Are We Citizens or Children?

woot

You've helped me understand more about you, Newfie.
Thank you for that.

I must apologize for being too critical of your post. I guess I'm holding you to high standards, as I've seen the great posts you've made in the past. A deep thread like this always gets mistreated in a forum like General (I'll take it to Polisci after it runs its course), so I was looking forward to a great reply from you to turn things around.

If so, we've had three errors in a row with a possible fourth one overnight. I just discovered that a single post I made to a separate thread has been removed recently. It's odd that these mistakes seem to happen in clusters to certain individuals. Given that you're speculating that a moderator is making a mistake, would you hold it against me, if I speculated that a moderator might be focusing on a single player for the dark pleasure of exercising power over them?

A moderator is definitely needed in this forum, albeit in a slightly different role. They should moderate to protect the right of others to share information. That is, one should be granted free speech up to the limit where that speech interferes with another's freedom. The moderator would decide when someone interferes with someone else's freedom and then take action.

However, my post goes beyond simple problems with moderation. Specifically, it addresses a Linden Lab policy that forbids dissent and has been used to lock a thread ending a serious discussion on moderation. The policy is:

Not only can moderators censor posts without redress but the policy prevents us from even discussing this censorship. It's a policy meant to stifle dissent.

Also troubling is that they create the illusion that citizens have a viable avenue for redress by sending email to the black hole that is "abuse@lindenlab.com". That email address is less of a mechanism to seek redress than it is a bureaucratic maze à la Brazil meant to capture and funnel dissent into the bit bucket. I've sent several emails over many months with never a single reply.

I don't wish to work within the boundaries of a closed system, rather I wish to reform the system such that it becomes open. LL is not a natural liberal virtual-world force. We are. Thus, it is up to us to communicate the ideals we want our virtual world to have such that in the occasional moments of generosity and wisdom they might take it upon themselves to implement change.

~Ulrika~

It's a business that claims to be setting up a new world and a new type of interactivity between people. I have no objections to their being "just a business", but then lets give up the pretense of it being a "Metaverse".

Either it is a brave new "metaverse", or it's "elfquest but ya don't have to kill stuff"

I hate to say it, but I'm in complete agreement there. I've no misconceptions about LL's being a business first, builder-of-metaverses second. Just read my blog, you'll see

I dont think LL has any mandate to support unrestricted free speech, and I'm willing to say I've seen examples of their censoring activities. But on the same token nor do I think Ulrika was singled out in any particular way on this one.


- Newfie

I like it that none of those advocating free speech have actually acknowledged my very legitimate concern. In fact, it seems like the core of my posts in this thread has been conveniently ignored.

Would anyone like to comment on how non censorship policies can give free reign to people who act the jerk for the sake of acting the jerk, and might make harassment okay? Or is that downside to the issue more conveniently ignored for the general agenda?

After all there are plenty of trolls and flamers here that I've witnessed, and something like this isn't likely to decrease the number.

I don't think even Ulrika thinks she was singled out. That's the point.

LL is at a crossroads here is all I'm saying.They are dancing a fine line between their needs as a business and their stated vision as a utopian metaverse.

I would argue that ultimately the recognition that free speech is an inherant human right, (and not something to be doled out like a doggy treat for those who play nice) would be, in the long run, better for their business.

It is speculation on my part and very much just my opinion. But it is my opinion.

This is an excellent question Jonquille that can be answered with a well worn philosophical tenet. Freedom should be without limit up to the point where it interferes with the freedom of others.

That is, I can say and write what I want, as long as that speech or writing does not become harmful to others around me. This is why countries have laws restricting libel, yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, restrictions on Nazi materials, and so on. One could argue (quite successfully) that Prokofy's speech infringed on the freedoms of others (especially in the category of libel) and thus was no longer protected.

What I'm discussing in this thread is not the right to free speech (until it interferes with another's freedom), rather I'm discussing a blanket policy which is meant to stifle dissent. We are censored from discussing censorship. We are punished for discussing punishment. That is the point of this thread.

~Ulrika~

I simply don't find it a point worth addressing. Trolls only have power when you give it to them. Sure -- free speech creates the possibility that you will read or hear something you don't like. So?

Okay, I guess that's enough reason to vacate this thread. You've obviously never been continuously and directly verbally harassed before, or you wouldn't be spewing this "it's your own fault if you let them get to you" line. You know what that is? Making victims of said practices the badguy to put it plainly. So if someone gets verbally harassed all you will do is tell them "tough luck, your own fault for being hurt"? How... "nice".

So far this thread has made me deduce that some people in SL have utterly unrealistic expectations of humanity and what SL is and what LL is. Far be it for me to argue against delusion, good day.

And Cocoa's posts were harmful to us how, exactly?



Did you agree to the ToS and CS?

Maybe you shouldn't hit the Agree button if you don't actually agree. Personally, if I thought a company was some form supressive government, I wouldn't voluntarily agree to be governed by them, and pay them every month for the priviledge of being oppressed, suppressed and stifled. But that's just me I guess. I put my money where my mouth is.

