Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Ratings site linked to by Lindens in blog is shady to say the least.

Michi Lumin
Sharp and Pointy
Join date: 14 Oct 2003
Posts: 1,793
04-15-2007 10:39
From: Ordinal Malaprop
Well, it is, though, because it's automatic. Most people don't IM every single person they know to get them to ban someone they've just banned, and even if they did most people would not be bothered enough to actually enact the ban unless there was a specific threat ("X said he was going to your place next";). Moreover it activates even if the landowner is offline as far as I recall. Someone with power to add to a BanLink list which is trusted by a number of others thus has quite a powerful weapon to wield, or to threaten with. (If they didn't, that would take away some of the point to the system wouldn't it?)



And if they do abuse it, and use it too frivolously, they will no longer be 'trusted by a number of landowners'. And this is exactly why we do NOT issue spurious or frivolous banlink bans.

It is in fact self policing in this respect.
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
04-15-2007 10:46
Michi and Dnate: the thing is, that works well as long as people do actually know who they're trusting, in other words, they really _are_ trusted. And BanLink as it is is small enough and managed enough that someone can know everyone contributing to their trust network, which is great.

What concerns me is wider takeup. As Travis says, if LL implement it on a wider scale in the server there won't be oversight and dispute resolution (that would make even more work for them than the current system), "trust" networks will become broad and not really based on trust, and the chance of a "cascade banning" event would increase massively.

This isn't specifically about BanLink, it is more about the basic concept.
_____________________
http://ordinalmalaprop.com/forum/ - visit Ordinal's Scripting Colloquium for scripting discussion with actual working BBCode!

http://ordinalmalaprop.com/engine/ - An Engine Fit For My Proceeding, my Aethernet Journal

http://www.flickr.com/groups/slgriefbuild/ - Second Life Griefbuild Digest, pictures of horrible ad griefing and land spam, and the naming of names
Tengu Yamabushi
Registered User
Join date: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 191
04-15-2007 10:48
This thread is growing almost faster than I can keep up with it, so I'll not be surprised if there are a few posts made between the time I'm writing this and submitting it to the discussion. And I normally don't get involved in public discussions about Luskwood policy.

I do want to chime in here, though. with some clarification of how we (Luskwood) see Banlink, especially in the context of the existing parcel management tools (Freeze/Eject/parcel-ban). Like any parcel landowner, we retain the right to use the parcel management tools (Freeze/Eject/parcel-ban) as we see fit. But that's not the topic of this discussion, as I understand things.

We do not use Banlink as a substitute for the parcel tools - it is a complementary tool. We are quite aware that Banlink is also something that reaches beyond Luskwood... if someone is banned from Luskwood via Banlink, they are then banned not only from Luskwood but also from the property of any Banlink users who 'trust' Luskwood's ban list (see http://www.slbanlink.com for more details).

We use Banlink when we want to prevent someone from 'doing the same thing' somewhere else, 'somewhere else' being those sites that choose to trust our judgement. Banlink works well for this, as the alternative would be to contact every other location's admins individually, hope they're online, explain what happened, etc. (which is what we actually did, before Banlink existed). We benefit in the same way from tapping into the banlists of the other sites that we trust - if someone hits one of those spots, they don't then get to pop over to Luskwood for more 'fun' - they're automatically banned here, too.

The implication of the above is that Banlink will retain its value and effectiveness _for_us_ only as long as other sites trust that our use of the system is both reasonable and appropriate (and vice versa). Other Banlink site admins see who we ban, what we ban for, who performed the ban, and why - as such, Banlink puts Luskwood's reputation on the line each and every time it is used. It's use becomes part of 'what we are' in the overall SL historical record. As such, we also take the dispute/appeals process very seriously.

Bottom line: we feel that it is important that when we use Banlink we use it both appropriately and properly. Not every use of our parcel tools (Freeze/Eject/parcel-ban) is followed by a use of Banlink. On the contrary... we Banlink only when we feel it is in the interests of the folks who trust our judgement. And we value our reputation very, very highly.

Will this rub some people the wrong way? Inevitably. Will we continue to use Banlink (or systems like it, as they become available and evolve)? Absolutely.
eltee Statosky
Luskie
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 1,258
Accountability (ac·count·abil·i·ty)
04-15-2007 11:04
from webster.com:

an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions

I believe what people hate about banlink is that it does force some measure of accountability for their actions upon them.

