Should Ostracism Be Used In SL?

Do we want tyranny of the masses? No.
But if we say that, do we want LL acting as the school principle? Well....
Or do we want to forgo the right o ban people? Definately not!

I think there should be some sort of civil court system. And the judges should be elected.

Then again, the Lindens seem impartial enough, for now...

Still, we have established community rules, rules which have become consensus. Shouldn't we be able to impose this collective consensus on others? I don't see what is wrong if we codified these very LIBERAL laws and enforced them (with the power to ban people, or at least fine them, or maybe mark them).

I don't think SL residents know what kind of governet they want. Some want anarchy, some want to exploit the anarchy and create dictatorship, and some want a benevolant, 3rd party dictatorship to be our big brother. Choices, choices.

Webster defines Tyranny as:
Main Entry: tyr·an·ny
Pronunciation: 'tir-&-nE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -nies
Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant
1 : oppressive power
2 a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler

One Person!

if "the masses" are tyranical, whoa are they controlling? THEMSELVES!
which is obvious because of the rule that the "people" are "the masses"
, therefore, there is no one left to opress...

If the masses are ruling them selves.....*looks up definition*
Popular Sovreignty? or Pure Democracy?
Last i checked, only in self-flagellation can you oppress yourself...

I could go on, but it would be beating dead horse...

Point is this:

THis is not tyrannical.

Period.

Resident A owns a small peice of land with a cute little house and flowers and a great view of the ocean.

Resident B buys a small piece of land next to resident A and builds a huge towering structure HE likes a lot and is happy with. But resident A hates it, thinks it's ugly and is angry because it now blocks his view of the ocean.

Resident A decides this guy has got to go, drops his name into the nearest ballot box.
Resident A then complains to twelve friends all about this horrible person who builds hideous structures. The twelve friends also drop resident B's name into the ballot box to support their friend.
The vote goes out and a hundred people who have never met resident B all vote to ban him based on the indication that he must be one of those awful land griefers with the hideous structures.

Resident B's account is terminated.

Resident A buys the other little plot of now much cheaper land at auction and keeps his lovely ocean view.


I think you can guess my vote is no. Bad bad idea in my opinion.

Just say no to oyster racism.

Opinion:

Now this is SUCH a good idea, I think they should institute it in real life. There's this guy in my neighborhood, and nobody likes him. He's rude, gruff, and doesn't use deoderant. That would be okay if he stayed home, but he's always out walking with this dog of his, who isn't any nicer.

He hasn't broken any covenant rules, like having six old vehicles out in his yard or anything, or any regular laws, but I think you could say he definitely depreciates the experience of all of us in the neighborhood, and degrades society - or our little corner of it, anyway.

If we could just have this in real life, we would have a way to eliminate citizens like this who are loathed by the masses. Then we could get rid of this turkey.

CC

P.S. Sarcasm ^

I would like to remind people that though ostracism of identified troublemakers of course is something desirable. However, having it handled by popular vote lacks sufficient controls to prevent abuse.

I would rather we propose a system to LL by which LL can more easily deal with such people.

I still say NO to users "voting people off the island"

In the year 2006... and with all of the modern technology we have at our disposal... the world more connected then ever...

And we still can't get away from elitism and political immaturity.

I did my time in high school, and I don't need to relive the pathetic social structure of an elitist society. If someone is not in violation of the ToS, then you are stuck with that person. If you don't like it... YOU are the one that needs to leave.

If there is no ToS violation... there are no grounds for banning someone from SL.

Your land has ban options.

You can get a security device (I recommend Psyke's)

If you don't like someone else's prims, put up a wall or tree on your property blocking it from view. You can even transparency the other side so people can still see your stuff. Heck, you can even phantom it so it doesn't impede people moving onto your land.

Basically... it boils down to this...

Everyone playing/interacting in Second Life has the same rights you do to place content. If you don't like it... that's your problem, not the person who placed it. If it's not a ToS violation... you have no grounds.

