Should freedom of speech in SL forums be free only if the majority agrees?

Blaze:

Its my impression that people are not so much looking to silence opinions rather than the extraneous verbal flotsam that downs out intellectual debate.

One can support your opinion - and your right to say it - but still disagree with the manner in which you communicate it.

Maintaining an attitude of respect for each person you address, or the community as a whole, is a fundamental aspect of effectively communicating your point.

If the only reason one wishes for freedom of speech is because they want the freedom to contribute in a negative fashion - seemingly without forethought for the consequences of their choice of words - then one should probably not be suprised when those who do work towards a positive, respectful debate environment start to question how to maintain a level of decorum.

Azazel, perhaps you should go through my posts.

I maintain a very high level of respect, often complimenting anyone that disagrees with me and denigrating myself on purpose to show some humility.

But, the fact is, it doesn't matter what I do. When I post ideas that are contrary to what people believe they get very upset. If I suggest that the techi wiki mindset is a dangerous one, and people believe it's a great one, they get very unhappy.

If someone posts an idea to help newbies by giving this big huge free directory is a good one, and I post that I think it's a bad one.. they get very unhappy.

It doesn't matter how sweetly I say it, it still is going to upset people.

And upsetting people was never what I wanted to do. I am a nice guy. I thought I was merely intellectually challenging people, but clearly there is more to this than meets the eye.

SL is a place that people devote a lot of love and affection so when you discuss something that they have so emotionally connected themselves to, yes .. you're playing with fire.

I should have seen that a little better.

nice post azazel. you are rapidly moving up my list of favorite posters

Has there been a proposal to enforce limits on speech based on majority opinion? Gee, I must have missed that.

Blaze, pouring gasoline on a fire is not being respectful, even if you're saying please and thank you while you're doing it.

It's a great post, but completely misdirected.

I maintain a very high level of decorum.

LOL blaze. well, the only time i have lost my temper with you was when you "blazed" out at LL for secretly handing out dev release notes to select parties, accused them of favoritism, etc. All of which was nonsense, and could have been discovered by asking a few questions, but that didn't stop your raging, public accusations. But that's water under the bridge.

you DO like playing devil's advocate, no?

what i am trying to figure out, regarding this particular thread, was whether you are honesting trying to debate the issue of free speech in a forum, or whether you are trying to derail/de-legitimize another post currently running about forum culture/behavior that has some interesting dialogue (including your participation)

Derail and de-legitimize. Definitely. They have vested interest in seeing their 'freedom' to harrangue and divide people supported. Ever notice how they never post except to disagree with someone or agree with one another? Contemplate why this is... and be enlightened.

Well, Forseti, the fact is my minority voice has been effectively silenced by the majority in this forum.

I saw this happening and I had hoped that people would have felt some realization that this was fundamentally wrong.

Too little, too late I guess.

lol, you crack me up blaze.

silenced? you have quite a few threads going on right now! Was that an effort to increase the signal-to-noise ratio? A call for attention? Or a real focus on the issues -- just an unwillingness to do that within the threads already in existence?

I welcome counter opinions (hell, I LOVE a good debate... groupthink and majority-rules attitudes are abhorrent to me). I disagree with your claim that people are currently objecting to WHAT you say rather than HOW you say it.

People may disagree on substance, but that isn't what makes large numbers of intelligent and reasonable people reach for the ignore button.

The topic-du-jour this morning is not any topic but the forums themselves, and how people choose to conduct themselves, and how they choose to write and to edit their posts.

This bears repeating. The operators of a private forum have the absolute right to moderate that forum in any fashion they see fit.

That said... I don't think anybody should be squelched for having an unpopular idea. Now if they express that idea in a consistantly abusive fashion, sure, show them the door. But in general, as long as the thought is on-topic and not an outright troll, let 'em talk.

Other posters may shoot down the crazier ideas, but that's not any sort of restraint on speech. (It also doesn't necessarily mean the idea is wrong, as popularity doesn't always equate good policy).