LOL!!

Sorry. That line made me laugh. You haven't been around long. You would understand why I laugh that you say that if you had been.

oh please, I'm practically a punching bag here on the forums.

Oh man.

Are you new to the Internet?

Just about every message board I've participated in has either explicit or de-facto rules against discussing moderator actions such as post removal or being banned. If someone has a problem with a moderator action, they're supposed to take it up directly with the people who run the board, _in private_.

I think a bunch of us should get together and form a rap group.

Dibs on Grandmaster "N" Burger.

Umm, is that a racist remark? I would much rather start a country band.


/me prepares to duck and run out of this thread.

From: Seth Kanahoe

Thank you for spewing sense into this thread.

Dibs on Lacy Jean Neualtenburg.

I see no reason, Kendra, why it has to be one or the other. Can be one, intending to become the other. Or even both at once. And anyway, I don't see any viewpoint from which it is the last thing you mention.

I am not convinced about the universal aspect of this appeal since the calls for reform surface after Ulrika's run ins with the law. The law in this case being the TOS which were agreed to when applied to others but are now being called into question. I interpret the following paragraph to suggest that the moderation in question is personal and directed toward the OP by a moderator who is enjoying the power of the position.



Prior to and during the time of the banning, it was repeatedly pointed out that the offenders past history of posting needed to be considered when evaluating an offending post. In her initial critique of forum moderation called "Formal Warnings" this past June, Ulrika herself pointed out that the post for which she received the warning she was complaining about at that time was "one of the least controversial things I've posted to the forums". It occurred to me at the time that the post probably was not evaluated as a stand alone comment but with consideration given to a history of posting. Imo, the moderator in question is not on a dark power trip but is probably reviewing these particular threads after having them been pointed out by other forum participants.

Is anyone else wondering if this thread will include a bid from Ulrika to be forum moderator like the June thread had?

No, I'm trying to decide what I'd wear if I was a country music star along with all of you in the band.

Ayup.

I don't know, but if it does, and if she proved successful, her first move would be the banning of me, on general principle, since she has stated before that she would definitely do that were she moderator.

coco

I did not read this entire thread, but I would like to add to this conversation, that these forums allow MUCH more than most games website allow. We have so much more freedom of expression than say TSO, THere and what I have seen of WOW and Everquest forums.

On most of those websites, this very topic would have been deleted with a warning already.

I appreciate it. It's good to know someone gets a kick out of what I write.


My guess is the problem stems from people happily pressing the Abuse Button versus too few moderators. Usually the only time that even works is when many people (and their alts) press the shiny red button, as I'm sure there are a few hundred requests daily.

The Abuse Button is, in my opinion, another necessary evil that really doesn't serve its purpose at this point. Like thread rating, it places the false implications of "the majority" on views from (in)famous posters.

Despite all the proponents of democracy on this forum, the system is not without its flaws. I would be in favor of systems that make a person think twice before rating/abuse reporting on a thread. Ways to do this range from placing quotas on the number of requests in a given day/week to anonymously notifying residents when their thread or reply has been abuse reported.

But I don't know if vBulletin supports that.




More likely it's a dated system. I will agree that, in the wrong hands, such a policy could indeed be used to stifle dissent. I'm just not seeing a malicious intent backing what's happened, though.

Rather, I see an admin doing her job to the best of her ability, under finite time and guidance using flawed systems. A forum reform has been discussed before, but it begs the question - for whom?



So it leaves us with two problems. The first being policy misapplication, which is a valid point. The second being the limits of vBulletin and a single, LL-owned forum system.

In terms of the first, I really would not move a thread unless expressly asked. Nor would I strictly apply policy unless real world law forces intervention or, again, I was expressly asked. And, once asked, I would bring the matter to the owner directly prior to taking action. Thread locking is the only thing that really stands out as an admin function, because flame wars can ensue where the bickering parties are too proud to flag the problem.

As for the limits of vBulletin, I'd say most could be fixed with more forum staffers - but that would be at the (short-term) expense of LL, making it very unlikely.




Unless it's a land dispute, email or IM Lindens directly. Robin and Pathfinder are especially good at pointing you in the right direction, and striking a discussion with Pathfinder or Jeska about forum policy might help.

For the record, most public, automated grievance systems will be poorly maintained. This is more a holdover from corporate practices I dislike than it is a government function. Think: Tech support in India.

That said, I agree that it's annoying as hell.

I'm in the process of my own personal arbitration hell over the rewards for the Game Dev Contest, so I can relate. More on that in a new thread if the matter is not resolved soon.



The problem is we still have to funnel all of our time through systems maintained by ~50 people. That, to me, is far from open.

Until this system can be truly "resident driven," and by this I mean Second Life itself, it will continue to exist as a closed system. The only way to really pry open that vice grip is to get more options in the hands of more people. Licensing Second Life itself would be a start. As would just plain letting us own our data.

Most Lindens I ask tell me that it's in the distant future.



If any of this is unclear, let me know. I'm presently running on all of three hours of sleep, so I expect there to be several errors in there somewhere.