There has been a prevailing belief by a few people that if they do not 'patronize/frequent/socialize' an area, they are absolutely free to attack/insult/slander/grief that area and there will be no detrimental consequences to them for those actions.

I.e. if i do not visit the shelter ever, it could be some lolzfun to go and attack them and if they ban me, so what, i never visit the shelter anyway and I won't care.

Except now I might be banned from lusk, or NCI, or any number of other places as well, which i did frequent, and did care about, so would not attack them directly.

Now, my first reaction might be to say how 'unfair' this is, that i am now banned from a place that i did not actually act bad in. But that would be potentially missing the bigger issue, that these places have agreed that they trust the shelter's judgement on whether someone is good or bad... and if the shelter has deemed i am a bad enough person to be put on this system, these other sites will consent to it and hold me accountable to those actions, and that judgement.

What this means is that if i do want to go back to luskwood, and engage in that social circle, i am going to have to account and attone for my actions in the shelter, and be removed from the ban there.

A simple apology and promise to not act in such a manner in the future suffices more often than not.

This person has now been made accountable for their actions, and (in theory) will not act so thoughtlessly towards others in SL again.

This is, of course, absolutely SHOCKING, to many people, and yes there has been much outrage over such a terrible thing.

This honestly, is why LL should have implemented something programtically within the SL system for this years ago, and why travis' work has been so important.
_____________________
wash, rinse, repeat
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
04-15-2007 11:05
From: Colette Meiji
They should just not endorse any rating system.


Unless your a Linden in your day job perhaps? As all job applications have a non disclosure order attached we will never know as all Lindens can keep their original account as well, so some of these reccomended sites that LL promotes/recommends may well hide a secret. :)
_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants.

http://slapt.me



slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26
Strawbearry Shortbread
Registered User
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 146
04-15-2007 11:20
From: Raudf Fox
*shrugs* Well, the system was being abused anyways, so why not just shove the responsibility for ratings off onto third parties? I mean they shoved the discussion forums onto them too.

Of course it is also just like LL not to do research into the 3rd party sites that they are fobbing things of onto also.

Well, I don't see how the system was being abused anyway. How could it?

You paid money, the person got a rating. End of story. No negative ratings. No bonuses from it. No ranking from it. Nothing.

Maybe some people cared more, and rated each other more, etc., but I don't call that abusing a system. You couldn't get a much more neutral system, with fewer benefits to it.

I would call it "using" a system.

coco
Wilhelm Neumann
Runs with Crayons
Join date: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2,204
04-15-2007 11:21
From: Michi Lumin
And if they do abuse it, and use it too frivolously, they will no longer be 'trusted by a number of landowners'. And this is exactly why we do NOT issue spurious or frivolous banlink bans.

It is in fact self policing in this respect.


That's fine but as stated banlink was designed around a concept and implemented. Now what happens when its added to LL's stuff. I know why banlink was designed and most people have an inkling that it was designed with the hopes that one day a banlink "like" system would be taken up by linden labs. Great feather in the caps for the creators for many reasons no? (Looks good on a resume that's for sure hehe) Trust really means nothing in the end over time as trust networks grow things will happen. As I said before "trust shmust" only works if you are routinely reviewing your lists. As stated there are situations where people have been stuck on those lists the guy did in fact contact the guy who banned him apologized and in fact has been making retrubution ever since. He's not a griefer but he is from a different country where he was not aware certain laws were existing in the USA so he made a mistake (happens often with new people they are new therefore they make mistakes .. it does not make them griefers) he remained on that list with its blindly trusting users for months. How did it get resolved? well not by any disput which he did file. It got resolved as a result of him speaking up on a forum MONTHS later. YOu see he quietly filed his claim, and got ignore for months. He was told he would never be forgiven even though he turned himself inside out correcting the issue which in and of itself was nto griefing or anything just not liked. He frequented all those areas so for months he had been banished. He being human felt very bad its not a nice feeling and he did every thing he could for lack of a better word to "repent" but was ignored.

The list is not reviewed its just a dumping ground once the initial problem is over the person is mothballed and forgotten about. Now most so called griefers are new and not usualy actualy griefing they just odnt know all the rules. Let's face it in SL with its large learning curve tehre are a lot of them. This is not the way we should be dealing with new players. We should be banning griefers and trying to set new players on the correct path. Just because someone is doing something doesn't mean they think they are griefing maybe they just dont know. So ask them.