If somebody thinks they're being unfairly moderated, that's between them and the moderators (and the moderators have the ultimate say). If somebody thinks the majority is picking on them, well, welcome to my RL. Stand up for what you believe and don't let the mudslingers bother you.

In any case, I don't think this poll is going to tell us anything new.

Well, perhaps I could say things a little less directly .. other than that, what else could I change?

How do you politely say that the techi wiki is detrimental to the growth of SecondLife?

And I love a good harrangue. I guess I am just enough of a punk to enjoy a foot stomping, teeth gnashing rant. Especailly one agaisnt the moral majority. Lets face it revolution is fun, as long as noone gets hurt. (Well maybe some people deserve to get hurt. But I never said I was a good Buddhinst!)

Arcadia, I don't think it's that simple.

If people are truly getting upset, it's not reasonable to continue to push their buttons.

I agree debate for the sake of debate, but when it starts getting to the point where people need to necessarily organize "shunnings", you're clearly hitting a raw, open wound.

And I do have enough respect for others not to do that.

Heh, well Jake I leave it to you to fight the good fight.

I think I'm licked

I agree with that almost entirely, but... if the agenda of the poster in question is to label, stereotype, slander, and malign large sections of the community over and above any objective opinions they may hold, I think that borders on hate speech. If it's continual, unrepentant, and causes constant strife that drowns out productive dialogue, it's well within the rights of a private company to silence it on behalf of the greater good.

I'm rather enjoying watching the number of 'This user is on your Ignore List.' items are cropping up as one attention whore meltsdown in the face of potentially being wholly ignored.

I suppose that isn't very 'nice' of me, but then, nice is as nice does and I do not see this one or the other being very nice to the community at large.

Guess the old axioms are true:

1) What goes around comes around.
2) Beware the foot you step upon today, it may be attached to the ass you have to kiss tomorrow.
3) You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.
4) Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Of course, the attention whores will ignore the first three and latch onto the fourth with fingers and toes, screaming 'you're not doing that one!' but they conveniently forget I haven't said I was... while they have. So much for learning, eh?

Actually..I agree Jake.

My concern is about the effort to "strerilize" the forums. I guess I'm a wild west kinda guy, and prefer that everyone had the freedom to stand in the middle of the road and fire from the hip.

If everyone always has to tiptoe around, or express all opinions with the first thought going toward, "OMG..this might offend someone..I better delete it", then the forums will become worse, instead of better.

I'm not saying we should all attack each other for entertainment value, but we all have the freedom to read what threads we'd like, or not to, and the freedom to respond to which we wish to, or not.

I don't need a babysitter watching out for me.

lol, well first i don't think techi-wiki has been properly defined

to answer your question, I'm not sure there is a way. It is like me saying: "furries are ruining SL with their behavior and their looks."

but let me try:
"
For secondlife to grow, it needs a new kind of entertainment. Currently, the entertainment I see is fun but small-time compared to the richness you see in other games where the content is created and owned by the platform provider.

I wonder how much of this is because of technical limitations, and how much is based on the cultural habits -- a culture which tends towards individuals tinkering with builds and scripting experiments for their own pleasure or to show off to their friends, rather than with true consumer entertainment in mind.
"

how is that? or am I misunderstanding what "techi wiki is detrimental to the growth of SecondLife?" means?

but maybe david is right... such a post is civil, but infernally boring?

"techi wiki" was created as a slur. There is no polite way to use it because it is inherently impolite.

Yes, I suppose that is a more indirect way of saying what I had in mind.

I'm not sure I would have gotten my point across, but a lot of people certainly wouldn't argue with that too heatedly.

Well I suppose confining my opinion to the topic on hand. I think freedom of speech is really freedom of thought. No mateer how distasteful to me, I will hold the right sacred and inviolate, on the odd chance that at some point I am on the cutting edge of the majority's spite.