Pathfinder: Attacks / Freedom of Speech / Slander

I completely agree that it is crystal clear and am not surprised at all the nit-picking going on. For what is supposed to be an 'adult' environment there is a lot of childish behavior. Since every possible scenario cannot be covered in a TSO, generalizations and a certain amount of subjective behavior by the owner of the entity (this board, this game) is to be expected and should be understood by most adults.

If Phillip decides that blue is orange and tells his people to enforce a policy that blue is now orange, you gentle readers have a choice to abide or suffer the consequences. The problem is when blue is orange one day, and blue the next. That happens sometimes but I get the impression that LL is trying to be more consistent. What surprises me is that some who bitched about inconsistency now are bitching because LL is attempting to clarify.

IMHO, Pathfinder is doing just that. I for one, appreciate the effort.

Based on what I've seen of him so far, Pathfinder is the best community manager LL has.

My thoughts:

1. I don't find it difficult to take Blaze Spinmaker seriously, and I'm not a disillusioned SL'er. He strikes me as one of the more cogent people on here.

2. If he wants to talk about FIC until the cows come home, that is no reason to ban any discussion on that subject - or non-subject, whichever way you perceive it. I am assuming, of course, that the TOS is not governed by majority vote at any given juncture, such that if enough people are tired of hearing about something or from somebody, then that something or somebody becomes verboten. And I trust that the moderators would not dream of shushing someone on a topic just because they were personally becoming tired of it.

3. Despite many of the comments in this thread, the issue at hand is not whether or not we "support" the mods, though I'm sure they don't mind hearing how much players appreciate their work. The issue brought up by the original poster was a legitimate (and, as I said before, disturbing) one. Having said that, I don't think the mods will have any difficulty in (a) distinguishing between harmful attacks on individuals or groups and reasonable critiques of group activities, and (b) being careful not to reword the TOS in such a manner that discussion of things that affect us all in game become censored.

4. I don't think these forums are heavy-handed at all. From what I've seen so far, what happens is people who don't like a subject, or don't agree with the poster who started the thread, pile on with horrible personal attacks and verbal abuse until the the mods have no choice but to close it. If anything, they should be a little more vigilant about vicious personal attacks than they are (and coming from me, a strong believer in free speech, that's saying a lot). By letting it go on too long, they end up having to close the thread (which is worse, in terms of free speech).

Those of you who are so concerned about defending large groups from any sort of criticism would do well, in my opinion, to think about what you are doing when you tell an individual her whole problem is she needs to get laid. In my view, the latter is a far more grievous offence than the former, which after all, is at least in the public domain and public interest.

coco

I haven't been doing research on Pathfinder, but I've noticed that he's very vocal in the forums, and has bent over backwards on several occasions in an attempt to be fair. Again, I haven't done any research, but the threads I've seen closed had long since devolved into a collection of screaming fits. Several legs were broken, so Pathfinder shot the horse. It's never any fun to shoot the horse...

There are a lot of creative people in this community, and an opinion for every one of them. We've been given a virtual world where our creativity can flourish. It's essentially a computer game which encourages the development of skills which are marketable in the REAL WORLD.

Here we are, in the desert being offered a glass of water, and sometimes we complain because we don't like the glass it's in.

Not that I'm any better, of course. I've gotten worked up about a thread or two. I'm just saying that maybe we should step back and take a good look at what we have here.

You know what this reminded me of......


BEDEVERE: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
BEDEVERE: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
BEDEVERE: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
BEDEVERE: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
BEDEVERE: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
BEDEVERE: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
BEDEVERE: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
BEDEVERE: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
BEDEVERE: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... she.. weighs the same as a duck, she's made of
wood.
BEDEVERE: And therefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch!
BEDEVERE: We shall use my largest scales!

May I apologise to the WHOLE of SL for usage of food words in these forums



Seriously I think Pathfinders doing a grand job, sure we don't all see it that way and sure things are happening that we don't all like or agreeing with, but he pwns us... so I guess c'est la vie

You could have just said my name you know.
You sure sound disillusioned, at least with the forums, see your #4 below. I do find it increasingly more difficult to take him seriously. If "cogent" means a lust to find fault with most aspects of SL, it's inhabitants, be they *FIC* or $9.95 one-time accounts, the forums, Lindens Lab's policies, Linden Lab's financial situation, or the survivability of SL as a whole - based on experiences in MMORPGS, hyperbole, and cynicism, I don't want to be "cogent", at least not in your book. It's one thing to question things, it's important, but when one keeps babbling for months on end about issues for which have never been proven to exist, it becomes annoying, especially when it's played as some sort of cat and mouse manner. blaze was even saying things in some threads (which he was luring "FIC" people to) "this is fun", etc.