Also banlink fully admits its list is not just for griefers (if it was i think there would be less of an issue) banlink is a list where people with a mutal hatred for certain ideas or looks even can get together and just ban period. They don't claim to be an anti griefer tool and in fact they are not. What they do is ban based on whatever measuring stick they choose which can include the colour of your skin or sexual orientation and share those lists.

so firstly banlink is not an antigriefer tool its a tool for mass bannings across numerous properties
secondly they dont review their lists so its a black hole list
thirdly there is no real review process
lastly the trust system has proven over time not to work people get mothballed and never forgiven and barred from going to large numbesr of places FOREVER even if its just for a mistake or their sexual orientation or possibly even posting that they hate banlink or are all for ageplay or like casinos

there is no standard agreement on what classifies as a ban this is a miniature replica of what will eventually and most likely be sold of to linden labs for incorporation into their infrastructure. Its not a positive thing at all and will only ever get worse not better
Ordinal Malaprop
really very ordinary
Join date: 9 Sep 2005
Posts: 4,607
04-15-2007 11:24
From: Strawbearry Shortbread
Well, I don't see how the system was being abused anyway. How could it?

You paid money, the person got a rating. End of story. No negative ratings. No bonuses from it. No ranking from it. Nothing.

Maybe some people cared more, and rated each other more, etc., but I don't call that abusing a system. You couldn't get a much more neutral system, with fewer benefits to it.

I would call it "using" a system.

coco

No, the ratings system wasn't abused, not since it stopped having any relevance to anything really. It wasn't really used either. Nobody paid much attention to it after it went to requiring money since those coming from before that point usually ended up having ridiculously high ratings.

I like the basic idea, but if it is causing issues, get rid of it.
_____________________
http://ordinalmalaprop.com/forum/ - visit Ordinal's Scripting Colloquium for scripting discussion with actual working BBCode!

http://ordinalmalaprop.com/engine/ - An Engine Fit For My Proceeding, my Aethernet Journal

http://www.flickr.com/groups/slgriefbuild/ - Second Life Griefbuild Digest, pictures of horrible ad griefing and land spam, and the naming of names
Desmond Shang
Guvnah of Caledon
Join date: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 5,250
04-15-2007 11:26
I'm not keen on BanLink style systems for the same reasons Ordinal has stated.

I'll never use one for Caledon, and long term, I see it as a solution potentially far worse than the problem it's attempting to solve. BanLink-style systems rely on the users of shared banlists to be diligent and ethical.

Ethical I'd say usually applies, but in most places people can't even remember who or why dozens or hundreds are still on their banlists. Out of sight, out of mind, and oh, I need to go shoe shopping!

However it does seem that the case against BanLink *today* is a bit overstated.

To date, my opposition remains philosophic not case-specific, an important distinction.

* * * * *

Most worrisome of all, it seems, is that we seem to be having a sort of 'trial of public opinion' here.

This is great when ideas are at stake, but not so great when avatars are on trial.

"Evidence" is rarely forthcoming or verifiable in the case of avatar deeds, and often the "public opinion" is measured more by forum eloquence and number of friends than anything else.

* * * * *

With regard to ratings systems themselves, I honestly don't see them catching on very much.

Besides, we can assassinate our own character far more easily by our own foolish forum posts!

The irony is that we often don't realise we've just negatively rated ourselves into fooldom when we do it... and I think that's the Resident Answer here today.
_____________________

Steampunk Victorian, Well-Mannered Caledon!
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
04-15-2007 11:27
From: Lord Sullivan
Unless your a Linden in your day job perhaps? As all job applications have a non disclosure order attached we will never know as all Lindens can keep their original account as well, so some of these reccomended sites that LL promotes/recommends may well hide a secret. :)


lol - that would be a conflict of interest to add to potential bad judgement.

More likely though its a bait and switch

Were getting rid of ratings --- But hey , we dont need them, LOOK OVER HERE!
Colette Meiji
Registered User
Join date: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 15,556
04-15-2007 11:31
From: Desmond Shang
I'm not keen on BanLink style systems for the same reasons Ordinal has stated.

I'll never use one for Caledon, and long term, I see it as a solution potentially far worse than the problem it's attempting to solve. BanLink-style systems rely on the users of shared banlists to be diligent and ethical.