Grow up or get out.

I'd personally rather the Lindens actually deal with troublemakers. After all, the Lindens and Live Help, and especially the Abuse Reports exist to allow the grid to be free of trouble makers!

*sputters and laughs8 Sorry, couldn''t do it with a straight face. I dislike this idea, but its better than the useless enforcement we have now. I have a friend who is a liason, and in her words "Linden enforcement is like... its like they flip a coin. Heads they show up and do nothing, tails, they don't even bother showing up."

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

(not to say that tis is a true idea, just liked the quote and thought it might be mildly relavent).

Elitism is rule by the few elite, much like Oligarchy + Aristocracy, where as this is democracy, rule by the many. HighSchool is Elitism, because those who are not chosen by the elite to be elite have no say in the popular society(trust me, i lived through 4 years of geek-dom). However, in SL, this process would not have an "elite", any one could vote! Which completly discredits the entire theory of high school! The other thing, the idea of "word of Mouth" is virtually imposibe, because as you said, 100 ppl vote, but 10000? i doubt it. if you have 50 friends, you convince half of them, due to disinterest/laziness SO TYPICAL of SL,even though they are directly connected to the dissenter, to vote. then they tell there 50 friends, but only half respond, because they are onlyl partially connected. Then they tell all 50 there frinds, but maybe 3 respond, because they are vaguely connected, and truthfully dont care or are lazy. By my calculations, and this would be someone with a LOT of luck and power, that would get you 6851 votes, far short of the mark, and that is if you are an amazing activist, who can virtually almost turn mountains with you convincing story. Very ulikely, and there are a handfull of people who are such orators, and they are usually too smart to dissent unjustly.

i have a VERY STRONG feeling that people post on this tread without reading the other posts, and repeat the arguement that was COMPLETELY dissproven a few posts earlier...

Also, thaks ALOT people that are supporting this... 21 votes on the forum...still only 7 voters on the proposal(http://secondlife.com/vote/index.php?get_id=1353).

This is exactly the lazy/indifferent mentality that is becoming pandemic through Second Life.

Opinion:

I would not want to be in a world where people could force the banning of others because they don't like them.

coco

Take a closer look at your own poll. The numbers don't support it, twice as many are opposed to your idea than for it. You asked the question, well there's your answer.

I will cancel my SecondLife account if at any time, a vote or poll from the general population could influence whether or not another player can be removed from SL without ever having violated the ToS.

If you are unhappy with another person's actions... and they are within the ToS... it is *you* who have the problem, and *you* who should leave if it bothers you so much.

The whole concept of SecondLife is freedom of expression within a virtual environment. With your contemptuous proposal, you suggest that the player base have control over what other people can or cannot display for content.

I see this as just another pathetic, offensive, and reprehensible attempt to censor people like the Bush sign guy... who is within the ToS, and expressing freely his views on land he owns.

If you are an American... you should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting such an anti-American position.

Since you are drawing on an historic precedent, let's look at how it actually functioned and was used in ancient Athens. If you will indulge me, please feel free to wade through the two quotes from ancient historians below, one from Plutarch, the other Diodorus the Sicilian:

