How other online worlds gag people...

They can't, because this would leave them more vulnerable to litigation, for one.

It's like being told that I am squelching a house guest's free speech if I expel a him from my property, even though he is hassling my other guests.

It's my property, I am responsible to an extent for what takes place there. Therefore, it is in my best interest to ensure that the peace is kept, if I want guests to continue coming over.

LL is also private "property", and for them to give in to a few who would use the forums as a blog for harassing the staff and other customers, would be irresponsible, in more ways than one.

Should LL also be able to ban us for posting rumours on web sites they don't own? Because that's the issue with MindArk, and the premise of the original post in this thread.

Yes, they should be able to do that.

Well, yes. It's their world ("your world" is marketing hype), they should be able to ban anybody they choose for any reason (and most companies have this written into the terms of service).

You can't play in my yard unless you follow my rules. Why should a private online world be any different?

Zero, the changes to the Project Entropia TOS just happened - MindArk sent an email to all players that outlined the changes. By the way, PE makes you "accept" the TOS every time you log in.

I enjoy the landscape in PE but I think the game promotes sociopathic behavior.

I'd like to point out a technicality in MindArk's rules that I think has been overlooked. The rule talks about "any rumors" that "can be considered potentially damaging." That's the rule. The subsequent explanation, which is not part of the letter of the law, qualifies their very general statements with terms such as "unfounded rumors."

I think my personal outlook on the rule might be different if MindArk's had stated "unfounded rumours," in the letter of the law, because it would seem then that they will ban customers for lying about their product (a move far easier than suing someone for libel, that's for sure).

Thanks, Osprey, I realize customers just received the changes. It's useful to know the TOS is agreed to upon login.[/quote]

Personally, I would say no. I didn't like it when TSO did it.

As someone said above, there are laws in place to deal with libel if and when it occurs.

I realize what the MindArk issue is, please frame my response to Walker in the context of his post.

Well, I just meant MindArk's degree of control extends to making players accept a document every single time they log in. It's a... different world

Sorry, Nolan. My statement was meant to address the crowd, I should have made that clear.

That's standard for an MMORPG. Even if you don't have to click through each time you log on, it's usually in the TOS that you agree to abide by both the original rules and any extensions to the rules... and that they can kick you out even if you haven't technically violated ANY rules.

That's necessary to catch griefers who like to skate the fringes of the rules, by, for example, going to external sites and trying to destroy recruitment of new players. Even if it's not explicitly prohibited, if I were a game admin I would have zero qualms about terminating an account for that behavior.

You think Linden Lab's world extends to my web site? I totally agree "Your World" is misleading. I'm not sure it's good business to advertise something you don't actually offer.

Hypothetical situations: You're banned for being African. You're banned for wearing a red sweater. You're banned because you failed to salute a Linden. You're banned because you mentioned Project Entropia.

I would hazard a guess that your yard, and what goes on inside it, is regulated by an elected government with an established legal system. I'm no lawyer, but I reckon there are very few rules of your own design that you can actually legally enforce in your yard.

I don't so much have a problem with LL or any other private company enforcing their own rules, as long as they don't go and make statements like "Your World. Your Imagination." More accurately, Second Life is "The world Linden Lab permits to exist." This is fine, and it's not really what I thought I was signing up for, but I ain't leaving.

I experienced the same thing Nolan did.

Both ways, with TSO.

We were forbidden to "start rumors". In practice, this meant that if you questioned something - such as, "I think we're down to 85k subscribers, and I've heard that the doors may close at 80k," you would be starting a rumor.

I can't think of more examples, but there were plenty like that. The upshot was there were whole realms of things that couldn't be discussed. Never mind that, in practice, if you started a nutty rumor, dozens of people would be there like flies on honey to debunk it.

So the whole thing was repressive. When that rule was dropped, nothing was harmed. Nothing at all.

Back in those days, too, the rule was - get banned from the forums, get banned from the game. I remember a particular case, a girl who later went on to become a mod for that game and then for another, had a tendency to speak straightforwardly, and she one got emmeshed in those many rules, and found herself facing being banned from the game. That is just one example of how all these rules - including the one banning you from the game - can backfire. They nearly lost one of their OWN (TSO did) and had to do some scurrying around to save her. That's how I remember it, anyway, I could have some details wrong, but the girl in question is a good friend of mine.

