Avatar Rights are Human Rights

At the event sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation and Global kids yesterday on Annenberg Island in SL, we could find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. If you're going to advocate real-life freedom of expression protection in SL, then you have to suffer racism and vandalism -- because it's all pixels (speech); yet we don't even have a free forums and the removal of the "permaban" and "any reason/no reason" crippling of free speech such as to take governance in our hands sufficiently to mitigate this vandalism.

On the one hand, the meeting was taken over by discussion of the Patriotic Nigras, the racist, anti-Semitic, destructive griefing group in SL. So score one for their Leninist Dept. of Agitation and Propaganda, because once again, they got the liberals to obsess and hang-wring about them for a psychoanalytical 50 minutes.

That meant that Jack Balkin, an expert on the First Amendment and the Internet, could posit that in the name of free speech and protection of First Amendment values, while you found the PNs repugnant, you had to tolerate their hateful, juvenile, racist, inane expression in SL.

I suddenly realized for Jack and apparently Annenberg, anything happening in a virtual world is merely speech. Anything. It's all speech, as if words/text/voice on a website. It's not behaviour or actions, so they can write the entire thing off as a freedom of expression issue, and never really delve deeply into property rights, privacy, etc. -- although of course, many in the audience who live and work in the immersive environment of Second Life and other worlds want them to do just that: to understand that it is not "just speech".

On the other hand, Jonathan Fanton had some tough questions for Linden Lab. How do they make the rules? What due process do they offer for termination of accounts? What about this vandal behaviour described in Wired? (It seemed as if the thrust of Fanton's invocation of Wired was more of the type "what do you do with people threatening to destroy civil society" but it may have been "how do you handle people who are criminals under your TOS but who are merely engaging in free speech -- I couldn't quite tell which it was).

And here Robin Linden, for the first time ever in the history of Linden Lab that I can tell, condemned griefing as vandalism and as "like a gang" in real life that destroys a neighbourhood. Oh, sure, you imagine that LL condemns griefing -- they prosecute it occasionally and it shows up on their website. But even when Philip mentioned in passing that LL had banned "60 accounts" (it seemed to be only about 25) back in October 2006, he didn't really condemn the groups. Now, Robin was condemning them -- and that's something I've actually urged them to do for a long time. I think that until you can separate right from wrong, and separate speech on a website under the First Amendment from vandalism in a world that fits under any state's criminal code, you don't have a world. What the Patriotic Nigras do isn't cultural; it's criminal. The question is how to apply the law. Here Benjamin Duranske, whose prosecutorial zeal reaches instantly toward banking experiments, all of which he views as unsustainable Ponzi schemes, can't help us -- he doesn't find what griefers do in virtual worlds wrong at all -- he thinks it's annoying, but not real, and therefore real-life law can't apply to things like "a rape in cyberspace".

I had expected the debate organized by Global Kids to bog down into coders' rights to expression and code-as-law, and of course it did, in part, just as it has over on Terra Nova.

(BTW, isn't it fascinating that Dan "Zheleznyiakov" Hunter has "rehabilitated" me and let me post again on Terra Nova. I have no idea what led to that event. A few weeks ago when Julian Dibbell was crowing about giving away his book, I had a pointed remark to make about the "knowledge workers" in India -- read slave typists -- who had to re-type Julian's book in full from start to finish for only $500 so that he could give it away for free -- a payment made by the Creative Commons grant organized by Lawrence Lessig. As I've always said about copyleftism: somebody always have to pay. In this instance, it's labourers in India working for a pittance and CC, which is willing to exploit them just so that Julian can crow that he has given his work to the People. When I posted about the irony in this copyleftism, I just thought it would go to the administrator as blocked. But, imagine, there it posted, who knows why, as I have the same IP address and same name I always have had. Perhaps TN would be embarassed to be seen blocking me when I'm interviewed by Wired and when there is a big lecture on human rights in SL, who knows. Or perhaps the guard was tired again...)

So the horns of the dilemma, then are that on the one hand, I'm for free speech of avatars -- the human rights of avatars -- and want the Lindens to reinstate me to their blogs and stop their suppression of free speech on the forums, and yet on the other hand, I want the Lindens to intervene to stop the harassment and stalking of the PNs and b/tards and Woodburries. Well, isn't that violating their free speech?

Let's leave aside, for a moment, the TOS, which makes racism and incitement of hatred -- even if it doesn't meet the Supreme Court test of "imminent lawless action" i.e. violence (see Brandenburg v. Ohio, where a Ku Klux Klan member who advocated vengeance against Jews and African Americans was first convicted under a criminal statute, then had his conviction reversed upon appeal to the US Supreme Court) Basically, Linden Lab, as a private company, says that it gets to ignore Brandenburg.

Let's just look at actual practice, and actual Constitutional local laws and ordnances that in fact *do* restrict the Constitutional First Amendment right to free speech, so that it is *not* an absolute. And these are local laws that restrict speech as to "time, place, and manner."

So sure, the KKK can march in Skokie or advocate vengeance against Jews -- but they need to get a march permit, and march in a designated public area. They wouldn't be able to come with their flaming torches and white hoods and put burning crosses on a lawn, to keep marching right into your home, to put the torches in your face, etc. That would be trespassing on private property, etc.

