So exactly when was "naming names" banned?

/120/38/24567/2.html#post233985

Because on 10-11-2004, it was ok behavior. See post above by Robin Linden.

So, my legit question is: When was this changed? Where in the TOS is naming names banned, and when was it implemented?

Maybe I should dig up a post by Anshe chung... but I'm sure everyone knows it.

I don't know, but it's a policy I've never really agreed with, mostly because it gets taken to ridiculous extremes.

There are times when it's prudent, but imagine what would happen if it were applied in the real world like it is here.

I'd tell you who said it and when it was officially implemented but I'd have to name names, so I can't.

You name namer you...

I never really agreed with the no naming names policy either. If someone said or did something that you didn't like, you should be able to tell people here not only what happened but who did it. It seems silly to have to play word games or dance around the person's name.

I suppose, though, that the problem is that people would abuse the privilege. If the policy was lifted, there would be even more drama in the forums and it would be difficult to tell the honest criticism from simple trash talking. The policy makes moderating easier to do.

Not to throw the thread off-topic, but for me it touches on the larger issue of the ratings system. Right now it’s stupid and pointless. I’d like to see an eBay style system with positive, neutral, and negative ratings along with comments and rebuttals.

HP

Yeah, I agree on the ratings system. It was supposed to be revamped a year ago, but the "revamp" ended up just being the removal of negative ratings. Hello? The Lindens were smoking something that day, too. An eBay-like rating system would be great, and I'm even of the belief that a person's rating number should be next to their name, like on eBay.

I think it's more of a concern who is above this "law" or not? noticing the dates between Robin's words on personal attacks and Anshe's "naming names" and telling RL financial information about this person And you wonder why lindens failed to act sooner ont he latter post and thier reason for closing the post. nor did they remove this info.

I wonder, if this is in place, who's above it and who isn't. I'd love to know. If I owned 20+ islands which meant paying $4000+ a month to Linden labs, could I be above the rules/Law?

Additional, I'm not restarting the discussion about Ginko or Anshe. This concerns rules, and when they are and aren't inforced. I think this is a prime example of when it isn't and my opinion of why.

Good call, Pyrii. I hadn't even waded into the territory of how the "rule" is sporatically enforced, which is true. I remember that thread in question and the Lindens never, ever once got involved. Even after accusations were made about character, RL information divulged and other gross infractions of the "rules".

Of course, unlike seems to be happening alot in this one forum in particular. I prefer to have a reason to join a discussion. Unlike others who increasingly post just to make jokes or attack people without any constructive reason. I find it more funny when people mock for a reason. Like recent discussions in age play, where people were pointing out the holes in her argument THEN mocking it, not just plain rude posts.

There is no contradiciton here Aaron.

The policy has always been that you cannot "name names" in the sense of defaming someone or slandering them on the forum, if you want to "name names" in a positive way however, you can. That's pretty much exactly what Robin is saying in the post you quoted.

The reference to the Anshe Chung thread higher up is covered by another long standing policy that one is not allowed to reveal RL personal information. Whether or not that was actaully done on that thread, that was the percieved issue it related to.

"Naming names" is just an expression. Both of these policies have always been in effect and have always been that way AFAIK.

To nitpick the rules, in the Second Life® Forum General Guidelines, the only mention of "naming names" says you shouldn't do it in the post's title. It doesn't say anything about the body of the message.

Emphasis mine:

"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."

HP

INTERESTING!! I can point to about two dozen threads closed by Lindens in which they enforced this rule incorrectly then. They should enforce the rules as written, not as they interpret them. If someone rips someone off, then the user who got ripped off should have the undeniable right to post "I got ripped off" in the post title and then in the body of the message say, "So and so ripped me off and here's the evidence."

C'mon, Lindens, live to the standard you are trying to pretend you do.

It gets hard to talk about things sometimes without naming names good or bad. Personally, sometimes names need to be named, but I understand that it is a liability issue. I've seen many crafty non-name naming ways of naming names by using semi-descriptive av terms. For instance, we all know who that purple-haired gobshite is don't we?

I think they're already set a precedent by locking/editing/deleting threads that contain names. If they went back on this.... Oh boy, I can hear the whiners now.

I see a change in the stated rules coming

I agree with the spirit of the not naming names thing - but there is one thing that bothers me.

It's lack of real teeth.

There have been and are people who are masters at naming names and attacking people with vagueness.

An example would be attacking an SL fansite's webmaster by attacking their site, and insinuating that said webmaster was untrustworthy as not only a webmaster, but as a person as well.

This is why I think the policy, in and of itself, is obsolete.

There's a large spectrum of possibilities between those two extremes.

Not to mention that it often gets construed to mean you can say anything negative about someone by name...or can't be critical of someone by name. It's all ridiculous in my opinion. Better people come out in the open, say what they really mean to say clearly, get it over with and be done. Many other online fora, all the way back to BBS's, have been able the handle the negative side effect when the occasional discussion degenerates into just name calling. I can't see why the SL Forums can't as well. Better than a silly half-measure of "don't name names"...one that other people on this thread have already noted doesn't REALLY prevent people from finding ways identify the person by other more indirect references.

*shrugs*

Naming names by itself is not against the rules. What is against the rules is accusing people of engaging in poor behavior.

If naming names was against the rules, alot more posts would have been deleted. For example the post where Aimee is thanking the people who were part of the stylehive show would be deleted since it had names in it.

And so...what if they actually ARE engaging in poor behavior?

If someone sneaks into my back yard, eats my garbage, drinks my Mountain Dew and has sex with my dog I think I should have the right to call them on it by name.

Seriously though...people being people, some of them will act like complete asshats, and I see nothing wrong with being free to express that sentiment. If more people did that, maybe they'd be less enclined to behave like asshats in the future.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of people who like that sort of thing" - me

see this was my problem....i did not name a name of a person but a business and it's apparently bad form...but in the Virtual World ppl as well as business are allowed to do bad business and be rude with out any care for the person/CUSTOMER on the other end of the computer...but i wont Name Names .

psssssst....you can whisper it to me...I won't tell.