In Praise of NCI that was

/me still wishes Carl happiness and all her best in whatever he ends up doing next. If I can help, call me..

Do you think it is impossible to associate with "bullies and vandals" and still be a good person? Do you think it's impossible to have empathy with "bullies and vandals" and still be a good person? Do you think that psychopaths by their very nature are undeserving of empathy or sympathy?

I think this thread is getting itself wrapped around the axles in philosophy and principles, when the matter at hand was very practical: Will NCI be able to continue to function at locations important to its mission? Carl made a command decision in the interest of NCI's mission and future, communicating perfectly clearly what the decision meant and why it had to be made.

That should have been the end of it, right there. Any NCI member who somehow had to retain Woodbury membership could just enlist one of their alts--Jesus Christ, they're 99% alts anyway--what's the big deal?

Well, the big deal was that it offered the opportunity to foment FUD about Woodbury's true nature by making a very public statement about "guilt by association." And the ever so high-minded NCI directors (read: patsies) took the bait, hook, line, and sinker.

And so here we are now, with half of SLU seemingly mesmerized into uncertainty about Woodbury--even apparently accepting some of the merry prankster claptrap posted by its founder. It's a PR bonanza for them. I'm sure they're positively elated with how this has all played out.

But that isn't what I wanted to post about.

It seems to me that this whole sordid saga could have a happy ending. It frees up Carl from the baggage of NCI's existing organization, finances, and responsibilities. Of course, he can do anything he wants with that freedom. I'm just thinking that right now, if I were a Linden in charge of improving New User Experience, I'd be making it my business to talk to Carl.

Wouldn't you?

Isn't the whole point of an example to be something that "anyone can see"?




What in the post is "saying" that? Which sentence or sentences?

Note that the reason that "Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler is generally considered to have been a destructive person. Therefore vegetarians are generally considered to be destructive people" is an example of fallacious thinking is NOT because it's about Hitler---it's because the construction of the reasoning is syllogistically flawed.

That construction is:

A is B. A is also C. Therefore all B's are C.

It's much easier to see that this is flawed with an example, of course (hence Hitler). But if you prefer a less political version of the same flawed construction:

Cats are living creatures. Cats are four-legged. Therefore all living creatures are four-legged.


...Again, the reason given in that post for the claims Carl had committed a fallacy being false, was NOT dependent on the example being extreme.












In what way did it "depend" on such a thing?

The post says that the accusation that Carl had committed the fallacy of Guilt By Association is mistaken, because the accusation, as expressed in several posts, depended on the idea that EVERY instance of deciding that an association has meaning---as opposed to being meaningless---is an example of fallacious reasoning.

Specifically: "Note that most discussions of GBA specify that the Association about which it's fallacious to draw conclusions about Guilt is one that is accidental or trivial. For example, it would be fallacious to conclude that someone who lives next door to a KKK member is racist. But it would be reasonable to conclude that someone who joins the KKK is racist. The first association is accidental and trivial; the second is not."

The distinction is not "extreme versus non-extreme". The distinction is whether the association at issue is an accidental (and therefore trivial) one, such as living next door to a KKK member, or a deliberate and volitional one, such as joining the KKK.

This has nothing to do with whether a particular case is extreme or not extreme.

Seriously--there's nothing in the post on that topic.






All this depends on the idea that what matters in the NCI case is the BEHAVIOR of NCI officers or staff.

But that is not the case.

What is at issue is the reputation of NCI.

You're quite right.

But since people are using the philosophy to justify their actions, the philosophy is worth examining.

No, that's your INTERPRETATION of what was said. The second example showed that GBA is proper when there is direct correlation between the two syllogisms.

Hence:

"Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler is generally considered to have been a destructive person. Therefore vegetarians are generally considered to be destructive people."

"Jane is a vegetarian. Vegetarians refrain from consuming the flesh of animals. Therefore Jane refrains from consuming the flesh of animals."



or that the group is a badly mismanaged little griefer "social club" that is open to both the ones who commit griefer acts, and those who just giggle when they hear about it, or any combination thereof.

Regardless, that's not the point of Polo's post. He's identifying where it becomes a logical fallacy, not the degree to which it is or is not.



I don't know what you read, but what I read doesn't say that at all.

First message in http://www.sluniverse.com/php/vb/general-sl-discussion/33422-we-human-we-griefer.html

And the *strength* of the association is, today, high: the primary purpose of the KKK is racist.