In the Second Life context, these restrictions as to "place and manner" are achieved brutely, with tools that eject people from your land, or mute their speech (and many would advocate that new tools should go in to make prims invisible, too).

And if these abusers stepped out on to a city road and continued flaming their victims, the city would likely detain them and cart them away in the paddy wagon. If the bought land next door and put up flaming crosses and hate signs on their own lawn, it might become a grey area -- but might not, depending on the county and state.

That grey area -- the relations between people and their neighbours in Second Life -- is where Linden Lab or any governor would have to make a judgement beyond tools, and look at patterns of intent and motivation.

Absolutists might extend the right to keep mounting grief towers and hate signs endlessly on neighbouring land as a digital extension of free speech.

I think it's important to remember the spirit of Art. 30 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This article is so little mentioned by states -- and even human rights groups lobbying for implementation of all the other rights -- that it's very importaht to raise awareness of it. It's about balance:

Article 30

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

And that's the solution for virtual worlds -- there is no need to allow ad spam and ad extortionism, an unethical and possibly even criminal act -- to utterly destroy the right to freedom of express and one's property rights through extortionist ad farms.

There is no need to enable a violent group like the PNs (whose vandalism in pixels is just as violent and disruptive of events and work and socializing in Second Life as it would be in real life) to take away everyone else's freedom of expression.

If I've come to the Voting Lodge and I'm hosting a meeting, I would expect that people in the meeting would use their expression to say anything from "we like your idea" to "we hate your idea" to "I am going to take part in these votes" to "I'm not going to take part in these votes because it's futile and it's the Lindens' servers."

But for the PNs to descend with ugly particle texture bombings of the view of pictures of aborted fetuses; to drag the sim to a halt because they litter with physics-enabled prims; to have them shout and cat call and also use weapons to orbit everybody out of the parcel -- then to crash the sim -- that's not freedom of expression, that's *removing" freedom of expression for everyone. It is a textbook case of when Art. 30 applies -- you don't get to use freedom of expression to remove it; you can't use just this one election to remove democracy forever (Algeria).

The problem we have in Second Life, that we had in the Sims Online (in worse form), is that we cannot have sufficient freedom of speech -- and influence over decision-making about features that affect our digital lives -- in order to address the problem of vandalism adequately. That's why speech codes that restrict hate speech (and never really get them to work except to reinforce the values of those who abide by them anyway) but also restrict "personal attacks, flames, etc" are inadequate to deal with the challenges of virtual worlds and should be removed.

In TSO, we couldn't name names of individuals or groups, and I had to watch with horror as lot after lot was infiltrated and destroyed by the Sim Shadow Government, cynically and manipulatively, in the fake name of "bringing order" against griefers, but I -- and others with information about this -- couldn't talk about this on the forums. To do so would risk a warning or a ban and certainly removal of the post -- we were not allowed to have posts talking criticially of individuals, groups, or neighbourhoods -- and therefore we couldn't warn the public, bring alternative information forward to mitigate against the propaganda of the griefing groups, and so on.

In Second Life, there is much the same thing -- you cannot start threads, polls, discussions, etc. against individuals or groups. Except...you can, as we all know. If those individuals are Anshe or Prokofy, have at them to your heart's content at least for 2-4 days before finally, a smirking Linden who is on your side in bashing them takes down the offensive post.

Reuters follows much the same policy in the name of some sort of corporate "context" and control that they feel "keeps the discussion on track" as we saw below in "What Eric Erases." I can't expose and condemn Intlibber's bad behaviour in calling for a boycott of my rentals in the malicious portrayal of me supposedly "getting people banned" (I abuse report stalkers and griefers, and will go on doing so; as we saw, this isn't sufficient to seize land, nor did I advocate that land be seized -- if it isn't used to grief from and crash the sim, how can you complain? Ugly builds alone are not grounds for land seizure, nor the presence of groups you don't like that hate you, like the malicious Prokofy Fan Club).

Because Reuters suppressed this speech, it was impossible to expose Intlibber's bad doings, the Lindens smirking tolerance (Torley ignored my request to remove the post that violated their TOS), and the malevolence continues.

Without free speech, you cannot deal with vandalicsm, malice, and malevolent portrayal of situations affecting the public. The answer to this kind of bad speech is only more free speech, not less, so that you can mount defenses and protections, and create alternative news sources. That's what the Internet already does for all of us -- but can it keep up? Can we?

Comments

[Sofian]

I almost support at 100% what you are writing, but could it be possible that you express your opinions in fewer words?

I think that shorter sentences would be more powerfull and would gain more people to your cause:)

[Prokofy Neva]

Sofian, if you share these same thoughts, you're welcome to start your own blog and express them there in shorter sentences if you like.

I write the way I write, I'm not going to be changing it on an informal blog like this for which I'm not paid. The thoughts are complex sometimes and need long sentences.

If you wish to post here, there are 2 rules:

o must use first and last SL name or recognizable blogger's name or RL name that is recognizable
o not incite or cause damage in SL or RL

"Sofian" isn't a name that is recognizable.

[Cocoanut Koala]

There's free speech - then there's public disruption.

I hope LL is getting a clue about it, since SL having a reputation as a griefer's paradise can't be good for LL's income.

It's as if you took this concept of all behavior as "free speech" to the movie theater.

