Do You Think LL Is Too Easy On Griefers?

I've seen this contention repeatedly and it alway comes originally from Linden Lab. Point of the matter is they are always too "busy" to do almost anything if you take their word for it.

It isn't an issue of too busy, it is an issue of not wanting responsibility to administer justice properly and an unwilllingness to afford the "citizens" the tools to form a "well regulated militia".

So we get an inconsistent, highly arbitrary, unrespectable, unpredictable, mockery of a justice system in return. Sort of like the asset server in many regards.

I hope they don't wonder why they aren't able to retain corporate customers.

Last night I wrote at length about this situation, on another individual's blog, a place where I can write while I am more relaxed, and not feeling attacked by several people at once.

While looking at the blog today, I wondered, why just leave it there? Not everyone reads that blog, after all, and it is a summary of my thinking on the subject and on this whole debacle. Why not put it on the SL forums? I have no intention of flogging a miserably dead horse, but I decided I did want to share this here, even though it may mean more pile-on from this venue.

So here it is. This piece sums up my thinking about this topic and this thread:

---------

Very funny and memorable title to this thread, Prok! And aided me quite well in the interesting little trip to the Wikipedia I just took, since I think I've been calling it Hobson's law. [The article was called "Good Godwin."]

OK - so according to this law, you can't compare branding people with the branding people that went on with the Holocaust. Though you CAN compare it to wearing a scarlet letter, or to - as I discovered earlier today - something in Snowcrash about a facial tattoo, "Poor Impulse Control."

You can say the very same thing, but you have to put it in a fantasy novel, like Snowcrash, or place it in the context of Puritan times.

So you can say it's wrong and all, you just can't say it is anything whatever in any way shape or form similar to the branding of people in Nazi Germany, ALSO intended to cause people shame and humilation and make sure no one had anything to do with them.

And this is apparently a law because: (a) people get into heated debates about any old topic at all on the Internet and (b) eventually they get so worked up that somehow Nazis get evoked and (c) that kills the thread.

So . . . this law apparently means that even when the action someone is proposing actually is BRANDING people, and branding occured in the Nazi regime, and in the Puritan era, and in slavery, etc. - you can call it a Scarlet Letter but you can't call it anything like something the Nazis did. Even though it was.

What a nice little politically correct law. Or maybe superstition. It effectively eliminates from the language and civil discussion any reference to or mention of similar things that went on during the Holocaust.

"Lest we forget" becomes, "Don't speak of it; don't point to it for examples of dangers that ought never to be repeated again and never even get a FOOTHOLD into being repeated again. After all, nothing we could ever do could ever be that bad, could it?"

Well, yes it could, on it's own miniscule level, because the same principle is at hand. Stealing paper from the office is a far, far cry from holding up a bank, but - they are both stealing. Branding people is bad, period.

However, reading on in the Wikipedia, it also says this (regarding making comparisons of political leaders to Hitler):

"Godwin's standard answer to this objection is to note that Godwin's Law does not dispute whether, in a particular instance, a reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be apt.

"It is precisely because such a reference or comparison may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that hyperbolic overuse of the Hitler/Nazi comparison should be avoided. Avoiding such hyperbole, he argues, is a way of ensuring that when valid comparisons to Hitler or Nazis are made, such comparisons have the appropriate impact."

Well, if we are going to talk about branding people, then I consider this is an apt and valid point to mention, an important reminder, and thus an appropriate reference. Which is probably why arm tattoos, along with the Scarlet Letter, came to me immediately and obviously - and no other example did.

Branding is branding. Public shame, humiliation, and ostracism is just that, wherever it takes place, and for whatever rationale.

As someone pointed out to me (after the crap hit the fan), there is a presumed difference between someone who has committed an actual TOS violation and been suspended and people who have been UNJUSTLY branded, as in the Holocaust.

Meaning that it is EVER just to brand people. I don't think so. I think anyone who attempts to shame or humiliate another lowers himself in the process. Punish, yes. Try to lower a person's innate human dignity, no.

In the SL example, people would be walking around the world branded because, for example, they said the F word in a PG area. This despite the fact that the F word is thrown about with wild abandon on the supposedly PG-rated forums, and no Linden offers a peep. Or they shot someone who was griefing them, or pushed someone, or stupidly picked a group name that was too sexy. Etc.

Cristiano says on the forums that I am missing the point, that he hates the idea of branding residents according to their TOS violations as much as I do.

It is okay, he says, to argue that branding people would be an invasion of privacy, or to argue that it would not be a deterrant to further griefing.

