Pathfinder: Attacks / Freedom of Speech / Slander

This presumption is based on faulty logic.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/div.htm
Fallacy of Division
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
Because the whole has a certain property, it is argued that the parts
have that property. The whole in question may be either a whole
object or a collection or set of individual members.

Examples:
(i) Each brick is three inches high, thus, the brick wall is three
inches high.
(ii) Because the brain is capable of consciousness, each neural cell
in the brain must be capable of consciousness.

Proof:
Show that the properties in question are the properties of the parts,
and not of the whole. If necessary, describe the parts to show that
they could not have the properties of the whole.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the real world, we have some clear examples of how this can be interpreted when dealing with groups of people and civil law.

Slander on a group, for instance, is generally only valid when a group is small enough that specific individuals are known. The general guideline is about 20.

On the other hand, when looking at what qualifies a hate crime, entire groups, regardless of size, are the defining factor: race, religion, nationality.

The difference between the two is the test of the fallacy - the prior does not presume that all members are the same in a certain property other than membership. The latter, all people definitely share at least one same quality.

Conclusion:
Pathfinder, I don't think you can make your assertion about groups. Regardless of a group's charter or name, groups in Second Life are just labels.

In the interest of protecting free speech, here are some suggestions I have to better judge if an attack on a group should be censored:

1. Is the attack factual? Certainly, if what a person is saying is accurate, then it should not be censored. In civil slander / libel cases, I might add, the onus of proof that something is false is put on the attacked person to prove.

2. Does the group have an "attackable" purpose? Here's another case I consider clear cut: If there's a group that is specifically designed to violate TOS/CS ("Fuck So-and-so Ethnicity" group) then of course, the group should be dissolved instead.

3. What is the nature of the attack? Are we talking someone saying "Hey, the members of this group suck" or we saying "Hey, this group sucks because they're a bunch of (insert ethnic group here)". In the prior, I believe people are entitled to expression. In the latter, the attack becomes one of a TOS violating nature.

4. Size of the group / scope of the attack. Is someone attacking a leader of a group? Some leaders? A very small group? All of these are clear cut by the slander / libel guideline. But if someone says something like, "Secondlifers are stupid", is this really a censorable attack? I don't think so...

5. Is the group representative of something involuntary or voluntary? If you have a "Second Life Handicapped" group, I think it's obvious that any shot would be a low blow.
Still, it's conceivable that the same group could be a bunch of dimwits who go around and grief people.

...

So, I suppose common sense has to prevail. I don't think it's as clear cut as you put it, Pathfinder, and I hope you'll consider what I'm saying in the interest of preserving free speech.

Not ENTIRELY so - Furries groups are all furries,Vampire groups are all Vampires and so on and so forth so in effect you CAN make an individual attack by attacking a group.

Groups like yours and mine however ARE made up of many individuals from different groups/outlooks so its NOT possible to attack an individual by naming our groups.

If I was to say that 'hey all you people who are in 'Lucile Ball Lovers'(*shudders at the thought*) are a bunch of redhaired freaks' I've then attacked every member of that group as an individual.

Get it?

I support Pathfinder Linden.

So you want to be able to attack groups of people but not individuals, right?

So, for example, I can't say 'Hiro is an asshole' but I can say 'Self righteous Katana makers in Second Life are assholes'? Or am I missing the point?

Can we have a list of which groups are ok to attack, too? Presumably the FIC is ok, cuz they're always getting attacked whether they exist or not. What about gays? can they be attacked as a group? What about Americans? Can we lump them together in a group and attack them all? Or is this only 'Second Life 'official' labelled groups' you're referring to? And if so, how does that differentiate? Cuz, like, if we can't attack gays in Second Life in general, but we can attack 'Gay Second Lifers' cuz they have an official group, that seems kinda silly.

I'm confused! Who can I attack and who should I not?

Maybe we should each post a list of groups you can pigeonhole us into for easy attacking?