That's right, he can, I never told him he couldn't. I gave him an "if/then". If he wants to be taken seriously, then he needs to come to terms with what SL is, or run the risk of being seen as the boy who cried wolf.


Ok, so by that token, attacks should be allowed on any large group? What about attacks on the "Aussies in SL" group? The "Furrys"? I think some of you are intentionally trying to make this seem more difficult to police than it already is, so that you can keep up your nitpicking of groups, be they imaginary or real.

What if we were allowed attacks on groups in RL? Where would we be?


This is a matter of opinion, one which we disagree on. While I wouldn't mind seeing 24/7 mod coverage, where the job description requires them to simply read the forums during their workday, I realize that it is not possible with a company of LL's size, so we have to settle for less than that. Is that to say I think they do a bad job? No. Not by a long shot. I think it's admirable that they manage to get in as much coverage as they do with such a small employee base.

On the subject of a small base - This is where I see the fundamental flaw with the nitpicking - I think that LL should be praised for accomplishing what they have with that small group and the relatively small amount of capital they operate off of. I could sit and nitpick all the shortcomings all day everyday, but what does that accomplish? If I ever got to that point, I would simply move on, spare myself the agony, as well as sparing everyone else including LL the gloom and doom rhetoric and conspiracy theories.

That was a bad remark, I agree, but no worse than calling someone a "prostitute" or "beneath" one's self over some pixellated pin-ups. At least some of responsiblity for tit-for-tat stuff like that has to fall on the instigators. Not to mention, you don't see that you are assigning what one individual said to the rest of us do you? That person was overboard, and I hope they were dealt with, I even alluded to it in that thread. You have chosen to ignore any of the other points that were made in that thread by others who took issue. Focusing on the negative is never a good thing. It's a sure-fire ticket to skewed perception. On that note, I will take leave of you and blaze from this time forward, there is nothing more to discuss when you are talking to people with fingers in their ears while repeating the same hackneyed-to-death mantra ad nauseum.

Ok obviously your in part talking about me again Nolan, which again I do not appreciate.
For one you have quoted and misquoted parts of another thread to once again poke that knife in my back and twist it.

I never called anyone a prostitute and your making it sound like one person (me) said both of those things. Which IMO also makes you a liar now. I clarified myself fully yet I see your still twisting my words. More so your dragging me into this thread and I don't apprecaite that either. BUT I will defend myself.

You just made Coco's points very clear, more so proved them correct.

Cat

*Shakes head* If you want me to clarify I will, although you may not like the clarification too very much. You said they were beaneath you, Blaze called them prostitutes - to which you agreed to. I am suprised you need me to remind you:

So you did indirectly say it, at least to yourself, and indirectly in the above statement by virtue of agreeing with blaze if for no other reason.

As far as the "twisting the knife" stuff, I didn't know that you thought our talking things out after the SLU thread meant that I would never disagree with you again. Sorry if you did.

On the accusation I was attributing both these statement so one person, kindly take notice of the 's' on the end of the bolded word 'instigators'. It means plural, as in multiple people. "... no worse than calling someone a "prostitute" or "beneath" one's self over some pixellated pin-ups. At least some of responsiblity for tit-for-tat stuff like that has to fall on the instigators."

Now I choose to stop responding to you as well Cat, I have had my fill of malcontents fomenting unrest, attacking successful SL'ers, and propagating conspiracy theories on these forums to last me a lifetime. I hope you find peace.

How dare you! *chuckles* kidding.

Anyway, thanks for your response. As Cocoanut pointed out, my comments are not meant to criticize the job the mods have been doing, but to get some clarification. I think you and Pathfinder have provided it, though indirectly, so I'll zip up.

Muchas gracias, Robin!

This troubles me, too, whatever assurances Hiro feels he has now.

To take a different tack, if "attacks" are ill-defined (as Coco and others have pointed out), and if "attacks on groups" are going to be taken as coterminous as "attacks on individuals" and therefore actionable like "personal attacks," we do face a serious problem -- we have no way of publicly questioning various malicious groups/networks/bodies that get formed within a game and skirt the TOS to wreck havoc on individuals and the game itself.

It is not unlike the problem we faced in TSO, where the moderators first on the official TSO board, then somewhat less so, but still on the Stratics TSO forum, decided that you could never mention a neighbourhood or group in an ill light -- no criticism, no mentioning even.

You could not so much as say "I fear the Sim Shadow Government has taken over all the skillhouses in the game because all the top 10 houses in every category have the name 'Shadow' in them."