Ethical I'd say usually applies, but in most places people can't even remember who or why dozens or hundreds are still on their banlists. Out of sight, out of mind, and oh, I need to go shoe shopping!

However it does seem that the case against BanLink *today* is a bit overstated.

To date, my opposition remains philosophic not case-specific, an important distinction.

* * * * *

Most worrisome of all, it seems, is that we seem to be having a sort of 'trial of public opinion' here.

This is great when ideas are at stake, but not so great when avatars are on trial.

"Evidence" is rarely forthcoming or verifiable in the case of avatar deeds, and often the "public opinion" is measured more by forum eloquence and number of friends than anything else.

* * * * *

With regard to ratings systems themselves, I honestly don't see them catching on very much.

Besides, we can assassinate our own character far more easily by our own foolish forum posts!

The irony is that we often don't realise we've just negatively rated ourselves into fooldom when we do it... and I think that's the Resident Answer here today.



Have to agree with Desmond - the potential abuse of a system like ban link is far scarier than ban link as its exists at present. Travis and his help on the system have put forth a lot of effort and they do have a good reputation.

The real concern I have is what the system represents if it grows large and hard to manage.

- Not its track record.
Wilhelm Neumann
Runs with Crayons
Join date: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2,204
04-15-2007 11:32
From: eltee Statosky
from webster.com:

an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions

I believe what people hate about banlink is that it does force some measure of accountability for their actions upon them.

.


If by them you mean banlink yes because banlink likes to do stuff but not take responsibility for its actions. The feeling is that we can ban whomever we want for whatever reason "because we can" and never ever review it after the initial ban if the guy doesnt' dispute somehow its okay to ban even if we ban him for all the wrong reasons or even lie about why we banned him.

Banlink users have like ZERO accountability for their actions they place it all on the other side saying "we have the right" well sure you can do what your want on your parcel when it starts leaking all over SL then its a different issue.

Banlink has one right the same rights that all other residents do to ban on their own individual parcels all other rights are pretty much an abuse of freedom and more a "we can do it because we can thing"

I disagree with that and have seen enough fallout from it to know that its not just griefers that are ending up on shared banlists its people who individuals simply dont like so they want to make theirl ives as miserable as they want and be meanspirited about the entire thing and stick em on a shared banlist "because they can"

this is wrong and is simply another form of griefing


two wrongs dont make a right and in my opinion banlink is fundamentally wrong. I would not sign up for banlink because I can't and wont assume responsibilty for anyone elses lists and the quality of them only my own.

I also dont find it right to start sharing stuff maybe I made a mistake maybe that newbie shooting at me did because he thought he could maybe if I had not been in a hurry that day and chatted him I would have found out. Maybe that person who said they wont shop at my store anymore because so and so was griefing and to ban him just hated the guy but just to be sure I put him on there because she said she could not shop. This is a sytem run by humans with emotions and feelings and biases and its got one fatal flaw it has ZERO accountability.


Also any rating system out there I have opted out of. The only thing that people can rate is my stuff I make because its not me its my merchandize but me as a person I kind of draw the line. If that rubs people the wrong way fine. There is one thing you can always rely on me for though I dont jump the gun, I forgive and I dont spread gossip about people. Therefore I really dont want to participate in any rating systems. I never used the SL one and wont use the other ones either. I hope they are all opt in any of the ones I have found I have sent notecards to the "keeprs" telling them I dont want to be a part of it and kept copies just in case.
Lord Sullivan
DTC at all times :)
Join date: 15 Dec 2005
Posts: 2,870
04-15-2007 11:34
From: Colette Meiji
lol - that would be a conflict of interest to add to potential bad judgement.

More likely though its a bait and switch

Were getting rid of ratings --- But hey , we dont need them, LOOK OVER HERE!


You are probably right in this case, but they do say the truth is sometimes stranger than fiction lol and nothing suprises me here anymore ;)
_____________________
Independent Shopping for Second Life residents from established and new merchants.

http://slapt.me



slapt.me - In-World HQ http://slurl.com/secondlife/Bastet/123/118/26
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
04-15-2007 11:36
From: Wilhelm Neumann

so firstly banlink is not an antigriefer tool its a tool for mass bannings across numerous properties


Have you been paying attention to what folks who are actually involved in the system have been saying? BanLink is used primarily as an anti-griefer tool by folks. Certainly - it could be used for more nefarious usage - but there are consequences for doing so.

