Censoring “Negativity”
by Alphaville Herald on 06/07/05 at 12:57 pm
Clickable Culture is reporting the latest in the worldwide parade of game company “let’s silence our critics” brain farts. This time it is MindArk‘s Project Entopia, which now has a clause in its terms of service stating that…
“‘You cannot spread any rumors about MindArk, Project Entropia, and MindArk Staff or Partners, that can be considered potentially damaging, using Project Entropia, IRC or any other public forums, for example a web space…. The reason for this addition is to avoid malicious individuals to spread unfounded rumors with the intent to fuel discontent and trying to stir up negativity and bad will against Project Entropia and MindArk.”
You can’t make this shit up! Meanwhile, on the selectively censored SL Forums, the new MindArk policy gets a nod of approval from FIC groupie Cienna SamIAm, who notes that it could be quite useful in banning yours truly from the game:
“Considering the trash and rumor-mongering often presented as ‘fact’ by Sklar, I’d consider [Uri's account getting banned] a good thing.”
Been there, done that. But by all means try it, and then call and let me know how it worked out for you. P.S. I understand there is now a studly new bald avatar roaming in Project Entropia!
nerferder
Jul 6th, 2005
You folks are going to have to realize someday that it is a PRIVILEGE to play online games. You are not entitled to a fucking thing. If you don’t like a company’s policy, move on. Making a idiotic, ad hoc, civil rights movment about the unfairness of game companies is just absurd.
And it’s not the end of the fucking world if a game company censors or bans troublesome players.
What the hell is the point in making mindnumbing critique after mindnumbing critique about something you don’t like?
Move on to an environment that fits you better. Fucking-A, some of you people have so much god damned time on your hands, that you sit around and stew over perceived shortcomings of GAMES, and then cry all over the fucking net like petulant toddlers about it.
Get a grip or get a life, or perhaps both.
OMG! DEY TUK MAH GAME!
Roberta Dalek
Jul 6th, 2005
Well it’s online world vs computer game. If it’s just a game then who cares…
If it’s an online world (the metaverse etc) then I think we’d like not to live in a Stalinist dictatorship.
Tony Walsh
Jul 6th, 2005
Nerferder, do you need a hug?
Neal Stewart
Jul 7th, 2005
Nerf, SL is unique and unrivalled so rather than ‘move on’ some of us would like to try and change the parts we don’t like. I wouldn’t suggest that you move on because you felt that SL was too anarchic and unmoderated. I’d be happy for you to make mindnumbing critique after mindnumbing critique.
Regardless of whether it’s a ‘virtual world’ or a ‘game’, you can present a case for free-speech without necessarily demanding it as a right. You can make your case and ask for free speech privileges.
Some companies give their customers some of the things they ask for.
Free speech is important. In a heavily moderated forum your post, for example, might not have survived.
And that would be a bit fucked.
– Neal
Cocoanut
Jul 7th, 2005
I love Pixar movies! I love them so much, I feel privileged to view them.
It costs about as much money for me to see one of them as it does to play a month of SL.
Course, one of their movies could disappoint me someday. Let’s say it did, and I gave it a bad review.
Would Pixar then ban me from seeing any of ther movies for the rest of my life? After all, it is a PRIVILEGE for me to give Pixar my hard-earned money and they don’t owe me a thing.
Not only that, they might even kick me out of the theater after I’ve paid and not refund my ticket money, once they see my bad review of their earlier picture.
Still, Pixar movies are so terrific, maybe it would be worth it to trade off my normal expectations of free speech just to be allowed the privilege of viewing them.
coco
Prokofy Neva
Jul 7th, 2005
Um, no, we’re not going to *have to* “realize” anything of the sort Nerferder/Nolan/Cienna/whomever. First of all, Neal is correct that there’s no reason under the sun we can’t ask for the limits of free speech to be extended in a private corporation, and criticize corporations when they slide the bar too much toward restriction which is going to cripple the games just as it does RL societies. And if their response is to toss out critics, there will be a growing body of critics who get RL media attention and this effort to censor and obstruct will eventually erode.
And these “games” have RL currency, and aspire to being RL-style market economies, and no market economy can succeed without the free flow of goods, services, ideas, and information — this is intrinsic to the success of any free society.
And these corporations, especially Linden Lab, aspire to a role as a former of the Metaverse, whatever that is, but it’s supposed to be something grander than just one company and its little marketing goals. It’s a public trust, a public commons, and these companies cannot expect adults in a free society to behave like they’re in high school.
It’s no accident, comrade, that these smug little self-important fanboyz at the inner cores of these games who are company loyalists backed by their privileges are the ones haranguing in the usual hectoring manner about how companies have the right to WTF they want. Well they don’t! That’s where customers come in lol. Remember, customers? Feedback? Growth? Change? It’s not all about securing your little FIC bastion of power.
BTW, truth in advertising, Cienna Samiam used to write for the Herald. Then she stopped. And it is rumoured she had a falling out. So that may account for her nasty comment, and Uri’s focus on it. But I’ll chime in here — I’m happy to speak out any day of the week against the Queen of Vicious on the forums, who is busy doing “behaviour modification” now on the LL forums, inciting hate, and writing long screeds about how some groups are more equal than other groups…It’s Cienna who not only outed my RL info but [elided by Uri] me with the wrong RL — and Uri, elide all you want, but you’ll need to investigate this story to be convinced. The facts are all evident.
I speak as one who has tasked Uri in the past for his trash, and even set up a fake rumour for him to monger, but I would fight to the death for his right to keep his paper going, even with trash and rumours — the solution is MORE Uri, not less — more free speech and not less.
I’m disappointed I can’t get Project Entropia to work on my computer — I updated the drivers as they said but still got some other stupid error message and then churlish Brits in CS telling me that I hadn’t used English in my trouble ticket (huh?). I then found I couldn’t get SL to work after tweaking to get Entropia to work so I rolled back my drivers. Well, while I get all that sorted out, whaddya say, Uri? How about this time, you cover the seamy side of Entropia, I excoriate you in forums for being a bad journalist, I wage a wage against the Seamiers, you blandly let me be pulverized to a bloody mass on your forums by Seamiers, then I leave?
No, wait, better idea…You don’t log on much after trying to get a game-within-a-game to work…I take on a major public struggle against the Entropic Core….I get banned and you take up my cause in the Herald, after first dissing me lol? No wait…better idea..hmmm….you and I open up a ho house, see, but it really isn’t a real ho house because there aren’t *real* hos in it but just bored housewives and bored kids using their mom’s credit cards and then…no wait…BETTER idea…work with me on this…what do they have over there exactly?
nerferder
Jul 7th, 2005
Look, I think free speech is great too, but at what point is it no longer worth it?
How many months of agonizing over it is enough? At what point does one say to themselves “gee, I guess they aren’t going to give me what I want, maybe I should move on to a place that makes me happy instead of disillusioned?’” That can be a metaphorical place, or another online environment, as long as you move on. Don’t get mired in misery when you are supposed to be having fun. Relaxing.
Gee whiz, I’ve seen someone mention TSO to prok and they just get flooded with a bunch of rhetoric about the bad people he bravely fought with mile long diatribe after mile long diatribe. That is not moving on. That is dwelling in negativity and self worshipping, and no one wins in that event. I think prok knows this, and is plays it to his own weird ass ends. It’s such a shame *rolls eyes* that he will prolly eventually get the big bad permaban ingame, especially if he keeps spamming people, lipping off to Lindens, and the like. He always seems to have an issue going with someone ingame.
I don’t think that some of you really think SL is “all that”. It sure seems that the editors, and some of the contributing writers here on SLH, seem less than thrilled with SL (LL). Lots of pissing, moaning and navel gazing.
I REALLY don’t think Prokofy the Pure actually likes SL. I dunno if prokofy can really like anything but himself, and those who lick his boots.
It’s one thing to ask for free speech, it’s an altogether different thing to complain incessantly, especially about policies and discipline.
What if someone went into a place of business, bought something (so as to feel entitled to make demands), and then went and stood in the middle of the store, and criticized both the staff and other customers? Would the store owner, after warning the person that they wouldn’t be allowed back if they didn’t stop it, and the person kept coming back and doing it again, be wrong to permanently bar that person for the premises?