PLUTARCH, Life of Aristeides, Chapter 7


"Aristeides, therefore, had at first the fortune to be beloved for this surname ['The Just'], but at length was envied, especially when Themistocles spread a rumor among the people that, by determining and judging all matters in private, he had destroyed the courts of justice, and was secretly making way for a monarchy in his own person, without the assistance of guards. Moreover the spirit of the people, now grown great and confident with their recent victory, naturally entertained feelings of dislike toward all of more than common fame and reputation. Coming together, therefore, from all parts into the City, they banished Aristeides by Ostracism, giving their jealousy of his reputation the name of fear of tyranny. For ostracism was not the punishment of any criminal act, but was speciously said to be the mere depression and numiliation of excessive greatness and power, and was in fact a gentle relief and mitigation of envious feelings, which were thus allowed to vent themselves in inflicting no intolerable injury, only a ten years' banishment. But after it came to be exercised upon base and villainous fellows, they desisted from it. Hyperbolus was the last whom they banished by ostracism.
The cause of Hyperbolus' banishment is said to have been this: Alcibiades and Nicias, men who had the greatest influence in the City, were of different factions. As the People, therefore, were about to vote for ostracism, and obviously to decree it against one of them, consulting together they contrived the banishment of Hyperbolus. The people being offended at this, as if some contempt or affront was put upon the thing, they left off and quite abolished it.
It was performed, to be short, in this manner. Every one taking an ostrakon, a sherd, that is, or piece of earthenware, wrote upon it the citizen's name he wished banished, and carried it to a certain part of the Agora surrounded with wooden rails. First, the Magistrates counted all the sherds in gross (for if there were less than six thousand, the ostracism was invalid); then, laying every name by itself, they pronounced him whose name was written by the larger number banished for ten years, with the enjoyment of his estate...."


DIODORUS THE SICILIAN, History Book XI, chapter 55:


"But afterwards, those who feared the eminence that [Themistocles] enjoyed, and others who were envious of his glory, forgot his services to the State, and began to exert themselves to diminish his power and to lower his presumption. First of all, they removed him from Athens, using against him what is called `ostracism', an institution which was adopted in Athens after the overthrow of the tyranny of Peisistratos and his sons [510 B.C.].
And the law is as follows: Each citizen wrote the name of the man who in his opinion had the greatest power to destroy the democracy; and the man who got the largest number of ostraka was obliged to go into exile from his native land for a period of ten years.

The Athenians, it appears, passed such a law, not for the purpose of punishing wrongdoing, but in order to lower through exile the presumption of men who had risen too high. Now Themistocles, having been ostracized in the manner we have described, fled as an exile from his native city to Argos..."



I would suspect that if the gentle citizens of SL were to employ the system of ostracism, to a great extent it would serve as Diodorus describes, "not for the purpose of punishing wrongdoing" but as means to express petty jealousy and resentments, and as a politcal or economic weapon.

After all, a power struggle was at the heart of the most well-known ostracism case, the banishment of Thucydides, a political oponent of the great Athenian leader Pericles, who manipulated the system to serve his own political ends.

While the intentions of those who would establish such a system might be of the highest order--as I am sure is true of the OP--it could perhaps too easily be perverted to less noble purposes.

Note that ostracism was created in ancient times, not for dispensing justice on a common and regular basis to control those who caused grief in the daily lives of the city, but as an extraordinary tool to end the political control of a few powerful elties who had taken on too much influence in the city's affairs. Ending tyranny was a high-minded goal, but in practice, ostracism ultimately worked against the public good, as according to historians who have studied its effects, it actually became a tool by which men like Pericles ended debate and discourse so they could pursue their own agendas unchallenged.

Yes, this current proposal has a high-minded goal, seeking to create another tool to fight the griefers and other anti-social residents of the platform. Sadly most of these simply would regard the infamy of being ostracized as a badge of honor within the context of their unique world-view. One can argue, however, that ostracism would actually do more damage than good to the social and political fabric of the platform, as such a system would most certainly eventually be used against other people such as the gadflys who irritate numerous people as they challenge conventional thinking, land barons whose success excites the jealousy and resentment of competitors, and insistent forum posters who present out-of-the-box ideas for discussion and then defend them to the point of appearing (unintentionally I am sure) somewhat trollish.

Ostracism would, most likely, temporarily remove some undesirable and difficult individuals from the platform. But, looking at it from an historical perspective, it would also carry with it a great danger of removing individuals whose presence may, at times, be difficult to live with, but which is nonetheless important to the political, social, economic and intellectual evolution of SL.