From: someone
secondly they dont review their lists so its a black hole list


How do you know people dont review the lists they subscribe to? You don't subscribe - so how can you possibly say this with any sort of authority? Additionally, your own ban was summarily reviewed, and reversed. So you dont even have personal experience to the contrary.

From: someone
thirdly there is no real review process


See above.

From: someone
lastly the trust system has proven over time not to work people get mothballed and never forgiven and barred from going to large numbesr of places FOREVER even if its just for a mistake


Since you claim to be an authority, could you provide some examples where this has actually happened?

Note again that your own ban that was submitted to BanLink was reviewed, and eventually reversed as a result of you following the dispute process. Of course, you can claim that it was reversed for a myriad of any number of made-up reasons. Convieniently, no one will be able to prove otherwise.
_____________________
------------------
The Shelter

The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.
Wilhelm Neumann
Runs with Crayons
Join date: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2,204
04-15-2007 11:53
From: Travis Lambert
Have you been paying attention to what folks who are actually involved in the system have been saying? BanLink is used primarily as an anti-griefer tool by folks. Certainly - it could be used for more nefarious usage - but there are consequences for doing so.



How do you know people dont review the lists they subscribe to? You don't subscribe - so how can you possibly say this with any sort of authority? Additionally, your own ban was summarily reviewed, and reversed. So you dont even have personal experience to the contrary.



See above.



Since you claim to be an authority, could you provide some examples where this has actually happened?

Note again that your own ban that was submitted to BanLink was reviewed, and eventually reversed as a result of you following the dispute process. Of course, you can claim that it was reversed for a myriad of any number of made-up reasons. Convieniently, no one will be able to prove otherwise.



Yes travis I have been paying attention I only know what i saw and what I myself personaly experienced and its still my opinion that since this was a personal disput i should have never EVER been put on that list and should not have had to endure what I felt was public humiliation. It felt very bad and I was shocked to find myself on it. It also two months later was doing the same thing to many other folks and likely still is.

So again why was i even put on a list for a personal grudge to be shared with people in the first place? I should not have been put on there EVER the fact that I had to find myself on it BY ACCIDENT only as a result of someone posting a link to banlink asking what it was that is how I found myself on it.

IT SHOULD NEVER EVER have happened. Period I dont grief never have and never will i'm not that sort yet I was put on a shared list for griefers.


Also the thing with that guy taking people's name of a forum list and sticking them on banlink two months later showed me that it was still not being used properly and in fact the problem was escalating and the fact that it took two months to prove what was obvious if people had open minds about it was horrible.

Bottom line private grudges, racial hatred or hatred of peopel because of an idea and other such reasons for people who are banned should never ever appear on that list. It was suggested that people who ban and share those bans should be disciplined but those suggestions were ignored. Its a system abuse even Linden labs bans for system abuse. The reason however was given that there is "no clear cut definition of griefer" therefore they can share their bans and publish them to share them.

Again how is racial hatred, bigortry against sexual orientation hatred of people due to an idea and private grudges considered griefing? why should they even spend 5 seconds on a lsit like that. Why does a guy who made a mistake months prior get ignored and only when I open my big fat keyboard people look at it?

its because the system is a black hole list and no I dont believe that people inspect those lists daily and analyze every name. The only time it comes to light is if someone disputes and even then I have seen it fall on deaf ears in some cases. So yes I have been reading and watching and paying attention and I am against sharing names for the reasons I have repeatedly stated. This and the fact that banlink doesn't even define what a griefer is which is actualy pretty easy hehe makes it a tool that is and can be abused.


but this has been proven in other threads again its simply an issue of a refusal to see it.

I'm not naive about stuff like this. I have lived an unsheltered life because of the type of work that I have done in community services I know an abusable system when I see it. Banlink is abusable and has been abused often and I am pretty sure no i am positive that its being abused right now by someone as we speak due to lack of guidelines.