I don’t think so. As matter of fact, they would have legal avenues to pursue if they felt so inclined. SL is a business too. They are selling us a product. Their virtual space. You don’t own jack. You do not have the same rights you have in the real world. You have whatever rights the EULA says you do. If you don’t like the EULA, don’t spend your money there. It isn’t going to kill you, I promise.
If a company feels the need to tighten their policies a bit somewhere down the road, so be it. I am quite sure they are not knee jerk reactions.
On a side note, I am starting to think that more game developers will follow suit, some already have, and I think it is a reflection of the level of obsessive posters/gamers. That level is rising. I have been participating online for many moons now, and I am sure of this. I used to know people who would get a bit whacked out by forum trolls, or PKers, and obsess about them, but it was nothing like in this day and age. I think it was 2001, maybe 2002, there were some 20,000 plus police reports made in South Korea over online disputes. I am sure it’s just a matter of time before people in other locales start taking it all too seriously as well. Apparently, some already do.
I hope some of these obsessive types with too much time on their hands start taking game companies to court. Then we will have some precedents to ponder.
My personal thoughts are: most developers have very clever EULAs, written a bit vaguely so as to allow for some wiggle room when faced with unforseen disciplinary issues, and that people will have a hard time winning. Maybe that will curb some of the whining, obsessive types who cannot distinguish between RL and online.
For now anyway. Its pretty much a given that the folks who want to turn online recreation into a shard of RL (especially those who call it “my game” like its a doll or something), will eventually get their way. We are the in The age of Entitlement, after all. Selfishness is rule one. We may eventually see more RL laws applied to the internet, and some of them may intrude on your virtual “freedoms”.
So, be careful what you wish for.
Prok, you know who I am, or you should.
Funny, it’s okay to claim that the herald or slu uses “IPS” numbers to perniciously try and out alts, yet you have no qualms with trying to do just that yourself.
Astounding!
What heightened morality!
Hold that double standard high soldier!
Be sure to file it with the rest.
Urizenus
Jul 7th, 2005
>It’s one thing to ask for free speech, it’s an altogether different thing to complain incessantly
Hmm, lemme see if I understand your position. It is a waste of time to complain about lack of free speech, but it’s cool to complain about complaints about free speech. So, like, I guess you are saying 1st order complaints are lame, but second order complaints are oh so 1337.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 7th, 2005
My you’re fussy Nerferder. And, for someone yammering on and on about other people whining, you’re sure doing a lot of it yourself *cough*. And I”m not “outing alts” jackass, I’m just listing the addresses in my colletive statement to an anonymous person who does a good job of personifying the whole nasty brigade there at SL. All these names have already been listed here as people tried to guess who you are. And you have a HELLUVA lot of nerve coming on a place like this as an anonymous and vituperative poster, and then the MINUTE someone says, hey, maybe that’s X, you get all shirty and defensive and bitch about people “outing alts”. It’s because that’s the sort of thing you do routinely, you ascribe it to others.
I have no idea who you are, nor do I care. You sum up pretty well the FIC attitude on the forums, so you could be EveryFic.
We pay money to SL, and we’re customers. And they aspire to a grander role than just a game company. Indeed, they are at pains to tell us they aren’t a game. So, two can play at that game, and we’re not going to treat them as a game, and demand more.
As for TSO, why would it bother you that I spent a lot of time criticizing that game? It surely deserved criticism for turning into a playground for wannabee totalitarian governments taking over lots, and BDSM recruiters trolling in a setting with children. And many other things. In the normal world, opposition parties and dissidents and just ordinary editorialists in newspapers engage in criticism. They don’t all sing from the same hymn sheet.
Um, I do not “spam” people or “lip off” to Lindens, and I don’t know what basis you have for making such a false claim.
You are not a worthy interlocutor, not only being anonymous, but engaging just in spiteful harangues. You have no real argumentation, just a rant, a flame, a personal attack. You have no ideas, and your own ideology is pretty transparent.
blaze
Jul 8th, 2005
Heh heh heh.. The problem is that failing business models are leading to desperation and finger pointing.
Contrarian thinkers make for an easy scapegoat.
When SL pulls the trigger on something like this, we will all know that the end is nigh.
Cindy Claveau
Jul 8th, 2005
One thing that continually gets pushed aside in the emotional reaction to limits on free speech is that online worlds are businesses — their Terms of Service are invariably designed to try to (a) protect their own intellectual property, (b) bar against disruption of their infrastructure and (c) promote a harmonious experience so that users will stick around and tell their friends.
None of that has anything to do with a codified freedom of speech. It’s about the company’s self interest. We’re a bit spoiled in SL because it was so open and unfettered for so long, but Linden Labs has decided that just doesn’t work any more. They are trying to regain control of the rules of the culture they created. With over 30,000 members I’m afraid if they don’t try, this experiment will ultimately fail.
The success of their policy changes, and the wisdom of their approach, are debatable. A distinct lack of consistency seems to be obvious. But that issue has nothing to do with private corporations limiting the speech of their employees and users.
My own company prohibits me from going nude at work — which ought to be within my free speech rights. But it’s their right to do so, to attempt to maintain a harmonious workplace and prolong their own self-interest. Since they pay me, it’s my own self-interest as well.
Cindy
Tony Walsh
Jul 8th, 2005
Cindy Claveau wrote: One thing that continually gets pushed aside in the emotional reaction to limits on free speech is that online worlds are businesses…
This fact doesn’t get continually pushed aside, actually. If you read some of the more recent discussions about this topic here and at the official SL forums, you’ll find that a number of proponents of free speech in SL particularly are quite aware that a corporately-owned virtual world’s freedoms are spelled out exclusively in the ToS. Some of us are asking for change. Some of us are defending the status quo.
We’re a bit spoiled in SL because it was so open and unfettered for so long, but Linden Labs has decided that just doesn’t work any more.
Second Life’s slogan is “Your World. Your imagination.” You might imagine where Second Life residents got it into their head that real-world freedoms might be applied to Linden Lab’s virtual world.
They are trying to regain control of the rules of the culture they created. With over 30,000 members I’m afraid if they don’t try, this experiment will ultimately fail.
Linden Lab aren’t the chief creators of the culture of Second Life. Second Life residents are. Linden Lab’s contribution to Second Life culture consists primarily of frameworks, systems, built-in and overlaid rules. Outside of that, it’s all residents.
My own company prohibits me from going nude at work – which ought to be within my free speech rights. But it’s their right to do so, to attempt to maintain a harmonious workplace and prolong their own self-interest. Since they pay me, it’s my own self-interest as well.
I’d guess the reason you can’t go to work nude is because your government considers public nudity to be indecent. Your workplace is simply complying with existing law. Your workplace can create all of its own rules, as long as they don’t violate real-world laws. They pay you, so you obey. Linden Lab doesn’t pay me. I pay them. They are a service provider, and I’d like to see changes in the service I am paying for. Eventually, if no changes are made, I will probably lose interest in pursuing them.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 8th, 2005
Cindy, I’m chiming in with Tony here, and I’m a bit disappointed that you’re still trying to set us straight on the hoary old notion that corporations have “rights” including the “right” of suppressing free speech. We know they have this “right” because they are a private club. But in and of itself, this “right” is not above challenge.
That’s why the Boy Scouts of the USA, in that famous court case, could go on excluding or not tolerating gays, because they’re a club, not a public institution. The government of the USA can’t impose rules on them devolving on them even from their own Constitutional First Amendment. That’s what freedom of association is all about, the right to form a group or a club that has its own rules, and as long as those rules don’t break criminal or civil laws in and of themselves, they can do things like exclude gays. What happens, though, in the real world, is that people in society push the envelop on these old notions of clubs and what they can do.
The Century Club might like to exclude women, but given women’s liberation and various improvements in equal rights, women aren’t going to stand for being kept out of the Century Club any more. Or the case with the Boy Scouts could even occur because of a gathering civic notion that you can’t exclude people on the basis of their sexual preferences. Some states or institutions have this kind of language built in, some don’t. So the point is, there is nothing *sacred* about private clubs or corporations and what they do — it can always be challenged, and always WILL be challenged, especially when that club begins to fall out of step with what the public interest really is.
From the first moment an African American came into Woolworth’s and sat at the lunch counter — which previously was understood to be closed to blacks — civil rights movements challenged the idea that corporations get to make laws that are out of touch with the public’s sense of rights and liberties.