There I am, trying to watch a movie I PAID FOR, and a bunch of people are talking, laughing, and throwing popcorn at each other.

Well, I'm not going to go to that theater again, am I.

coco

[Ann Otoole]

well if the movie happens to be Rocky Horror Picture Show then such audience participation is expected. However, SL is not Rocky Horror Picture Show. At least not most of it.

On a side note, totally unrelated of course, if you knew someone was a suicide risk would you ignore it? if you knew someone was consistently engaged in criminal activities would you ignore it? What is your civic responsibility in these cases?

LL is not upholding any sense of civic responsibilities along this line and should therefore be liable for any and all comers with any and all related lawsuits. LL needs to grow up. If their staff is the issue then they need to replace their staff. Then engage in ethical behavior consistently.

[Ace Albion]

I don't know the details of the particularly USA legal definition of freedom of speech, because it's something we don't have in the UK.

That said, I can't imagine that freedom of expression grants anyone license to shout anything they like anywhere they like. For example, not on other peoples' private property.

I'm sure people would be happy to leave these people to their lulz in their own private, paid for servers where nobody else needs to see or experience it.

[Sofian Mannonen]

@ Prokofy
Complex thoughts do not necessarily need long and repetitive sentences...
Of course it's your blog and you write what you want and how you like to write it, my comment was just a comment.
As for your second rule you do not need to remind me as I apply it in a natural way.
btw you just have to click my name and you reach my blog, I never had the intention to be anonymous.

[Prokofy Neva]

Thanks for placing your name. You aren't original in making this comment. In fact, it's tiresome, as somebody always makes it, and yet nobody is doing the hard work I'm doing trying to deal with these complex issues and write about them for free.

Everyone imagines they can give me a makeover -- their demands are high for their very succinct reporters. The SL community has shown that it can't really sustain an independent press of any quality through ads. It's just not mature enough yet as a society, and its still way too juvenile in its commentary and responses (see the Herald).

It's a public problem, I grant you, but it's not one I will solve by writing little pressed-and-packed news-you-can-use sort of digestible pieces. Find someone else to do that, please.

[Prokofy Neva]

BTW, let me correct that -- in fact, I've been meaning to finish a blog called "The Smart People" about some relatively new bloggers on the scene who ARE indeed grappling with these complex issues of SL.

But guess what! their blogs have as long and difficult pieces as mine, and one of them is mainly occupying himself just digesting my blogs rather than coming up with his own observations lol. That's all good, but that still leaves me the job of having to come up with all the deep thinking -- other than Gwyn, I don't think anybody bothers with this in the SL universe to any real extent, even though it is desperately needed.

And sorry, but I disagree that there is anything particularly repetitive or dense in what I write -- it's merely long and protracted. I just use my blog to think out loud and don't work at all to edit it *because I'm not paid to do so*.

[Prokofy Neva]

In fact, one of the ways that the SL community, such as it is, repeatedly shows its immaturity, is in seizing on the style or mode of how someone communicates -- their spelling, how they say something, whether their text is "tldr;" etc. etc. instead of responding to the actual thought.

I mean, when you say something like that Sofian, what do you imagine someone like me will do? or anybody you find "too dense"?

Do you actually imagine they will fall all over themselves to apologize and say, "Wow! I didn't realize that! Whoah, I'll try harder to make that shorter and more bite-sized for you next time!"

I mean, seriously, it is SO annoying when people can't just skim, get whatever they need to get, or move on, take it, or leave it.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

Constitutional law is irrelevant because SL is not a public space. It's no different than a mall.

The mall can have a policy barring T-shirts it deems offensive. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to express yourself by wearing a contraversial T-shirt. It just means you can't do it on that company's property.

The only way to acheive any sort of "free society" through SL would be having the server side of things become open source. That way you'd (in theory) only be subject to LL's terms of service when you were on their land. You'd also be able to ACTUALLY implement a "free society" by truly owning and running your own sims instead of just renting them from LL like everyone does now (for a ridiculous price).

On the other hand you also wouldn't have many (or any) of the same protections afforded under LL's control such as ARs and whatnot. You'd still have the ability to ban people from your land and set payment info restrictions (and I guess age verification restrictions if that ever goes anywhere).

As far as defining what constitutes free speech outside of LL and their policies I agree with the notion that free speech ends when public disruption begins. I also feel that ignorant ideas should be allowed to be put out in the open so they can be exposed and refuted through dialogue. If they are stifled or repressed they firment and eventually explode causing a bigger public issue than if they were to be addressed at the beginning.

However, griefers don't actually have any socio-political or cultural commentary to make when they do what they do. It's either attention, revenge or humor. Acts such as those that cause harm to people or their property shouldn't be allowed.

On the other hand, people and property aren't really damaged when there's an attack in SL. The only way they can hurt you personally is if you stand there and take verbal abuse. You don't have to. You can tp elsewhere or simply log out...a luxury not afforded us in RL.

And unless your account is compromised leading to a loss of inventory and money then there is no property damage that can't be countered through the numerous land and item functions given in SL.

In short, they only hurt you if you let them.