Lastly note" that you insisted that in order to be removed from the banlink system I had to talk to a guy who had put me on there in the first place. What does everyone say about stuff like that? YOU refused to deal with this EVEN though I disputed it until i sent a chat to the guy then magically it went away. That in my books is manipulation to the extreme. I was not allowed off that list even though I went and posted the dispute (which at the time would not even let me go past one sentance) until I went to the guy and asked him. Its a horrible method for you to demand that. I"m sorry tbut that's just plain wrong!
Strawbearry Shortbread
Registered User
Join date: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 146
04-15-2007 11:55
From: Dnate Mars
I fully understand what you are saying, but I have friends in SL and if they told me to ban so and so, I would. I probably not even ask why. I trust these people to not steer me wrong. I don't see banlink being any different. This system is not where anyone can ban anyone for whatever reason. At least to my understanding. If you are part of the banlink system then you get to pick who's list you trust and who's list you don't. If Travis and Michi trust each others judgment enough to want to share a ban list, why shouldn't they be able to?

Clarification: The system is that anyone can ban anyone for whatever reason. Not saying everyone does that, or even most - but there are no guidelines whatever for what constitutes griefing, and a person can put a name in banlink just because they don't like the color of their shirt.

Though the system was first put forth as a way to stop griefing, and I thought that, too, Travis explained to me that it is not at all a way to stop griefing. Apparently that was a misunderstanding of mine, and Banlink is simply a way for people to choose to share each other's ban lists, for whatever reasons, any and all or no reasons, which may or may not have anything to do with griefing.

Travis will not put in any such guidelines because he says it would be impossible for people to agree on guidelines as to what constitutes griefing.

coco
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
04-15-2007 12:02
In response to some of the other comments re: The 'concept' behind BanLink and/or Banlist sharing: (Desmond, Colette, et all...) :)

It is indeed my firm belief that its possible to come up with a sharing system that contains enough checks and balances where the benefits of banlist sharing can be maximized, and the pitfalls can be minimized. I recognize we disagree there - I just don't think its time to throw in the towel yet.

Agreed, however - no matter what happens, even with BanLink - there will always be flaws. But I think it is impossible to create a grief management system without them. Even the absence of a grief-management system has flaws itself. (Note Linden's current abuse-management system.)

I also agree that banlist sharing alone - without any checks and balances attached to it, is a bad thing. If Linden were to pursue something like that... without checks and balances... I agree, they'd be making a big mistake. I'd hope that if they truly did pursue something like this - they'd take my own first-hand experiences with it into account - and listen to the importance of those checks and balances.
_____________________
------------------
The Shelter

The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
04-15-2007 12:11
Strawbearry Shortbread is me.

coco
_____________________
VALENTINE BOUTIQUE
at Coco's Cottages

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Rosieri/85/166/87
Travis Lambert
White dog, red collar
Join date: 3 Jun 2004
Posts: 2,819
04-15-2007 12:14
From: Strawbearry Shortbread
Clarification: The system is that anyone can ban anyone for whatever reason. Not saying everyone does that, or even most - but there are no guidelines whatever for what constitutes griefing, and a person can put a name in banlink just because they don't like the color of their shirt.


You are both correct, in your own way. In order to pull a ban from another location, you need to trust that location first. Yes, indeed - that location can add bans for whatever reason they wish - even if its for wearing green hair.

However - locations that habitually ban for personal or frivolous reasons do not get widely trusted, if it all. There was an incident a while back where one location chose to ban folks this way - as a result, the few people that initially chose to trust them evaporated: rendering those bans virtually untrusted.

Additionally, individual bans can be overridden on a case-by-case basis - if the majority of a sites bans seem fine, but you disagree with a select few: such as ones that have received disputes.

From: someone
Though the system was first put forth as a way to stop griefing, and I thought that, too, Travis explained to me that it is not at all a way to stop griefing. Apparently that was a misunderstanding of mine, and Banlink is simply a way for people to choose to share each other's ban lists, for whatever reasons, any and all or no reasons, which may or may not have anything to do with griefing.

Travis will not put in any such guidelines because he says it would be impossible for people to agree on guidelines as to what constitutes griefing.

coco


This is also true, although its somewhat taken out of context. BanLink has no guidelines for what is or is not an acceptable reason to ban someone from your own property.

It is my strong opinion, that if the administrators interfered with any ban, unban, or dispute - we would be taking power into our own hands that doesn't belong. So in that context, yes, absolutely - you're correct. I know we've debated this particular policy round and round elsewhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree there.

However - defacto guidelines are set by the trusts. How you choose to issue bans has a direct effect on how widely trusted you are. So saying there is no oversight is incorrect - its just not done by the administrators of the system: its done by the subscribers.