For merely *reporting* this egregious fact, which was sign of a very troubled game, you would not only be banned, your post would disappear into thin air. It was as if it never existed. Various brave souls would sign on with an alt and say "Help, the SSG has taken over my skill hou...." before the heavy hand would come over their mouth and they'd be silenced. It was awful.

In the same way, in SL, even though it is more sophisticated, needs to have a way to raise the troublesome behaviour of groups. And this should include groups that someone perceives is a group and a problem, even if the CW is "there is no group".

This also impacts our discussion of any kind of Better Business Bureau. If you cannot question a business that defrauds you or uses unscrupulous tactics to derail you, what can you do? Well, there is the AR, of course. But there out to be a reasonable degree of tolerance on the forums for discussion the worrisome behaviour of groups, without fear or favor.

{I could add that Pathfinder could find arguments to bolster his position in the Nuremberg findings that an individual could not be held accountable for his actions. But this merely prolonged not only the pernicious SS, but the malicious Communist Party (it was the Soviets who cooked up that seemingly democratic notion of an individual not being responsible for the group, even if he had high membership in it). An individual should not be held financially liable for a group, this is a standard business contract concept, but in fact anyone who was at the oblast-level in the CP would be a criminal by definition, so to jetison "groups" as a concept to judge individuals' actions discounts the ways in which groups function to protect the malicious actions of an individual.}

Yes, "indirectly" I agreed with his thoughts: "bedazzled is going to reach profitability one way or not". I took his worlds to mean "sell out", not rl whore themselves in some club down town. That is a huge leap Nolan, again I did not call them "prostitues" I agreed that the group was acting in a manner which I think is not necessary, as their work speaks for its self, period. I still believe it was not necessary.



Oh please last I knew we agreed on many levels, but now I would never consider you a friend. Do not pretend we are on a friendly basics when you spout lies and inuendo publicaly. My friends allow me my views without personal insult, and I give them the same respect. Even when we disagree.



That can be taken so many ways, I don't even know where to begin. That is your inturpurtation and I disagree with you explaination of it.




Oh please when I see something wrong in SL I will speak out against it. I am not here to win any popularity contests. I would love to see the ppl in your forum buddy list speak for themselves instead of ganging up on anyone who disagree's with any one person in the fourums. I have been here since the beginning to and these attacks sicken me to no end. So get off your self serving soap box. Your buddies do far more harm to the fourms than my one opinion will ever do. You and your buddies have wished me peace, and mental health often followed by "your a cold hearted bitch, your a whore..." If you find I am finding any peace in that what so ever, then you are one sick individual. Save it for someone who gives a damn what you or your buddies think.

Now I choose once again to put you and anyone of your buddies on mute, I do not expect to hear again from you, nor will I respond in kind. Do not attack that decision as you have in the past by gettting those who are not muted to ask again and again why you or your buddies are muted. I have muted you because you offer nothing but hate to these forums.

Cat

Even tho I have my own opinions on certain ppl in this forums and who should of been banned long ago, I will abide by LL decisions, I believe what ever choices LL has and will make are for the greater good of SL. Yes even when I disagree.

This is highly troublesome. It's a statement from an older and respected content-provider player, and it is a statement bolstering what Pathfinder is contributing now with a sort of revised understanding of the TOS about not making "group attacks", i.e. against something called "The FIC".

My understanding of the FIC is that it is a kind of parody, a vehicle to describe the antics and traits of certain diehard players. The Lindens themselves poked fun at this concept when they turned it into an April Fool's day joke and put "In the FIC" in all the "account status" boxes.

Pathfinder reminds us that you cannot belittle or demean individuals or groups.

What recourse do you have, then, when a group or individual belittles you and others on a systematic basis? You have to be able to discuss these matters at least in a general way.

What if someone makes an allegation that a high-profile designer is using the name of a RL company and could face RL copyright issues? What if that player is highly respected in the game and believed by their friends and all the mods to be above reproach? How can individuals safely discuss such matters for the good of the whole game?

The idea that a group should get together and decide to tell one or other player to "STFU" places a chill on legitimate debate.

I'd like to clarify now whether what we are being told is the following:

1. A player systematically and sharply attacked what he perceived as a group of players who had some unflattering traits -- they were condescending to newbies, they were impervious to criticism about their privileges, they were nasty and often used profanity and personal attacks to shield themselves from criticism.
2. The players in that group told this player and his supporters to "STFU"
3. The mods came on and said, yes, with our newly-revised understanding of the TOS now, no, you can't ever criticize groups at all, especially THIS group, those people who are in the group telling everyone to "STFU" -- and we applaud their ability to tell others to "STFU" and thereby remain immune from legitimate criticism.

