Clarification of New Forum Policy Changes

Meh.

Y'know, I never considered the forum separate from SL. I don't expect to be bitchy on the forums and then expect everyone to love me in-world. LL just made it official. This *is* Second Life. Behave in it like you'd behave in the 3-D world...or suffer the same consequences.

And another thing...what precisely is "the ability to play the game"? Second Life isn't a game...it's a world. You can play games within the world...but it's not a game in and of itself. Maybe if people stopped thinking of Second Life as something they could win, we wouldn't have to worry about suspensions and bans.

Second Life is a GAME, both as described on various sites on the computer, and to people like me, who consider it a GAME regardless of the restrictions of world view you wish to place on me.

And anyway, there probably isn't anything we can do now about this whole thing, since they have made it their policy.

Except sit and wait to see who it gets used on next. And how.

coco

the issues come down to are the grid and the forums part of the same world. i think the correct view is to see tham both as part of one world.

the actions from one part carry over to the other. people neg rating other people for what is said in the forums, people accusing people on forums of in grid misdeeds, defamation of in grid people or groups. this is where people report problems with the grid. this is where policies about research in the grid were discussed. this is where issues are redflagged to the lindens so they can have townhalls that affect grid policies. defamation in the forums can adversely affect business in grid. praise here can benefite businesses in grid.

to me, the forum and the grid are not strongly divorced from each other, and for that reason i think punishments should be in both parts.

also, to me this concern of losing land for forum posts seems to be another red herring. it tooks months of forum turmoil before anything was done. that's far more than in grid griefers get before getting perma-banned.

We can reverse that thought, and claim that you, by classifying it as a game, in capital letters no less, are trying to restrict us to your worldview, because you want there to be a clear distinction between the "game" and the forums.

and if the actions of the banned individual carried over into the grid. which has happened in the past?

so again, how to protect everyone?

perhaps that's reason to follow tos/cs

you might get a clearer response if you post to the hotline, and IM robin.

second life is a platform. not a game.

Yes. Forum disputes carried over to inworld, in the form of neg rates (no I am not singling out anyone here, many have engaged in this practice). Complaints about neighbors being carried over from inworld to the forums. It's time to stop pretending that they are different "realities".

When we have the forums on the prims inworld, that line is going to blur even more.

The two are inextricably intertwined. I have long opposed the sentiment that "I am not the same person on the grid as I am on the forums." Sounds a bit two-faced to me.

Agreed..however the enforcement has been a bit inconsistant to say the least in the forums. And if folks get it in their heads to constantly report a persons posts, it might end up pressuring or speeding up the process.

But I see what you are saying. We can all be extra careful of what we post in the hopes of not offending anyone.

Let me pose a rhetorical question...

Is there such a thing as a 'forum troll'? If there is, is there a non-subjective definition of one? One that nearly everyone would agree upon?

To continue this idea.... assuming there is such a thing as a 'forum troll', and assuming they're out there - what should be done with them?

See, I think the kind of person who has to worry most about being banned in the future - are the troll-types. If you're not a troll, you aint got much to worry about. And I just don't think any of the people that have posted to this thread - are trolls. (Real Trolls).

In my personal opinion - trolls exist, and are a natural part of forum ecology - that require an effective mitigation plan if you want to have meaningful discussion without derailment. Linden has finally come to the realization that asking folks to simply ignore trolls is insufficient, hence this new policy.

This is by no means meant to be an endorsement of the new policy - just a possible explanation of why we are now where we are.

Very well said, Jonquille. Thanks for summing it up so well!

Second Life is a game.

Anyway, whether or not our sentiments as expressed in these two threads mean anything or not to the Lindens, who knows.

I've said and explained mine, therefore, I'm out of the General forums again, until there's another official thread to reply in.

coco

i don't like the nanny factor in the forums, but given what ll is trying to do... it's rather straightforward.

Changing the direction of this thread slightly, Jeska's clarification included a link to Daniel Linden's announcement about enforcement and appeals policies. The following paragraph is from DL's post:

At the start of any Review for Ban process, a new group of 25 active Residents will be chosen anonymously and at random to independently review the case history and voice their opinion. Names and places will be removed for privacy reasons, and the Panel will weigh-in based solely on the facts. The Review Panel will not have the power to expel a Resident, but they might well save a Resident. Ultimately, the decision to permanently eject a Resident from Second Life will remain with Linden Lab; the comments and opinions of the Review Panel will be used to inform the Review for Ban process and to question our assumptions about when and why Residents should be removed from the Second Life community.