[Sofian Mannonen]

I didn’t expect three comments from you for the price of one from me…
My only worry if you want to know is that English is not my native language and I do have some difficulties following you in your second thoughts.
Actually I think I understand two thirds of what you are writing, and the problem is that the remaining third must be of some interest to perfectly get your general point of view.
I am also rather new in Second Life: less than one year is not enough to be aware of all the specificities of this world, but I have to admit that reading your blog has taught me several things that I am happy to know now.
“Griefing” for example was something pretty “intangible” for me before, my Word did not even know this word and I just had to add it in my dictionary!
I think I understood enough about the topic to be able to tell you that I agree with you, correct me if I am wrong, I guess your thesis is that griefing is the contrary of free speech (I concentrate in few words but maybe I am wrong…?) and that it’s not because we live in a virtual world that everything can be allowed.
I fully support this idea that if someone is harassing you in Second Life it is as if your real-life-neighbor harassed you by playing the trumpet in the middle of the night, who would accept that?
Now I do not allow me to judge you and your way of writing your blog (style and substance) but there is one saying in French coming from Boileau:
Ce qui se conçoit bien s’énonce clairement
Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisément.
I let everyone find the translation with Google.
I think Prokofy that you are very clear in English language and you do a great work with your blog to make some specific topics appear to your readers, but please have also a second thought to your foreign fans.

[Prokofy Neva]

Sofian, I'm sorry, but I write in English, and I can't adjust what I'm doing for a foreign audience. That may sound harsh, but I think you're in some sort of entitlement mode here, and can't let go your petulance and annoyance at having to read long sentence. Hey, it's tough, I know what it's like, I read a foreign language all day, every day in my real life work. SO I speak with full entitlement myself on this issue!

That's just how it is, I wouldn't dream of asking people whose native languages are not English and who write in those languages to change something for me, reading them as a second language -- that's just plain wrong. It's up to me to work harder -- and use the many online dictionaries out there -- and also converse with real live native speakers instead of sitting on the Internet and expecting all the flat text of the Internet to sing to me.

It's frustrating to me that the lexicon of basic words that are all over the Internet and are known to every kid of 10 years old still seem to elude so many adults. Words like "griefing," which I'm often asked about -- despite it's obvious connotation to the word "grief" and the existing notion of "causing grief".

You haven't understand the point, quite, Sofian, and I don't know where to start. It's not true anything goes on the Internet, and that isn't what I mean by saying that people advocating free speech for virtual worlds will tell us to put up with the PNs and other racists, too.

Most ISPs and private spaces like games and worlds have very restrictive TOS language about hate speech and they enforce it. So no, you have less freedom in SL to march around with Nazi insignia than you might have in Times Square in New York.

My point was that Jack Balkin and others basically take this as speech only -- it's all on a screen, it's all pixels, that's it. They are people who drop in on an avatar somebody else makes up for them, they view it merely as a kind of temporary vehicle, and they don't get it. They don't see how meaningful and interactive and deep and immersive it is to others.

And they hear a lot of shrill voices telling them that people who take these worlds as worlds are merely in a fantasy or deluded or infantile, and they don't want them to take it seriously -- and by God, they'll grief them if they take it seriously!

Jack did mention an interesting case which I need to look up about a Supreme Court decision concerning a company town in Vermont, was it Marshall? I hope there is a tape of this whole session because I'll have more to say.

A ruling on the obligations of a company town to provide free speech is just the ticket for Second Life, I suppose, but I think most people would prefer that they have a broader interpretation as a public space and a common carrier that means they do not become involved in policing speech.

Squeezeone, sorry, but you're ignorant here of case law at least in the US. Malls may be privately owned, but they *are* public spaces and they've been successfully challenged in some cases (see Mall of America) regarding speech issues, i.e. the anti-Bush t-shirt case. Go and look it up again, you're not following that case all the way through, if I'm not mistaken.

I have absolutely no illusions that open source will open up a goddamn thing. Open source=closed society. Open source will mean Ancapistan -- with the accent on the "stan".

I totally disagree that griefers do not cause you damage. They sure do! The tenants who are harassed -- even subjected to sexual abuse rape, ugly horrible pictures that are very disturbing -- they sure feel harmed, and they move out -- causing me loss of business.

Sorry, but this constant reductivism and disparagement of griefing just doesn't fly with me. It is very real, it is very damaging, and it does cost something, in material and emotional damages. It merely awaits its day in court.

This idea that they "hurt you if you let them" really rots, it's superior, priggish horsehit.

You can't TP away from land where you live and work. You're there, you're home, or you're in an office or helping a customer. Why THE FUCK should you have to be displaced from your home, and TP away because some ASSHOLE invades your space. Huh?

Oh, sure, TP away or log off briefly as a technique to shake them loose. But if you have a determined griefer who stalks you, hey, you need a hell of a lot more of a strategy and Linden determination to get rid of these assholes, not just a thick skin.

The idea that we're all supposed to constantly show our "maturity" and our "stoicism" in the face of these immature obsessive assholes is just downright insane. No fucking way. They can back the fuck off.

Griefers often destroyed group deeded or group shared items by either entering an open group OR -- in case you think this is just my problem! -- griefing people who once trusted them to enter closed groups. Open/closed isn't a solution for groups and land tools aren't a solution.

Only public condemnation, naming and shaming, criminal prosecution of the most severe cases in RL, real consequences in virtual worlds will start to mitigate this menace.