I'm sorry Trevor, but I had to vote no on your very original idea.

Well stated, Aldo.

I'm not a fan of the practise either; simply been too busy with my own machinations to do the brilliant footwork you just did on the subject here.

I suspect that sort of thing goes on in many private sims though - in a less formal but quite otherwise similar manner.

I have found that if someone is unpleasant enough, people will avoid them unofficially. There is no need for an official way to create cliquedom.

Please. If you're fascinated with high school, there's the teen grid.

I voted 'No', mostly because there is no 'Oh dear God, hell no' option. Vox populi is a wonderful thing in theory, in actual practice it tends to devolve to a combination 'popularity contest/which group of bigots can mobilize fastest' deal*. We do have minority groups in Second Life... Furries, Goreans, Republicans... and I've seen nothing in the proposal, nor this thread, that would prevent ostracism from being used to hound them.

On a smaller scale, personal differences would have a whole new venue, and I for one do not look forward to the firestorm of smear campaigns that would likely result. There are a number of reasons why, IRL, we do not use a similar model for adjudicating criminal trials... for one thing, the level of public annoyance would skyrocket. For another, the average human being is an easily-irritated thing, and handing them a tool for retribution is generally a Bad Idea.

Finally, given that there are people in-game (just as in real life) who are much more well-known and popular than others, this would be an inherently unfair system from the get-go. I have a grand total, I think, of seven names on my Friends list... if I were to offend the wrong person, I'd have very few who knew me, or would listen to my side of the issue, and I'd likely be voted out in very short order.

As for possibly having Linden supervision of such a system... exactly what would that accomplish? We are not talking about violations of TOS, we're talking about personal annoyance justifying giving someone the boot. Either the Lindens would summarily dismiss all results in this proposed system, or they'd simply rubber-stamp any eviction... this is not a cut-and-dried thing, we are not talking about an objective issue. Either a sufficiently large enough group is annoyed, or they are not, and the Lindens would have little to go on, as far as judging each case on individual merit.

Mute people. Avoid people. Build walls. Build at high altitude. Use security systems. Those are all available, those all offer some measure of efficacy, and none of them rely on lynch-mob mentality.

*yes, just like American politics

By the way, Bedlam, nice try adding blind patriotic rhetoric to justify your idea. THis is SL, virtully a different country then America, and in SL we do believe in equal opportunity, as long as it does not hinder other residents enjoyment.

Just want to add, as i refreshed my self on the "Big Six" of the community standards, it did list this:

" * Harassment Given the myriad capabilities of Second Life, harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner which is offensively coarse, intimidating or threatening, constitutes unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors, or is otherwise likely to cause annoyance or alarm is Harassment.


* Disturbing the Peace Every Resident has a right to live their Second Life. Disrupting scheduled events, repeated transmission of undesired advertising content, the use of repetitive sounds, following or self-spawning items, or other objects that intentionally slow server performance or inhibit another Resident's ability to enjoy Second Life are examples of Disturbing the Peace.

* Assault Most areas in Second Life are identified as Safe. Assault in Second Life means: shooting, pushing, or shoving another Resident in a Safe Area (see Global Standards below); creating or using scripted objects which singularly or persistently target another Resident in a manner which prevents their enjoyment of Second Life."

Consider the following Scenario:

A person goes around shooting in a damage sim, considered perfectly legal,(although it might be interpreted a violation of Community Standards under Assault(see above)), and as it is consiedered legal, no abuse reports are filed, and no linden does a thing about it. Typical daily behavior in the combat sandbox. But say some one is in the combat sandbox and is testing a weapon, on a willing friend, and is in the midst of designing the appearance, while his friend is trying to debug the script. They are not harming anyone, nor are they inviting combat in anyway. But this mass-shooter comes along, most commonly known as a "griefer" and shoots them away. He also shoots a way the 20 military personnell who are trying to enact a peace treaty. And the group of friends at their own personal rezzed taget range, just to see which is better then the other at a target. That is 32 people shot, and he contiues this, making it impossible to spend more than 120 seconds in the sim, finally you leave in disgust. This "griefer" gets much enjoyment out of this, as he is currently entitled to. However, by not taking action against him, and not supporting a system that would effectively remove this person, you may be supporting equal opportunity, but consider this, by trying to make him equal, you have made him better than the rest. Let me explain. You have just said that the "enjoyment" of this person is more important than the enjoyment of the 32 other people. Also, in the scenario of the bush guy, the same can be said. Yes, he has the right to put what ever he wants on his land, but that also puts his singular experience above those of all others. An I know that you may say, "they should compromise and not be annoyed", but this is where ostracism comes into play. If enough people, say 10,000, are annoyed, they should not compromise for one person, or else that person is once again put on a higher plane.

However, you put out a convincing arguement, both Aldo and Espeth. Oh and in case you idnt get the memo, Phedre, the "highschool" theory has been mentioned several times, and each time, wiped into the ground. You can contiue the idea, but it might just be like trying to revive a cow that died a month ago.

Also, just an observation, i know that people say that the current vote is mush more against that for, but SIMPLE MATH PEOPLE! Proposals dont have a "Nay" vote, there for if 21 people support the forum, you would think that 21 people would support the proposal, (i truly hope i dont have to explain the simple math function of the "=" sign).

Also, another observation, the majority of people who come on to the PolySci forum, come to disprove ideas instead of supporting,sugesting modification, orcoming up with an idea of their own to solve the problem in a different way.

By all means people, if you have a better idea, and you can justify it on solid grounds, then please come forward and present it. It will be a much better thing than the constant "no" i read.

Also, just one last observation, people who agree with it, tend to simply vote, but people who dissagree, must expain in repetitive(posted before by someone else) detail.

There really should b an "SL Philosophy and Psychology" forum, because it seems to be much different then that of the real world...

Just an Aside:

I recall a poll in off-topic that asked who were Republicans and who were Demoncrats, and the results were 50/50.

coco

"But say some one is in the combat sandbox and is testing a weapon, on a willing friend, and is in the midst of designing the appearance, while his friend is trying to debug the script. They are not harming anyone, nor are they inviting combat in anyway."

Three words:

Weapon. Testing. Sim.

Patriotic Rhetoric?

Interesting response. Pardon me if I am afronted that someone would suggest banning another person who hasn't broken the rules, simply because enough people have banded together to vote he or she off the island, so to speak.

Justify it all you want, and insult the people who oppose your point of view if you feel you need to. But throwing insults and referring to people who disagree with you in such a psuedosuperior manner will only make you look more the fool.

Perhaps one day you will be cut out of something simply because someone else doesn't like what you have to say. Or the color of your skin. Or your religious preference. Or your political affiliation.

Then perhaps, you will feel differently about your fear of "something different than you". And you feel that banning another resident for doing something that is NOT in violation of the ToS is equal opportunity? That's crap. There are plenty of things in SL that I disagree with... but I am man enough to understand not everyone should be just like me.

If you are unhappy with the legal, just, and freely allowed actions of another person... then it is you that should leave.

Oh so no im the insulting one? why earlier, you where calling me unamerican, so i think we are on an equal scale here. And as far as racial issues go, i diont think enough people care to ostracize them. but i bet enough people care about greifers.

Also Phedre, i case you did not know, i will politely inform you that the Weapons Testing Sandbox is "No Damage", which negates the ability to test how much damage a gun does. Sorry.

Oh, and i also apologize if I hav offended anyone in any way, it happens, but i did not mean it. We all do it.

"A person's true character comes out when there ideas are challenged."
-Me
(sorry again, just couldnt think of a quote by anyone else, so i made my own.)