So let’s go over your words again, because, I for one, am really tired of having to repeatedly have this argument, especially with people as smart and thoughtful as you — we all *long since* absorbed the point that corporations can do what they want but what YOU can’t grasp is that we’re NOT accepting then YOUR notion (or a putative more conservative, company-loyalist concept) that the “right thing” or the “moral thing” or the “grown-up thing” to do is to shut up and get with the program. Instead, by the light of our conscience and understanding of history and the rule of law, we’re saying the right, moral, grown-up thing for these companies to do is to come out of their sequestered, festering, little FIC MMORPG clubs, and join the real world.
“One thing that continually gets pushed aside in the emotional reaction to EFFORTS TO PUSH THE LIMITS OF FREE SPEECH is that online worlds are businesses WITH SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY – their Terms of Service are invariably designed to try to (a) protect their own intellectual property WHICH IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS CUSTOMERS WISH TO BUY IT, (b) bar against disruption of their infrastructure WHICH CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE PUBLIC WEAL ITSELF and © promote a harmonious experience so that users will stick around and tell their friends AND NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR VIEWS OR SPEECH.
None of that has anything to do with a codified freedom of speech. It’s about the company’s self interest — WHICH MUST INCLUDE AN EXPANDED NOTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES MORE IN LINE WITH THE SOCIETY AT LARGE AND THE NEEDS OF A MODERN, DEMOCRATIC LIBERAL MARKET ECONOMY. We’re a bit spoiled in SL because it was so open and unfettered for so long, but Linden Labs has decided that just doesn’t work any more — UNTIL THEY CHANGE THEIR MINDS, WHICH COULD HAPPEN SOONER RATHER THAN LATER UNLESS A BAND OF CONFORMISTS ALIGN WITH SOME LINDEN FORCES INTERNALLY TO PREVENT THE PROGRESS THAN SOME MORE PROGRESSIVE LINDEN FORCES AND MORE ENLIGHTENED RESIDENTS ARE WILLING TO WORK TOWARDS. They are trying to regain control of the rules of the culture they created BUT THEY’VE WORSENED THEIR FORUMS CULTURE AS A RESULT. With over 30,000 members I’m afraid if they don’t try, this experiment will ultimately fail; BUT WHEN IT FAILS, THAT’S PERHAPS A GOOD THING BECAUSE THEY’LL HAVE TO REVISE THEIR MISSION AND READJUST TO REALITIES AND REFORM”
I hope by seeing words interspersed among yours, you can see that whatever the “rightness” of your position in sussing out the current corporate body temperature, the fact is, it’s a dynamic situation that can and will change, and there’s never any need to seal a status quo of this nature, or help it not progress by applauding it — never.
You seem willing to hand to us the right to debate this company, but you too handily take it away again when we're suppose to crash on the "sobering reality" of this corporate's instinctive clutchy and panicky reaction to growth. Nothing of the kind. We're here to sharpen their sense of inconsistency precisely so they can stop being so damn inconsistent especially in the matter of playing favourites (ugh, look at who the pin-up queen is for the freebie accounts on the website, and read my blog!)
>My own company prohibits me from going nude at work – which ought to be within my free speech rights. But it’s their right to do so, to attempt to maintain a harmonious workplace and prolong their own self-interest. Since they pay me, it’s my own self-interest as well.
Cindy, there’s no need to trivialize this issue by thinking up some extreme and outlandish example. I’ve worked for a number of types of entities in my lifetime, and in each one you can see various rules at play, sometimes even requirements to clear your written or spoken remarks with higher-ups, sometimes a willngness to allow staff or leadership to be outspoken — but it’s only in this silly MMORPG Wizard-type culture that you get a Cult of the Magi at the center who think they can whipsaw the rest of the world around their own vision. They can’t. That’s Bolshevism, and it’s unaccountable.
Your notion of a company’s self-interest is curiously static, as if it takes place in a vacuum, without the rule of law, without any other actors or forces operating within or around it. I don’t understand the justification you have to for such a notion of “my company uber alles” Why such a literal static notion of finite things like “my corporation” — what is your corporation, but yet one more corporation, that might sink or fail on this very issue of just how sensitive it is to human rights?
Can you not pull back and see that you and your corporation are part of a larger thing called “society” which is dynamic, moving, complex, contradictory? There’s nothing set in stone about “your company”. It’s notions of its self-interest, or the public interest, might be completely skewed. Why do you get to defend it unanimously, without question? This culture of such unquestioning loyalty to a company sounds completely alien to me, and I imagine, to other readers. Where does it come from? What is it about? Why should I accept it?
Societies always have to have elements that complain, critique, analyze, dissent, criticize — because otherwise something can’t grow. Lies and falsehoods and corruption take root without that open air of democracy and debate.
Corporations have to change, change that is induced by external realities. For example, companies might have once had attitudes about white guys being preferable and superior, and they were forced to dump them and hire more people of colour and women and other minorities. Realities change. Always and everywhere you must ask, are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Adopting a smug, pro-status quo attitude that “companies always have the right to do what they want due to self interest and the laws of association” just doesn’t cut it with me — or most people I would say who go to work in the real world at least internally challenge their companies’ notions (as distinct from the less real world of cyberspace/the Internet/etc. where I think the entities, being newer or more brash, still think they can adopt this kind of power stance vis-a-vis others without challenge).
Cindy Claveau
Jul 9th, 2005
Prok, I’m going to focus on a few things you said since you and Tony are saying almost the same thing. I think you’ve misinterpreted much of my position, but I’ll take the responsibility for not being clear enough and will attempt to set it right.
I’m chiming in with Tony here, and I’m a bit disappointed that you’re still trying to set us straight on the hoary old notion that corporations have “rights” including the “right” of suppressing free speech. We know they have this “right” because they are a private club. But in and of itself, this “right” is not above challenge.
First, it’s hardly a “hoary old notion”. The Bill of Rights only states that Congress shall not infringe on free speech. It says nothing about private groups or corporations. Those groups do have the right, to a degree defined by courts of law, to limit freedom within their own purview. If we don’t like their limits, we are free to leave as we please. That applies to corporations as well as to games and virtual worlds. Our freedom is only the freedom to agree to their terms or leave. There is our fundamental choice.
Where you seem to have missed my point was my remark about corporate self-interest. If Lindens (or anybody) wish to promote a successful business, they cannot enforce rules to heinous that they lose customers. I think that’s the line Mindark has crossed by making censorship a corporate policy. It may make good business sense in their minds, but ultimately it only promotes ill will and reduces their marketability. Other companies, notably NCSoft, have taken a more liberal view of allowing customer opinion and have received good will as a result (of course, offering a quality product helps).
Your re-interpretation of my words doesn’t work well. You said “promote a harmonious experience so that users will stick around and tell their friends AND NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR VIEWS OR SPEECH.”, which dropped you back to the position you claim you don’t want to be in — rehashing the rights of corporations to restrict speech within their own bounds.
This is not an issue of “Social Justice”. This is a matter of customer relations and good business. And ironically, either your source OR my source of codification reaches toward the same end — a degree of freedom for us, the users or citizens. Off their grounds — on your blog, for example — you have all the freedom of speech you could wish for within civil and criminal law. Within the bounds of their rules, you do not have the right to interfere with other players or use egregious hate speech, etc.
Where I think you’ve conflated is in applying social justice principles to the actions of the Lindens. As we discussed in our meeting this last week, I think their problem has been a degree of poor management, perhaps inefficiency and a lack of focus. There should be no excuse for inconsistent policy enforcement or for not rigidly adhering to the most basic limits if they harm the customer experience of other users. There should also be no excuse for punishing one person when they were only the last, and not the only, offender.
Since you and I cannot be privy to their private corporate meetings and memos we cannot be sure – we only see the result. And so it’s no wonder we see things a bit differently. I see a company which is coping with an explosion in subscriber base — an explosion which has made prior policy awkward and unworkable. They have a small window within which to remedy that, or the explosion will turn into a trickle and this experiment is dead.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 9th, 2005
Cindy, it’s hard to communicate on a board where you can’t return and cut and paste effectively, and forum communication is always poor at best. What I can tell you is this: don’t teach your grandmother to suck eggs — or grandfather. When I say “hoary,” I’ meaning this argument in this debate, not the “Congress shall make no law” itself. And you’re very wrong if you think that the “Bill of Rights” doesn’t state something that’s the end of the story — because it’s the Supreme Court’s *interpretation* of that Bill that then becomes the *law of the land*. I don’t know if you’re writing from the US or another country with a civil law rather than common law tradition but these distinctions matter. Not everything has to be laid out in a law or amendment.