But it is quite another, he writes, to "evoke Nazi imagery and make any kind of association whatsoever with it."

Well, we are talking about branding people here. I think the association is already THERE, and blindingly so.

He then goes on to add that, "We are talking about disciplinary issues in a virtual world with avatars, we are not talking human rights and branding people."

We aren't? Maybe he isn't, but I am.

We are people in SL; this is not a shoot-em-up solitary game I play with myself on PlayStation II. I am talking about human rights and branding people, and human dignity, and that applies as much in online environments as it does in rl environments.

He goes on to add: "To add further insult to injury, you claim that those who would even consider this idea are demeaning the Holocaust. You brought it to this level, no one else."

I would say it is just the other way around. Someone ELSE brought the whole discussion of SL discipline to this level, however unwittingly, by suggesting we start branding people to begin with. I objected, pointed out the Scarlet letter and the Holocaust associations, and I get accused of demeaning the Holocaust.

And it's not just one person - several people were (and still are) chiming in with what a wonderful idea it would be.

It's not wonderful. It is like what they did in Nazi Germany, and in the Scarlet Letter. It's like that soldier standing over the naked men in Abu Grabe (or whever it was). It's like a lot of things, and none of them good.

As a child, I learned my lessons very well never, ever, to let this sort of thing start again. I learned to speak out about this sort of treatment of humans anywhere and everywhere, including in something as supposedly trivial as an online game, as it involves real people, too.

The fact is, LL is never going to do this at all, because a great many people wouldn't want to play such a game, or even be in such an environment. I know I wouldn't.

coco

Ok, color me confused but...you give money to a group of Mothers of Drunk Drivers? Why not support the Mothers of people KILLED by drunk drivers such as MADD? I mean what are you supporting with your donation here? Where does this money go and why would someone want to give to an organizatation that I assume is based on helping the drunk drivers... Really confused here...

M.A.D.D.

coco

Using inference with obvious mistypings is good.

I think she meant Mothers Against Drunk Drivers.

PS: My opinion of branding or labeling ppl has not changed, I'm still very much against it.

Well..I think the major point your missing here is that the branded and labelled people in Germany didn't do anything except be born to get branded, while folks in SL would have DONE SOMETHING to get that way.

It's a matter of personal responsibility which, while seemingly a tough concept in today's world, is really a simple one.

You know something is wrong to do, and you know if caught you will be punished, yet you choose to do it anyway. So you are, in a very real sense, doing it to yourself. When you commit a crime, you know there are possibly punishements involved if caught, and so YOU make a choice. And you should have to live with the consequences, because the consequences are no one's fault but your own!

If a sex offender is embarressed and humiliated by having his picture in the paper and having to register in the area he lives, is it the lawmaker's fault? No. It's the offender's fault for doing the crime in the first place. He did it, and now he must live with the concequences of his actions.

my reading comprehension is great. the problem might be that i don't share other peoples political correct indignance when nazism is mentioned.

branding people is bad! it has allusions to the worst moments in human history. i feel coco displayed good form when she spoke out against using branding "the undesirables" in SL. clearly neither her or i feel like playing that kind of second life.

of course it doesn't matter what i say does it? if i disagree with you, clearly it's because i'm just contrarian by nature.

kanker, i have no problem with people posting their rebuke. and people should not have a problem to my rebuke of a rebuke. and it can continue on and on (until i win, of course) and we can call it a debate, discussion, or arguement depending on the mood.

sure it's a game, and we can quit. but meanings are shared and the conversations are real. when someone called me a nigger in SL that was very real to me. colour coding undesirables in sl might be of little real consequence, but in a virtual world that exists as a flickering metaphor, allusions and allegories and analogs are currently the most powerful forms of immersion we have. otherwise why would people fight so passionately on the forum over the price of virtual land, avatar upskirts, and NIMBY issues?

Great. Now could you address the stuff you said that I quoted and was responding to? The stuff about roleplaying and the like, which you somehow got from my previous post. Thanks.

And if you don't want people to think you play a contrarian forum persona, it's probably a good bet that you shouldn't tell them and their husband that you do. Just a tip.

it's probably a good bet that if i had to look up the word contrarian in the dictionary this week, i probably never said it before in my life. that's a tip for you

How about shit stirring, and trouble causing, and posting things just to get a reaction. Any of those words ring a bell?

nope. but arrogant cynic would. try that one.

Siggy and I must have just been imagining it then.

maybe you are thinking of a different jauani?

Hmm, that's possible, if another Jauani hijacked your account.

that's not possible. you must have imagined it then.

