In Praise of NCI that was

Don't, and didn't, they already profess this value, by not employing known griefers?

Really, they had another value which they obviously felt was more important: being as inclusive as they could. They would have had to sacrifice that value (which is in practice, and does achieve a goal) for yours, which is only a statement (and which has already been made).

A quick look at their values shows that they would not be associated with griefing, that it is the opposite of their core beliefs. NCI don't just allow anyone to become a teacher or be deeply involved in their organistation, they do it by recommendation, they see how people perform.

I have no problem whatsoever with sending people to NCI, the people involved have been involved for quite some time.

Question: Exactly how many griefing encounters have you experienced in your SL life? I sometimes feel that you are making observations on the Forum from a purely hypothetical viewpoint. Is that so?


Back on Topic. Best wishes to all concerned. Would that we could all rewind and start again, but life goes on.

Certainly it is. That's why we are having this discussion: NCI is worth saving.


Well, my main point is not that they have to swear to a creed; it's that they DID do so, and have now renounced that. And that sends a message.

Oh, I sooooo am not. I very very much want NCI to keep doing the work they do. I very very much want to feel that I can send people there.

But, again, I am terribly concerned about the public message that deliberately rescinding a strong anti-griefer policy sends. I don't know, honestly, that doing so makes NCI actually more "griefer-friendly." Probably not. But I do know that, in effect if not in intention, NCI has said that they ARE.

SL is one of the few "places" in the world where we can experiment with ANYTHING, with no cost to our RL reputations. So, I completely agree with this statement. I, personally, use group memberships in other people's profiles as pointers to things I might consider exploring, and as a guide to things they might be interested in talking about. No more.

BUT.

I recognize that the ability to make judgments about things based on association is a genetically hard-wired human survival characteristic. So, realistically, people WILL do it. I'll start a thread in SLU's "politics" forum later about this; it's a more appropriate venue.

Meanwhile, I hope to read more posts about what NCI to date has brought to you, me, everyone.
.

I don't know. Some, maybe? We'll never really know, I guess.

But what a statement of values DOES do is reinforce those values. And that is important in and of itself. Particularly in a public institution like NCI.

And again, the point is not that NCI "failed" to make such a statement; it is that they repudiated one that they had already made.

Argus: I've been orbitted, caged (at least twice; I should get back on to that other thread), threatened, harassed, and had my avatar distorted. I have been the recipient of crude and unwanted remarks and pictures (and not just in the normal course of what is sometimes laughingly referred to as "flirtation". I have been pelted with penises (actually, that was kind of amusing). I have on several occasions negotiated with griefers to talk them out of their rage, and in a few cases, actually befriended them so they had someone to talk to when they felt that they were losing it again. I have intervened directly, and extensively, in two SL stalking cases. And, in my capacity as a member of a feminist group that is also, to some degree, a support group, I have also heard a great deal of testimony about other cases of griefing.

I probably sound more "hypothetical" than I am: I am really pretty active and "activist" in SL, in a number of spheres.

And now, because I respect the idea that this thread SHOULD be about Carl, I am going to be quiet. Except to reiterate my admiration of him for taking a stand that has cost him quite dearly, on a personal level.

No such thing was proposed or rescinded to my awareness.

Listen to the weasel/ferret thing, its got the logicz skills.

That was a rhetorical question. The answer is "if anything, it would increase the incentive for griefers to target NCI".

Maybe, but he's a ferret, ffs! And, speciesism though it may be, I still have to cling to my self-respect.



Now, shush, and say nice things about Carl!

Because it gives them the ability to recruit? You know, feel out the person a bit and if they seem the type to be on SL for the 'Lulz' (Whatever that means in english) at others expense, then do a bit of Woodbury recruiting, perhaps? Does NCI really want to take that risk? Apparently so, sadly enough.

We accept your surrender



I don't know Carl but he seems like an awesome person from what I have heard and from the note of his that I read. I think he should step back up and everyone should politely forget about this whole non-issue and get back to helping newbies.

Um, if someone was interested in joining NCI for nefarious purposes... why would they show the slightest hesitation in publicly leaving WU for the duration?

Cause griefers are so patient that they spend hundreds of hours helping newbies, just to find that one perfect Lulz-seeker to corrupt?

Give us an example of this happening, even once...Otherwise, it's just fear-mongering.

Here's an example of 'long term infiltration for the ultimate lulz' for you:



You're welcome .

How so? Which particular fallacy is he committing?



No, I think he pretty much nailed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_by_association (note that Wikipedia uses a no less extreme example). That wasn't the only example he gave, either. The examples only need to be illustrative of the point; the rest of the definition is covered from the rest of his assertions.



Well, I think that's being rather disingenuous, since the reality of the situation isn't about "simple membership in a group", but membership in a group PLUS activities with other people in said group which fit the profile of the sentiment. The real problem is that the people in control of the Woodbury University group are not acting in a professional manner, allowing their group (and land) to be utilized by miscreants as a base of operations for griefing. Thus, regardless of the intended function of the group, it has been subsumed by those who are tarnishing it with their words and actions.

You can quote the Red Scare, but it doesn't apply here. There REALLY ARE griefers in the group, the admins of the group know it, and they do nothing to resolve it, since the admins are tolerant of their activities (and even participate in them), to their own detriment. I've been present when they came calling on Prokofy, who was having a meeting and minding her own business. Fortunately, little to no shenanigans were observed, because Minerva Linden showed up on her off time to hang around while they were there. Yes, most of them were from Woodbury U, and were wearing the group tag. Prokofy may be batshit insane, but nobody, not even her, deserves to get griefed repeatedly like that.