No, our freedom is not only one to leave when we, as participating, paying customers in a world where we’re told “Your World Your Imagination”, can certainly have a say in it. This debate is one with different sides in it, and both sides have mounted very spirited and very legitimate arguments, and there’s no stepping on that. Read the past pages of this newspaper, i.e. Neal Stewart’s very useful articles covering this issue, read Terra Nova, well just google “Free Speech” and “MMORPG” if you haven’t already. This discussion is not new, and our articulating the positions in it isn’t new, either; what’s new is the SL claim to be something more than MMORPG which gives us the entre we need to say that not only is LL like a “company town” (as in the one legal paper’s discussion of the issue you can read about in the googled links) or not only is this like the mall that is privately-owned but plays the role of a public commons, it’s also about the analogy of the phone call — ATT doesn’t try to control my speech and cut off my service for the content of my speech; it’s just a common carrier.
All you’re doing, it seems to me, is putting down the markers on the conservative side of this discussion, for whatever reasons of temperment, belief, experience being in a sysop in an online service — whatever. But don’t assume that your debaters are dummies and don’t have their equivalent RL and SL experience, too, only in different areas which has given them a different, but equally legitimiate point of view.
Many people will think it is in LL’s corporate interest to censor me or Catherine Cotton. I think they’ll find it a little bit harder to censor Cocoanut — but to the forum jackals, we’re all part of the same “problem” — we’re “the alien ones” who “need help” and “don’t get it” and bite the hand that feeds us. You don’t seem quite ready to agree that it isn’t in LL’s long-term interest to be bouncing out people like me let alone let a forum atmosphere develop where people begin to threaten Coco — they ought to let even very vigorous polemical debate proceed on their forums and they simply ought to enforce their existing TOS equally and effectively — that’s the problem, they don’t do that, it’s an appalling spectacle. There’d be no need for someone like me to become as raucous or persistent or determined as I have been, even coming back and burning alts, if we didn’t have a very pernicious core here blocking progress on the forums and hog-tieing the Lindens to boot.
>Your re-interpretation of my words doesn’t work well.
Of course it doesn’t work well for you because you assume you’re right, but in a debate like this, I’m not trying to convince another, I’m speaking to the wider audience and my only purpose with you is not to let you assume that you can one-up me with technical knowledge about technical companies and how they can behave or not behave because I refuse to concede that this debate is about only what technical companies get to do technically.
>You said “promote a harmonious experience so that users will stick around and tell their friends AND NOT EXCLUDE PEOPLE ON THE BASIS OF THEIR VIEWS OR SPEECH.”, which dropped you back to the position you claim you don’t want to be in – rehashing the rights of corporations to restrict speech within their own bounds.
Oh, but I think we both have to rehash the rights of corporations AND extend them. And both debates are of merit.
>This is not an issue of “Social Justice”. This is a matter of customer relations and good business.
See — that’s what I mean. You’re trying to narrow the scope of the debate so you can just have it be about something you’re familiar with — technical companies. And i”m saying sorry, but it has much broader application.
Actually, it *is* an issue of social justice. In a world of social justice values, which a lot of people who are on the left or in utopian games or in environmental causes, etc. can understand, these issues can indeed be cast in those terms. But the issue of business social responsibility isn’t just something for “Mother Jones” to take up — it’s become more of the norm in the last 25 years with all kinds of greater consumer protection. I don’t want my game company to lock me off its forums due to unfair, unjust, biased performance of mods. That’s a consumer issue, and a performance issue aside from everything else. And having a space for all the game’s residents to speak is indeed a matter of social justice, and rightfully so — we’re told over and over again it’s a world or a country, not a game, in any event.
>And ironically, either your source OR my source of codification reaches toward the same end – a degree of freedom for us, the users or citizens. Off their grounds – on your blog, for example – you have all the freedom of speech you could wish for within civil and criminal law. Within the bounds of their rules, you do not have the right to interfere with other players or use egregious hate speech, etc.
Everything comes down to the interpretation of these terms. I don’t interfere with other players. Um, I didn’t use egregious hate speech, either. That’s an important thing to get a grasp of. In fact, a lot of people used it on me because i was critical of the FIC group attitudes and behaviours. They misused the AR system to settle scores, and the mods didn’t use the existing tools to protect me from really egregious offenses far worse than hate speech which included outing of RL and libel with the wrong RL.
>Where I think you’ve conflated is in applying social justice principles to the actions of the Lindens.
Um, hon, this isn’t a “conflation”. We’re all able to use big words here. When someone arches up a concept higher than the literal, pedestrian notions literally in the TOS or the conservative definition of the TOS, and invokes the higher values of social justice, that’s not some kind of unscientific “conflation”, that’s conceptual thinking, and not only legitimate conceptual thinking, but conceptual thinking to be *welcomed*. And it’s a harkening to the very values this company purports to have, in not just being a glorified chat for sex simulation, but being a tool and a vehicle and a world with various aspirations for social engineering, or at least social usefulness. Honestly, social justice is *exactly* the matrix we need to use to look at this social justicey=consumed California company.
And Cindy, if you find it rude that I’m trying to jar you with the use of the term “hon” and all the rest, I’m here to tell you that you don’t get to try to denigrate me, accuse me of sins like “conflation” or “missing your point” or “missing the mark” or whatever you’re trying to do. What you need to realize is this: I have a liberal arts background. You have a technical education, from all evidence (I don’t know you and I’m assuming that. These educations give people very different experiences and frames of reference. I’m quite prepared to listen to your tekkie mode, but I’m going to characterize it as the literal tekkie mode when I see it while recognizing it’s legitimacy of a mode of thought — up to a point. You’re quite prepared to debate my liberal arts mode, but you can’t help trying to denigrate it completely, legitimize it, and accuse the liberal-arts thinker of somehow being “imprecise” or “unscientific” . I reject that canon. I reject that principle for debate.
>As we discussed in our meeting this last week, I think their problem has been a degree of poor management, perhaps inefficiency and a lack of focus. There should be no excuse for inconsistent policy enforcement or for not rigidly adhering to the most basic limits if they harm the customer experience of other users. There should also be no excuse for punishing one person when they were only the last, and not the only, offender.
I’m glad you see it. Now try to extrapolate from this to a wider conceptual awareness of the flaws that lie in the heart of both the company’s mission and in their performance that brought this about. Don’t look at it narrowly as merely what it is, a “poor management” issue. Poor management springs full-blown from poor concepts at the outset, and prejudices and flawed visions. You can use scientific methods if you like if this sounds too “abstract and artsy” to you — just go over the histories of who is banned and who isn’t, and who is closed and who isn’t. At the end of the day, all you have to do is look at the front page of the damn website and see whose taunting, jeering tongue-thrust you have greeting you when you click to get a free account. And do the math.
>Since you and I cannot be privy to their private corporate meetings and memos we cannot be sure – we only see the result. And so it’s no wonder we see things a bit differently. I see a company which is coping with an explosion in subscriber base – an explosion which has made prior policy awkward and unworkable. They have a small window within which to remedy that, or the explosion will turn into a trickle and this experiment is dead.
I guess I don’t buy this *at all* You’re coming to them with sympathy from essentially a background of being in more or less the same kind of Internet-type company they are in. I’m not. So I’m completely sanguine about it. I don’t find anything “special” about them being electronic and pixelated and high-speed when they do the things they do. They are still basic human things. They still flow from a basic ideology or vision which is one that I think needs considerably more feedback and soul-searching to correct.
You seem to concede to them a need to shut up the forums so they can grow. I’ve never seen a single society in my life in transition succeed by shutting up the media so it can have space to grow. It never works. Ever. It only works toward killing the society at least for a time.
I had to stand up to the FIC because the Lindens themselves couldn’t do it — that’s the sad thing. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here. It’s not just about my freedom of speech to spout my beliefs. It’s about my use of that freedom to challenge the feted core who really are the fetid core on those superating forums.
And I don’t have to look only at the forums. The group tools, as they exist now, tell me all I need to know about the social vision of these people. The group tools forcibly distribute every dollar of income equally, regardless of tier payments or labour. The group tools enable any member, terrorist or not, legitimate or not, to freeze the entire group with a rogue officer recall vote. The group tools enable any officer to sell out the land of any other officer, even if he didn’t pay for it, and even if he didn’t pay tier.
