Formal Warnings

Well, I'm relieved to hear Ulrika's disappearence was a mere website account issue, and not some draconian story out of "Tales of the Online Okrana." Thought I was going to have to set aside my balanced facade and put on my war face.

Is it ethical to stop us from publicising our accusations, punishment, and hearing? What if the accusation, punishment, and hearing are incorrect, excessive, or unfair respectively?

What if that material was poorly moderated did not qualify for removal? Is the act of reposting material regardless of the merit of removal a violation in and of itself?

Assuming this statement is true, which it is not, it is based on the assumption that the previous post was a violation, which is unclear. I am currently appealing that edit and the formal warning.

This is precisely the kind of gaming which makes our current system of moderation so weak. Moderation should be based on solid principles and uniformly applied. Mob rule and vigilantism like that called for above must be swept aside for justice applied by an impartial judge. Chuck, your dogmatism is the cornerstone to censorship, secret trials, and unfair punishment.

We must decide if we are just another forum full of children who need to be scolded and punished by an arbitrarily selected panel of parent figures or if we are a virtual world of adults who deserve a right to free expression tempered by fair moderation. Instead of blindly applying rules uniformly in a robotic commitment to be "fair", we must focus on the intent behind the posts to guide our moderation.

~Ulrika~

I have always, on every board I've posted to, been firmly on the side of open policy discussion. Even if it creates more heat than light I think it serves a purpose.

But as much as I empathize with your sentiments, Ulrika, the fact remains: this is LL's policy and it is their board and their world. "Free speech" does not apply here. It is whatever LL decides it is. Your only meaningful recourse will always be with LL, not with us.

I can understand their view when it's a matter of protecting the confidentiality of those who have been disciplined. After all, the point of discipline is to modify future behavior. If someone's name is published every time they are disciplined, the option for behavior modification is lessened because others in the community will form their opinion based on what they read rather than on real experience with that individual.

Also, whether Member X's discipline was fair or not, or whether LL handled it correctly should not be up to the 1% of us on the board to determine. We weren't there, we cannot know. But bringing the issue here in public does make it the subject of speculation and rumor, much as Michael Jackson's trial has been analysed in the media and the entertainment press -- not always fairly, and certainly not holding to the "innocent until proven guilty" mandate.

It should tell you that LL isn't completely unfair that this thread has survived this many pages already without being deleted or locked.

Exactly! We are at the complete mercy of our Benevolent Oligarchy. They have the power to give us free expression with moderation based on perceived intent, instead of a dogmatic adherence to rules regardless of intent, if they so choose.

Let me give some examples:

1. I call a player a knuckle head for not knowing the difference by sympathy and empathy. My intent is to hurt their feelings and start a flame war. This should be punishable.
   
2. I express my happiness that a player is gone from the forums because that person was pathologically envious. My intent is to express my relief and to state why I'm relieved. This should not be punishable as the intent is not to hurt feelings or start a flame war.

Here's another one:

1. A player starts or hijacks numerous threads with lengthy argumentative posts that never quite break the ToS, CS, or Guidelines. The intent is to strike out at those they are envious of. After a pattern is established, this should be punishable.
   
2. A player is a frequent poster and leads or holds discussions in numerous forums. The intent is to engage in dialog with forum members. This is commendable.

This is where LL is failing in its moderation. It's dogmatically applying rules "to be fair" without considering intent. Because we are not just another forum and are instead a virtual world, we should have an agreement from LL that freedom of expression will be supported and intent will be considered in moderation.

~Ulrika~

Ultimately, you may be right. But there has been a vast amount of rhetoric by Lindens and residents alike about how SL is a "world" in a "real" sense, and not a product. While LL may be able to advertise it and encourage its members to to think of it as a world, and then turn around and treat it as a corporate commodity in select situations, that may not be a good idea in the long run. Inconsistency is not a good marketing or retention tool, and unlike RL, people here can vote with their feet. And the best probably will.

A world is a place where authority is often challenged, and often should be. And speech should be free. The trick for LL is to allow this, while making sure they have enough process and power to make a profit and control the corporate outlay.

Bull, Ulrika.

And with that final expression, I am out of this thread, too, which finishes me in the general forum, so I can retreat fully to the other forums where I should be safer.

coco

This thread has outlived its arguable usefulness and as such is being closed.