I think it is particularly stupidly funny that the old saw "don't give them any attention and they will go away" swings BOTH ways in the Prokofy vs Woodbury U conflict. They poke Prokofy to get a reaction, she pokes them to get a reaction. They more or less grief each other in an escalating war of words and actions. The DIFFERENCE between them is that they go out of their way to grief her. She keeps to herself and her blog. That places them higher than her on the sociopath meter, in my view, and would make me not want to associate with them, or their sponsor, Woodbury U.

Regardless, it is the prerogative of anyone or any group to allow/disallow participation in their group(s) for whatever reason, logical or not. In this case, it was a logical decision, one which we also use, and I would support, knowing the facts of the matter. No group who treasures its public image wants to be associated with miscreants and their groups, EVEN IF such an association would be considered fallacious. I wouldn't be allowed to publicly be in Woodbury University or the PN groups as an IoW Guardian, and I understand, agree with, and support the reasons why.

We've had IoW Citizens members pull shenanigans outside of the IoW, and we've told the victims to mute, ban, and AR them. In some cases, we've pulled Citizen membership. However, this isn't about basic members, but OFFICERS of a group and their public affiliations. You can bet that anyone on IoW staff who misbehaves outside the Isle, reflecting badly back on us isn't going to be allowed to remain on staff for long.

The question is if NCI, sans Carl, is going to keep to that creed. I don't want to throw NCI away, but at the same time, I don't want it to throw itself away, either.

Unfortunately, I think the pettiness that led up to Carl's resignation is an early warning sign of exactly that.

1. I've seen no credible witness making such a claim.
2. If there WAS evidence of such activity, membership in WU would be redundant.

There were a good deal worse than griefers in the Communist Party in the '40s and '50s. That's solidly documented: the case against the Party was a hell of a lot stronger than the case against WU.

Was the person we're talking about present or not?

While Prokofy tends to distort and misrepresent things a lot, there are some kinds of things in which she does have some amount of credibility. That is one of the instances I can give her the benefit of the doubt. You might not, but that's not really my problem. She makes the claim, you dispute it; you can take it up with her, if you like.



There was evidence of such activity, and the fact that they (the members of the group) continue to grief her with BOTH impunity and support FROM the group, sporting the WU group tag WHILE harassing her, doesn't make membership redundant in any way.



If the Communist Party leaders were aware of those "worse than griefers" or, indeed, were part of them, and did nothing to expunge themselves of those elements, then they got what they deserved in terms of public derision and government scrutiny. The issue with the Red Scare wasn't so much the individual citizen or private group choosing not to associate with people who were Communist Party members, but the GOVERNMENT going after them, to the point of illegally detaining and, in some cases, prosecuting them, or depriving them of other rights unlawfully.

I suppose the same thing can be said for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, too. There are probably lots of non-militants who profess to be part of said groups for support reasons. I think it is still fair for people to choose not to associate themselves or their groups/causes with those who profess to be members of said groups. I don't see the American Cancer Society standing up and saying "you know, we shouldn't ostracize those poor Taliban members just because they are associated with that group" anytime soon.



What difference does that make? The point was illustrative of the continued use of the group identity during the practice of griefing. Whether or not the person in question was present at THAT particular instance is immaterial to that point.

I'm not whitewashing WU. I'm not saying that there were no members of WU harassing Prok. I'm asking if there is any evidence that the person this is about has engaged in any activity that would put NCI in disrepute. If she did, then she shouldn't be in NCI whether she leaves WU or not. Her membership in WU is a red herring.

So Prok's claim that she, personally, was involved is definitely relevant. Is there any corroboration of that claim?

Was she present at ANY instances?

Narrowing it down to people with the WU tag is too specific. They should disassociate NCI with anybody who runs SL, because some people in SL grief. So either be in NCI, or be in SL, but not both. And the person in question is clearly in SL, so there's no doubt of her guilt!

So are you going to be equally arch about the dragon's example of the American Cancer Society's hypothetical* choice not to have members of the Taliban on their board of directors?

Are you going to make sarcastic remarks about how the ACS should disassociate themselves from 'anybody who lives on the Earth, because some people who live on the Earth _______'..................?

If you're not going to, why aren't you going to? Since it is the exact same principle at work.

Hmn???






*I say hypothetical because the issue has probably never come up. But if it did, do you really think the ACS WOULD elect someone with an publicly avowed tie to the Taliban to their board?

Interesting though, isn't it? My observation was that membership in this particular group seems too be to general for draw a conclusion about an individual who's a member. Prok has decided not to rent to anybody who's in the Emerald viewer group, or even anyone who runs the viewer. Is that specific enough?

Some here obviously feel that to narrow the scope of the group down sufficiently, you need to go right down to the level of the individual. They value judging people by their actions, not their associations.

On the other hand, your example illustrates that some organizations need (or want) to maintain a public appearance which is in part formulated by the perceptions of the membership and their associations, and that will be paramount in terms of the two clearly conflicting values.

What members of WU were on NCI's board of directors?

It would appear that you are nitpicking.

The issue at hand was open-WU-membership for people who are publicly associated with NCI---those with a position of more authority than merely membership.

In what way is my point derailed if the WU members were in some authority/public-face-of-NCI position other than the position of being on the Board?

QFT.


A change in policy, different but creating the same basic scenario, occurred last year at another well known SL school. It closed completely, then recently has reopened; however it is nothing like the original school and, like this incident, very sad.

I'm very active in SL schools, including RL ones that are now teaching in SL. I no longer recommend the above-mentioned school and will now also take a "wait-and-see" approach to NCI.

Very sad situation.