But let's look at an intermediate situation, where there is choice, but the strength of the association is weaker. Let's say there's a radio station, "2KK", that is owned by a member of the KKK, and a lot of listeners are KKK members. It also happens to be the best country music station in town. If someone listens to the station, and is even a member of their frequent listener club, does it follow that they're a racist? Or that they like good country music?

nope Id be hiring him

Ahh, so you're taking the word of one side of the argument, and not an actual source?

OK. Just so we're on the same page.

You haven't made clear a crucial point: does the radio station publicly identify as KKK-related?

If so: Listening to the station? A trivial association, if this is a private activity undertaken as a private citizen.

Belonging to the frequent listener club? Less trivial IF the station publicly identifies as KKK-related. Joining would be a volitional act of identifying with a KKK-related entity.

But the value of this analogy depends upon our getting confirmation that Carl intended his rule to apply to all members of NCI...and not, as I believe the evidence indicates, to only staff and officers (anyone who had been give a designation beyond mere membership, in other words).

IF we specify that the radio station is publicly identified with the KKK then a volitional act of identifying with it, such as joining its listener club, would be more serious for someone in a position for which such identification is an issue (anyone holding public office, for starters) than for a private citizen who is not in such a position.


And again---the issue is NOT whether the position-holder (as opposed to private citizen) listener, or club-member, is racist. The issue is the perception of the company or governmental body they work for, given that the person's membership in the listener's club of a KKK-identified radio station is public information.

I sure would. I wonder if the Lindens are in touch with SL enough to notice the opportunity, and/or skilled enough to manage Carl in such a role. I further wonder what priority he would give returning their phone call, knowing what he knows about LL.

If I were in IBM's virtual worlds group, I'd be on the wire to him.

If I were the director of NMC, I'd be talking to him.

If I were launching any sort of major effort in Blue Mars, I'd be on the horn as well. Not because he particularly knows anything about Blue Mars, but because he is THE person in SL with demonstrated success in training new arrivals in an unknown VW.

Carl, this time: GET MONEY.
.

I think that is the point you keep missing.

Living next to a KKK member doesn't make you a racist. Listening to music on a radio station owned by the KKK doesn't make you racist. BEING IN THE KKK MAKES YOU RACIST.

ON A SEPARATE NOTE (meaning don't connect the above with the below, like you have been doing):

I am not saying and have never said that Immy was directly griefing Prokofy through actions. Prokofy most definitely considered Immy a griefer because she has witnessed Immy being present when griefing was occurring, being near enough to the action, in her mind, to connect her with it. Seeing that she's in the same group is just more confirmation in her mind. Banning her was academic to Prokofy, and you've yet to show that it is an unreasonable action. What she says on her blog is HER side of the story, and likely was prompted by some ugliness directed at her for the banning.

After all this, I don't see anyone mature enough to sit down and take responsibility for their part in this mess, which tells me a WHOLE LOT about the personalities involved. There were SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES to defuse/fix this before it exploded like it did, and NO DAMN ONE took advantage of ANY of them.

I think that's really what kinda blows my mind about the whole thing.

Any time I have spotted Prokofy on my Mystitool, I was never aware of any form of griefing around... Let alone other avatars aside from the ones I had never met before, held a civil conversation with up to my point of banning, and are by no means associated with WU.

Because such things are said, in my opinion, EVERY word that spews from that blog is to be put to doubt and question.

Hear hear!

There are some incredible ironies here... this is starting to read like Tolstoy, isn't it?


Irony # 1 ~ I am still upholding rights of association on my estate. No group is banned from entry. In fact our global ban list has about 25 names in total on it (we have had a bad rash of griefing lately, and the other half are alts of one person that can't seem to leave one lady alone). I'm apparently doing an appalling job of being a terrible oppressor.

Carl and I were just choosing who we wanted to associate with on our projects. Our freedom of association.

Amazing that us saying 'no thank you, no help from you' to members of groups like these would pose such a difficult philosophic challenge for so many.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriotic_Nigras

* * * * *

There have been statements to the effect that Woodbury's reputation was harmed by bad people joining it.

Irony # 2: Too bad they didn't have someone like Carl keeping an eye on things!

I would not bet on that. Prokofy Neva is loony as a summer day is long. Completely 'round the bend, if I may say so. I tend to discount MOST things she/he/whatever says, purely on principle.

However, WU's reputation as a griefer club was firmly established long before Prokofy published her latest rant; it's a reputation that is backed up with a long track record of complaints, ARs, and punitive action by LL. That reputation wasn't created or exacerbated by Prokofy; her entire account of the incidents can be nothing but fiction and it wouldn't matter.