Yeah, they CAN do anything they want. They can also lose a lot of their fan base because of what they do. TSO starting off with such rules - both the rumor one and the "banned from the whole game" one - didn't help them any, and it took a while before those rules got relaxed. (Largely due to the efforts of the girl I mentioned above.)

But by then, as in everything TSO, it was too little, too late. You'd think LL would learn from TSO's mistakes, not bend over backwards to repeat them.

coco

If somebody refuses to leave my property when I tell them to, for whatever reason I tell them to, that's criminal trespass. The law not only backs my right to enforce my rules but will kindly dispatch officers to assist me in removing the trespassers. What would bouncers do for a living if that right didn't exist?

And if somebody is saying nasty things about me somewhere off my property, I'm fully within my rights to revoke their access.

I see no legal or ethical problems here - the owner of a private virtual world has absolute say over who can use that world. The primary problem I see is a practical one: how do you establish that the rumor-monger is really the same person as your account holder? Even if they share a name, impersonation is a common tactic of grief-posters. Banning people due to mistaken identity would be very bad for business, in a business that demands community goodwill.

Due to that factor, I'd guess that Mindark's announcement is more aimed at deterrance than anything they intend to enforce. If I'm wrong, I predict great headaches in their future.

TSO's board moderation policies cost them nothing more than a few bad apples who were looking to stir up problems. Those policies remained consistant over the life of the boards, although the moderators got better at seperating real troublemakers from constructive posters who crossed the line.

Enforcing a strict policy of moderation gives you a more civil and focused discussion of the issues. Not doing so will cost you more subscribers than the most draconian measure imaginable.

"A few bad apples who are looking to stir up problems."

That's a pretty subjective statement.

I wonder if it will apply to those who get caught in these new rules in future?

It didn't apply to my friend on TSO, and yet she got caught in them. (And later on became a mod for TSO.)

coco

I think it would be crazy for any company to do anything but reserve the right to ban people for any reason, especially if they feel that person is doing harm to their business. They have to weigh the frequency and circumstances under which they exercise that right very carefully though. If they get too carried away with dropping the hammer on people it will create more negative commentary about them than was caused by any specific case. I don't have any experience with Mind Ark but I can't blame them for their policy. It makes sense and it's not at all unusual. They just explicity stated what every MMO developer can and will do if they feel it's necessary. I'm guessing they've recently had problems with some specific people and felt the need to be clear about their level of tolerance.

"Caught" and released. Articulate, constructive people were welcome on the TSO boards, even if they were critical of some aspect of the game. Even those that broke the rules were generally given a second chance (in some borderline cases, even a third or fourth). Only in the case of willful and continuous misconduct was anybody permanently banned. The most common "punishment" was simple locking or deleting of the thread.

All the mods for the TSO boards were chosen from the community. Most had no previous experience, and yes, they may have been a little inflexible in the beginning. But guided by a crack staff (including veterans of the acrimonious UO forums), they matured into a fine team... including your friend.

The only problems I ever encountered on the TSO boards were from other posters, not from the mods or the staff. It didn't really require that much effort to stay within the rules.

No - the mods which TSO BEGAN with were not chosen from the community. They were hired by and paid for by TSO.

And that is the period of time, I believe, when you (a) couldn't criticize the company or anyone in it or (b) start "rumors".

That was a period of time when anyone could come onto a thread and wreck it, so that it got locked, and the rule was you could never, ever bring up that subject again, once it was locked. The SUBJECT!

That was also a period of time when if you got banned from the forums, you got banned from the game. Let me tell you, that threat was repressive. But at least - since the game was new - it applied equally to all. There were not already-formed interest groups ready to game the system.

My friend WAS an articulate, constructive person. It was the rules which were wrong.

Upon moving over to the Stratics boards, the rules were relaxed. The one about getting banned from the game was gone. Some people wished it was still there. Others, though, breathed a sigh of relief knowing that stating their opinions on the boards wouldn't result in losing everything they had worked for in the game. The worst that would happen is you would be banned from the boards. Which was enough.

