doing, and end up out of the game.

Ulrika has one formal warning now, does that mean she only gets one more? Or what? In any case, nothing of what she said is cause for her ever losing her ability to play the game itself.

While that would be unfortunate and unnecessary, it would be a far greater crime for someone who broke NO rule to get reported because people didn't like hearing what they have to say.

And if that happened often enough, a person could lose their game. Which would mean - in short - someone like me could wind up losing their game while breaking no rules whatsoever, just because others have decided to call them troll and various other names.

Others should be allowed their opinions, Lindens, but they should NOT be granted this much power, and that has been my main point all along.

coco

The above was revised to read:



However, my reply is unchanged:

Not having ever actually seen you in the metaverse, I doubt you are a problem player. However, in my opinion, you definitely are a problem poster. You are more than willing to follow in Prokovy's footsteps and in all honesty, the more you do so, the more hopeful I am you will eventually wind up in the same place.

Ah well. Done with this thread because let's face it, you're not going to change and my opinion of you therefore will not change. Congratulations for derailing yet another thread beyond usefulness.

~shaking her head wryly~

Here goes!

I think it's evidence of a moderation system that is 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. Instead posts should be judged in the greater context of free expression, where free expression is defined as anything goes as long as it doesn't cause harm or interfere with the free expression of others. 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.

Further, this single-post mindset coupled with the unwritten Linden policy to be impartial, conspired to prevent moderators from singling out Prokofy. Because no single post violated the Guidelines, they couldn't justify banning him, while not banning other players. Instead of changing their scope to interpret harassment on a forum-wide scale, they instead rewrote the rules such that they defined Prokofy as an offender. So you see, these new draconian rules are nothing more than a symptom of Linden myopia.

That's why I'm calling for the removal of the tougher rules and moderation reform that takes into account free expression as long as that expression does not hurt or limit the freedoms of others. Whatya think of them apples?

~Ulrika~

plutorati supressing the opinions of the people will less money.

no money and your opinion doesn't matter.

I agree with you completely. As I said in another thread, it would not surprise me if the discussion forums are pulled altogether ultimately based upon the track they are on. These forums remain a thorn in LL's side, and I imagine they are source of constant frustration for them. The salaries required for the sheer number of people they would need to keep adding to keep these forums moderated the way they want them to be ultimately will make these forums prohibitive financially - as they certainly bring no income. How close we are to the point of them just pulling the plug on all but the classifieds, linden, and technical forums is anybody's guess - but I would say we are fairly close to that point.

the third party forums can be:
- pie!
- whine and cheese
- rants and raves
- i love/hate you
- so-and-so is a bad person
- fascism and sl
- anarchy and sl
- trolling and griefing for fun and profit
- how to win friends and influence people
- hwo to annoy people and make enemies
- polemics
- lovefest
- hectoring
- warm fuzzies
- pontificating
- humpty-dumptyism