Clarification of New Forum Policy Changes

Im going to take the very rare, for me, step of addressing someone specifically.

Coco, you have made yourself clear. I do understand what you and others have said about not wanting forum behavior and inWorld behavior to be connected.

I simply disagree with you. I believe that this action is overdue. And as has been said, had the rules been in place earlier, more people would have run afoul of them.

I recognize each and everyone persons right to their own opinion on this. I've stated mine; I understand yours. Its not about getting everyone to agree.

As I don't expect you to change your views to agree with mine, I don't expect to change mine to agree with yours. But, that's OK. Its OK to disagree.

Now, having stated my case, Im going to get out of the way so someone else can have a turn at the mike.

In the real world, since that's the example you chose, it already does. It's called jail. We know that if we commit a crime, we run the risk of being denied both public access, and access to our homes. Most of us curb our behavior accordingly, to avoid that punishment.

You are right, you are not a nasty poster in the slightest - I was not saying that at all - you are just a passionate poster and have been quite heated at times in response to some people. I agree that it should not just be a free for all - but when the rules are so restrictive that it has a chilling effect to speech, that is a problem.

The problem is not getitng warned - the problem is having that jeapoardize your access to Second Life altogether. I can't say enough how stupid I think that policy is.

See, I was torn on it originaly... But I just think that for some people, the forums are too much of a "safe harbor"... They don't really care if they get banned from the forums. So rules don't mean much here to those type of posters.

What I am concerned about is what happens if you have some business dealings with someone that gets banned. The poker table was the first time I considered such a possibility. I know there is support now, but never heard how the person(s) supporting it came into that position.

Now with these guidelines, if I'm doing the rent to own sim from Mr X and he gets banned, are we just outta luck? I just use that example since that is the biggest expense I could think of but it would affect rented shops, rented houses, maybe casino games or what about the sl banking projects going on? Are best practices for an SL business going to include making your business AV on a seperate credit card/virtual credit card in the event your personal one gets banned?

So what if the forums are a "safe harbor?" They aren't a safe harbor anymore if you get banned from them, are they?

Then if you mess up in the game, you get banned from that, too.

You don't have to punish in BOTH places. The punishment of getting banned from the forums is appropriate and sufficient punishment for forum misbehavior.

And no, they don't take away the homes of those who have created a public disturbance. They don't stay in jail forever, and when they get out, they can go home. Otherwise, it would be overkill punishment for the crime.

What fear? I've been on a forum where you could lose your game for what you said on the forum. That fear. It is repressive. I know, I felt it myself, along with the immense relief (shared by many others) when that rule was lifted. And that forum didn't go to hell in a handbasket because it no longer had that rule.

I'm glad there are those of you who see no personal threat in this. Nor do I see any personal threat in this. I feel no personal threat in this whatsoever. I feel no personal threat to me from the TOS rules. I feel no personal threat to me from extending those rules to include a new, inappropriate, over-reaching punishment for breaking them.

There is no particular personal threat to me.

There is an assault on free speech on the forums, and that is a threat to everyone, and in particular, to those who may be unpopular or insist on expressing a minority opinion.

That's why we need to be concerned about . . . e v e r y o n e .

For a moment there, I thought maybe Ulricha had been the first sacrifice to this new rule. Thankfully, she wasn't. Do we really want that to happen to her, to be banned from the game, or to me, or to ANYBODY? Just for what they said on the forums?

Is that fair? I don't think so.

coco

As far as the tying of the forums to possibly getting people banned in world - I think it's scare tactics. They could have easily used that clause the other day - and they didn't.

I think part of LL's reasoning stems from the fact that some folks like to drag their inworld issues to the forums and harp about them non-stop, some going as far as getting 2 or 3 alts suspended and turning the forums into a friggin' nitemare in the process. Relying on the leniency of the forums in the past certainly had an appeal of "safe harbor" as one poster suggested above.

It's probably akin to mom and dad telling their misbehaving kids "If you don't stop it, you'll be grounded for a year!" Highly unlikely, yet highly effective as a deterrent.

