In Praise of NCI that was

No. I'm assuming that enough people will do so, so as to affect NCI's ability to continue its work.

Unless something broke while I was on my sabatical....isnt it possible to hide groups so they dont show in your profile?

I dont understand what would have been so difficult in doing that while representing NCI at a NCI event, campus etc. The way I read Carls statement that would have been fine.

I think its absolutely tragic how this whole thing has exploded and caused a valued member of the community to withdraw from his own monumental creation.

Perhaps not; there is so much "she said, he said" going on in several forums, and Prokofy's blog, it is hard to tell. The person in question has already admitted she was there (right here in this thread, a few messages back), though she claimed it was unrelated to the griefing that was going on. How you can be present and not see a griefing incident occurring, or not realize it is the same people from a well-known griefing group of which you are a member doing the deed, I cannot fathom.

If I saw members of one of my groups (especially wearing the group tag for it) present griefing someone, I'd do everything I could to put an end to it, up to and including booting them from the group (or reporting them to the group admins), ARing them, et cetera.



It HAS happened. I was THERE once, as I have said already. No, mt experience wasn't with Immy (at least that I can glean from the chat log, but several of them weren't saying anything, so maybe, I dunno; happened almost exactly a year ago), but people from that group keep hounding her.

If you wear red and poke the bull enough times, anyone coming by wearing red is likely to get gored, regardless of whether they poke the bull or not.

I believe you're misrepresenting the facts here. For example, at no point did I argue that no members of WU were greifers, and I don't believe "guilt by association" is being misused. Now you're arguing that the person involved was not merely associated but was publicizing her association with WU, based on irrelevant comparisons between SL and RL that don't apply because group membership doesn't behave the same way in SL and RL.

That's reasonable. You're the OP.

It's also reasonable, I think, for people who believe that Carl Metropolitan created a very valuable organization to have concerns about the new direction that organization is taking, and also about the underlying questions (of the responsibilities staff/officers of any organization have to protect its reputation, among others). And perhaps those concerns are best voiced in a new thread.

But I hope no one thinks that having such concerns translates into disrespect for Carl and his achievement. Quite the opposite, surely.

For people who know and recognize the group for what it is, that is exactly what happens.

OK, I'll take that as "no", since neither Prok nor anyone else with first-hand knowledge has actually claimed it did.

I have been present at an "incident" that's been blogged about and done to death here... and been completely unaware that it was going on.

If Immy wasn't there then the "IT" you're talking about isn't the "IT" I'm talking about.

If the bull starts poking people who have a red hanky in their pocket, not waving it at the bull and not even visible if you don't look closely, do you blame them or the bull?

Look again. The post you quote was not addressed to you.

You're ignoring the fact that in all those analogies, as well as in SL, the issue is PUBLIC affiliation.

I know, but you said that the claims about "guilt by association" stopped after the message you indicated, and that hasn't happened. And it's not just me pointing out that the refutation has no legs.

I didn't get into this because I read the blogger's post, I read the person's posts, and the resultant drama threads in two different forums. Eventually, I was linked to the blogger's blogs, but I don't necessarily care to read all of her diatribes, even on this subject. Even still, I formulated my opinions on the matter from discussions closer to the subject than the supposed "antagonist".



What is your point? If you are, and it is publicly displayed in your profile, then that's a reputation issue for any other organizations to which you belong where that association is antithetical. If you are, and there is no public indication, then it only becomes an issue when it does become public. If you aren't, then (likely) there is no issue.



I think it is perfectly clear, and is why Carl's resignation is a tragedy. Surely, you don't disagree with that.

The reason it was painful, as you state, is because it was not dealt with at the outset of the organization. A change like that is likely going to force an upset, even though it /shouldn't/, because people are going to defend their own interests at the sacrifice of others'.

Precisely because it is a CONFLICT OF INTERESTS is why it turned into such a debacle.

I'm quite a few groups that have nothing to do with what I get up too, I'm just in them for various reasons, like invites from friends or cuz I have to be to rez stuff in that sims land for selling at some shop. There's heaps of reasons people are in groups aside from being an active member of the group.

And why the hell should anyone have to dump a group or even hide it cuz others assume.

Nope. She wasn't even being allowed to hide her group membership.

Since this thread will be locked soon (hopefully) anyway, I just have to point out that citing Tizzers as a source of authority on who is and is not a griefer is laughable.

May I remind you that this is the person who showed up in real life on Halloween to taunt an SL rival in front of his kids.

This is the winner of the "Goon and Griefer Swimsuit Competition" of 2007.

This is the poster of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gPbpd0a8bw&feature=channel_page

This is the person who, to the best of my knowledge is STILL permabanned from SL, and yet plays under a well-known alt. (Alt abuse, anyone?)