You're objectively feeding griefers, Squeezeone, by putting the problem of griefing on to the victim, blaming the victim if he reacts, or gets upset. That's wrong. It's as wrong in RL if a rape takes place; it's as wrong in the virtual world.

The blame goes SQUARELY on the griefers AND NO ONE ELSE except those who ENABLE THEM.

[Prokofy Neva]

BTW, if you don't want to go hunting all over the Internet for Sofian's fancy French words, they mean:

Whatever is well conceived is clearly said,
And the words to say it flow with ease.

To which I can only say:

"Chacun a son gout"

and..

Yazyk do Kieva dovedyot.

or

Zalmolchish' za umnogo sochtyoshya.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

"This idea that they "hurt you if you let them" really rots, it's superior, priggish horsehit."

And we see the reaction that acts as the "1UP Mushroom" to the griefers' Super Mario Bros.

And I agree that it's superior. It's the superior choice to make in a situation where someone isn't actually hurting you.

"You can't TP away from land where you live and work. You're there, you're home, or you're in an office or helping a customer. Why THE FUCK should you have to be displaced from your home, and TP away because some ASSHOLE invades your space. Huh?"

If it's your land then you have but to ban them and mute them. If they're putting pictures at the edge of your property you have but to cover them up. If you're getting shot with something from outside your parcel you have but to set it to "no object entry".

Otherwise you CAN teleport from your home and go somewhere else for little while. That's the very nature of SL. This also makes the griefer think "ok that target is gone. On to the next..."

And I don't see where you get the idea that I'm defending griefers especially when I say...

"However, griefers don't actually have any socio-political or cultural commentary to make when they do what they do. It's either attention, revenge or humor. Acts such as those that cause harm to people or their property shouldn't be allowed."

...the issue isn't the griefers themselves but rather the way you respond to them. And unfortunately for you the way you respond is exactly what they're looking for when they come and attack you.

Reality dictates that there will always be people that disagree with you or otherwise annoy you and no amount of yelling and calling the police is going to make them all go away unless you lock yourself in your room and stop accessing the outside world altogether.

Sometimes the only thing left to do is to not react to people who seek to get a reaction from you. "Turn the other cheek" is a great way to combat harassment. You eventually disarm the person and they go away.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

As for the T-shirt in the mall reference, I wasn't referring to any "political" expressions but rather to RL equivalents to SL griefing like having a T-Shirt with offensive words or imagery on it. Those types of things are meant to get rises out of people just like griefing.

If we want to get into who's to blame for griefing, I think it's LL when they took away the cell phone and CC confirmation that was required to make an account back in early 2006. They wanted to fudge numbers to get companies to start using SL so they could pretend it was a valid business platform so they made it look like there were millions of people in game.

The above would never happen to Central Grid or any other setup that comes from open source. And the only way commerce would be able to happen on such a platform is if peoples' RL info was tied to their accounts...much like how our CC info is tied to accounts we have with amazon.com or whoever we buy things from online. That would cut the griefing way down in places of business.

Again, I would think someone so outspoken on the issue of freedom of speech would be all for this development.

And as far as "The idea that we're all supposed to constantly show our "maturity" and our "stoicism" in the face of these immature obsessive assholes is just downright insane."

...then what separates us from them if we resort to their level of maturity and obsession?

[Prokofy Neva]

1. They do hurt you. And they must pay for that, sooner or later, one way or another.

2. The idea that you have to pretend it is *not* harm, and pretend that you are "bigger than them" is abusive itself.

3. Griefers have in fact a very rigid and orthodox cult that they promote -- the cult of "you can't take it seriously". I've written on this at length. Go back and read it.

4. No, the issue is the griefers themselves. One can take up various postures vis-a-vis the vicissitudes and even evils of life on this planet. But you don't confuse the essence of griefers as being somehow neutral, or "nothing," and everything is on you. The griefers are to blame; they take full responsibility for everything, you are not to be *further* griefed by having to adopt some sort of "political position" toward them and pretend they don't harm you.

5. Griefing isn't about disagreeing or yelling, that's stupid. And to imply that you call the police because you don't agree is even more stupid. You've completely conflated griefing and disputes -- and that's dead wrong.

Griefing isn't something that goes away, for those determined and organized griefers in a conspiracy.

6. We are not Jesus Christ, and this is not Christianity -- it's a diverse multinational world where all kinds of viewpoints collide. We're not required to follow some lame-ass ostensibly "Christian" idea of turning the other cheek -- as if this Teacher didn't turn over some tables in other contexts!

7. What many people fail to realize is that other communities are just as badly griefed as I am by the PNs. They are indiscriminate all over the grid, and they also target groups like the furries in Lusk. Those people never, ever talk about the griefing, and yet they go on getting griefed, over and over again, because griefers don't respond to anyting but force, restraint, and containment. They don't respond to co-optation, negotiation, ignoring, etc.

One of the reasons terrorism is as bad as it is in real life is that there are always people to come around and claim that terrorists are just misunderstood, that extremist groups that foster them should be ignored in the name of communal tolerance, that you shouldn't fight terrorism because you only make it worse, etc. etc.