The 'power' is by design in the hands of the many, rather than the few.
_____________________
------------------
The Shelter

The Shelter is a non-profit recreation center for new residents, and supporters of new residents. Our goal is to provide a positive & supportive social environment for those looking for one in our overwhelming world.
Wilhelm Neumann
Runs with Crayons
Join date: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 2,204
04-15-2007 12:22
From: Travis Lambert




Since you claim to be an authority, could you provide some examples where this has actually happened?



yes i can and I will have to remove the name but <insert the guys name here> was told publicly on that list and you know I can't post this here so its pretty safe to ask but i'm going to anyhow that he will never be removed from <some public place for newbies> list because of a mistake he made when He was a newbie. Then it was brought up and at that point and only that point the shelter and another guy ( i can't remember whom at the time) magically removed him. The actual guy had given up he had resolved himself to remaining on those lists forever since he had been told he would be on it forever by the person who banned him. He had done everything he was told plus spent months basically atoning for the issue by making a system to counter the problem, contacting linden labs and making freebie t shirts yet he remained unforgiven on a list until another similar issue arose and people started to revue their lists cause the *** hit the fan again due to misuse of banlink lists. This in my opinion was the prime motivation for making the names no longer public although I like to tell myself it was to protect those accused but I believe that it was to hide what is still going on so we wont poke at you so much hehe. (its human nature that so its not something that surprises or upsets or anything but we all know what motivates humans and the biggest motivator is to stay away from uncomfortable issues as much as possible .. i could be wrong but I doubt it since two months prior and before banlink was ever created people voiced solutions and concerns over the publication of names on the net for unverified acts of so called griefing)


I have to remove his name in 10 minutes but there is an example for all to read for the time it remains on the forum .. (okay so the time is up and i removed the name .. )

but you know this already :)

edit: so in the last two posts I have presented the banlink misuses you asked for now these are the ones I know of etc for every one that is known or found there are of course many that go unfound. We haven't covered the issue of if someone puts a guy on the list and lies about why he put him there which of course cannot be proven by either side as truth or fiction :). The worste case was taht guy who went over that post and put about 10 people on the banlink list (and you know who i speak of) one of whom was a writer for linden lifestyles if i remember rightly. She made one post on a thread on a hot issue at the time and got banned and called a pedophile for doing so. Remember now this is only what I am aware of this doesn't include that is is presently hidden or that I didn't see posted about because its impossible to keep up with all the crud that goes on in this game. Food for thought and so you have your proof such as it is with names etc left out that we have gone over in dept ad nauseum before. I can't believe you forgot all that because I certainly didnt..
Cocoanut Koala
Coco's Cottages
Join date: 7 Feb 2005
Posts: 7,903
04-15-2007 12:38
From: Travis Lambert
You are both correct, in your own way. In order to pull a ban from another location, you need to trust that location first. Yes, indeed - that location can add bans for whatever reason they wish - even if its for wearing green hair.

However - locations that habitually ban for personal or frivolous reasons do not get widely trusted, if it all. There was an incident a while back where one location chose to ban folks this way - as a result, the few people that initially chose to trust them evaporated: rendering those bans virtually untrusted.

Additionally, individual bans can be overridden on a case-by-case basis - if the majority of a sites bans seem fine, but you disagree with a select few: such as ones that have received disputes.

This is also true, although its somewhat taken out of context. BanLink has no guidelines for what is or is not an acceptable reason to ban someone from your own property.

It is my strong opinion, that if the administrators interfered with any ban, unban, or dispute - we would be taking power into our own hands that doesn't belong. So in that context, yes, absolutely - you're correct. I know we've debated this particular policy round and round elsewhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree there.

However - defacto guidelines are set by the trusts. How you choose to issue bans has a direct effect on how widely trusted you are. So saying there is no oversight is incorrect - its just not done by the administrators of the system: its done by the subscribers.

The 'power' is by design in the hands of the many, rather than the few.

