Defining Griefing In The Forums

[Perrie Juran]

Recently their have been quite a number of threads regarding bans, people leaving the Forums voluntarily, etc.  An issue that comes up when we look at this is "griefing."  So I got to pondering a moment what actually constitutes griefing.  Of course we all (or I hope all) understand that things like sexual harassment, racial prejudices and the like have no place here nor at least in my opinion should they.  But beyond this it sometimes seems like it is hard to define.

The SL Wiki links from this http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Griefer to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer in defining what a griefer is.  But that can get rather complicated because it realy deals with In World behavior.

So how do I bring it into focus as far as this Forum is concerned.

Personally, I try to stay person neutral in the Forum.  Like everyone else (and I think I can safely say 'everyone' in this discussion) we all have our opinion of other people who post.  Some folks we like.  Some we don't.  But I try to avoid getting involved with things here based on my personal evaluation of different people.  I post comments in threads based on the subject at hand.  Sometimes I do make a comment about a poster, I'm not perfect,  but I really do try to avoid this.

Thinking about all this I was reminded of this old adage:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

So putting my long windedness aside, I would like to propose this simple concept:

Griefing in the Forum occurs when the focus of a discussion moves from the issue at hand to the poster.

So what are your thoughts on this? I'm getting ready to go out and enjoy some nice weather myself but thought this could be a good discussion.  In other words it may be later before I get back to this thread.

[RudolphUkka]

Griefing is not covered by the Community Guidelines, and therefore is a non-issue in relation to these Forums.

More important is the apparent fluidity of official interpretation of the Community Guidelines which apply to these Forums.

Recently these Community Guidelines seem to have been relaxed to permit spamming, discussion of non-SL topics and promotion of businesses in a discussion forum where those prohibitions should exist - for the purpose of a marketing initiative!

Furthermore, the guarantee in the Community Guidelines that "Spirited discussion and constructive disagreement are welcome" seems also to have been suspended when that spirited discussion and constructive disagreement has been to the detriment of the aforementioned marketing initiative.

While I applaud the principle of raising this issue, Perrie, I think we should initially restrict - here -  the focus of any discussion of the inadequacies of adminstration of these forums, and shortfalls in communication regarding changes in their usage, to the way in which these changes contravene or contradict the extant Community Guidelines.

I haven't used any asterisks yet, so here are some.

***

Rudi

***

[Nacy Nightfire]

Other then to say I have a great idea involving an event about people,  all of which we can discuss at some more appropriate time, I completely  agree. 

Too often I see posters avoiding the topic or not taking the time to actually read and discuss the topic at hand.  They use other folks' posts as a platform to challenge the op's right to even HAVE an opinion/observation or they have some other hostile agenda that in no way resembles a contribution to an actual discussion.  

[UncommonTruth]

I'd agree. Only changing your concept minutely..

Griefing in the Forum occurs when the focus of a discussion moves from the issue at hand to personal attacks upon the poster or other forumers.

 

Only changed because there are many times posts are half chats (at least) and I see nothing wrong with that. I wouldnt want to see the forums become impersonal and bland by taking out all abilty to interact, wich could happen if the original statement was taken literaly.

[Imnotgoing Sideways]

Most abuse I see is a matter of a number of people who are already in an abusive dialogue.  Forums don't offer much in exploitable mechanics to really drag someone though hell.  So, at best, I can see being abusive and getting away with it is second only to reporting posts of an unliked person simply because they're unliked. ()

Beyond that, I don't know what the fear factor is here.  I hear of people leaving or refusing to post on this forum.  There's a pervasive tone of "you can't speak your mind here".  I guess all I can say is those are people who haven't chosen their words carefully enough.  To add, they probably feel they earned the priveledge to lipflap whatever they want in spite of community standards. (=_=)

I still post here.  Not often.  It's tough to take this forum seriously given its heavily flawed interface.  Still... If something lands on page-1 of new posts that interests me. I'm all in there. ()y

 

 

[RudolphUkka]

"How can we know the dancer from the dance?" - WB Yeats

Well, one of the

*

ways I

*

do, is to assess the

*

competence of the way in which the

*

poster makes his

*

argument, in the way the

*

poster presents his

*

opinion, and in the way that the

*

poster communicates his viewpoint succinctly, clearly, unambiguously and comprehensively - and if he doesn't

*

do all those

*

things, then I shall feel

*

entitled to point out the posters

*

shortcomings in these areas, and if the

*

poster wants to take it

*

personally, then that is how it should

*

well be.

***

Rudi

***

[Venus Petrov]

I agree with the view that it is challenge enough to manage the forum appropriately using established and published Guidelines without introducing something more.  I see nothing inherently wrong about moving from the issue at hand or even a side issue to the author of a post.  After all, we are (supposed to be) part of a community and lively exchanges sometimes become a bit more personal and we can disagree without becoming disagreeable, yes?

