Open Letter

no... just point out the flaw in your reasoning.

the meaning isn't clear.

the meaning you imply furthers a particular view, though it is unclear if you support that view or not.

using language that forces those who disagree with you to accept your position is not cool argumentation.

heh, couldn't keep away after that one.

Stoneself, my original post, the one you're using to accuse me of "uncool argumentation" - mob = ochlocracy; Rule by a disorganized mass of people using crude majoritarianism and brute compulsion - was a straightforward rephrasing of two definitions, one from Wikipedia, and the other from the Oxford English Dictionary. You're reading bias and unfair argumentation into standard dictionary definitions.

If you're looking for uncool argumentation, I can suggest several of my posts that are better targets. Go have a beer and get some sleep.

heh, couldn't keep away after that one.

Stoneself, my original post, the one you're using to accuse me of "uncool argumentation" and "flawed reasoning" - mob = ochlocracy; Rule by a disorganized mass of people using crude majoritarianism and brute compulsion - was a straightforward rephrasing of two definitions, one from Wikipedia, and the other from the Oxford English Dictionary. You're reading bias and unfair argumentation into standard dictionary definitions. In truth, much of the recent "debate" in these forums has been over whether an ochlocracy exists in SL, or not.

If you're looking for uncool argumentation, hell, if you're looking for any argumentation at all from me, I can suggest several of my posts that are better targets. Go have a beer and get some sleep.

Now, even if you accuse me of being a Philosopher's Genghis Khan, I'm outta here.

mob = ochlocracy isn't a straightforward rephrasing. it's simple and facile, but not well supported.

i'm not reading bias or unfair argumentation into standard dictionary defintions. mob = ochulocracy isn't straightforward. "mob" doesn't usually include "ochulocracy" as part of it's definition. there can be a mob. that doesn't necessarily imply mob rule (aka ochulocracy). my argument is that "mob rule" is an oxymoron simple because of the nature of the mob. a mob doesn't rule - it may impose it's will for a short period of time, but it doesn't rule as a rulers rule. phrases like "mob rule" extend (or limit) the definition of "rule".

there is no singular mob that rules. but you can say there is mob rule - which is to say that a mob can impose it's will for a short period of time, but that is not to say the mob is ruling. there is a logical flaw passing from mob to mob rule to ochulocracy to "rule by a disorganized mass of people using crude majoritarianism and brute compulsion." and thus to "In truth, much of the recent 'debate' in these forums has been over whether an ochlocracy exists in SL, or not."

you have to get from mob to mob = mob rule. that's a step of metonymy and metaphor that may not be (and i think is not) warranted.

that there is a term for a thing, doesn't mean that thing actually exists. defining terms in such a way that presupposes the conclusion is uncool argumentation.

I like the quote by Pee Wee Herman.. ..

"I know you are, but what am I"

Reubenless, is what I am!

*sniffles*

Persecution, I tell ya! Favoritism! Enabran, you feted wannabe! I bet the LINDENS' Reubens arrived on time!

*makes with the victimized pouting*

See what I subject you poor people to when my computer only allows me to log into the forums...

gezzz 10 pages.....can't we all just get along or try to.

Goats are like pigs; eating them is always the sweetest revenge. Oh, and they are tasty.

Typical, typical. Selador is more than anything else a constant voice for simple etiquette, fairness and decency on the forum. It was only a matter of time before this evil tactic made him a target, too. One of the first motives of a mob is to try to drag everyone down to the lowest common level.

I dont know about what she had done inGame. My only exposure to her has been here in the forums. Based on that I can, and have drawn my own conclusions about just what and how much she has contributed to the community as a whole.

Typical also. I have the utmost respect for Selador, but what bothers me is inconsistency to the point of bias. It is one thing to be a spokesperson for fairness. However, if you are going to preach fairness, then practice it. If you are going to lament personal attacks by one group, lament them by EVERYONE. No one gets a free pass in that case. Time and again, while rallying against "the mob" and saying what evil people they are (such blanket statements about any group are pretty lame, btw..) somone points out a behavior one person is doing and says how aggregious it is, while ignoring the same behavior in someone else. I suppose hypocrisy is human nature.