*Heading for Room 101.*

1 alt, 2 alt, 3 alt 4.....

I only count two, Ingrid. Where do you get four?

Nolan . . .

I don't see how you can call me disillusioned (which is apparently a prerequisite for taking Blaze seriously; therefore I must be) considering I have played this game only two months now, if that.

Remember, I have not heard him babbling for months on end about anything. I am new to these forums. I form my judgments based only on what I have seen and read. I judge him cogent, and non-hysterical.

As for my number 4, I believe I said that I didn't consider the mods heavy-handed, and described what I had seen and my analysis of why that thread was closed. My reporting these observations doesn't equate to my being "disillusioned." They are merely my observations, or facts as seen from my point of view. I have no particular dog to back in these fights.

I don't think this is difficult to police. And as I said earlier, I'm sure the mods can make good judgment calls. I do strongly agree with the original poster, though, that it would be quite dangerous (and unnecessary) to make it a rule that one can't comment critically on groups. Think about it.

And we are, of course, allowed "attacks" on - i.e., allowed to comment critically on the actions, intents, and images of - groups irl.

When I mentioned "needs to get laid," it was as a metaphor for all the many, many horrible comments directed toward Catherine in that thread. To go back and list them all - most of them just as horrid - would take too long. I recognize a bully situation when I see one.

As for your taking leave of me from this time forward . . . I am at a loss for words. Don't you think that's a little extreme? That's the second time, I believe, that I've been told I have been written off as a person because I dared to agree with somebody or other on these forums.

coco

Random Unsung, you get +10 obscurity points and +5 logic points for quoting my favorite philosopher in your profile!

Hehe

I am NOT a respected contect provider!! AM I?!?!

Seriously tho for a minute, I take all the FIC jabs in jest too, it is actually quite amusing, but it is getting tiresome now, every single time something comes up, you hear 'oooh well look the FIC strike again' or 'well I am not a member of the FIC so I guess I get treated differently'.

And I just don't think it gives out the right vibes for our community to suggest that some individuals get special treatment or are in cahoots with other older players or even the Lindens.

Yes there are cliques in Secondlife, but in that respect SL mirrors RL all too well.

I don't think Blaze should seriously be repremanded for his rantings against the FIC, or even Profoky for that matter, I was just blowing off steam about the 'tripe' being insulting and derogatory language

I restate, I think Pathfinder, Jeska and Robin do a stand up job, its not easy to sipher out from the dregs of some 22page long threads sometimes the attacks from the jests, and I too was once warned, along with Kris for our Jest 'your a f*£*ng whore' page, so I know what its like to get a joke turned around into a warning, (so anyone that thinks that we are members of the FIC have got it so so SO wrong), there job is to keep the forums a comfortable place to be, without too much censorship, or without being heavy handed, sometimes they will appear the bad guy, sometimes they will be applauded, and we, i guess, just have to deal with the descisions they make, and 9/10, I do.

I have read most of this thread and I have to say the only conclusion I can draw is that half of you and your alts are on fucking crack. It isn't even funny any more. You're all batshit insane.

Nolan,

To point out something that shouldn't need pointing out:-

If you say that someone is 'prostituting themselves' you are using prostitution as a metaphor. You are not calling them a prostitute.

Thank you Selador.

An apology would be nice Nolan.
As I did not call the Bedazzle team prostitues.

Cat

I have to disagree Seladoor, or at least disagree in part. It is just as insulting to be accused of whoring yourself out, as it is to be called a whore... metaphor aside.

Note: the more egregious term whore substituted for prostitute to make the point a little clearer.

A favorite tactic of verbal bullies is to make an insulting statement, then backpedal away when the offended party calls it, claiming the wronged party overreacted or misunderstood what was clearly meant as an insult.

If you are going to name call, at least have the courage of your convictions and don't waffle when your target comes back at you.

If that is what I ment I would of clearly said it, more so I would of said it proudly . I think it's pretty obvious by now I say what I mean. It should also be pretty obvious that I take great offence to being called a "bitch or a whore". So it would not make much sence for me to use those types of words as a weapon. I will not continue to defend what I did not say. If those that openly cussed and insulted my "opionion" cannot be adult and apologize for their actions, then so be it.

What goes around comes around. I can live with my words.

If you can understand the difference between calling someone a prostitute and "prostituting themselves out", you can understand the difference between calling someone a "whore" and an "attention whore".

I'm jus' sayin'....

There ain't much of this horse left to beat...