In Praise of NCI that was

....she was a member of WU, period. Prok made it clear to Bev in their exchange that was the only reason he considered Immy a greifer by insisting, without claiming any of what you posted ever happened, that because she is a member of WU she MUST be a griefer. I don't know why you keep making needless allusions to fictitious or highly questionable versions of events which only serve to undermine the credibility of your arguments and violates community guidelines about naming names.

Because that's not what Prokofy posted publicly in her blog, nor what she has claimed to others. I don't know who this "Bev" is, and I haven't seen anything from any "Bev" contradicting what Prokofy has said. What I have posted is what Prokofy HERSELF has said, PUBLICLY. No, really, you can read it for yourself: http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/second_thoughts/2009/08/on-carl-metropolitans-resignation-and-on-the-bigger-picture.html

As for naming names, I'm not providing any names which haven't already been brought up in this thread or others on this subject. Regardless, if you feel my posts are in violation, you're more than free to press that little report button under them.

All of it. Considering, it's based on lies.

The ONLY thing that can be supported is that I am a member of the WU group.

ALL other claims of interfering with events, being in a posse of bobbing and weaving avatars, particle spammings, self replicating cubes, showing up with or around other people, disrupting meetings, and such are all flat out complete and undeniable lies. (>_<

About the WORST thing I've ever done is say "Hi"... Or more literally "Konnichiwa". (=_=)

Saying others have done it is not a valid excuse for violating forum rules, and it doesn't change the fact that it's defamatory, cited from a source that is self-serving and has questionable credibility at best, and completely unnecessary to make your general points unless there is also an underlying agenda to attack and defame such person.

I wonder if it is disheartening to watch this play out. I bet it is.

People who do great things....will do more great things. Unless of course, you knock the wind out of their sails.

Ah....but you don't care.

http://imnotgoingsideways.blogspot.com/2009/08/my-3-bans.html

http://imnotgoingsideways.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-response-to.html

In fact, the third ban... At the freebie wall... Those people I was helping navigate the freebie wall: They're regular posters here and members of The Forum Cartel group. So, according to that blogger's story, it was Forum Cartel members that were the "griefers" along side the epic-evil-IMG. (=_=)

Well, it is your word against Prokofy's. Given my personal experience with WU griefers in her presence and her subsequent characterization of the event, I am inclined to believe her. I won't deny she embellishes and embraces all kinds of stupid inane notions at times; it's one reason I don't care much for what she says, but NOBODY, and I MEAN *NOBODY* deserves the kind of shit she has had to put up with from your WU "friends", regardless of whatever she has said or done.

That, and the WU group is overdue for a day of reckoning where some asses need to be chewed up and spat out.

I'll say it again for the hard-of-reading:

If you find my posts in violation of the forum rules, you are free to click the report link at the bottom of each one.

No, really, you can. I won't stop you. <.<

I don't know Immy from Adam's housecat, other than occasional posts in these very forums. I'm simply ticked off about the NCI situation, which was precipitated from some VERY immature words and actions from all sides. My agenda is simply to 1) understand what happened, 2) who had their thumbs in the pie, and 3) to make sure people do everything they can not to repeat it in the future. If that includes, as a side benefit, getting LL to address an oversight in allowing a known griefer group to continue operating unchecked, then I'm all for it.

Well, no. That's not how "guilt by association works." At all.

You're mixing up the GBA fallacy with 'rumor and innuendo', which is something else entirely.

Look at all every example of GBA written by every reputable logician. You will find that in each case, the fallacy involves comparing someone who is being targeted for smearing with a KNOWN 'negative' example. Not with a rumor.

The cases of GBA fallacy all involve comparisons with Hitler or Stalin or Cheney or their ilk...NOT comparisons with 'that guy down the street that people whisper about' or such.

Other than in your own mind there is nothing in my response that implies I am "hard-of-reading". I'm also free to point out when you make a transparently weak argument that because others violate forum rules, it's okay for you to do so also. Sorry if that bothers you.

LOL

Speaking of guilt by association (or is it rumour and innuendo?) . . .

Nice touch!

Your not trying to sell that nonsense over here also are you? Jeesh - Immy come on. You admitted that Woodbury University griefed Prok. You know you were there at Prok's Iran discussion when the WU people you were with released particles.

You did not say anything the first two times Prok banned you because you knew you had the WU group in your profile and she had zero tolerance for them. But the third time you thought you could have someone at NCI to force her to lift the ban. When she said drop the group and the ban would be lifted - you refused and started the firestorm that resulted in Carl's resignation.

I had never heard of Woodbury University group until your pity party posts. You asked for an opinion so I googled the group and saw that the WU island was deleted by Linden Lab in 2007 because they were griefers. Then upon more research there were dozens of SL griefer incidents credited to WU over the years - and the latest one they all now admit to - the griefing of the blogger and their grief builds adjacent to the blogger's mainland parcel.

There was absolutely nothing positive written anywhere about this group. But you want me to believe that they are not griefers, that the griefers that have infiltrated their group over the years are just trying to discredit them and that they still have absolutely no way to stop all the griefers from joining their closed membership group.

Utter nonsense.
_____________

What also sounded like nonsense was your claim you were in the Ross/NCI Infonode when the blogger appeared and banned you for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

And Carl resigned because he needed to take a nap.

Please stop the nonsense.

Except I didn't make such a "weak" argument. I stated a fact. If you're going to go all "hall monitor" on me, don't forget to include everyone being bad, k? Otherwise, one might think you have some kind of axe to grind. >.>

I knew that one wouldn't just slip by. ^_^

You stated a fact in response to my claim that you violated a forum rule. If it was not stated as a defense to the same then what was the point?

To point out that you have your work cut out for you?

A hall monitor's work is never done... <.<

Rumor and innuendo are areas in which the GBA fallacy can be invoked.

The KKK is a "known negative example". Claiming that someone is associated with them because of an indirect link is a classic *real* example.

The KKK isn't "that guy down the street that people whisper about". The 2KK listener's club isn't either. Where GBA comes in is when you imply that someone is in the KKK because they're in the 2KK club. Because when this fallacy is used in the real world, outside academic papers, that's how it's used. "Joe is one of X (with the implication that X all do Y)" doesn't work if it's not credible that "Joe is one of X" or "all X do Y".

One little side comment. I understand Prok prefers to be referred to as "he".


Um, I think I've made that point myself. But in that situation:

(a) IS that all you have to go on?
(b) IS the association meaningful?
(c) IS the association relevant in this situation?

For example, if you're hiring someone to work at Los Alamos in the '40s, whether that person is a member of the CP is relevant and appropriate... unless you know they joined as part of their work investigating it for the Army. If you're hiring someone to play an extra in a movie, it's not something you need to concern yourself with.

I brought up the CP and the Red Scare precisely because it's a perfect example of WHY the GBA fallacy is complex.

Have I suggested that?

I would. I think there is already a job in the LL ads for some kind of Community Manager, Not sure exactly what that entails but if it means NUE and CGs then Carl's the guy for that job IMO. Maybe even add a bit more professionalism organisationally to the SL Mentors as well.

Because the RL Woodbury University's involvement ended when their first sim was deleted by LL. University officials have since indicated that the school has no official representatives in SL, individual group members' claims notwithstanding.

Thread closed per request of op.