Eliminate the Abuse Reporting Feature

This is a discussion, not a scientific poll. Publicity allows people to voice their opinion by voting without having to post a diatribe if they don't have much to say. Plus the Lindens can quickly see the numbers and not have to read all of our deep opinions on the matter. And yes, I sign surveys and service comment cards and will be glad to tell you who I voted for in foo election.


I did not know this. My system would automatically enter a ticket then send an email to the alleged perp and reporter telling them they had fourteen days to work this out before they were both automatically suspended pending a formal inquiry that we may or may not ever get around to executing.

A linden would be assigned to conferance IM with them during their two week trial to see if they could work out their differences and make it very clear to them that the world would not tolerate childish uncooperative behaviour so that they had comprehensive and fair appraisal of their situation.

Finally, if resolution was forthcoming from them both, their accounts and inventory would be transferred to the isolated postteen-but-not-yet-adult continent. They would, of course, be able to appeal after a month and might be transferred back. Maybe.


Seriously, I hope my above statement makes my point clear. On the other hand, what would poor little helpless Khamon do against a professional griefer if he didn't have the big protective Lindens surrounding him twenty-four hours a day?

Sit on a plywood cube ?

The abuse report button on my UI has been grayed-out ever since I reported some guy in chaps and multicolored underwear for uber-terraining Ahern one night, while singing Waltzing Matilda...*hic*.

Dunno why. So for me, the issue's mute. Er, moot.

I never said I know who was disciplined. I simply noted that seven sentences were handed out for personal attacks and intolerance. And when in the past have seven people been disciplined in one day? Your logic is correct that seven people being disciplined in one day is not consistent with under enforcement. I respond to this with two points: 1. know of no time in the past, in any heated thread, where this much enforcement was evidenced in the police blotter. I could be wrong; 2. I think if you look at my claims, I think the main thrust of my calims has always been selective enforcement, or the appearance of selective enforcement, to the extent this means under-enforcement, then I refer you to my first point.

I have no problem with a dissenting opinion. I don't argue with you to persuade yo, I argue with you to perhaps appeal to the reason of another reader. I rarely make a claim for personal attacks against myself, buecause by and large I have not been subject to many (beyond some condscending sarcasm, which is offenseive, but not an attack). I welcome your, especialy your, disagreement on claims, because I know there are two sides to every issue, and in discussing this with you, both sides will come out.

I try very hard, mostly with success, to avoid the pitfall of saying someone is insane, and idiot or a moron when I think they are wrong about an issue. I know as I post I will not persuade you of many of my positions. So be it. I am still entitled to advocate them adnauseum if I wish. In point of fact it seems very often the forum majority gets angry at the dissenters for dissenting, and then not coming around. Very often I here the refrain "you are just unwillign to concede that I am right, and it frustrates me to argue with you." Yes when I take a position, I am unwilling to conceed anything to those who disagree. I exepect they will concede nothing to me.

My understanding of the purposes of these forums is to advocate our positions and let the readers, and the lindens decide. Beyond stating my position, it does not really matter. Very different from this is the conduct which I regularly observe here where fellow residents are taken to task, and called name, told they are idiots. In one of my first forum posts ever, I asked who Anshe Chung was (A Noob, I know). And I was told to go away and never post again. This sort of attack, and the ones that are so frequently directed at fellow residents here, must surely drive some new players away, and make other player feel the forums are a ranting ground for madmen.

Thus I wish to see more even enforcement and more transparent enforcement of the forums. I think doing away with the AR feature robs a player of their best defense against a personal attack. I feel that is stronger actions were taken, Including the names of the offending players being placed in the police blotter, we would be able to ascertain what sorts of posts are attacks and what aren't. This would abate entirely the fear that some people are getting away with scathing attacks when others are suspended for trivialities. right now, as you poiint out we do not know what posts invited warnings.

No there are a host of privacy concerns on the other side, and LL has strongly balanced policy on the side of privacy. In that case I think perhaps more definitive guidelines in the CS for what is a personal attack are neccessary. I think a lot of people are getting thier feeling hurt here, and I know from reading the posts that some peopel seem happy to have shamed someone else. And when that person advocates an unpopular view, then person doing the shaming is glorified, and snide remarks are made in unrelated threads.