This type of moral relativsm goes on all the time, and if you are going to call a spade a spade, then at least do so consistently. Anything less than that just shows a bias and a propensity to act holier than thou - which NONE of us are. Also, quit speaking of motives of anyone - unless you are the one typing their posts, you haven't the slightest idea what their motivation is - it is simply uninformed conjecture.

Let's try something new today. Let's try to find posts that we can comment on positively.

What I really see in common in all of the post in this thread is that we want a "kinder gentler" forum. Everyone does I think.

So let's try to each one of us take the first step. I'm not trying to say that anyone is wrong for the way they post. I think we all have valid concerns.

Oh and by the way, I do want to applaud everyone in this thread for the intelligence exhibited in all of the writing. I have been in several forums where the postings are almost painful to read. But the thoughts and the writing in this thread has been nearly stellar.

Oh and I'm sorry but I'm also mentally hugging every one of you.

I've never heard of you either.

~Ulrika~

I'll try this today.

~Ulrika~

I didnt read this thread but Im sensing some drama with my l337 spidey senses.

Don't read it. It has been determined to cause sterility in laboratory mice.

~Ulrika~

You misinterpreted that quoted bit, David. That was in reference to thouse who stir the pot and then cry foul when faced with any opposition - not Selador, but rather, those he is defending.

Interestingly enough, I see what Selador does sometimes, claiming there is a gender based motive for forum debates (on one side's behalf), as dragging people (in this case males) down to the "lowest common level".

Guessing at people's motives is almost always risky business, and is what prompted me to respond to Selador. He did call me out by name, you know.

Can you please allow people to have independent thought that coincides with that of others? You know, that which you afford Cat and her defenders. It is insulting, to say the least, having one's thoughts extemporaneously discarded as "mob" mentality.

*yawns*

*runs, tackles, hugs*

WHERE HAVE JOO BEEN!!!!!

I miss ma Billy

Back to your scheduled dorkiness peeps.

A funny thing happened on my way to the forums today.... I decided to read up on the subject of first amendment rights and forums. While doing so I read the commentary below. I hope you find it as interesting a read as I did. Which is taken from First Amendment.org
Cat


Blog-mob mentality punishes freedom of speech
Inside the First Amendment

By Paul K. McMasters
First Amendment Center
02.27.05

Take a stroll down Main Street USA and you’ll find people of all ages and persuasions putting on a veritable fashion parade of freedom. We don’t just practice free speech, we wear it.

T-shirts, caps, shoes, jackets, designer labels and the occasional tattoo boldly announce in word, design and color our choice, our message, our cause, our team – our Statement.

And when we take to the road, we do so in rolling billboards, vehicles festooned with bumper stickers, vanity plates and ribbons of every hue embracing every cause. We drive what we say.

Then there’s the Internet, where we really speak our minds. We have e-mail, instant messaging, chat rooms, personal Web pages and, now, our own newspaper/radio-TV station, the Web log or “blog.”

Full-throated expression is our style. We are America. Hear us roar!

Funny thing. For all of that celebration of free and fulsome speech for ourselves, many of us waste a lot of that precious commodity denying it to others. “America,” we say, “shut up!”

There was a time before America when the mob spoke for the village. Anyone who thought differently was quickly driven out – or worse. America and the First Amendment were supposed to be a rebuke to that sort of churlishness.

Nevertheless, civil discourse today is in short supply, regularly savaged by talk radio and cable punditry. On the Internet, flame wars have given way to the blog-mob mentality, where a small but vocal number of vigilantes, armed with virtual pitchforks, rakes and cudgels, prowl the ether world in search of offense and offenders. Without much discrimination, they march on both rant and reason and flay both the unworthy and the brave.

The rather clear message for anyone who attracts the attention of the blog-mob: Never, ever get into a shouting match with someone who buys bytes by the giga.

The vast majority of bloggers, of course, prove the value of democratic freedoms. They produce a prodigious flow of vital information and ideas and serve as a check on traditional media.