"I should probably slap my self for citing reference to myself"
-Me Again

Lol

"Also Phedre, i case you did not know, i will politely inform you that the Weapons Testing Sandbox is "No Damage", which negates the ability to test how much damage a gun does. Sorry."

Actually, I did know. I have been there before, testing scripts. When I want to do damage, I port to Rausch. When I want to fiddle with a script, I either wear a shield or port back to the WTS. When someone shoots me in Rausch, I don't get upset. /That is what it's there for./

You seem to cry out "Democracy" when it suits, but reject it when it doesn't - witness your utter disregard for the results of your own poll.

22 for. 48 AGAINST.

Oops.

I did state that your proposal was anti-American. I stand by that statement. Insulting someone doesn't make you anti-American, but taking their rights away because you don't like them... or their point of view... is.

People do care about griefers... which is why there is currently a system in place to deal with them. There are also a variety of tools which can be purchased or obtained for free for dealing with them as well.

As for your quote about people's character... challenge my ideas all you want. I welcome it. I relish in a good debate, for it allows me the option of expanding or redefining my point of view. But when you take a psuedosuperior tone, and to defend a proposal which promotes the reduction of equal opportunity and freedom of expression, you will not be met with words of kindness.

I see no need to continue with this, since you and I obviously are going to continue to exchange unkind words which will do nothing to prove either point.

Yeah, but the liberals are louder.

I was just kidding with that one, CC; I always make fun of Republicans. It's more fun than making fun of Democrats, because Republicans tend to take it more seriously.

For the OP: I was thinking about this topic at work today ('cause, it's not like I'm going to think about work), and I really can't come up with any way to make a resident-created 'police blotter', as it were, that would not be easily abusable. As long as any resident could put a name up for ostracism, it would too easily be usable as a griefing tool. As long as a popular vote determined whether someone stays or goes, we'd all be at the mercy of existing 'old avvie' networks.

I really think the point is moot, though; even if you could get a huge amount of support for the notion, the Lindens are not under any obligation to adopt it. They've very obviously decided to err on the side of freedom of speech (a position I appreciate), and I doubt sincerely that they'd adopt a resident-run ostracism function that would abrogate their own TOS. We can propose and vote for anything we like, but I don't see them setting up a system that bypasses the TOS, any more than I see them making land ownership free, no matter how many votes such a measure gets.

On the other hand, I can see them making reasonable alterations to the TOS itself, should a sufficiently large portion of the votin' public call for it. Once again, I doubt that LL would make an alteration fitting with your objective, but you'd probably get a lot closer going that route.

Thanks. I'll hope you give serious consideration to the line of thought that went into both responses.

While we're on the subject at hand, I've thinking some more about what you've posted, such as this:



Trevor, the system you are proposing above has a couple of flaws that you might want to consider addressing if you intend to pursue this. First of all, you seem to be asking for a "quorum" of the total mass of residents, which includes a great many basic accounts and a smaller percentage of premium accounts. These two groups have different priorities and concerns--for example, it would be the smaller sub-group of premium accounts--the landholders--who would be most likely to have an issue with the "Bush Guy" because of how he affects their land values and views.

Basic account holders on the other hand, can simply remove themselves to another location and avoid having their experience ruined by the signs. Judging by the low opinion you have expressed regarding the mass of residents and their lack of a sense of civic duty, I am frankly surprised that you think the concerned minority could then convince the unconcerned majority to help in the effort to settle this fellow's hash.

Unless of course what you have been implying all along is that in most cases, it would be extremely difficult--if not impossible--to get the necessary votes to actually accomplish an ostracism when you are requiring the kind of "quorum" you have described.

In a way, this is a good thing--it certainly would reduce the chances that an innocent person could be exiled by a misapplication of the system. On the other hand, it actually then becomes counter-productive. If you begin an inevitably fruitless attempt to ostracize a guilty individual, all you will have accomplished is to enhance that individual's notoriety among the villains and riff-raff who would take pride in such infamy. On top of that, when--as seems inevitable--a sufficiently large number of voters do not approve the ostracism, the perpetrator will actually end up with the bragging rights to have been chosen for punishment but having "beaten the system."