I'll start. I'm a Brit, bisexual, sometimes furry atheist. There's at least four groups you can lump me under to disguise a personal attack

Me, but then you have to kiss it better

*purr*

*attacks Willow for the perks*

And this is the crux if the matter right here.

It MAY be 'ok' to attack some groups. I don't think attacking people is ever 'ok', personally, but lets say some groups are faceless enough to attack.

But how do you decide which ones? You cant.

Better to er on the side of caution.

Boy, I'm beginning to think Jeska breathed a *huge* sigh of relief when she was relieved of the task of forum moderator...

I also agree that Pathfinder's "logical" interpretation of the individual attack rule is reaching to say the least. I am willing to bet it wouldn't hold up in court.

To site an example, let's look at the group that was actually formed, and for all I know still exists in SL, "Willing Rapists".

Yes. That group is sick and desire for membership is indicative of serious mental problems. Members should have their heads examined and should be banned as a whole, without consideration of the individual that was stupid enough to join such a group. You wanted it, you got it, you are a Willing Rapist, and the SL community at large wants nothing to do with you, and urges you to seek counseling.

This would be considered an attack on individuals? That would be interesting to say the least. Obviously the spirit of "attacks on individuals" does not apply here.

It is situationally a logical interpretation. Not absolutely. Hiro is correct. Such a group should in no way be protected from community censure and outcry by the TOS.

And agreed Liona, Pathfinder must have shown up for work late the first day or something.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not thrilled such a group exist(s/ed) either. But why is it ok to attack them and not, say... A gay group? Or a jewish group? Or furries?

It doesn't work that way. If I say "Americans are all satan worshipping baby-killers" I'm not instantly able to be sued by all 300 million or so residents of the US. If I make comments about how Hollywood actors are shallow and egomaniacs, I can't be sued by the actor's guild.

It's because these groups are about choices people make. It's different from someone being a certain race or religion or gender or age or disabled, where they can't control their membership to the group - these are the basis for hate-crimes, saying "scripters in SL are a bunch of a-holes" is not.

@Kris,

By your example, no, because the are few enough swordmakers in SL where individuals could be easily identified. Again, the "20" guideline is a decent level. So if I say, "money grubbing land barons should be banned from SL because they are jerks" it's highly questionable if it's a personal attack, because there are a few dozen of them out there and I haven't narrowed it down. Whereas, I could say, "that Chinese land whore is out screwing people again!" everyone would know I'm likely talking about Anshe. (JUST an example, I don't think Anshe is out to screw people!)

@Reitsuki,

I just laid out a series of conditions that answer your question. We can't live our lives erring on the side of safety with absolutely everything.

...

And the bottom line, I'm not supporting defending attacking groups; I don't think it's mature. However, I don't think it warrants falling under personal attacks, because it simply isn't. If someone wants to degrade a group, that still may make the person a jerk, but it doesn't mean that person is blashpheming every member.

Else these forums would be shut down. Consider people abuse reporting, "This person is anti-government-supporter! I started a thread about government in SL and all these people told me how stupid government is, and that's a personal attack against me!" It doesn't work that way.

To my knowledge, furries do not in any way, indirectly or otherwise, advocate or associate themselves, as a group, with any sort of crime or violence.

It's one of those "what would grandma say" things. Would you happily show your grandmother or teacher your tattoo proudly displaying your membership in such a group? Would you try to get a job wearing such a t-shirt?

I might hire somebody with a Furry t-shirt...it would depend on the individual. I would not even consider someone, moreso I would have them removed, if somebody walked in with a "Willing Rapist" shirt on. In fact, if somebody else hired that person and allowed the display of that motto in any way, I would issue an ultimatum; remove that individual or I will quit on the spot.

It would be the same if they were named, "Fun Daisies", yet walked around saying they were really willing rapists that just didn't want the publicity. The flipside is, "it was just a name nobody is REALLY a willing rapist", but that would just demonstrate they were out to shock and provoke people, nothing more, and if that's the kind of attention you want to attract, well, seek help. Either way, you, and tell your disturbed group members, that they can look for employ elsewhere, I don't care how good they are at whatever.