I also realize that no conversation with you will ever be productive, because you're always antagonistically inclined to me, SqueezeOne, so it's not interesting. You're just mouthing a lot of platitudes that make up your conformist ideology and not trying to think how things really work. I also think you never really have to cope with multiple griefing incidents inworld and don't likely have a business with people in it that you wish to protect.

In fact, what most of your profile tells us in SL is that you are in a bunch of combat groups and spend your time playing war games.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

1. They might hurt you but they don't hurt me. I've dealt with plenty of them in my time in SL. I learned quickly how to defend myself socially and "physically"...as in what my abilities are to combat this within the game.

I get plenty of griefers in the places I run (I own a store and run a military group) and I know how to handle them. They haven't cost me money or pain yet.

2. I am bigger than them because I have a level of maturity and superiority over them. How? I don't drop to their level to give them the satisfaction of knowing they affected me any more than a fly does. I'm also better than them because I don't get off by pulling the tricks they do on people. My ego is secure so I don't need outside input to reinforce it.

3. I'm not sure where you get that part. I'm sure there are plenty (i.e. the ones that choose to align themselves with griefer groups) that do all that but you cannot lump them all together...just like you cannot lump all Muslims under the "terrorist" category as you already know.

4. No one's denying that the griefers are ultimately to blame. You also blame the paranas when you get skeletonized after jumping into the wrong lake. The issue is the fact that they will always be there and can be avoided if the right approach is taken.

5. Let me break it down for you: conflict is the result of disagreeing in various forms. The griefer wants to do something to you that you don't want to do. If you wanted them to do it they wouldn't be griefing in that particular situation.

Let's try this one: calling the police every time you get mugged in a particular alley won't stop you from getting mugged again if you keep going down that alley. No one disputes that the mugger is a criminal, but there's also common sense and street smarts that could be used to keep you out of that kind of trouble in the future.

6. My bad, I thought I read that you were a Christian or something. And whether you are or not is irrelevant. I'm not much of a Christian and that philosophy has worked for me amazingly.

7. Why do they target furries? Because they know the furries will react and yell "fursecution" which they find entertaining.

And if they aren't talking about griefers and not reacting to them then that would tell me that they aren't actually being affected by them very much.

As I said before I've dealt plenty with griefers in just about every corner of SL I've been in be it combat, RP, building, commerce, you name it. They haven't hurt me yet because I realize it's just a game and I am capable of leaving the area (or the game) at any time.

Terrorism cannot be linked to griefing by any serious person. If anything it's more like grafitti that defies physics. If you got to understand the sub-culture of grafitti you'd see a lot more similarities than you can find between them and terrorists.

Like I said griefers have little or no socio-political motivation whereas that's all terrorists are about. Griefers and vandals just want to ruin people's day to get their kicks.

I'm sorry if you think I'm being antagonistically inclined against you. I was approaching this as a debate between two people who have a different opinion. It would be pointless to discuss something we are in complete agreement on! I assure you I bear no ill will towards you personally.

And yes I play war games because SL is a game to me. Real people are in it and I treat them with respect when they deserve it, but I also know that it's just a game platform and nothing to have an emotional stake in.

[Prokofy Neva]

You're repeating yourself Squeezeone. Did you run out of people to rant to at the Herald? Why not go back there.

You're blathering so many nonsensical things that it's hard to know where to start. You're confusing "calling the police" every time there is a griefing incident with the need to expose and call griefers on what they do -- which is about media reporting, not policing, but I don't expect you to grasp these subtleties.

I can't think of a saying of Jesus' more ill-used than the concept of "turning the other cheek" -- which many people imagine means "don't pronounce something that's evil that is in fact evil."

If your ego is so secure, um, I'd suggest you wouldn't need to spend so much time setting everyone straight on forums.

Griefing movements and terrorist movements are very similar. I've outlined all the ways in which the dynamics are similar -- I think it's just too subtle for you, or somehow too complex, as you will persist in seeing things in the facile way you do. To say griefing is like graffiti is to obstinately defy the facts in SL, where griefing isn't just spray painting a nickname on the wall, it's putting ugly textures of the tub girl or the goatse man right in your face, shooting or orbiting you, moving your house, even rape. Sorry, but we are a very long way from graffiti here.

It doesn't matter to me if furries "react" and squeal "fursection". The people to blame here aren't furries. The people to blame are griefers. Apparently you don't have right and wrong very straight in your mind.

[Maklin Deckard]

"Those people never, ever talk about the griefing, and yet they go on getting griefed, over and over again, because griefers don't respond to anyting but force, restraint, and containment. They don't respond to co-optation, negotiation, ignoring, etc." - Prokofy

Correct! Perfectly correct. These kinds of 'people' (for lack of a better descriptive term) have been around for ages.

In the text-based MU* era, there were groups that used the internal commands to 'kill' (send home) other players as a form of disruption. The name of the particular social MUD escapes me, but a group called Black Rose was @kill commading others. No amount of ignoring them worked...finally, the staff had to take a position to stop it.

In the early graphical MMO days, Ultima Online had its griefers (Player Killers) and a developer that ENCOURAGED it as a form of 'community building' (Raph Koster). It only changed from Griefer Online to playable when Raph was gone and SANE devs set up rules and enforced them.

Early Everquest had its share of griefers, usualy training monsters on newbs or those just minding their business. That only got fixed when the outcry got loud enough the GM's started enforcing the rules.