On the free speech issue - this analogy comes to mind: two people start arguing in a movie theater. The management warns them to stop - repeatedly. They continue. They are ejected form the theater and told they are not allowed to come back. Is that repression of free speech? No, because it's a private establishment, just like SL. In both cases, you've payed for the entertainment, but that does not guarantee you the right to free speech, because you are on private property.

Same goes if I have a party at my home and someone starts making problems, and they continue to do so despite warnings. I have every right to boot their ass from my home, and they have no recourse. Certainly they can scream about free speech all they want - BUT - it matters naught. It is MY home and my right to decide who is allowed in it trumps any claims of free speech.

Yes, Nolan, on those last two paragraphs.

But here we have a theater AND a place to talk about the theater.

And in the case of your house, you can boot that person out, but you can't go take away his home, too.

coco

Well, the thing is, that's a bad example. Since you own both your house and his house.

Well..I agree with much that you are saying here Coco. I too feel that it is repressive and furthers a cycle of possible abuse reporting just from general dislike rather than the post actually being over the line. I sincerely hope that the mods recognizing nitpicking and vendettas. I know they are good, hard working folks, but I have seen alot of inconsistancy in editing and locking and removing threads, and when the price of this is possible perma-banning from all of Second Life, makes me a tad nervous (well..not really me, but should make others with more at stake very nervous).

I also feel that to lose one's investment in-world over words splayed on a forum page is a bit much.

However, it IS LL's forums and they do have a warning system. So, we can always choose, upon recieving warnings up to a certain point, to cease all forum posting if we feel the need to protect our in-world accounts.

then it was a stupid thing to do.

the sl already has a problem with uneven and inconsistent enforcement.

if this is just a scare tactic, then it compounds the problem of ll looking unjust.

OK, David, I'm with ya so far.

But let's take me. Remember, I told the story about how I said, "What, are you blind? Didn't you see where . . . such and such" on the TSO forums and received a warning for that.

Now, you could have blown me over with a feather. I had no idea that could be taken as offensively as it apparently was.

Now, knowing nothing affected my game, I just took my warning as a kind of obscure thing I apparently wasn't sensitive enough to, and continued on.

IF I thought my game were tied to my not getting another such warning, I would be more likely to withdraw from the forum itself, for fear of making another inadvertent mistake.

There are a lot of people whose normal way of talking just is hard to control. They don't see much wrong with it, and in some other private or public venue, nothing WOULD be wrong with it. Thus, like the example of me above, they might be incapable of "reforming" so as not to blurt out something else other people took offense to, particularly if they can't see what was so wrong about saying, "Are you blind?" And their response might be to just hush up, too, before they said something else they didn't realize beforehand was bad.

Do we really want that?

It doesn't matter whether in-world banning would actually be the result of such a hypothetical scenario. What matters is it's possible, and that is what causes the fear, and that is why it is repressive.

coco

Do you think that if the theater had a website that they would be unjustified in banning a problem poster from their establishment? You may say yes, but that certainly wouldn't be unlawful on the theater's part.

Besides, I stated I think it's just a scare tactic anyway. I have mixed feelings on it, therefore I will wait and see if LL does in fact start doing it. I have STRONG doubts that they will. I will reserve my judgement until I see them actually use it.

On the "home" thing - that is not a very good analogy - SL is not your home, you do not own it. If you are banned from SL, you don't lose your RL home, much as you state with regard to being ejected from a private residence or movie theater.

I have mixed views on this subject pro and con.

My leanings on the pro side are similar to Jonquille's. When I login, I don't see myself as being in the forums or on the grid: I see myself being in Second Life, within which there are behavioral standards which we have agreed to abide by.

If we're going to make distinctions about disciplinary action dependent on *where* we break those standards, what further advocacy might follow from the same reasoning? If someone gets suspended on the Political Forum, why also suspend them in the General Forum? Technical feasibility notwithstanding, maybe if someone griefs a mentor event in Morris sufficiently to be suspended, that person should only be suspended from Morris, or only suspended from mentor events, but not from the entire grid.