Immy, I understand there's all kinds of facets to chan/SA culture, but you can't seriously deny that griefing is one of the most hallowed traditions of these folks. There's no separating it. Saying something like "it's unfair to label all channers/SA'ers as either griefers or supporters of griefers" is like saying it's unfair to label all airline pilots as people who spend a lot of time in airplanes.

You're asserting that WU is like the KKK. I'm not taking that as a given. Try again with that in mind.

I haven't said that it wasn't. What I said is that the post he made on his blog was unreasonable. That was the first publicly unreasonable action in this debacle.

Well . . . I think this may be a simplification. My sense is that Prok's information is usually pretty good: he's amazingly well-connected. It's his analysis and interpretation of that info that generally sucks.

I'm afraid that I largely buy Prok's story that he has been griefed, and I too tend to think that his rage is what is largely feeding the latest whirlwind.


Yep, this.

That's what I said in the first place... I was going by what one of the principals wrote. When Darkness Anubis' comment was brought to my attention, I acknowledged it and changed my position on the basis of that information.

What are you trying to get at here?

I'm asserting that the WU group is a haven for griefers and their fans, yes. Why? Because griefers somehow keep magically turning up in the WU group, and keep on griefing. Who is inviting them? Are they actually students/faculty of WU? Somehow, I doubt it. Even assuming for a minute, they all are students/faculty of WU, WHY do griefers who get ARed, banned, and come back with alts to do the EXACT SAME THING keep getting into a CLOSED GROUP full of students/faculty who turn a BLIND EYE to it? WHY isn't the RL Woodbury University administration keeping tabs on their "public face" in SL? Are they condoning this behavior and mismanagement? If so, then they deserve every iota of vitriole and bad press they can possibly get, ESPECIALLY from Prokofy.



If you are going to say the post she made on her blog was unreasonable, under the circumstances, then you're also saying that the action was unreasonable, because the post is ABOUT the action, and her motivations for doing it.

I think what pisses me off is that I am being forced to defend someone I don't particularly like all that much because people won't act like adults and constantly give her shit so that, even when she DOES have cause to respond reasonably, she is STILL labeled as "unreasonable". I don't necessarily believe in or support a whole lot of what Prokofy says, but in this case, I think she is MORE THAN JUSTIFIED in her words and actions.

"Well, I don't know, they don't come out and say it, but there's stories about it, you know, and people say that if you've got a 2KK sticker on your truck you're in the Klan. Hey, you know, Joe's got a 2KK sticker, so I recon he's in the Klan."

That's how "guilt by association" works. It's not "either or".

WU is a griefer group, no, it doesn't say that, yes, it's run by a griefer, no, some people just like lolcats. I don't know. It's complex. That's the point. It's NOT as simple as "if you're in WU, you're a griefer".

"You know, I'm not gonna vote for Joe for Judge, he's got a 2KK sticker on his van."

BTW: there really was such a radio station in town here, ten or fifteen years back. There were rumors. People really did say that having their sticker on your van meant you were in the klan. It wasn't 2KK, but... similar.

And I would say "no, that's the fallacy of guilt by association".

One can make an unreasonable post about reasonable actions. And that was an unreasonable post.

You don't have to defend him. I'm not defending WU.

I *am* defending the principle that "guilty by association" is a sucky litmus test, which is why I asked you to "try again" understanding my previous article on the subject without assuming that I'm treating WU as equivalent to the KKK.

I'm curious to know -- what parts of Prokofy's post about Immy do you find "unreasonable"?



I do when people who continually grief and harass her relentlessly try to make this debacle out to be all her fault.



In some instances, it is sucky, in others, it is sensible and PRUDENT. In some cases, it is even ALL that is available. You can choose to consider it, and err on the side of caution, or reject it, and take whatever associated risk is involved in doing so. However, what you CAN'T do is suggest to others that they have to always reject it and take the risk. That is up to them to decide, and they may have reasons and justifications which trump any consideration you could give them to the contrary.

So, OK, you don't accept that WU is a griefer group, or that Immy being a part of it taints her participation. Others (including myself) don't agree. I don't find Prokofy's actions particularly unreasonable in this situation, despite her ranting and raving over it. She feels justified in her actions based on past experiences with Immy and WU griefers. If I had the same experiences, I think I would likely do the exact same thing. Since I have personally witnessed her being griefed firsthand by WU members, I don't find her characterization of the events exaggerated all that much.