No, ignoring the griefers won't make them go away...that is a line of thought that is usually claimed by griefers and their fellow travellers. To rid the virtual worlds of griefers (or limit their depredations), one has to stand up to the game 'gods' and make THEM develop a couple vertibrae and start to make/enforce rules. Until the game developers grow up and stop coddling griefers (as Koster did in UO and LL does in SL), it won't go away.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

Well I can see, Prokofy, that you have become frustrated with this debate to the point where you aren't able to come up with any counterpoints to my points. That's evident by the need to attempt to insult my intellegence instead of sticking to the issues we're discussing. Don't worry. I forgive you. ;)

You'll also note that you are one who has taken up a crusade to "call out evil" in the form of bored kids with no social lives on the internet and I (and many others) have not. Yet you're the one plagued by their tricks and foul practices and I don't have the same problem.

I spend plenty of time in game and have a pretty high profile (military groups attract plenty of griefers in case you weren't aware) yet I don't have much of a problem from them.

As far as Jesus is concerned, I think He'd be more concerned with ACTUAL evil going on in the world than dumb kids on the internet. We all know there's no shortage of bad today between all the wars and REAL LIFE civil liberties being curbed.

If there was a "The Man", he'd be very happy to know that such passion and vitriol is being focused on a video game that less than 1% of the world is even involved in instead of focusing on educating people on Darfur or the loss of our freedom due to terrorism and the war against it.

But yeah, avatar rights is an irrelevant concept. An avatar doesn't exist in public space but space provided by companies and corporations. They have the right to shape and decide the rules as long as those rules don't conflict with certain real world laws.

Just like you can ban from your blog or parcels and silence anyone that disagrees with you, they can ban anyone from their property for little or no reason. That's life!

[Prokofy Neva]

Squeezepow, you're not interesting to talk to when you spout lame memes and dull cliches, and your intelligence is absent, and therefore not even insulted.

I'm not "plagued" by any tricks or kids or rabbits. I call out bad behaviour because it's the right thing to do. But hey, I do know the difference between what happens in SL, and my real life and the life of others in real trouble on the planet. I just think it's worth bothering with, and not submitting to the nihilism and cynicism that says it doesn't matter.

I think Jesus would care about dumb kids perpetrating evil on the Internet, too. Not that I can read the mind of God! But it seems consistent with His teachings, and the teachings of the ancients, "as above, so below". That what happens on earth or in cyberspace matters as it occurs in the spiritual realm as well.

Actually, you're quite ignorant, as I do my part on Darfur, and I don't feel required to explain it.

Terrorism includes this kind of extremism on the Internet, too. More people are affected by it, in fact.

I don't silence people who "disagree with me". I have the rule of law here, something you're unfamiliar with. I have 2 rules, one of which involves using your SL name in full or recognizable name, and the other involves banning people who actually incite or cause RL or SL harm to me.

If I really silenced people I don't like, who are obnoxious, or with whom I disagree, you wouldn't be posting on here now, would you, wise ass? You're just not interesting enough to require me to answer you in full. Move along to your combat game now.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

Ok this is getting pretty funny now. I've been able to conduct myself without the insults and negativity that you have so quickly run to (once again) because your position is apparently unable to stand up to any sort of challenge.

There are numerous cop-outs in your last post alone that cannot be overlooked...especially since that's what this post consists of.

You're not actually doing anything for Darfur. That is just something you made up to try to cover your ass. Otherwise you would mention what you do.

Also, if you were doing something for it that equaled the amount of effort you put into a video game then you wouldn't have time to write all this stuff and wouldn't be able to afford 15+ sims.

The notion that more people are affected by griefers than by terrorism would be hilarious if it wasn't so dangerously ignorant. It shows that "The Man" (whoever he is) is getting the job done by distracting people's focus from actual problems in the world with gadgets and accessories. I applaud you, O faithful consumer!

I also find it so strange that you would be as familiar with the teachings of Jesus and yet conduct yourself the way you do. I've read numerous posts by you where all you do is dispense hate and contempt for anyone and everyone that doesn't fit perfectly into your box. They don't even have to disagree with you on a particular point anymore! It was people like you that prompted Ghandi to say

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

I now know that you do, in fact, find a conversation uninteresting if the other party isn't in complete agreement with you and doesn't stroke your ego and recognize you for the great champion of justice and righteousness that you think you are.

Also, I never said you DO silence those who disagree with you, I simply stated that you CAN.

But I say again (fully knowing you won't be able to refute it)...

Avatar rights is an irrelevant concept. An avatar doesn't exist in public space but space provided by companies and corporations. They have the right to shape and decide the rules as long as those rules don't conflict with certain real world laws. They aren't oppressing anyone because you have the ability to go elsewhere and express yourself there.

Just like you HAVE THE ABILITY TO ban from your blog or parcels and silence anyone that disagrees with you, they can ban anyone from their property for little or no reason. That's life!

[Prokofy Neva]

You're not interesting to talk to because you bludgeon with your viewpoint, and keep repeating yourself, and have no sustained thesis. You're also speaking entirely from ignorance because you have no idea what I do. I suspect you're just yet another male geek 20 or 30 something who can't control their spite and feel they can give it free rein on the Internet.