If the TOS/CS are not able, by letter or by enforcement to keep players for attackign other players, not matter which side of the forum majority they are on. Then the forums are failing miserably as a part of this community, and should be closed.

Oh I don't use a spell checker, a mortal sin. I hope that you feel sufficiently superior for having pointed out the deficiencies in my typing ability. In a forum post. After all we all are aware of how important scientific evidence has linked good typing to native intelligence. A thousand forum posts cannot be wrong. I am chastised. perhaps I should get my secretary in here to make my opinon commentary seem more professional. Would you really think I was more erudite, given your previous assement of my legal abilites? It was a dig, not an attack, but a jibe, desinged to humilate, however slightly, simply because you disagree. At least afford me the courtesy of honesty, instead of you condscending prefatory remark that "...this isn't a personal attack."

In the context of this discussion my opinion is of the actions of people in general. My contempt for personal attacks, and my advocacy of preserving the AR system are political opinions, not legal advice. It is entirely possible to advocate in defense of a murderer, and still hold the crime of murder in general contempt. These forums are not a court, they are a place of opinion.

If someone comes to me haivng killed a man. I may have contempt for his actions and for his station, and for his actions. Yet I know he is entitled to a defense, to the best of my ability. It would be more dishonest of me to pretend my feelings were other wise, merely to placate my clients feelings. I am a lawyer, and counseller, not a freind. Thus I offer consistency, knowlegde, honesty and ability, in the service of my client. If you want a buddy who will always make you feel good, get a dog.

I am here to evaluate your case, and let you know honestly if you have screwed the pooch, or if pershaps a mistake was made which justifies clemency. In many cases my services as an advocate will be entirely ineffective, in which case ther eis no point in taking representation. In other cases, the relationship I have with the individual will make it impossible for me to fairly advocate. These decisions are between me and my client, and adressed on an individual basis And are not suited for a a forum desinged for us to present opinion.

So yes my opinion is that personal attacks in the forum are uncalled for, the AR system is necessary, and I would wish, in all sincerity, that noone ever needed my service. We are all human however, and lines get crossed. I have done so in the past myself. And offered apology when I have. Who would you want as a lawyer, somone who agrees with you, or someone who disagrees with you, but knows, in this one instance, you have been wronged.
There is a reason former prosecutors make damed good defense attorneys.

As far as playing sheriff or police, I have no interest, the headache is to great.

This poll of Khamon's inspired me to make my own poll on a related topic.

My poll concerns the distinctive sound and animation that accompany the filing of an abuse report.

Eliminate the conspicuous sound and animation that accompany the filing of abuse report.


Khamon, I have a feeling that having the answers to the poll pubicly viewable skews the results. It's too bad we can't have a poll with the same question asked twice, one with public answers and one with a secret ballot, or maybe give the pollee the choice of whether to make the answer public or not.

It could be a good way to find alternate accounts, keep track of the polls and check to see which avatars always vote the same way.

I would prefer an unbiased opinion, as you previously stated that you would have some slight bias towards me had I committed murder and might not give me the best defense.

Playing policeman on the forums isn't being a legal representative, as those individuals that you report could become your clients one day. Opinion varies as to what is politically correct and what is not politically correct. In ghettoese, various words used within rap and with street cultures would seem politically incorrect to you; however they could mean terms of endearment to others.

What you have previously stated is that you are reporting threads for wording which seems to you to be a type of harrassment and/or personal attack. Realize that there are many here who are friends outside of the forums who might use such terminology differently with each other prior to reporting said thread.

ACLU'ing (as it's called) sometimes can make a mountain out of a molehill, place injustice on individuals who had a right to speak their own mind and opinion, using whatever vocabulary they are comfortable in using.

Continue to police the forums and watch for *any* ACLU-type violation that you feel is prejudice, state that it's prejudice; then tell me how you will ever be able to mediate or represent your client with that bias already in your mind.

I will ask the question again to you and Katy. I've now asked it in two separate threads, and I see that the advertisement for your "cyber legal representation" is gone.

Most law firms advise their attorneys not to participate as legal experts on forums, in chat rooms, BBS boards, etc., unless the firms have specific knowledge and the advice given is reviewed prior to posting. This also includes any type of Pro Bono work. Do each of your respective firms know that you are offering your "legal services" (I saw the wording of retainer in one other forum post.) within SL for such matters as legal representation during mediation? Or will you define your new company as simply a hobby within a hobby?