None of this is to say anything against any of the TSO mods, who have all mostly been my friends in the game, once they went to the volunteer mod thing. And they have nearly all been wonderful people, doing what we all know is a thankless, difficult, and in their case, unpaid, job. The only reason I didn't accept a mod position is I felt it would compromise my ability to state my own positions. I would just be saying too many things that weren't, in my opinion, mod-like enough.

But by the same token, none of this says anything against the posters. They did not become a worse group because of the new system.

There is no need to brandish a big stick when a smaller stick, already in place, will do.

Banning from the game isn't necessary. Enforcing the part of the TOS that prohibits personal attacks would clear up 95% of the problems here.

And yes, Chip, I agree that all game companies should be able to ban anyone for any reason. It's their game, after all. But they also will have to listen to the industry criticism if they use this last resort too often, or unfairly. (Not that LL has. I'm speaking in general.)

coco

They were hired from within the community and paid just enough to avoid problems under California labor laws. I know this to be a fact.

I can't speak to the quality of the Stratics boards. I stopped playing when they shut down the forums and fired the mods (or more correctly, chose not to renew their contracts). Putting people out of work and abdicating their duties to a fan site is irresponsible, short-sighted, and just plain stupid... in other words, business as usual for EA's upper management. Nothing against Stratics, but they ought not be doing for free what other people depend on for income.

And nobody ever got banned from TSO for forum postings without a documented history of deliberate rule-breaking and troublemaking. Frankly, if they're doing that on the boards, you don't want them as a player. Period.

OK, I stand corrected then. But intend to ask around about that when I get a chance. For instance, how did they do that in beta?

I agree completely they shouldn't have abdicated their duties to a fan site. If the writing hadn't been on the wall earlier, it was then. Basically, they abdicated their duties in everything about two months after the game went live, when they didn't get the numbers they expected fast enough - thus guaranteeing the game couldn't thrive.

I totally disagree with the idea that getting banned from the boards should automatically mean getting banned from the game.

coco

If I recall correctly, the beta boards were run entirely by Maxis staff (something you can get away with when you're dealing with a small, relatively homogenous player base). The first mods were beta testers. They were later supplimented by other players.

As for board ban = game ban, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure the linkage should be automatic, but it should definitely be a recourse to deal with problem posters/players.

My guess is that if Maxis had a system for custom content ready at launch, the game would have thrived (though maybe not up to the inflated expectations). Harnessing the creativity of the player base can contribute hugely to the success of a virtual world. Keeping the environment fresh is a huge challenge to even the best developers, but there is an enormous amount of untapped talent out there (as Second Life demonstrates). The offline Sims series has generated huge libraries of player-designed skins and objects. But the developers never developed a system to plug into that creativity.

But that's off-topic for this thread.

seems that if someone posts in a group or forum on a subject....it is thier opinion...not all will share this same opinion..some will share maybe part of it or another view of it...but that is all it is an opinion...expressing oneself is giving thier opinion and feeling on a subject...

we know we will not agree with everyone's opinion...but that is ok for we are each different and unique

If someone wants to act the child and edge others on then let them act like the child they want to be..just dont stoop down to thier level and act childish also by responding.
Remember as a child, you did the same- some calls it sass or back talk- but either way MOM would just walk away from you , after telling you how much trouble you are in first lol...but she didnt do as you were doing, being a bad child at the time.

It is childish of the person who tries to bait people into arguements and so on ....BUT it is also childish of the poeple who bites the bait instead of moving along.....


anyways just an opinion or view of a poster..

Well, they already do have that option. They can kick out anybody at any time from the game for any reason. Making the game automatically lost if the forums are lost isn't necessary. Wait till the person acts up in world, before banning him from in world.

As for Maxis, yes, that's what I thought I remembered. At first, all the mods were Maxis employees. Then, at some point, they started bringing in regular players (and paying them some, too). Then all of a sudden they moved to stratics. I remember one friend of mine had just been hired as a mod, but now she wouldn't be getting paid as she was expecting.

Moving to Stratics meant automatically that that banning from the game, too, rule was over. And all the mods were volunteers from then on out. The mods then made the other rules less strict than they had been.

coco