You may have indeed been slandered, Immy. I know that many of the folks writing about this conflict have axes to grind. I have no clue what has gone down over time here, and /b/ cultcha is not my strength. I'm just sayin' ... citing Tizzers is not helping your case.
.

The reputations of some groups, like PN and WU, are such that the act of joining them constitutes a fairly pointed statement. I believe Talarus has the right to make a counter-statement in the form of denying the those groups' members access to his property.

Which were in response to the original attack, no?

In RL this information defaults to private. In SL, it defaults to public.

Also, if I were a member of the KKK, taking it out of my RL profile or even leaving the group wouldn't make me any more electable as a judge.

Also, she didn't get the option of making it private. It was leave WU or leave NCI.

The latter part, no. The former part, yes. It's anything BUT clear.

Freedom of association is a principle, not an interest.

So you are saying that every member of NCI must have a spotless group membership.. not one group listed that could in anyway reflect badly on NCI... like rape groups, or hard alley, or sex with sheep groups? Or what about their profile picks? OMG.. some pretty harsh items in there. And the profile messages.. lots of angry and hate words found there also.

So, basically, where does it stop? If you are in NCI, then you can not be in any other group, must have a angel's profile, and no picks?

Take it as a "no" that she might not have been wearing the WU tag; not that she wasn't present. Don't overgeneralize, please.



Must've been pretty minor, or you're blind/deaf if you can't see giant particle spam or self-repicating crap bouncing around.



I'm talking about two different incidents for two different reasons; please stop blurring them together in a failed effort to discredit both, ok?



It is very visible and very prominent. If you don't think Prokofy isn't looking for people with the WU group in their profile any time she has the chance, you're dreaming.

Same with other griefer groups around the grid. I personally watch for several myself, because it's part of my job, or it's just the prudent thing to do. I suppose I shouldn't do that, though, right? I mean, I shouldn't bother to be concerned over people who (most likely) may be present to grief me or my charges.

???


As Darkness Anubis mentioned, Carl was willing to let his NCI officers/staff keep their WU membership as long as it was hidden.

I suspect you're arguing about Prok, now. But I haven't been arguing about Prok; only about the accusations against Carl (which I believe to have been unfair).

So far as I know, Carl's rules were never about membership.

They were about those who'd been raised to a higher level than just 'member', e.g. staff, officers, Helpers, and so on.

No one HAS to do anything. You don't HAVE to be part of ANY group. Nor does ANY group HAVE to have you as a member (well, besides the ones you start yourself, and not even then, really).

If a group owner makes a choice, proscribing certain kinds of activities, affiliations, memberships, et cetera, he is well within his rights to do so. You're not forced to adhere to those rules, since you're not required to be a part of the group. You CHOOSE to adhere to the rules because you CHOOSE to be part of the group.

That said, I can tell you if you run around some places sporting a Patriotic Nigras group (for example) in your profile, expect an instant ban by the estate owners. As such, I would recommend not joining such a group, "just so you can rez stuff".

No need to bust ya boiler, I'm just pointing out how stupid it is to jump to conclusions considering the varied uses of groups.

Those are the ones I got those listings from..

The issue is that the council was saying "The person's actions in this group is what should be judged, not what memberships they may or may not have", and that is why a large portion of the council left.

I think Carl did a fantastic job building the group up, but between RL issues, and all the constant badgering from a blogger in question, it was just too much. SL is supposed to be a fun relaxing place, not a tense place just like RL is.

Heck, even the "offical" SL Mentors don't go by what groups a person is in, just their actions in SL.

???

We have a post on another forum pointing out that those who say Carl committed the fallacy of Guilt by Association are mistaken.

We have Smith, on this forum, saying that that post is refuted by the fact that the poster says at one point 'I don't know if the reputation (as racist or as a haven for griefers) enjoyed by Woodbury University is justified or not'.

But since the post in question was NOTHING TO DO with proving that WU is a haven for griefers, Smith's assertion that the post is refuted by the admission that the poster doesn't know whether or not WU is a haven for griefers, proves nothing other than that Smith missed the point.

Now we have you, claiming that Smith's post supports the position that 'the refutation has no legs'.

In what way does it have no legs?

I'm not.

No, the manufactured incident that was blogged into a huge scandal was a bloke wearing a giant penis outfit for a minute or two. That got turned into a deliberate attack on harmless adult-rated parcels by a nasty mean kid cartoon.

I'm not blurring anything, I'm sticking to one topic... the behavior of one particular person, not the behavior of "anyone who might be a member of the same group". The behavior of other people only matters if you believe in guilt by association.

I'm sure Prokofy is, but that's because Prokofy inspects people's pockets as a matter of course, not because what's in their pockets is being waved in his face.

I've had people who were members of griefer groups over to my place, and they've never been the ones who've griefed me.