LL delegated the power to ban problem users to SL residents

Hmm! Jury duty in SL. Who'da thunk.

And incidentally I find it semi-hysterical that we find these things out through outside articles. Aren't we supposed to know first?

And in case anyone thinks I was telling secrets, all I was doing was confirming what was said by Jeska.

This is the internet, that is not obscure here!

^ Isn't it bizarre how such a glorified network of advanced technology (i.e. "teh internets" has reduced some humans to uncivilized behavior harkening back to medieval times and earlier (think: before we discovered fire)? A bizarre contradiction, one that I'm not going to embrace.

I appreciate the response but we conspiracy theorists need more info.

Is this a grand jury type setup where people are randomly selected from the community and asked to sit on for some time or case by case or what? And how are these people selected? Are we going to find out that it is the usual suspects who do little more than see how far they can get their head up a LL employee's ass?

I like the idea of this but have always felt that if I am going to be judged by a jury of my so-called peers that it truly represent the community at-large and not just those who pay the most to LL. If you are going to go this route you should have some form of representative government.

I think Jeska answered this in the Hotline to Linden forum today:

/invalid_link.html

Well, it's probably not as much fun as seeing if they weigh as much as a duck, but the Resident Review Panel seems to be working pretty well. For those who missed it, Daniel's original announcement about the Panel was posted in January. While similar to a jury there are some important differences. Daniel's post has more information if you're looking for details.

The Resident Review Panel is only convened when someone is being considered by LL for permanent banning. Since January we've convened the Resident Review Panel twice.

The Panel is chosen at random from among active, established users.

The information that the Panel sees is drawn from the disciplinary record of the 'perp', and includes the type, number and frequency of offenses. There is no identifying information shared with the Panel.

The Panel can vote agree/disagree/abstain, and can also comment on their decision. The final decision to ban, however, remains with LL.

I hope that helps clarify!

"no identifying information" = no self-defense?

No chance to apologize, to ask for forgiveness?

No chance to explain their side of the story, if they have one?

How can this panel be a useful function, if the person is asking for a review based on some legitimate excuse?

For example, "I didn't do the actions in question. Some members from my group did it, and I happened to be online at the time, so got banned right alongside the others."

Or, "You know what? I was a total arse; I did do the things in question, it got into sort of a 'Oh yeah, well see what I can do' pissing match and I wound up acting like a little kid. I know that I might get banned permanently even if you do hear my apology, but I am genuinely sorry for what I did, I'd I'd be willing to do the SL equivalent of community service if you'd give me a last chance."

Seems possible that the panel is just for show, a pacifier for residents who want more community-built government or involvement, or a nice PR polish. With no input from the "accused", they are weighing in on the previous disciplinary record as fact, and this previous record doesn't even have the virtue of the person having been able to defend him/herself for previous offenses. I suspect that the Linden Discipline, while punishing a great many who do deserve it, also comes down on people who might not deserve it, or who are even aware of what they are being disciplined for.

Pathfinder, you kill me...

I wonder if this panel is not one of the causes we see many multi-reported well known griefers still at large...

Is there an Opt-Out if you don't want to be in the pannel? Is the Pannel a group like Live Help? Are conversations about the case held within IM or does each person review the case seperately and then submit their opinion via notecard? If people are chosen at random, whats not to say a random person will be someone who knows of the case personaly, or, has commited alot of "crimes" themselves? Or is an alt of such a person? If they aren't truely selected randomly (i.e. they are checked for a "clean slate", that should be said as well. Shouldn't each case get a different "review board"?

Alot of questions ^, the system sounds... ok... but could be open to alot of flaws, as most things like this have been theorised to be.

Yeah, it's like that sci-fi story where human judges and legal systems had too many problems, so they switched to some sort of robot judge (mind you, this tale was written decades ago). The robot judge had to be upgraded with new hardware, and the co-creators fought over it and eventually killed each other. The robot got all confused and became sentient and began to advance itself, learning more about the horrors of humanity. It got to the point that the robot decided that all humans were a flaw in the quest for justice and so it made more robots to wipe out the whole planet. And then after that, the robots decided that they were flawed themselves after partaking in such great violence and causing more harm than healing, so they committed robo-suicide. Weird eh?

By the time someone is being considered for permanent ban (which are the only cases that to the review panel) they've had many opportunities to plead their case. Also, to put some perspective around permanent banning, in the nearly two years since SL was officiallly launched, fewer than 20 people have been permanently banned, and some of them were for reasons other than behavior (e.g. fraud).

The panel is designed to allow the SL residents to take a look at a decision we've made, and recommend leniency to us if they don't agree with the decision we've made.

If someone doesn't want to participate in the panel they can abstain. The voting doesn't take place in-world, so there's no IM or notecard record. We don't include alts, and each Review Panel that is convened is a new group of people.

The most "many" could potentially be is two; arguably two too many.

So, it's a second chance. One they didn't used to get. One we can opt out of. So much for conspiracy theories.

Thanks Robin!

this was posted a while ago.

Honestly this is not something i would be proud of, Robin.

On the Panel. All you do is get an email from Linden Labs telling you you have been randomly selected, blah blah blah. Then you click on a link, get sent to a website showing the offender's past history and record. You then cast your vote one of the three ways and your done. Thats it. It is very anonymous and automatic.

Ahahah. I guess the accused doesn't get fair representation!

Cute

I honestly don't think the accused in this situation should get fair representation. This process was set up for those who break the rules MULTIPLE times, being given MULTIPLE chance to apologize and change their ways. If you are picked, it seems like you get a list of COMPLAINTS against the accused, and from there, you choose whether they should be banned or not. People with one or two complaints probably won't be put under this jury. It would probably be closer to 10 to 15, if even that high. Stop with the conspiracy theories already blaze, and ignore the people rummaging through your trash .

Ahhhh come on Brad, you're getting all uptight over one *factual* sentence on my part.

You have to admit, this process is just a rubber stamp on the decision already made by LL.

Why bother go to a jury (whups, sorry "review panel" if you've already decided they're going to get banned?

I guess it's a sanity check and it's better than nothing at all, but you have to admit, from a purely theoretical standpoint, it's a very primitive form of justice.

Anyways, it is better than nothing at all. I do agree with that.

I guess they don't go around hyping the fact that they do this and so all their 'banning' is completely fair.

This is all probably an experiment on their part to see if something more complicated might be workable.

I'm highly disappointed. I figured the panel would be entirely composed of this phantom "feted inner core" that is supposed to run everything in conjunction with the Lindens. Let everyone I know spawned in 2003 and before knows NOTHING of this!

To shame!

-Flip

I'm sorry Flipper, I know you posted something but I am infinitely mesmerized by your exploding penis-hasslehoff avatar image.

Even if they have already made the decision, i'm sure they'll leave the decision up to us should someone be voted to stay in. I personally don't think they should leave things like this up to the residents, and think the punishments for perma-bans should be much swifter than what they are now. Too many residents in the past have been given their Umpteenth chances and gone and blew that away too. All i'm saying is that by the time this gets to a "Resident Review Panel", they've blew their umpteenth chance to save themselves from the perma-ban. Why should they get the chance to defend themselves when they've been told repeatedly to stop greifing. Their defense should have been to stop the actions that could get them banned.