The Court of Public Opinion... is it any good?

I've noticed a lot of people bouncing issues off the forums here.

Not so much issues like "help me I'm crashing a lot" but more on the order of "I was involved in X, what is justice?"

Probably in a healthy, active forum there's a place for that, where people can gently get input from their peers. But I'm wondering: does this process really work very well?

A couple of reasons particularly concern me.

a) One sided story telling. Sure, sometimes things go the other way... but... it's not like any of us can really know what happened.

b) Forum friends. I'm a bit clueless and can never keep up with who's in what group, but even I have figured out that there are a lot of die~hard forum friends here. Throwing one's 'case' to the crowd here could be about as successful as discussing the merits of asian motorcycles in an American biker bar.

Doesn't it just seem like a rather bad idea, to bring an ethics issue to the table here?

Or do people really honestly feel this is a good venue?

considering also the ease with which one can create an alt, or bring in a previously created one, to help bolster one's own opinion, i'd have to say "no".

PS: you left out the part about obvious vendettas and agendas...

Hmm... I guess it seems just... beyond boggling to me that anyone might post something, and then support their own opinion... wouldn't that fall into the category of "trying too hard to impress no one but yourself?"

But who knows. I'm not a good judge of character when it comes to stuff like this.

Your point "A" is well-taken, I think. When people post here clearly looking for validation with a one-sided story, or an attitude that may be objectionable from the start . . . well, it generally doesn't end well.

But there is no reason why a two-way discussion of ethical issues can't work here. That it frequently doesn't is owing to a great many reasons -- emotional engagement, "alliances" and "groups," or sometimes just a long and bad history between people.

But it IS possible to have intense but civil discussions about controversial ethical issues here. I think the participants have to demonstrate respect for each other, and the discussions themselves must be as drama-free as possible. Also, one has to ignore the intrusion of others who may not be willing to play by these rules.

I've been engaged in some HUGE train wrecks here. But I've also had some truly wonderful, open, respectful, and informative discussions with people who are in fundamental disagreement with me, but are willing to engage in a civilized exchange of ideas. I certainly could name a few people here to whom I owe some real and valuable insights into subjects that are potentially fraught. In most cases, they haven't changed my fundamental views on these subjects, but my understanding of them is now much more nuanced, informed, and even sympathetic than it would have been before hearing what they had to say.

So, the answer is yes . . . sometimes, and when there is good will on both sides.

somewhat in that category, yes. definitely a sign of insecurity.

but after re-reading your thread header, i found a much more succinct answer:


The Court of Public Opinion... is it any good?

it's only as good as its members.




take that as you like...

I believe that insightful discussions CAN take place when prompted by a post of "OMG, XYZ happened to me, and WTFBBQ?". IF emotions can be kept to a minimum and as much logic prevail as possible, I think much can be learned, regardless of how preposterous an original post may be -- after all, a serious discussion can be spawned.

And while yes, some individuals may be seeking some sort of retribution, reaction, or plain need to vent, others who feel they have been wronged may genuinely not understand all sides (admittedly, the latter is what happened to myself once). I would also like to add that some people simply lack the social decorum or comprehension and scratch their heads in wonder.

Regardless, I do think that a public assessment of a situation (regardless of veracity, knowing all sides etc.) CAN precipitate some insightful and worthy conversation.

But it almost inevitably degrades, and therefore the first half of any such thread tends to hold the most gems.

My two cents, at any rate.

People aren't invested enough to have in-depth discussions about any issue. For one, a discussion requires some sort of respect for all participants. Since we are anonymous and don't have to face each other, we don't have a lot of opportunity to develop respect for each other. Further, serious discussion takes some thoughtul reflection, which is in short supply when quick, rapid-fire responses are the norm.

The fact that people continue to attempt serious discussion- whether resoving an ethical issue or just seeking some sort of validation- shows that there is a need for a place for such disscussion. But this isn't the best-suited venue, and the usual results of such discussions here speak for themselves.

QFT

Pep (If you don't actually read and understand other people's posts then how can it be a discussion?)

PS Amity: if you are saying respect is earned, not deserved, then I agree; one of the ways to earn respect is by showing respect for your readers, by presenting your arguments coherently - perhaps including spell-checking your posts.

I agree with your points about one-sided story-telling, and Forum Friends. And I think that anyone who brings up an ethics issue here IS on shaky ground, if the goal is to acquire any sort of definitive answer to such an issue.

I'd guess that we all can sense the difference between someone posting to try to justify conduct they know to be unjustifiable, and someone posting out of genuine curiosity as to what Forumites think of some interaction that's taken place.

As long as we all keep in mind that the human capacity to rationalize bad behavior is pretty much infinite--and that the caveats you brought up will influence any responses given--then posting here about questions of good/bad conduct seems like a reasonable thing to do.

Yes, although it can be fun to discuss - for a while, until everyone's prerecorded messages kick in.

No.

This.

Fortunately, we seem to have a number of eminently sensible and SL-experienced people here who are regular posters - including Des.

no one is innocent

For ethics issues, the forums are the worst venue--except for all others.

Everything mentioned goes wrong here, it's true. But who ya gonna ask? Is there somebody who would want--and we would want--to be the Miss Manners of the Metaverse?

Honestly, I think posters on this forum often go out of their way to air all sides of a topic. It's not perfect, and not immune to prejudice and piling-on, but as discussions go, posts here seem to represent pretty diverse viewpoints, IMHO.