It would be wrong to say you could not censure or publicly denounce such a group. True you shouldn't be able to find the individuals and harass them, but you are well within your rights to publicly state that it is wrong and that the members should be rounded up and questioned, and that the group should be disbanded. "I'm sure there are nice people in Willing Rapists" just doesn't make sense. Is that the sort of thing that should grow and prosper....and be protected from public outcry?

A group should protect itself by its actions and reputation, not by crying to Lindens to update the TOS.

A couple clarifications.

1) I'm not the only moderator here. Jeska and Robin are also moderators. We work as a team, and all decisions are shared between us. When one of us posts something, it's not just one of us acting as an individual. We review all our decisions as a group and keep each other informed to help us be as consistent as possible.

2) The issue of attacks on "groups" is clear. It was previously stated in the Community Standards. The Forum Guidelines have simply been updated to reflect what was already in the Community Standards.

---------------

Forum Guidelines:

/invalid_link.html

Basic Forum Policies and Etiquette

* Private discussions – the forums are a public area for the Second Life community’s use. Individuals who have a dispute with each other have other channels of communication to discuss their differences or communicate – private messaging, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life. Also, threads that are addressed to a single individual or group are inappropriate on the forums, this includes slander or "naming names" in a posts title, starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc.

Community Standards

http://secondlife.com/comstandards.php

# Intolerance
Combating intolerance is a cornerstone of Second Life's Community Standards. Actions that marginalize, belittle, or defame individuals or groups inhibit the satisfying exchange of ideas and diminish the Second Life community as whole. The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life.

---------------------

Is it?


So basically all posts are invalid, because posts by default are addressed to the SL community. The SL community is a group. This rule is far too vague to make the assertion that attacks against groups are banned.


I don't think this applies either, because I've already addressed these as exceptions. A person can attack a group of people without being intolerant of a way of life.

Does this mean people can't say "Eff griefers!" because they are residents in SL?

I don't believe either the TOS or CS covers what I've been talking about, and while you all have the right to exercise judgement as you see fit, your listed reasoning is not sufficient to support your argument.

I for one like Pathfinder, prolly cos I don't troll anymore.

I do think the moderating as a whole is a bit harsh sometimes, but then half of us complained about Jeska, seems Pathfinders the new target.

I do agree some ppl in here do NOT get the censorship from their asshat posts that they deserve, and it does appear that some people are getting warned or censored more than others, but its nothing unusual for a forum.

I dunno, i'll shut up, i'm tired

EDIT

I do however, beleive that the people that prattle on about OMG The FIC Strike Again, blah fic blah fic, should be warned to stfu, cos there is NO FIC (i hope), and tbh if I read half these posts as a noob, i'd be worried about some kind of weirdo gang that are trying to take over the second life grid.

stfu, sl00t.

(I addressed the group, not an individual)

My group is deeply offended and I have reported your post 868594903058 times with all my alts.

May you burn in hell Kritter!

(uh i too addressed a group HONESTLY)

'Tis true. My multiple personalities and I have formed an SL group and we each have an avatar.

We're thinking of forming a progressive rock group too.

They didn't have to give a reason at all.

Nobody here is entitled to one.

I wouldn't be surprised, after this reaction, if they don't in the future. In their position, I certainly wouldn't.

It doesn't matter if you can point out flaws in the logic. That's the great part about being a forum-god. When logic fails, you can still do what you feel is the right thing.

I'm comfortable with Pathfinder's judgment on this issue. It would be different if Linden Labs attempted to squash legitimate debate about their software/service, or if they tried to maintain a lockdown on ALL communications regarding Second Life. Instead, they provide us with forums at no extra charge where we are welcome to say anything we like provided we maintain our decorum.

I offer two statements for consideration:

1. "Second Life is a dismal collection of poor software practices that should be scrapped in favor of a new design that remedies the fatal flaws we must now live with. Philip Linden should also feel deeply ashamed for taking user's hard earned money to support what I consider to be a scam."

or

2. "Clothing designers are all fat ugly whores that don't know their heads from their asses."