As such, the group tools, like a lot of socialist systems gone wrong, lead to crime.
You might say well group tools are just programmers little work-through of problems they didn’t think of, just some flat, literal thing. I say group tools provide a window into the soul, conscious or not. I see these group tools as indicating a severe case of either hippie utopianism or scientific idealism or egalitarianism of the socialist type. I figure it isn’t even so conscious or deliberate, it’s just the kind of Chomsky that every college kid soaks up with their beer, I guess. I don’t really know how it came about, but I do know that when they made this game, they had only one idea: how to get high-end content creators and programmers to come in and work for free, and yet feel like they were being treated like kings. They succeeded brilliantly. But it’s a horror as a society.
Urizenus
Jul 9th, 2005
Let me chime in here as well Cindy. When you say that …
“The Bill of Rights only states that Congress shall not infringe on free speech. It says nothing about private groups or corporations.”
…I think you are collapsing the distinction between Free Speech and the First Ammendment. Of *course* the First Amendment only speaks directly to government censorship, but I think there is room for saying that free speech is an important principle that should be protected, even if the organization trying to take it away is not the United States Government, but a corporation.
This is a point made by Lessig in _Code as Law_, (esp. ch. 7), where he favorably cites John Stuart Mill’s position:
“[Mill] was a defender of liberty and an opponent of fources that suppressed it. But those forces were not confined to government. Liberty, in Mill’s view, was threatened as much by norms as by government, as much by stigma and intolerance as by the threat of state punishment. His objective was to argue against these private forces of coercion…
“Mill’s method is important, and it should be our own. It asks, what is the threat to liberty, and how can we resist it? It is not limited to asking, What is the threat to liberty *from government*? It understands that more than government can threaten liberty, and that sometimes this something more can be private rather than state action. Mill was not so concerned with the source. His concern was with liberty.”
nerferder
Jul 9th, 2005
For all the navel gazers, I wasn’t complaining, I was “reporting”.
Bwahahahahahaha!
Prok, I can’t tell you how fucking happy I am that your whiner campaign which was festooned with balloons filled with low self esteem, rage, bitterness, envy, lies, and hatred, was shut down on the sl forums. Justice was slow in coming, but my god, was it sweet when it finally arrived.
I lick my chops, thinking of the day when you get booted from SL altogether. You are a gangrenous infection of SL.
What does it mean when a jackass who is the laughing stock of SL calls me a jackass? I dunno, but it sure is funny!
Now, back to more navel gazing, pouting and general petulance. Have fun kids.
Cindy Claveau
Jul 9th, 2005
Uri, point taken — so tell me where companies like Lindens and Mindark are “threatening our liberties”?
They’re not. They are imposing corporate policy in the interests of product (and corporate) survival. Impose too much and they lose. Impose too little and they just as surely lose. Finding that middle ground is extremely tricky – and has been said here, rightfully, it’s not a static thing. It must move with the social dynamic.
But in any case, it has absolutely nothing to do with Social Justice. Not in SL, not in any virtual world. It’s a business relationship between customer and company. More important than our freedom of speech, whatever that may be, is our freedom to buy or NOT to buy the product. That imposes a mandate on the company to serve their customers …. or die.
Urizenus
Jul 9th, 2005
>More important than our freedom of speech, whatever that may be, is our freedom to buy or NOT to buy the product.
Well now that is a heartwarming thought, Cindy. At least I see where you are coming from now.
But I guess I don’t know what this talk of product buying has to do with SL. I have a lifetime account, so what product is it that I am supposedly buying or not buying? Virtual platforms like SL are not toy games that we buy in boxes, but are platforms for building virtual communities and work spaces, or at least that is the hype. Now maybe they don’t live up to the hype, or maybe they do and more of our work and social lives will move into these virtual spaces as we go deeper into the 21st century. It could certainly happen. And then what do we say? Do we say that because we once all paid $10 that what happens in here “has absolutely nothing to do with Social Justice”?
Some people in SL already earn their livelihoods off of the game. Other people’s social lives and love lives take place in here. There may well be no where else for them to go. Or it may be that the handful of places one can go have the same opressive conditions. I certainly know of no alternative platform with an enlightened policy that respects users rights.
The question of free speech about games has another dimension, however. Part of the mission of sites like the Herald is to report to the outside world what is happening in spaces like TSO and SL. Even if everyone inside the space is happy to be censored (or at least unable for social or financial reasons to move on), that does not mean that all is well. Game companies like EA are all too happy to pull the curtain over their virtual spaces so that parents and policy makers have no idea what is happening inside the grid. Considering that even in SL many of the inhabitants are children that is unconscionable. Blocking critics and whistle blowers from a virtual space is wrong from a social policy standpoint, even if it is sound business practice.
Chip Midnight
Jul 9th, 2005
Mind Ark’s policy is no different than that of any other MMO publisher. They’ve just articulated in detail what others leave vague. The SL TOS (and I’m sure the TOS of every other MMO on the planet) states that Linden Lab reserves the right to cancell your account at any time, for any reason, without warning or compensation. All of this hand wringing about repressed free speech is just a wee bit misguided and ignorant (and reeks of an exagerrated sense of entitlement).
This story also has nothing whatsoever to do with Prokofy’s banning from the SL forums. Does the Herald actually still cover anything else? Prok wasn’t banned for having opinions that were critical of Linden Lab or of its mythical favorite players. He got banned for repeated slander, libel, and malicious lies, 99.99% of which were completely fabricated. After repeated warnings to clean up his act he was finally thrown out on his thoroughy disingenuous ass. He could have saved everyone a lot of trouble and still practiced his favorite hobby by going to a theater and yelling “Fire!” every day for six months instead. When the theater finally banned him, that wouldn’t have been a violation of his right to free speech either.
No for-profit company in their right mind wants a Prokofy Neva in their midst. People who have nothing better to do than cast aspersions at other subscribers in 2000 word post after 2000 word post every day, day in and day out, generally aren’t welcome in official game company forums…. and in the case of Mind Ark, not in their world either. The mistake people crying “free speech!” are making is in thinking that “free speech” equates to freedom from being responsible for your actions. That isn’t the case… not with Mind Ark, not with LL, and not with any other private company… nor will it/should it ever be.
By the way, Uri… are you and Prok lovers or something or are you actually both the same person?
Urizenus
Jul 9th, 2005
Chipper, I think you better go back and talk to your FIC buddies on IRC and see if the ol’ brain trust can’t come up with some better put downs. That one won’t even buy you membership into one of the kiddie mafias. But hey, thanks for stopping by and showing us how you are the good guy and all. I’m sure you impressed everyone.
And by the way, this story isn’t about Prok (he wasn’t mentioned once in the story), and indeed by my count only 1 of the last 12 stories was about the Prok, but I’m sure it seemed like 12/12 to you.
Now can we get back to the serious and very interesting discussion we were having with Cindy?
Chip Midnight
Jul 9th, 2005
Uri wrote: “Chipper, I think you better go back and talk to your FIC buddies on IRC and see if the ol’ brain trust can’t come up with some better put downs. That one won’t even buy you membership into one of the kiddie mafias. But hey, thanks for stopping by and showing us how you are the good guy and all. I’m sure you impressed everyone.”
Yep, you’re either his clone or his hand is up your ass making your lips move. FIC buddies on IRC? Talk about needing some new lines.
Prokofy Neva
Jul 10th, 2005
ROFL you can be *damned* sure I will never let Uri’s hand anywhere *near* my ass, Chip. We each speak for ourselves.
Try to distinguish between a sense of *entitlement* which is what you have visa-a-vis Linden Labs and Second Life (and which you are projecting then on us) and a higher sense of *justice*, which is what people have who wish both to hold a company to account for their own TOS and ask it to enforce it equally and more professionally, and which people have who wish to extend the repressive margins of a speech policy, especially for a company that claims it isn’t a game, but a world.
Far from being banned for “lies” or “slander” (it’s lies and slander you fanboyz are telling) I was banned for something vague called “trolling” without any reference to any posts, and it was about *fighting back* against the slander I faced myself. Your moral blindess on this issue continues to astound. I’m not banned for libeling Cristiano’s site, if that’s what sort of feverish notion you’ve gotten in your brain. All you have to do is look at Robin Linden’s comment in that thread, to the effect that LL will be looking at the issue of email privacy vis-a-vs the Snapzilla site, to understand that LL said the identical thing I said, in essense. I’m curious why you fail to grasp that.