A bit off-topic, but something I've been thinking about in terms of the effectiveness and suitability of forums: Couldbe You has a recent thread, , asking for input on the proper development of the *region* named "Zindra". It's gotten some interesting discussion, but the problem is that soon LL will actually *do* something, and it's not obvious how to best help inform their decision about *what* to do with that sim. There has been discussion at a couple of Blondin's Zindra meetings and in that thread, but... is it representative of the resident opinion that should be considered?

I remember the huge issue that was made of the process by which that region name was swapped from a water sim in the middle of nowhere to one that's at least terraferma and next-door to an infohub. It's not as if anything has actually changed to make such decisions more systematic--and I'm not sure any such system is feasible. I think the forums can play a useful role in the public opinion-gathering process, but they're far from ideal even for that, let alone building consensus or making actual decisions.

Or maybe I'm letting the perfect be the enemy of the good?

I disagree with most of that. For one thing, I've developed a lot of respect for many of the forum regulars. And yes, friendship too.

Desmond quite rightly points out the pitfalls of forum discussion...one side of the story, and, dare I say it, cliques of regulars ganging up on an unpopular point of view. You mention another...it's very easy to post quickly, without much thought, and the medium actually encourages that.

But even with those pitfalls, I believe that there is merit in the discussions we have here. I've certainly learned a lot, and been exposed to many viewpoints on many topics.

The most prolific posters generally offer no surprises. I already know what they're going to say. In a way that's good. I've "gotten to know them." On the other hand, the forum isn't as interesting as it was when I was a noob.

Unfortunately the less prolific posters tend to get lost. The more prolific ones can turn any thread into a bigger time commitment than I can take, and "gotten to know them" can turn into "heard this all before".

I really don't know how people find the time. I don't watch TV, I don't have much of a social life, and I don't even spend much time in SL anymore, and I don't have time to keep up on the forum, let alone make thousands of posts.

So, I'd say it isn't really even a court of public opinion. I'd say it's more like asking a few of your friends. If you're new to the social circle you might learn something, but if you're not, you're just chatting. That's good, too, if this is your social medium of choice.

In these fourms, you can see some great insights, some real pearls, and they often appear after the craziest detours. But they're there.

As far as one-sided storytelling, I think we are pretty good at not falling for it, and even if we have to guess at what the other sides might be, at least we give the OP the advantage of seeing that there could be other sides to an issue.

Most of all, what happens here is far better than the alternative: not talking at all. Or not being allowed to discuss anything "personal."

The forums can be a very useful resource for solid information on the technical front - and of course there is always the potential of having a good laugh with some of the sharper posts.

Otherwise, discussion runs in a reflexive, virtually circular fashion that gets tiresome after a time. Name the issue and several knees are guaranteed ready to jerk to it, including my own, for which I have developed an excruciating case of RSI just under my intellectual patella.

As for public opinion: my personal opinion is that it has never been all it is cracked up to be.

The court of public opinion is not to be trusted since people are prone to believing whatever pieces of information - true or not - that support their already present world view or biases.

There is a reason why we don't try RL legal cases in the court of public opinion - because the "jury" hasn't had both sides of the facts presented for evaluation.

Totally agree with Isablan.

But I do think that you can learn from the Court Forum.... as long as you don't believe everything you read and you have a good sense of humor

What a shame that eliminates one out of three posters here.

Pep (another one in three are eliminated because they don't actually read most of the posts.)

GUILTY!

I think the latest court-like thread (if I know what you mean), was the one about the notecard suggesting improvements to a private sim.

Was there something wrong with that thread? I didn't know anyone involved, but it even had minority opinions ("if you don't want comments, don't create". I did wonder whether the sim owner would come in and tell an unexpected side of the story, but... it's not TV.

I think the forum works pretty well. There are some pretty smart people here, and even so, it doesn't always take maximum smarts to hit the nail on the head sometimes.

Unless you're talking about a real, actual, they-can-tell-the-cops-to-lock-you-up court, aren't these issues also true for every other venue?

Overall, I don't think these forums are too bad but wish the derailers would stay the hell out of threads where people are still trying to have a serious discussion. The one about Strokers most recent find is a good example - I was quite interested in it until it degraded to page after page about how LL should require ID for everybody in SL. Now it's just the same old spam..

The court of public opinion is grossly unreliable. Many people are only too willing to believe things that they know nothing about, and to act on those beliefs. I always marvel at the sheer stupidity of people when a TV news item covers the journey to court of someone who is charged with a particulary bad crime. They haven't got a clue whether the person is guilty or not and yet they hurl abuse, and other things, at the vehicle s/he is in. That court of public oipinion is a lynchmob - or it would be, given the opportunity.

And we have such people here in the forum, who show it all when the occasion arises. There was thread a long time ago in which the majority of participants (the court of public opinion) abandoned their own native language (english) in favour of believing that a particular sentence meant something that no english speaking person could understand by it, but the people here didn't want it to mean what it said - they wanted it to mean something it didn't say and, becuase of that, they 'hung' the writer of it. Stupid stupid people, and that particular court of public opinion was grossly unreliable.

There are times when the courts are good and times when they are bad, so my reply to Desmond's question is no, the court of public opinion is no good - because it can often be particularly bad.