I'm not completely convinced of my own argument, but it's suffices for me to see the changes as at least livable and fair, and at least an emphatic reminder of what relations amongst ourselves are designed to entail and deny.

in a world where ideas reign supreme, what a person says is much more potent. the punishment for potent actions should also be potent, if one intends them to be a deterrent.

i find this concern for "everyone" kind of disingenuous. what about the "everyone" that got offended?

people who break rules aren't victims. especially if they've been warned.

i don't think ll's been very bad at social engineering, and i do wish they would get out of that business and just be a service provider, but in the meantime, what ll is doing is pretty straightforward.

again, if you're concerned with these policies, take it up with ll, they are very approachable.

If I had a chain of theaters and a website for them, and someone was acting up too much on my website, I would ban them from it.

I would not ALSO ban him from entering one of my theaters. He would have to create a disturbance in the theater itself before I would ban him from my theaters.

coco

StoneSelf, about the "everyone" who got offended, they should be satisfied that the person is no longer allowed to be on the forums.

They shouldn't require that person to be banned from the game as well, just to feel satisfied.

If the person acts up to them in game, and gets banned for it, then that would be appropriate.

coco

P.S. I am, obviously, taking it up with LL, unless you think they aren't going to read this and the other thread started by Jeska.

it's all pixels on the screen.

Yes, that costs some folks ALOT of money

If that person showed hostility towards my other guests and/or the establishment itself on the website, I wouldn't lose any sleep over excluding him from the premises.

Let's reframe it a bit. Let's say the problem patron writes you snail mail letters with incendiary remarks about other patrons or the establishment itself. Would it be unreasonable to bar them entry to the theater? Myself, I think not.

I know if someone started sending letters to my home, in which they tried to instigate arguments and/or provoke reactions, I would not allow them on my property.

see that's the problem... it isn't about punishing a person... how do you protect "everyone" from a person that goes around offending huge numbers of people?

protection and rights are two-sided. i understand you seek to justify your friend's actions, but what about the people on the receiving end of those action? what protections do they get?

the rights of "one" and the rights of many other "one"s and the rights of the collective. it's a thorny issue.

you're basically going on about one side. do you see the other side?

...must...resist...depositing... two... cents...

Ok, I can't.

From a purely Travis-centric perspective, these policies don't bother me much. Only because - I know myself, and I (usually) bend over backwards to try & not offend anyone. I'll definately speak my mind & hold some controversial opinions about topics I feel strongly about - but I rarely ever bite.

If I had a really, really bad day - I might end up with a warning someday. But to really be in jeoprady of disciplinary action that would effect me in-world, a pattern would have had to have been developed. It couldn't happen off an isolated occurance.

To me - 'multiple isolated occurances' is an oxymoron - so given that logic, either its an isolated occurance, or its a pattern. Can't be both in my view.

Now - is it justifyable to be banned in-world for behavior exhibited in the forums? I'm not sure... just another one of many things I'm on the fence about. All I know is, it doesn't really worry me. And the people who it should truly worry - I'd think are the ones that have already established a pattern for 'biting'.

I have to agree with Cocoanut.

How about a real dispute resolution process instread of the fast hand of banning?

Briana Dawson

A lot of people are making the distinction between Forums and In-World, and how abuse in one should not be punished in the other.

To those people I pose this question: Why should we be allowed to abuse people in one medium and carry on unhindered and without consequence in another?

The people behind the computers, behind the avatars, do not change. Those people we've insulted and been hurtful to do not change. If we're deliberately rude and hurtful to someone, what difference does it make if we do it in world or in the forums?

No one is being given warnings for spelling mistakes or bad grammar. No one is being suspended or banned for not being articulate enough. We're being warned, suspended and banned for our behavior. Our behavior. The way we interact with and act toward other people. That's a pretty fundamental part of who we are as people, and it's a pretty fundamental part of what builds a Community, especially in SL.

If we can't behave ourselves and act as adults, maybe we don't deserve to be in the Community, either In-World or in the Forums.

By banning him from the website. Not by banning him from the game.

(And I'm thinking of no particular case when I say that, because we are not arguing here whether individual cases of being banned from the website were warranted or not.)

coco