But there are a few who are not content to disagree with or to criticize the speech. They must punish the speaker. Lynch a reputation. Lop off a job. The major media flock to the spectacle, their massive wing beats fanning the furor.

Blogging, it must be pointed out, is only the latest technique applied to an old tradition. We’ve seen the distrust and destruction fostered in our society by the McCarthyites, the white supremacists, the religious zealots and others who have exploited fear and ignorance for power and punishment – or a cheap thrill.

But no matter the technique or target, when controversial speakers are shouted down or denied a forum, a democratic compact is disturbed. An opportunity for the speakers to clarify, refine, put in context or even disavow their remarks is lost. So is the opportunity for the opponents to engage and rebut the disfavored speech.

A recent example is Hamilton College’s bitter experience with a controversial speaker. The private New York college offered a speaking engagement to Ward Churchill, a University of Colorado professor. Critics soon latched onto the fact that Churchill had said some outrageous and hurtful things about 9/11 and its victims three years earlier. Besieged with calls to rescind the invitation or else — the “or else” including death threats — college officials backed down and canceled the event.

Further demonstrating that sometimes on campus freedom is academic, University of Colorado officials and political leaders launched a campaign to fire Churchill. And at Harvard University, President Lawrence Summers faces intensifying demands for his resignation after he made a remark interpreted as being sexist.

Off campus, a blog-mob targeted CNN’s chief news executive, Eason Jordan. Questions about Eason’s questionable remarks about journalists’ deaths in Iraq were raised in the “blogosphere” and refused to go away until Jordan did. He resigned from CNN on Feb. 11.

Whether any of the principals in these examples deserve what they got, we must take care not to supplant the high value of free speech in America with a high cost.

Everyone has a right – indeed, a duty – to disagree, to dissent, to rise up against an affront, an injustice or an injury. But for the fragile freedom of speech to survive, we must carry out that task with a firm attachment to fairness, principle and tolerance. When we give in to hostility, self-righteousness and vengefulness, we eventually find ourselves snapping and snarling at a shrinking number of inhabitants of the public square.

Giving in to the speech mob means that discourse is diverted from the real issues to a sideshow on who is punished for uttering the “wrong” ideas or words. Dissent is dead if it can be hounded out of the marketplace so effortlessly. Democracy is no match for demagoguery if good people won’t stand up to mob rule.

We must get past the idea that expression has no value unless it mirrors our own. We must learn to recognize ourselves not just in the faces but in the voices of others. We must find a way to see our own rights reflected in other people’s freedom.
-------------------------------------------
The sky is still blue today.

*falls to the ground* uggg

Oh, it's you... *hugs wheeloo back* Muah

That is about blogs, not forums.

I think one of the biggest issues with forums is that there is a contingent that tends to blur the lines between blogs and forums. Some people use forums as a blog. Perhaps this is where some get this idea about freedom of speech.

There is also a big misconception about free speech. There is no such thing in games or any other privately held online communities.

Sure, it's nice when these companies promote free speech, but remember they have to protect their own best interests and those of their customer base as a whole, first.

If LL got mad at me today because of something I say, and perma-booted me from SL and the forums, I can't legitimately protest that my right to freedom of speech is being stepped on, because I agreed to a contract which gave them the right to censor or whatever else they see fit to do, with the words that I type on their site or in their 3-d simulator.

Very interesting. It reminds me of the small segement of people on this forum who, when faced with the reality that no one else wants what they want, insist upon lambasting them for not wanting it, insist upon calling them all wrong and backward and unfair for not choosing the same thing, and insist upon quoting articles which they use to insinuate that anyone who disagrees with them is actually infringing upon their right to free speech... which is obviously untrue, as they continue to run about whining and crying and making 'mommy, they're being mean to me' posts in hopes of calling a higher authority in to 'make them shut up if they won't agree with me'.

The knife cuts both ways, you know.

Attack the problem not the person. That is the difference.

Cat

Insinuating that others are the problem is attacking the person, Cat.