I’m banned for “trolling” — whatever the hell that is — and not “libel” (which is something that could have been stated or put on the police blotter) because I didn’t libel Cristiano’s site, I made a statement about it, concerning the collecting of IPs and the use of them to ban people which was *true*. I made the statement in good faith, according to my beliefs, from what I believed at the time, about a public figure, who has not suffered any damages to his business. Therefore there’s nothing actionable here.
I know the concept of the “truth defense” in free speech issues is alien to you. But if Cristiano takes my IP and bans me, which he did, well, that’s the truth. I raised other issues as well as everyone knows, regarding the slander and lies of this site against *me*. Chip and Enabran and Cristiano all believe if they keep yammering loud enough and in chorus enough with their fake stuff about me and my accusations, that it will “stick”. But anyone with half a brain can see it doesn’t stick. Third-party fan sites run by fanboyz get away with murder. It’s wrong. I’ll continue to criticize it. They can have all the free speech they want (and they sure love free speech when it comes to their third-party sites ROLF). Where I’ll object is when they blow it back to the setting of SL, where there is NOT free speech — something that the fanboyz claim to think is just and right and which they want — as long as they can keep getting this company to enforce the rules very spottily and sporadically, and with a heavy bias toward them. The record shows it all pretty handily. One would like to ascribe good will to people who keep arguing so vigorously about something they seem to believe in — but I don’t. I ascribe malice. I ascribe malice because all the malicious falsehoods are there to see. The malice is rooted in a deep sense of entitlement about this game, and a sense that this entitlement is now threatened.
I’m glad that you and Nerferder and the rest of the ugly gang have come here and displayed yourselves exactly as you are on the forums. That way any casual reader can see what’s up: it doesn’t matter if I’ve said something incorrect, or technically inept, or wrongheaded about Cristiano’s site or any third-party site, what matters is the malice and bile that the FIC brings to discussing this issue; what matters is that I made my statements in the first place *beause of the unjust and libelous FIC attacks on me*. . It’s definitely in the school of “the lady doth protest too much”. They can scream so hysterically on this subject precisely because I’m on to something. If I am *not* on to something, then it’s just that they are a bunch of thin-skinned whiners.
If they were normal and thoughtful grown-ups, ages ago, they would say, oh, you know that stuff you’re talking about, yes, that can be done, and oh, yes, we do do some of it, but it’s not quite like you think at all because basically we have good will and don’t wish to invade people’s privacy or harm them in the game or seek any advantage of them. We can understand how you may have gotten the wrong idea about our intentions, because indeed, some people behave badly on our website even in violation of our own TOS, not as strict as LL’s. We regret this, we are evaluating our policy and making sure to enforce it more carefully.
But no, you can’t say that sort of mature and adult kind of statement, like any bland corporate entity that hopes to keep customers and keep its image intact. I’m not the first person to come along and challenge you, nor the last. There will be many more. If you keep running these nasty malicious slam-book type third-party sites as you do, and running the forums commentary as you do, there will be more and more and MORE people that notice. They’ll fight back. Or they will build something around you. This is just a matter of time. You’re on the wrong side of history : )
Chip Midnight
Jul 10th, 2005
Wrong side of history? Gee, that’s not overwrought hyperbole and absurd self aggrandizement or anything. *laugh* At least you have a sense of humor.
nerferder
Jul 10th, 2005
“You’re on the wrong side of history”.
I laughed so hard I nearly pulled a muscle when I read this.
As for the rest of that tripe, you really should just start using a form letter.
Chip, I think you’re on to something. Uri sits there and defends this indefensible megalo-busy-body, while it attacks him.
Actually, I think he simply realizes that Prok is good for getting traffic to this pile of rubbish rag. Everyone loves a trainwreck, especially one that keeps going like “Groundhog’s Day” for years on end.
Prokofy, Mafias, w-hat, whiny editorials, and and pin-ups. Such rich, poignant, and compelling issues! Maybe it should be renamed to “Dysfunction Junction”, or “Whinerz R Us”.
Have a great day.
Urizenus
Jul 10th, 2005
I hope you FIC guys understand that every time you post, you make Prok seem more and more sensible, and make the actions of Pathfinder more and more incomprehensible.
As you come here to my blog and spew your venom I marvel that Linden Lab would want to align itself with thugs like you. It doesn’t hurt me, and as you say, your self-inflicted train wreck brings eyeballs to the Herald, but I am just deeply embarrassed for Philip and Cory and Robin, who I consider to be friends.
Pendari
Jul 10th, 2005
Well, my feelings about Prok have been made pretty well known by myself. And those feelings are much the same as Chip and Nerfherder’s and others with regard to how awful Prok was, is, and forever will be.
But I did want to state for the record that I personally enjoy the SL Herald and do not consider it just a “rag mag”. I’ve been reading it for quite some time, I just never got into posting on here before. I have always adored Marilyn and the “Post Six Grrrl” column has been one of my favorites to follow. Most all of the other stories you have done on here I have enjoyed as well.
I may not always agree with you all, especially I don’t agree that Prok should have been “glamorized” to the extent he seemed to be, but I do appretiate the work you all do to keep the SL Herald running and I hope to see it last for a good long time.
nerferder
Jul 10th, 2005
Thats your opinion Uri, as flawed as it may be. Malcontents regularly inspire other malcontents. It proves nothing other than the fact that you would give credence to the myopic ramblings of a mad person.
It’s always ok for prok to be abrasive as humanly possible, but let people take a few whacks back, and its crying time.
Pathetic.
Not only that, prok’s well deserved ban from sl forums has now inspired the whining ninnys that run this “newspaper” to go crawling around looking for other game developers to complain about.
Do you people think, that bars who have bouncers throw out disruptive customers, are draconian, freedom of speech trampling assholes? I don’t. I think they are smart business people.
And Prok, quit playing stupid. You know damned well what trolling is. It’s deliberately making statements designed to provoke anger in, and responses from, those you target. Something you are a master at. Thats no one’s fault but your own, and the same goes for your punishment.
Just be happy you were dealing with LL. Sony, Blizzard, NC Soft and most other large MMOE or MMOG developers would’ve dealt a much quicker and harsher blow to your account.
Another reason to be happy its LL, is so you can get away with ghost writing. Yes, people are talking about that. You’re too obvious for your own good, you dimwit.
montserrat
Jul 10th, 2005
chip: you thinking that prokkie and uri could be the same person,
well it sort of makes me lose my faith in you, such as it was. i mean
you could start by looking at their language, which is different — even the obvious things like prokkie’s tendency to write encyclopedias (much as i love you prokkie you need an editor real real bad)
cindy has said many interesting things. maybe you could learn something from her, chip.
Urizenus
Jul 10th, 2005
Nerf says: “prok’s well deserved ban from sl forums has now inspired the whining ninnys that run this “newspaper” to go crawling around looking for other game developers to complain about.”
Sooooo true! Up until now the Herald has *always* been on the side of game devs and has *never* been interesting in the issue of free speech in games. /irony I think you need a briefing on the history of the Herald.
But before we get to that, let me ask you something, Nerf. Is it the intention of you and your FIC buddies to come here and try and disrupt the Herald? I only ask because we were having an interesting conversation until you and Chip showed up and started spamming the thread with your insults and hatred.
nerferder
Jul 10th, 2005
Its my intention to highlight whiners.
The sooner people realize that this type of thread is a direct indication of what is wrong with America today, the better.
That something being some sort of warped sense of entitlement that some people believe to be a birthright.
That and this notion that everything they think is of some enormous socio-political value.
Ok Uri?
You want to talk about insults and hatred?
Go re-read any of Proks drivel.
Let me ask you something professor, why do you ignore hatred when prok spews it? Why is it then some fascinating insight? Hypocrite.
Urizenus
Jul 11th, 2005
Prok has been posting here for almost 2 years, and he’s never coughed up the kind of bile that you have.
>this type of thread is a direct indication of what is wrong with America today
Carry on young patriot, we all sleep better knowing that you are watching out for the well being of this great country! Sorry to hear that its problems have their root in the comments on the Herald, however.
nerferder
Jul 11th, 2005
I know how long he has been posting here. Believe me, I know.
I find your aversion to reality fascinating. You simply refuse to acknowledge that prok is a very hateful person. That’s ok though, as long as you’re getting hits! Right?