Very good and VERY eloquently stated argument, even though I don't agree with it.

coco
_____________________
VALENTINE BOUTIQUE
at Coco's Cottages

http://slurl.com/secondlife/Rosieri/85/166/87
Har Fairweather
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,320
04-15-2007 13:45
I am one of a number of persons whom an extremely vindictive individual attempted to persecute by posting vicious libels on Banlink and its Banlist. I am quite satisfied with the way things worked out in my case, but it was a special case. I think there are ways to improve Banlink, and there are obvious weaknesses in it as with any other method I can think of for dealing in reputations, but it is also true that SL needs a way to get the word out on particularly bad actors. The story is instructive:

It sprang from a long debate thread in the SLExchange forums on a very important SL matter. One individual was criticized (very appropriately, IMO, but then it was me doing the criticizing) for his particularly demagogic posts there. He did not come off well in the debate. He then posted bans against a laundry list of persons who disagreed with him in that thread on Banlink and supported his action with particularly vicious, vile and in my case at least totally false personal attacks.

I only found out about this when another of his targets was told of his action and started a new SLX thread asking who is this Banlist? As soon as I found out I could, I posted a dispute of his attack, which any interested member of banlink could read. He quickly posted a new, slightly reworded ban, which effectively erased my dispute from the record, replacing it with a fresh libel - this person apparently knew how to abuse the system. I redisputed, and we went back and forth like this for several days.

Fortunately, the root of the issue was public record - the threads on SLX - which anyone could look at for themselves, and which I referenced. It was not long before several other Banlist members came to my defense (particular thanks to Angel Fluffy, an otherwise uninvolved party, for standing up for someone else when it really counts, but she was by no means the only one).

It soon came to light that our attacker was on a 16-day (!) suspension by LL for another, unrelated matter and was not without other enemies he had made.

The upshot was that some people in banlink took him off their "trusted" list and to my knowledge I have not encountered a location that banned me on his account. His abuse of this system appears to have backfired. The individual appears to have since disappeared entirely from SL. Apparently his other would-be victims have had similarly satisfactory results from Banlink.

While my outcome was good, it is easy to see how there could be miscarriages of justice here. One thing that would help (if it has not been instituted already) would be an IM auto-sent to any banned avatar informing it and telling it how to dispute if desired. Who knows how many people are hitting banlines with no idea it is because they are on someone's unwarranted sh*t list? People should not have to hear thirdhand of such an action being done behind their backs.

The outcome in unclear, he-said-she-said cases in which corroborating evidence is not so available could be a lot worse. I suspect this will be a very common situation - it is not always easy to get a usable screenshot or credible witnesses for either side of an altercation. The dispute procedure at least lets people using Banlist know there are two sides to the story and they should use their own judgment. But as SL grows and banners and banned both proliferate, it will be very difficult to exercise good judgment. If our attacker had a few friends willing to join him in his libels, and if they were not so easily exposable, my result might have been very different.

That said, SL does need ways to get the word out on griefers, scammers, and other lowlifes. Banlist seems better than nothing, but I sure would like to see someone come up with something better rather than just criticize it for its flaws. I think the creators of Banlist are trying hard to fix its problems. I think they need to keep on trying, and so should the rest of us.
Winter Phoenix
Voyager of Experiences
Join date: 15 Nov 2004
Posts: 683
Argh! Get back on track
04-15-2007 14:44
This thread was about the fact that a certain ratings site was using questionable business practises. Id rather hear more about that. Move the banlink arguement to its own thread. If for nothing else than the fact that to the late arrivals it may appear that the 'shady site' in question is refering to banlink and not the intended site.
_____________________
~GIVEN FREE REIGN THE SYSTEM WILL TELL YOU,
WHAT TO DO,
WHEN AND HOW TO DO IT,
WHAT YOU CAN READ, VIEW, OR LISTEN TO,
WHAT YOU CAN SAY,
WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR OWN BODY,
AND SUCK ALL YOUR MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET WHILE IT DOES THIS!
QUESTION AUTHORITY!~ W.P
Har Fairweather
Registered User
Join date: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 2,320
04-15-2007 15:15
If Banlink was not the "shady site," this thread got hijacked at the fourth post, numerous pages ago. If not Banlink, prithee, give us a clue here?
Tengu Yamabushi
Registered User
Join date: 25 Sep 2005
Posts: 191
04-15-2007 15:18
From: Aminom Marvin
Ha, I know someone who was just added to Lusk's Banlink list because they were very falsely accused of being a part of a griefer group. Now my friend is banned from nearly every furry sim.

Nice to see that LL is endorsing such a corrupt, abusive system that is used for witch hunting and elitism ;)


There's the point of divergence. Which seems, in light of subsequent postings, to have been a simple troll.

We now continue with our regularly scheduled broadcast. Have a good evening :)
1 2 3 4 5