Which statement is most likely to be removed? And which statement, if removed, constitutes the greater tyranny? The truth is #2 would be removed and rightfully so. #1 will remain, despite the fact that the poster would be using Linden Lab's own servers for propaganda against them. This is not injustice. This is civilization.

If Pathfinder, Jeska, and Robin become any more lenient in their enforcement of forum behavior, I will likely lose interest in the free-for-all the forums would become. On the other hand, for those who want to say whatever they like, however they like… remember that SLUniverse is always an alternative.

Alright, whatever. I'm sorry I ever expected "reasons" why "people I'm paying money to for services" are "limiting my use of services". My bad.

Look, Pathfinder, I'm not trying to pick on you. I'm just saying that this isn't some personally owned forum where the moderators pay for 99% of hosting. We as customers pay your salary and expect "reasonable guidelines" clearly stated so that:
(a) We don't get punished for breaking a rule that is vague because we thought our actions fell within line of expectations.
(b) That, like all other forms of customer service, our people attending to us are here to attend to our wishes in a reasonable manner.
(c) You moderators don't get constantly accused of favoritism because of lack of clear policies.
(d) This forum doesn't turn into a place where people can't voice legit concerns over issues.

This is hyperbole, Aimee. I'm not asking for a free-for-all. I'm asking for clear and clearly stated reasons.

I think Pathfinder has made good judgement so far, and I don't think there's anything unreasonable about asking that said judgement be interpolated into some concise wording. (See 1-4 above)

Your free to expression your opinions, Hiro. I just happen to disagree with you on this one.

In one sense, your absolutely right. They are 'limiting your use of services', I suppose. But you don't have to agree with the reasons. You don't, I know. If they at least do you the courtesy of explaining why they do something (Which 99% of forum admins out there would NOT do, even commercial forums), they don't deserve to be torn into for being "illogical" about it like an overactive highschool debate-team member. Not everything has to be logical. A lot of life isn't.



A is a simple problem. Be civil. The issue that started this wasn't civil, not from page 1, and not at page 29 or whenever it was it was closed.

B is fine, but understand that your wishes don't always agree with the wishes of the company.

C is inevitable. There isn't a single thing you could ever do to prevent this. It's human nature.

D I will agree is an issue, but I actually suspect that is WHY they keep it so vague. If you follow my advice for A, D will probably not be an issue. There is a big difference between voicing concerns over something and ranting/attacking/etc.

of course.


And we don't have to sit and agree to something in silence; we can instead voice our opinion of what we want. Linden Lab has almost always been receptive to user desires plus they have also been very logical and reasonable with why they have to deny them. (Like, "Hey, we can't do Havok 2 just yet because we have bigger priorities and Havok 2 implementation would take a fragload of time that could be better spent in other areas."


I hardly think this is being "torn apart". Hyperbole aside, the very nature of SL is allowing interaction between people. The forum being of the similar sort therefore falls into a seperate category from most other commercial website forums.


And not everything in life has to be illogical. But we can swim in circles in that argument.


I would say that one can both be civil and attack a group at the same time. I can call a griefers a bunch of people with very little self-esteem who should have better things to do with their time. This is both an attack on a group and a civil comment. (And true.)

Good judgement would say, "Okay, this is permissable." If good judgement is going to be the standard, then it should be left to that. Pathfinder specifically stated that attacks against groups are not permitted; perhaps this all is a matter of adding "uncivil" to the front?


Obviously. Like things in a list, this is just one thing to be considered.


So are car accidents, forest fires, and crime. But, we do things to prevent most of this. Obviously, I was not talking about every single little case.


Sometimes, there isn't much of a difference. Unfortunately, these are often the most hotly disputed issues - the issues we so desperately need to talk about the most.

Can you play music like old Genesis...or Marillion....there really is a void and I would come see you play