Are We Citizens or Children?

This is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, there is an attack against the character of person making the claim. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim the person is making. I would also suggest that there's an optional third step that involves a partner in crime to post a follow up "Ayup" to reinforce the fallacy.

In order to have a logical discussion on the censorship of dissent, one must put aside personal attacks and address the fundamental issue. In this case it is the censorship of dissent and the right to question and expect modification of the ToS after agreeing to it. Are you capable of this or am I asking too much?

I am a moderator in the SL forums.

I only remove posts when they interfere with the freedom of others. Members are encouraged to publicly question my moderation. In fact I encourage it.

~Ulrika~

I don't do country - not that there's anything wrong with it! - check with Eboni, she indicated that she's a fan.

I'm envisioning a funk group called the Pink Pony Posse with clothing designs by Jonquille.

Ayup.

I would say, to sum up, that if I put a thread called

"Make Coco Famous!"

on the General forum, even if it were just to make some kind of a point about other threads already on the General forum, it would be justifiably moved to Off-Topic. I definitely wouldn't repost it in some other form ("Make Coco Infamous!" in the General forum. And I wouldn't make a freedom of speech argument about it in the General forum or accuse moderators of having it in specifically for me, either.

Course, that's just me.

In the past, I have had a couple of threads moved to the "Off-Topic" forum. One of these concerned a Linden bridge that appeared overnight in the middle of a Sim, blocking the view of the residents there something awful. (It disappeared just as suddenly.)

I thought that had a lot to do with SL in General, but it got moved to Off Topic. I didn't debate the issue, though, or repost it, or make a free speech issue of it.

Same thing happened with another thread I made once. I don't remember its topic, but I know it had a lot more to do with SL - General than would "Make Coco Famous!" Again, I just accepted it. But again, that's just me.

I'm still waiting for the answer to the question Jonquille posed, as to exactly how my posts were harming people such that I should be removed from the forum. In other words, how do my posts fit into the philosophy regarding free speech Ulrika is promoting in this thread.

coco

Hmm that's a pity. I've found the person on the end of that line to be both responsive and helpful.

Excellent post here too. In the wasteland that is General, it is nice to see someone with the capacity to seriously discuss issues.

I agree that AR is an imperfect moderation tool that is vulnerable to abuse and that the volume of ARs make it difficult for a moderator to do an effective job. I also see your point, that we are all at the mercy of vBulletin's technical limitations.

I understand and forgive that. However, what I do not care for is the use of the forum guidelines to specifically stifle dissent. Specifically this section:


It could be written as the following:


~Ulrika~

For someone as interested in virtual justice as myself, it's horribly frustrating.

This just gave me a great idea for a new thread. I can post all of my unanswered emails to [email]abuse@lindenlab.com[/email] to the forum. Note that doing so will violate the Linden rule which censors our dissent -- the very issue I am discussing here. Fascinating.

~Ulrika~

!

~Ulrika~

Thank you for taking the time to establish that you're not me.

This thread is not about coco. If you'd like one, spawn it and I'll do my best to answer your questions. If you'd instead like to discuss the censorship of dissent, then you're in the right place.

~Ulrika~

I guess that means you aren't going to answer it. I guess that means you concede her point.

And yes - the thread is not ABOUT me. It is about YOU. And your ideas. Jonquille was using me as an example to show that your ideas are apparently not consistent, and depend on who is in question. The example IS pertinent.

This thread is about you, and started by you, just like the moved and closed threads were about you, and started by you. I imagine that somebody (or maybe more than one person) saw those threads and AR'd them as inappropriate for the General forum. Probably because they didn't think threads All About Ulrika belonged in the General forum.

Consequently, I don't think there is a problem here with the AR being an imperfect moderation tool. I think the problem here is with Ulrika wanting to make threads all about Ulrika, and protesting when they are moved or locked.

Censorship of dissent on message boards is actually one of my pet peeves. But I see no point in trying to have a serious discussion of that issue in a context as silly as this one, put forward by someone who - if she were moderator - would be suppressing, censoring, and banning everything and everyone she didn't like right and left.

I'll take the moderators we have over that, you betcha.

coco

P.S. You know, you can make all the threads like that you like, just so long as they are in the right forum. I really don't think that's too much to ask.

I think it means she is not going to let you take this thread off-topic and make it about you. As there is a real issue that this thread is trying to address. Whether you agree with the OP or not, there is still an actual topic here being discussed.

If one is to believe psychological theories about projection and transference, then I just learned a ton about you.

Get a clue, Pendari. I'm not the one who brought this up.

coco

You're so good at this. You could be arguing to have me executed and I'd still be in awe of your prowess.

I tip my hat. Absolutely. I haven't been this passively entertained in months.

Wow, just wow.
After reading this thread in it's entirety, I am completely blown away

Don't tell me to get a clue. Who the hell do you think you are? Gah you are frustrating as all get out.

And you think you are a walk in the park? Did you not notice this was JONQUILLE'S question? And that it was receiving no answer?

coco

P.S. And you DARE to suggest that I had brought this up and was trying to make it about me and take it "off-topic"?

Who the HELL do you think YOU are?

*hugs Pen*

Yes. Unlike some people I do take the time to read every single post in a thread I participate in. Jon may have brought up the question. I was not addressing Jon. I was addressing you stating that Ulrika was not answering you so then she was " concede [Jon's] point." When in fact she did no such thing. She *told* you why she wasn't going to answer the question in this thread. She also stated she would answer you in another thread.

No. You just have an annoying habit of reading words that are not there and then making false accusations.

Have I mentioned that I just can't get enough of the N-burg people? Consistently the most... excellent stuff. You guys just make my day in these drama threads.

<3

I was one of the original flavors

It's from living in squat little bavarian fachwerk houses in an overcrowded german city of medieval origin.

*hums Cumbaya in the corner and watches the prim slinging*

Nonsense. Jonquille pointed out a logical fallacy in Ulrika's thinking. Ulrika chose not to address it.

She STILL hasn't addressed it.

Jonquille brought it up. If she hadn't, probably someone else would have. It's as obvious as the nose on your face.

And still there is no answer to it.

Maybe the answer is what Enabran suggested - that Ulrika really SHOULD be above the rules that apply to the rest of this. In that case, everything she has said stands up perfectly to logical scrutiny.

As for me, if you think I am for one moment about to allow you to rewrite the history of the thread, imply motivations I don't have, suggest that I brought up something I didn't bring up, and tell me that nothing I have said in any of my posts above - which I invite you to read again - has anything to do with the topic at hand, then you are mistaken.

And if you think that merely repeating the phrase, "this isn't about you, Coco," is going to make Ulrika's logical fallacy and blatant hypocrisy go away, you are again mistaken, because the readers here have more sense than you give them credit for.

coco