Give it up - get a room or STFU.. yeah I remember that convo too.. You can 'have the last word' and go on an on for another page to shit stir, but it's getting to the point where I'll have to just straight up and down call you a liar - and I'd prefer to call you a shit stirrer..

So, called out , take your lumps, back to the topic at hand?

Thanks Mem

As to the "badge of honour" thing, I brought that up but I don't see it as an impediment to doing it, I see it as a "win-win."

S'ok hon. ^.^;


Y'know despite the histrionics, hyperbole, and apparent contrariness for the sake of being contrary, of a few in thread I think the best way to see if this idea has legs or not is to craft it as a proposal, I think there is a level of merit to it but why not float it to SL at large an see whom votes?

I think Enabran's idea of adding a LSL llGetAgentThreatLevel() is thought provoking as well. Could see lots of applications there.

Nice rebuke of my rebuke of your rebuke of others' rebukes of Cocoanut's claim that Aimee's idea of color-coding players' names according to their offenses is like the Nazis tattooing Jews in Germany or marching people naked down the street or whatever. If we had color-coding, I imagine whoever called you the n-word would be walking around with a red nametag right now. It's apropos of zilch, though. This is what I gleaned from your post: "colour coding undesirables in sl might be of little real consequence." So, that being said, where's the cause for outrage?

Just my suggestions. Please note they are more or less in 'general' form. I can't really be too specific since I'm not privy to LL company policies or have access to the kinds of limitations they have.
------------
1. Complete police blotter - will contain the name of the offender, the offendee's crime, his sentence and how long the suspension will be. Blotter will be posted until the suspencion is lifted, which will then be taken out once the offender has completed his sentence. Permanent suspensions can be posted longer but no more than a month.

2. In the profile under 'Online' instead of seeing 'yes', 'no', 'unknown' when one is suspended it will say 'suspended' and will be lifted until the offender finishes his suspension. if it's a permanent suspencion, it will say "Perma Ban."

3. Second, Third or Fourth time infractions should be dealt with harshly. A 3-day ban is a mild slap to the wrist and should be. It's a warning that if the person does not shape up, he will be dealt with.
3.a. Longer suspension
3.b. "Skill Lock" - lossing all ability to build, use/attach items, or even talk for a certain amount of time. This is also a fun way for Linden's to handle on-site griefers. When they can bear witness to the abuse all they have to do is right-click and do a skill lock with a given duration. I know banning process takes time but this might be a tool they need to police SL.
3.c. Item-wipe / Linden-wipe: This can be given prior to a permanent suspension and the degree will vary depending on the degree of the offense commited. Another more milder alternative is not being able to use certain functions of the website, Lindex, forums etc.
3.d. Repeat offenders get a permanent "Police Blotter" in their profile.

4. Change the canned response. Please. The canned response does nothing to say or show that something is being done, automated response is nice and professional sounding but it makes you feel impersonal and uncaring--the last thing you need to convey. We also would like updates or at least know if the AR submitted was sufficient enough evidence to result a ban. If not then explain why or teach us how to do it properly.

5. Create a part of the website dedicated to AR/inquiries/hotline. Create a ticketing system for inquiries and ARs. Give offenders the ability to request for evidences on why they were banned. Even prisoners have the right to know what exactly they are charged with and are presented with evidence of their crime.

6. Give a specific, simple to understand, idiot-proof, in table form, resident policies with the type of 'punishment' for each infraction. Give examples if you have to. Just because all of us are adults doesn't mean we all think and act like one.

7. Any accounts no older than a month and are in basic/Free account shall be given an automatic permanent suspension irregardless of the type of infraction. Identify nuisance accounts. These require no submission of evidences whatsoever.

8. Suspend a credit card if it contains more than 2 accounts on permanent suspension.

i guess there can be different interpretations of "not taking the forums too seriously," "enjoying debate and satire," and "taking on a polemical persona."

i'm truely hurt that over the years thehave taken that to mean shit stirring contrarian.

I didn't say "boring, treadmill RPGs", I said "combat MUDs". Now, I tended to stay out of MUDs that leave combat modes enabled, but there's as huge a variety of combat MUDs as non-combat ones.

If the combat mechanism was enabled, outside designated arenas, then I'd consider it a combat MUD. There's no reason to implement or enable a combat mechanism unless there's an intent to use it, and a huge number of reasons not to.

This whole thread is an illustration why.

Yup - guess there can be.. but as they say 'if it looks like a duck'.

If you don't take the forums too seriously - then how can I think you're 'truely hurt'?

Plus - I've always called you a shit stirrer, if you just decided now to be hurt - well - too bad, so sad, coz my opinion ain't changing