I don't dispense hate and contempt, I criticize. If you can't distinguish between "hate" and "criticism," then perhaps this blog isn't for you.

It's safe to say that more people are affected by griefers -- hackers, spammers, hijackers, inworld griefers in virtual worlds, cheaters in games -- than terrorists. Even if you only take the subset of those affected in virtual worlds by griefers inworld, that's way more than affected by terrorists. It's not even a contest. And it isn't likening them to say they are analogous.

As for cop-outs, let's note that you've aced that category by wriggling out of a direct confrontation of your falsehood about my supposedly banning people arbitrarily by saying "You could if you wanted to". Lame.

[SqueezeOne Pow]

My correcting your misunderstanding isn't a cop-out. It's an explanation to help you better understand my point. My opinion hasn't changed nor has my stance on it.

The fact that more people talk about terrorists and have a working fear of them than griefers proves your point invalid...and ignorant. The world isn't the US and UK, Prok. People that aren't white and can't afford computers exist here, too! Their pain counts as much as (if not more than) your inconvenience in a video game. Your work in Darfur should have taught you that! ;)

As far as hate and contempt, I could go and find any number of quotes from you that were straight up "Fuck you" and "I would like to strangle you" which is DEFINITELY not criticism. I highly doubt you lack the wherewithall to discern when you're merely criticizing and when you're being vulgar so the only conclusion is that you were being dishonest in that statement.

If stating my case feels like bludgeoning to you then maybe it's time for you to review your stance on the subject.

I keep repeating myself because you keep missing the point and are unable (or unwilling) to either provide a valid counterpoint or even address the matter in the first place.

I have been consistent on my opinion. I keep having to repeat it because you "word-frisk" and make irrelevant points based on semantics or things you just pull from outerspace.

Just to get back on topic let me just make it all the more clear for you...

a) "avatar rights" is irrelevant because an avatar doesn't exist if not for some company or institution which ultimately holds ownership of it and the space it inhabits.

b) institutions and corporations that own such spaces have a large amount of say as to what is allowed to happen there.

c) you're not actually being oppressed if they ban you from their forum or from use of their services because you could go elsewhere and express yourself there. True oppression leaves no such option.

d) griefers are more like vandals than terrorists because their destruction isn't usually based on any socio-political cause.

e) griefers will always be there in some capacity because there will always be ignorant people that get a rise out of ruining other people's good time.

f) griefers are to blame for their behavior but just as it is possible to avoid being mugged or raped by avoiding the bad part of town it is possible to avoid being griefed.

If you are able to address these points with counterpoints then you are able to debate and have thought through the subject you've been talking about. That deserves respect even if I disagree.

[ichabod Antfarm]

"a) "avatar rights" is irrelevant because an avatar doesn't exist if not for some company or institution which ultimately holds ownership of it and the space it inhabits."

My avatar needs server space and cpu cycles to exist, yes. It also requires me and my willingness to participate and do my part in building their world. And, if they pull the plug on that world, my avatar continues to exist as a memory and a manifestation of myself that I can resurrect at will. I have rights; why wouldn't the psychological construct known as my "avatar" not have the same?

"b) institutions and corporations that own such spaces have a large amount of say as to what is allowed to happen there."

I think that everyone will concede this rather obvious point. The issue is how they wield this awesome power over their clients. Is it arbitrary, ad hoc, unpredictable, and overwhelming or is it reasoned, transparent, and fair-minded?

"c) you're not actually being oppressed if they ban you from their forum or from use of their services because you could go elsewhere and express yourself there. True oppression leaves no such option."

I think your definition of oppression is far too binary. By this argument I could say that Nazi Germany wasn't truly oppressive because a small yet significant number of Jews managed to escape it.

"d) griefers are more like vandals than terrorists because their destruction isn't usually based on any socio-political cause."

One person's terrorist is another person's vandal. Ok, it's quibbling over semantics. However, I don't think that terrorism is necessarily defined by its political content but by its tactics (hence, the term "terrorism") If griefers don't play on people's fears then why is Second Life plagued by banlines and security orbs if it isn't because residents are scared of them? Griefers don't get lulz from vandalism; they get off on lulzcows, which is to say, people who merely want to play and do as they wish. In other words, they prey on civilians and on their sense of security. If they "vandalize" property it is only a tactic to achieve the goal of creating fear. Moreover, organized griefers definitely do have an (at least) implicit social and political agenda even if they are too ill educated to realize it.

I skipped E because it's a truism.

"f) griefers are to blame for their behavior but just as it is possible to avoid being mugged or raped by avoiding the bad part of town it is possible to avoid being griefed."

The idea that bad things only happen in the "bad part of town" is simply a myth. Tell it to the young women who can't walk across their campuses at night without a safety buddy or to the gay guy getting the shit kicked out of him in a park 50 yards away from his million dollar condo. But, as for the point about griefers, why should law abiding citizens have to avoid certain areas or behaviours just because a bunch of thugs will attack them if they don't? This argument makes no sense. Furthermore, that you make it seems contrary to your earlier one that griefers are vandals and not terrorists. If you avoid an area or a behaviour because you are afraid of being griefed then you are being manipulated by the griefer through your fears - seems an adequate definition of terrorism to me.

Squeeze a little harder, dude, and maybe you can get it all out at one go.