Some questions:

1. This panel will be in an advisory capacity only. There is no explanation as to how their advice will be used by LL, beyond "to question on our assumptions".

2. "Solely on the facts" - Who determines what the facts are, and who presents these facts to the panel? Are all the facts given, including those facts that contradict each other? Is, for example, contradictory testimony by witnesses considered facts? Or are facts a simple chat or IM log? Are the motives and interpretations of the various sides, including the Lindens, given equal weight as facts?

3. I'm assuming from "names removed" and "solely on the facts" that the accused will not have the opportunity to address or forward material to the panel? Nor a spokesperson for the accused? All material will come from the Lindens, who would determine what the facts are? So between this and the advisory nature of the panel, in no way could this procedure be construed as an "appeal process". It is definitely a corporate review process.

4. Why a panel of 25? A large number.

BTW, these are genuine questions. I have no agenda on this; I'm taking the invitation to comment seriously.

While it doesn't answer all of your questions, some insight as to how the Resident Review Panel operates can be found here:

/invalid_link.html

Thanks, Travis. But it raises more questions, I think.

Robin Linden:

We are mostly interested in knowing whether the SL residents agree with us in our conclusion that someone be banned based on that individual's track record. We can't give the panel the opportunity to hear a defense without revealing the identity of the individual involved. However, our experience so far has been that by the time someone gets to this point there have been several instances of community standards violations with ample opportunity for defense and/or apologies.

I can see where you might feel the presentation is skewed, but it's also an opportunity to give us your thoughts....

Prior to this review board's existence, LL made their decision and went with it. Now they give some thought to non-LL employees thoughts on these cases, and possibly reconsider a ban. I don't know how they would explain it other than to say that they want a broader perspective. They look at what the panel thinks, and if it's compelling enough to reconsider a ban, they do.


Given the fact that LL has been more than patient with problem users in the past, I think that it's likely that for LL to be at the point of banning someone's account forever, there is probably some pretty damning evidence on hand.


They have the ability to appeal to LL , as they always have. For LL to arrive at the point of banning, they would have most likely rejected that appeal. Let's not forget, this is a possible second chance that did not exist before.

Not sure, maybe because just as they are allowing for a player review to acquire a broader interpretation of the incident(s), they want that pool to be broad as well. Purely speculation though.

My questions are:
Are the random people picked presented the "facts" as a group, or as individuals?

Do they deliberate in a group setting?

re: fears of losing property etc.

We should keep in mind that LL didn't need to create a new banning policy for us to potentially lose our investment of time and money into SL, or so says the TOS.

If we don't trust LL's ability to make decisions that might negatively affect our investments in SL, it's not some new here-and-now policy that should be labeled potentially repressive; it's those paragraphs of the TOS which say “at any time for any or no reason” they can erase our data, suspend or terminate our accounts, and so forth.

Conversely, if we grant them sufficient trust for us to have enrolled and remained in SL, and to have invested time and money into it despite those TOS paragraphs, then I'm uncertain how crafting this new policy suddenly creates repression.

Seems sophomoric to me.

Just ban the offender(s) and be done with it.

_/_/

for intersubjectivity, subjective/objective ontologies and epistemologies, and social fact versus brute fact, i highly recommend reading:

The Social Construction of What? by Ian Hacking
The Construction of Social Reality by John R. Seale
Social Mindscapes by Eviatar Zerubavel

* * *

things like 'forum troll' are social constructs.

old post of mine:

when LL takes action against SL residents:

1) you don't know about the charges until after the judgment..
2) you don't know who your accusers are.
3) you can't make a statement in your defense until after the judgment is made.
4) and the process takes so long that the punishment concludes before any remedy or appeal can be made.
5) and then you can't even kvetch about it public (lest it be called an appeal).

from: /120/4b/28791/1.html

YEA! Its about time that they started doing something about the way the forums was being trashed.
Now, if they just follow through with the new forum guidelines this will be a better place.
Good Job.