And my comment about your spelling shouldn't have flared your temper. It was an honest opinion. Bait taken.

You did insinuate it, at least that's how it came off to me. You also seemed to approach it from a couple of different angles, which confused me a bit. Thanks for the clarification.

At any rate, my point is, it's not generally a very good idea to look at that blotter, and then draw conclusions from it. It's darn near impossible to discern, with any degree of accuracy, how well the AR system is working based upon what you see in it.

Some actions taken never make it on there, some are so vague that they offer liitle if any insight, and the dates are sometimes wrong.

Another point I would like to make is that one should AR if they think something meets the criteria for doing so, and then move on. Hanging about trying to correct others just prolongs the flames. (not referring to you specifically Jake) Report, let LL review and sort it out, and then move on. Sometimes you just have to concede that all the attempts at behavior modification in the world aren't going to work, and leave that duty to the Lindens.

Who did you vote for in foo election?

I think it is safe to say that any attack I would AR, and I use the AR sparingly, is not something that falls under the category of noralized usage of terms, as in ebonics. My point is always that it is never ok to attack someone personally in the forums. We are responsible for the way we conduct ourselves, and if we know somthing has a high probablity of offending somone, then we should err on the side of caution.

For example among my freinds, I am know as the token Goy. The only reason I am not an honorary Jew (apart from the fact I am Buddhist) is because I like mayo on my sandwiches. To people outside my circle fo freinds, our banter is shocking and non politically correct. But if I come on the formus and say Lynn Lippman is a Shicksa, you might not take offense at the reference, but you might. Same think if I use the ebonics word "Bitches". I might be using the term neutrally to refer to women, but there is a hight probablility if I come on and say "damn, you are one fine assed bitch." You will be offended. Courtesy is a simple matter, I condemn any personal attack, what ever the language.

Baiting people on the forums accomplishes nothing why do it? Are you proud to have scored points off of me? And I promise my temper was not flared, nor is it now. I simply do not see what you are trying to accomplish by this post? The forum topic is whether the AR sytem should be done away with. I have said no? Do you simply wish to discredit me as a person, as a lawyer? I don't get it. I am curious more than angry.

As far as your commets about a neutral view point. At leas one of the people attacked was my freind. Frankly I would rather be known as amn who stands up for his friends than as a lawyer who kow-tows to his clients. So you will never hire me for a TOS/CS matter. So be it, I would rather be a lawyer with no clients than a man with no friends.

As far as competency to represent. I am confident in my competency to accept representation in matter so of the TOS violation, for money or for free. It is not a conflict with my current firms practice, and as of yet has present to fee issues regarding income.
As far as the mediation aspect, becaus eit is in game I see it as more of a hobby, although again I am qualified to do it, and there is no conflict with my firm. And really the mediation aspect is entirely different than the TOS/CS aspect.

The advertisement for our firm was never on the signature of my posts, it was on Katy's. I am sure she will explain why she took it down. Although one cosideration is that as Attorneys we might, in our advertsiments, be required to post the RL information for one of us. At this point, given the witch hunts and general hostility towards us in the forum, we are not comfortable with that. As far as the original post, that was a professional announcement and that simply needs the name of the firm.

We have also asked for a meeting with the Lindens General counsel to discuss the matter, and discuss ADR in the world.

Now we have digressed far off topic, and you have yet to address the salient concern of this thread which is whether the abuse reporting fucntion should be done away with. If you have a personal crusade against lawyers, against misspelling, or against me, I am certain you can take that up in a dedicated thread.

I actually agree with this, there are a couple angles I take, and well, my misspellings make everything confusing. The vaugness of the blotter is one thing I would like to see changed. In truth, I agree with you about the AR and the ignore features. The best use is to just do it, and move on. Although my harrangue may have seemed to be about behavior modification, it was really meant to emphasize the need for the AR function, given that so much action was taken my the lindens, they must take AR very seriously.

If I am occasionally guilty of impassioned rhetoric and hyperbole in defense of my freinds, or in defense of anyone, it is part of my base instinct to argue (there is a reason I went to law school-hehe), or my misspelling. I know it is very difficult to take the high road in the forum debtates, but I have always thought the standard of conduct should be set high.