Transparency becomes you, I suppose.
As far as “young” goes, I’d wager that I am probably older than you, and have been a front row witness to this sickeningly whiny culture that has developed in the US over the past couple of decades.
Go work on some REAL social issues, if you need a cause.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Not only do you reject responsible for yourselves and others like prok, you take it even further by whining on the net about “unfair” game developer rules. Rules you are in no way subject to, without your permission and endorsement via payment.
I think your parents and grandparents would be thoroughly disgusted. They didn’t fight world wars and build this country through the depression and civil rights movements to have their progeny waste hours, days and years crying over video games.
Therefore, you’ll receive no sympathy and no quarter from me.
The “roots” aren’t here on the Herald. This publication is but a symptom of a much deeper problem.
Walker Spaight
Jul 11th, 2005
Thanks, Pendari!
Walker Spaight
Jul 11th, 2005
It’s interesting that no one seems to get that this isn’t about Prok and it isn’t about MindArk. It’s about whether virtual environments like Second Life can ever evolve into robust societies of their own, extensions of our physical existence that differ only in being made out of pixels. If that’s to happen, then we face an important question: Do we want to live our virtual lives in a corporate world, or do we want to live our virtual lives in a society that’s governed by the avatars, for the avatars, etc.? You may think this is some kind of utopian vision, but it’s going to happen. Ask Philip Linden, ask Edward Castronova. It’s not going to happen tomorrow, but it’s coming: virtual worlds will soon be enmeshed with our physical existence in an integral way. That’s already true for many people in Second Life, whether they’re big earners there or not. I don’t think it’s too early to raise questions of what kind of virtual environments we want to “live” in, how they’re governed and what freedoms we have there. SL and MindArk are the products of corporations, yes, and they’re governed by corporate EULAs, etc. But these are the places that are going to evolve into the virtual worlds of tomorrow, and it’s not too early to start considering what those worlds will look like.
Cocoanut
Jul 11th, 2005
Prok, MindArk, me – all of these things and people are just examples, but many never seem to get that.
As for me, I don’t want to live in a world you can live in only as long as you don’t say stuff that irritates the people on the forums.
And I don’t think many will want to live in such a world, either. Which is why they need to change that rule that says if you are banned from the forums, you are banned from the game, too.
coco
nerferder
Jul 11th, 2005
This is not about prok?
Are you going to sit there and tell me that you would not have published this had not prok been banned from SL?
Had you not been upset at LL for what these editors consider unfair treatment, would these editors have found and highlighted the rule adjustments at project entropia?
Lie to me baby, I love YOU.
Walker Spaight
Jul 12th, 2005
It’s about more than just Prok and PE, nerf. It’s about what’s going to happen with the virtual worlds of the future.
3 more points to rebut:
“you reject responsible for yourselves and others like prok”
–we’re quite responsible for ourselves (and no, we’re not responsible for Prok, he’s responsible for himself). In fact, we’re responsible enough for our own actions to not only sign our views with our SL names but to attach them to our RL identities as well. What is it you fear that makes you hide behind an anonymous handle that’s not even attached to your SL avatar?
“this sickeningly whiny culture that has developed in the US over the past couple of decades”
–which you are doing your best to propogate and maintain
“I think your parents and grandparents would be thoroughly disgusted. They didn’t fight world wars and build this country through the depression and civil rights movements to have their progeny waste hours, days and years crying over video games.”
–no one is crying over video games. Second Life is not a game. Why are you wasting so much time crying over it, if that’s how you feel about it? If SL is so trivial to you, why are you even weighing in?
Seldon Metropolitan
Jul 12th, 2005
>I find your aversion to reality fascinating. You simply refuse to
>acknowledge that prok is a very hateful person. That’s ok though,
>as long as you’re getting hits! Right?
While I think Prok’s discourse does incite a certain amount of bile, he is careful, in my experience, to not cross the line to open bear-baiting like you do so easily.
>As far as “young” goes, I’d wager that I am probably older than
>you, and have been a front row witness to this sickeningly whiny
>culture that has developed in the US over the past couple of
>decades.
the irony of this statement is transcendant.
>I think your parents and grandparents would be thoroughly
>disgusted. They didn’t fight world wars and build this country
>through the depression and civil rights movements to have their
>progeny waste hours, days and years crying over video games.
My parents and grandparents were veteran protesters, and they are proud of my willingness to go to bat for free expression in whatever form I do it. Im fairly new (this account anyhow) to SL, but I find it amazing that this discussion exists.
On a side note, nerfherder, you do realize that you validate this discussion by complaining about it? for someone of your amazing mental capacity, who obviously has the best path for all of us laid out in his head, for you to miss that simple rule of discussion disturbs my faith in you!
Oh, and don’t even get me started on “what’s wrong with America.”
nerferder
Jul 12th, 2005
“It’s about more than just Prok and PE, nerf. It’s about what’s going to happen with the virtual worlds of the future.”
Virtual worlds. Precisely. What is going to happen with “virtual worlds of the future” is that companies are going to set them up, and you’re going to have to abide their rules, if you want to participate. It won’t be an alternate life.
Interestingly, I see people who want to take “free speech” to the nth degree in corporate owned virtual worlds, as the causative agent for MORE STRICT RULES.
Thank your gold star boy Prokofy for this happening in SL. Also, I am sure some situation(s) cropped up over at PE that caused them to stiffen their postion as well. In other words, criticism is fine, as long as it doesnt delve into the depths of whining, cajoling, inciting, and downright harrassment. Don’t be suprised if these companies tighten up even more in the future as they encounter more and more high-strung individuals with an enormous sense of entitlement. For fucks sake, all it took to set prok off was one dipshit (supposedly) giving him a smart assed answer to a video card problem post. After that, it was all downhill. Guilt by association.
“3 more points to rebut:
–we’re quite responsible for ourselves (and no, we’re not responsible for Prok, he’s responsible for himself). In fact, we’re responsible enough for our own actions to not only sign our views with our SL names but to attach them to our RL identities as well. What is it you fear that makes you hide behind an anonymous handle that’s not even attached to your SL avatar?”
I never said you should be responsible for prok or that you are. I said you REJECT responsibility. You make excuses for prok under the guise of “he makes some great points” – nevermind that he breaks rules and harrasses a plethora of other players when doing so…
Do you plan on filling up PE’s forums with negativity? If not, then what have you to worry about?
You’re running a “press” here. Where is prokofy’s admonition for hiding his RL name? OH! THATS RIGHT! Prokofy is to be protected for some “unknown” reason.
The reason I choose to remain anonymous here is simple. I have already been harrassed by prok in SL, both on the forums and in game. I do not want that to escalate or continue. Is that OK with you? Why are you all so fucking worried about who I am? What difference does it make? Does it make it harder for you to point fingers? Why is it that people who agree with your SLH FIC, who don’t use their SL names are not harangued about it?
“this sickeningly whiny culture that has developed in the US over the past couple of decades”
“–which you are doing your best to propogate and maintain”
No Walker. I am not whining. I am pointing out whining. Or as prok likes to call it “reporting”. Funny you don’t have an issue with his “reporting. By the way, you are a “journalist”; surely you can avoid the tu quoque fallacy?
“–no one is crying over video games. Second Life is not a game. Why are you wasting so much time crying over it, if that’s how you feel about it? If SL is so trivial to you, why are you even weighing in?”
It may not be trivial to me, but at the same time, as long as the TOS states all data is temporary and that L$ have no real value; it’s a game, and I am sure if a court of law had to deal with SL in legal terms, they would handle it as such. This is why I choose to live in reality, and not cry over things which are beyond my control. Is that to say that I shouldn’t make suggestions? No. I have and do. However, i use the proper channels, and I surely don’t blame other users.
In closing, I would pose a question. Would you have citedand whined about this rule over at PE had prok not been banned from SL’s forums?
My guess is no.
Urizenus
Jul 12th, 2005
Nerf says: “Are you going to sit there and tell me that you would not have published this had not prok been banned from SL? Had you not been upset at LL for what these editors consider unfair treatment, would these editors have found and highlighted the rule adjustments at project entropia? Lie to me baby, I love YOU.”