I can imagine the gloat "yeah the frakkers tried to oyster-size me, but hey, I'm still here."

On the other hand, if an innocent person is forced to go through the process, yes they too inevitably, ultimately will beat the charges. But in the meantime, they will be put through unnecessary stress and possibly held up to public ridicule and humiliation. In a variation of your question "is the enjoyment of one person more important than the enjoyment of 32?" you can ask the question is the remote possiblity of maybe, just maybe, temporarily ridding the platform of one or two genuine malefactors worth damaging the experience and reputations of dozens?

To make this be at all effective, you probably would need to reconsider the size of the quorum you require--possibly by only requirng 5% of the premium account holders vote for the ostracism. After all, Athenian demcoracy was limited to a relatively small part of the population, so you have an historical precedent there, although I suspect you would have a hard time doing as the Athenians did and prohbiting the females from participating.

However, even with allowing premium account holding slaves and women to vote (which I assume you would agree to, being a reasonable fellow), such a course of action would no doubt appear extemely undemocratic to the great majority of account holders, as well as increasing the the possiblity that an innocent person might be unjustly driven from the platform.

As far as compensating for the abuse potential by invovling an oversight team of Lindens, past experience has indicated they would not be too interested in participating in this kind of system, as they would find themselves in periodically uncomfortable positions. They also, in all likelihood, would point out that there is an existing system for dealing with problem residents.

I realize that what you were after was a means to strike back at people who are doing things technically within the terms of service but detrimental to the overall experience for large numbers of residents.

This is not about real griefers and grid crashers--you clearly want to find a way of lashing out at the people in the "gray areas." I am afraid that this ostracism system, depite its high-minded goals (and that it certainly would be fun for someone with a certain set of attitudes and interests to set up and orchestrate), has some significant flaws and would generate such a substantial amount of vitriol and oppostiion, that any potential good would most likely get obscured in the ensuing fracas. It defintely would not be a engne for pulling people together, and if anything, would most likely prove quite devisive. I am sure that such a scenario is not your goal.

At the same time, I must admit I see validity in your observation that most of us responded to this thread by simply voting no--often with considerable detail and enthusiasm--without offering alternatives or adjustments to the proposed concept. While I think you should at least appreciate the amount of effort people have put into responding to your idea, you have a very good point about our civic duty to do more than simply vote "no" even though your poll really did not make it clear that you were looking for alternatives or potential improvements to the concept.

Therefore, let me make this suggestion. At least temporarily set aside the idea of trying to introduce a system to deal with the people in the gray areas. It simply does not offer the promise of really improving the overall experience for the great mass of residents without generating a entire new source of grief and tension on the platform.

If your goal is to fulfill your civic duty by working towards a real and lasting improvement in the quailty of life for your SL brethren, I would propose that you should instead look at the existing system for dealing with actual malefactors--the miscreants that we can all agree must be controlled. Arguably a great deal of the unhappiness on the platform arises from the fact that this system seems to be used inconsistently and with insufficient vitality by the platform mangement.

You clearly are a determined and focused individual--I would suggest you use your talents and enthusiasm to take a leadership role in building a grass roots movement to build support for an agressive and efficient application of the system. Take on the challenge to pressure LL into dealing appropriately and decisively with those who create clear-cut problems for the rest of us.

Yes, traveling through the platform, organizing like-minded residents, and then diplomatically but steadily lobbying for consistent and agressive use of the existing system would be hard work--obviously much more difficult than setting up the ostracism voting network you envisaged. But I am confident you have what it would take--in effect the qualities of a classic "demagogue"--and you certainly don't seem to be afraid of hard work. You definitely seem to have the requisite persistence and thick skin for the task.