Nerf, the one thing the Herald has always reported without fail are issues of free expression in other games. Not only have we covered my banning from TSO to death, but we also covered …
When SOE shut down protests on SWG:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=388),
The mass bannings from sociolotron: (http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=306)
The banning of Mick from stratics:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=472)
The banning of Ian from stratics:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=454)
And more general user protests about selective censorship on stratics:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=458)
As there is now a fair bit of legal literature on the topic of censorship in games, we have also supplied links to those papers as well, and have covered the relation between games and company towns and shopping malls (where free speech is often protected). Thus we have provided links to and commented on law review articles by Jack Balkin and Peter Jenkins…
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=337)
…as well as an article by Eric Goldman:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=693)
We have also covered and provided links to real world panel discussion on free speech in games, including this one involving yours truly, Yale’s Jack Balkin, and Harvard’s Fred Schauer.
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=502)
And all of this before you, Prok, FIC and Pathfinder were even bugs on our windshield.
Walker Spaight
Jul 12th, 2005
dude, I have been foremost among Herald writers in pointing out the inflammatory nature of Prok’s posts. and Path made it clear that he wasn’t actually breaking any rules.
also: yes, we would still have whined about PE if Prok had not been banned. Uri has been whining about stuff like that for a long time now.
nerferder
Jul 12th, 2005
“While I think Prok’s discourse does incite a certain amount of bile, he is careful, in my experience, to not cross the line to open bear-baiting like you do so easily.
the irony of this statement is transcendant.
My parents and grandparents were veteran protesters, and they are proud of my willingness to go to bat for free expression in whatever form I do it. Im fairly new (this account anyhow) to SL, but I find it amazing that this discussion exists.
On a side note, nerfherder, you do realize that you validate this discussion by complaining about it? for someone of your amazing mental capacity, who obviously has the best path for all of us laid out in his head, for you to miss that simple rule of discussion disturbs my faith in you!
Oh, and don’t even get me started on “what’s wrong with America.” ”
OMG! There is an FIC at SLH! Which “journalist” is next? Fuck it, I am just gonna start calling myself a freelance journalist/writer too.
22 day old folks reporting on SL! Why bother to proclaim that you are “fairly new” if you’re not? Why not post under your established account?
I don’t “validate” anything here, because I don’t whine about the rules that I am under no obligation to adhere to. If I don’t like them, I walk, and let my pocketbook do the talking.
I don’t have a “path” laid out. I simply see a few people clamouring for “free speech” rights were they have none, which they AGREED to. In other words, whining because of their own choices. There is no revelation here. EVERY SINGLE online game/environment I have participated in (probably about 20, at last count) has a rule whereby they state they can terminate my ass at any point, without any explanation, and that all data is TEMPORARY. This is why I am flabbergasted that people are making such a big deal about this PE amendment, and LL’s policies and decisions.
“Veteran protesters”? *Rolls eyes* It all makes perfect sense now!
Veteran protesters are whiners. It cheapens actual, well reasoned protests.
I am pointing out that I think that some past generations would choke if they heard about it. Think about it. Screaming for free speech in an online environment owned by a private company, is basically akin to me putting forth the same claim at work, on property not owned by me, where I am subject to their rules. I have entered a contract with them which restricts my activities. Where is all the hand wringing over that?
As far as your “bear baiting” comment goes, LOL, I think Prok baited the biggest bear of all, Linden Lab. Psssst… He can’t post anymore over there! If you all think he is so fucking great, why then don’t you pick up the torch? Go post some attacking threads, directed at individuals and their businesses, like prok did. What IS IT that is stopping you? OH! THATS RIGHT! Your trampled on, imaginary, “right” to “free speech”.
LL did not make a new rule. PE did not make a new rule. They simply reiterated and highlighted part of their EULAs. Before these “new policies” you could be terminated for no reason, and afterward, you can still be terminated for no reason.
And this is my point: If you don’t like the way SL or any other PRIVATELY HELD, online entity runs it’s business, COMPLAIN, but do it in the proper avenues. Call them, email them , IM them. But don’t drag other people into your personal crusade because your paranoia prevents you from understanding that others who play this game didn’t become successful by stroking Linden Lab, and that they don’t make the decisions. Don’t try to turn the forums into a personal diary, while making up SHIT about other players.
The fact you clowns over here willfully ignore direct and sustained personal attacks made by your golden child, yet cry when someone like me gets fed up after nearly a year of listening to the crap and expresses it, makes me suspect that there isn’t much reason to take you folks seriously.
nerferder
Jul 12th, 2005
“When SOE shut down protests on SWG:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=388),
The mass bannings from sociolotron: (http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=306)
The banning of Mick from stratics:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=472)
The banning of Ian from stratics:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=454)
And more general user protests about selective censorship on stratics:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=458)
As there is now a fair bit of legal literature on the topic of censorship in games, we have also supplied links to those papers as well, and have covered the relation between games and company towns and shopping malls (where free speech is often protected). Thus we have provided links to and commented on law review articles by Jack Balkin and Peter Jenkins…
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=337)
…as well as an article by Eric Goldman:
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=693)
We have also covered and provided links to real world panel discussion on free speech in games, including this one involving yours truly, Yale’s Jack Balkin, and Harvard’s Fred Schauer.
(http://www.dragonscoveherald.com/blog/index.php?p=502)”
Good show!
A show which further reinforces my assertion that online communities are struggling to deal with the few people who simply refuse to use the software for its intended purpose, and instead turn it into their own political soapbox.
You know, I thought I had left childhood behind, where I had other kids causing the powers that be to tighten rules which affected all. Apparently, as time goes on, more and more people are dragging this type of catalyzing behavior into adulthood, thereby making things less fun, and more difficult for the majority.
Why are so many of these MMOE/MMOGs doing this?
My guess is because of people who cannot conduct themselves civilly, most likely because they say and do things they WOULD NEVER DO IN RL because of their relative anonimity online. The irony is, in RL they HAVE FREE SPEECH!
Walker Spaight
Jul 12th, 2005
nerferder > “they say and do things they WOULD NEVER DO IN RL because of their relative anonimity online”
*cough*
nerferder
Jul 12th, 2005
“nerferder > “they say and do things they WOULD NEVER DO IN RL because of their relative anonimity online”
*cough* ”
You’re highly mistaken if you think I wouldn’t say the things I say online, in RL. I have and do. Frequently.
I am me, whether online or not. I am not emboldened by anonimity.
I gave you the reason I am using an alias here. If you don’t want to accept it, thats your issue.
Aimee Weber
Jul 12th, 2005
Back from vacation! WOOO I am feeling great
So… 45 posts and my name was not mentioned even once. Perhaps something good has come out of all of this after all! A new era of “live and let live”.
Maybe it’s the spirit of human kindness speaking, or maybe it’s the near lethal quantities of chardonnay and seafood I ingested all week… But I love you guys
*ducks head away from flung poo*
Tony Walsh
Jul 12th, 2005
I’d rebutt the nerferder, but it is already doing a stellar job of intellectual suicide. Carry on.
seldon metropolitan
Jul 12th, 2005
my newbieness is qualified simply by the fact that almost a year ago, I registered a trial account on SL, played around for about a month, got distracted by RL things, and stopped playing. I use a different email now, have different credit card info, and just decided it’d be easier to start new than reactivate my account.
So sure, I dont have much to my credentials. Im dedicated to working hard at my chosen job in SL, and I agree with the ideals of this publication. thats enough for me.
now to respond to the rest of your drivel
>Veteran protesters are whiners. It cheapens actual, well reasoned protests.
What? I don’t know what generalizations you’re making about “veteran protestors,” but it’s ridiculous to make that kind of blanket statement.
>I am pointing out that I think that some past generations would choke if they heard about it. Think about it. Screaming for free speech in an online environment owned by a private company, is basically akin to me putting forth the same claim at work, on property not owned by me, where I am subject to their rules. I have entered a contract with them which restricts my activities. Where is all the hand wringing over that?
The point that everyone invloved with this discussion but you understands, is that LL presents this world as a metaverse, a place for development of a community that they describe, in the name, as a “Second Life.” As such, the rights of the users should more closely mirror a government (within which there are still rules that you are subject to) than a corporation.
>they say and do things they WOULD NEVER DO IN RL because of their relative anonimity online. The irony is, in RL they HAVE FREE SPEECH!
I live in Ohio. we dont have free speech, havent you heard?
as far as anonimity, I have no problem giving out anything about myself, unlike some people.
Pendari
Jul 12th, 2005
hehe.. That’s ok Aimee, Prok makes up for it on his own blog. http://secondthoughts.typepad.com/ =p