I am interested in improving this forum and listed a few simple ways here.

[RudolphUkka]

"Abuse" is only used in the

*

Community Guidelines in the context of their attempt to

*

censor any and all criticism of the

*

moderation process. Please don't use it as a

*

convenient euphemism for "griefing". Griefing and abuse of residents are

*

issues that relate to

*

inworld situations, not these

*

forums.

***

Rudi

***

[Sy Beck]

I would find it (have found it) very hard not to attack a person who I know to be either, lying, hypocritical, making incorrect assumptions, making ad hominen posts or posts to publicise themselves and/or defame others. 

It would be nigh on impossible to critically and honestly address their post without tackling them personally if any of what I've listed was contained or expressed within their post.  I also have a lot of sympathy for Rudi's viewpoint, that if you express a point emotionally rather than as a structured, factual and reasoned argument then don't be surprised if you incite another emotional drama queen to comeback at you in the same style or for someone to point out that you could express your point in a far better manner.

If they or somebody else is offended or hurt by a hostile or vehement reply to a post, then from my experience 99 times out of a 100 it is because said poster has had their, intelligence, credibility and ego demeaned in public by a cogent response rather than by a barrage of emotional name calling, offensive mud slinging or griefing if you wish to call it that, which I don't.

 

[wiked Anton]

So in your opinion, anyone who doesn't have the ability to put into words that satisfy your assumption of intelligence doesn't have a valid argument and you intend to inform them of this. Everybody has valid thoughts , opinions and arguments, only some may not have the educational back ground ( intellectual thumb up their ears) to be able to " sound as smart as y'all" but their arguments are just as valid. This whole discussion sounds like and intellectual wank a thon. ( and yes, i used spell check here to make sure i didn't offend anyone)

[Derek Torvalar]

---

wiked Anton wrote:

So in your opinion, anyone who doesn't have the ability to put into words that satisfy your assumption of intelligence doesn't have a valid argument and you intend to inform them of this. Everybody has valid thoughts , opinions and arguments, only some may not have the educational back ground ( intellectual thumb up their ears) to be able to " sound as smart as y'all" but their arguments are just as valid. This whole discussion sounds like and intellectual wank a thon. ( and yes, i used spell check here to make sure i didn't offend anyone)

---

No, everybody does not have valid thoughts, opinions or arguments and your post is evidence of that. Your premise is false therefore your argument is invalid. 

If people are going to present their stupidity as a substitution to rational and reasoned argument then they should expect others who know the difference to point out their deficiencies and inadequacies. If they are unable to confront their stupidity, which they have themselves put on public display, and then have it subsequently pointed out for everyone to see, then they should not be posting on the forum. They should not be filing inappropriate AR's  confusing the mods as to what is authentic and what is merely egocentric  whingeing and faux butthurt looking for dysfunctional sympathy from the pretentious.

What happens here on the forum is demonstrative as to what happens to the boy who says the emperor has no clothes. He is slapped down and banned.

Outrageous.

[Storm Clarence]

Welcome back Derek.  Great post.  

[Venus Petrov]

Your post gave me a flashback to the final couple of days before the forum shutdown earlier in the year to transition to this Lithium forum.  I was engaged in a back-and-forth with MP that was exhausting.  My brain hurt trying to make logical assertions to counter her emotional flamefest.  I admit to becoming emotional in some of my posts.  I do not regret it.

P.S. Welcome back Derek.

[Deltango Vale]

"Griefing in the Forum occurs when the focus of a discussion moves from the issue at hand to the poster."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I like Perrie. I think he's a great guy.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

wiked Anton wrote:

So in your opinion, anyone who doesn't have the ability to put into words that satisfy your assumption of intelligence doesn't have a valid argument and you intend to inform them of this. Everybody has valid thoughts , opinions and arguments, only some may not have the educational back ground ( intellectual thumb up their ears) to be able to " sound as smart as y'all" but their arguments are just as valid. This whole discussion sounds like and intellectual wank a thon. ( and yes, i used spell check here to make sure i didn't offend anyone)

---

Some people's arguments are not valid, no matter how well they write.  Some people start arguments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, go off on tangents, accuse people of harassing them when they're not, question their very right to express themselves the way in which they choose, cross reference issues from one thread to another and a variety of other things that expose them of being incapable of have any validity in thought or opinion.

When this is the case, they should be called on it... if it hurts their tender feelings, too bad.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

---

wiked Anton wrote:

So in your opinion, anyone who doesn't have the ability to put into words that satisfy your assumption of intelligence doesn't have a valid argument and you intend to inform them of this. Everybody has valid thoughts , opinions and arguments, only some may not have the educational back ground ( intellectual thumb up their ears) to be able to " sound as smart as y'all" but their arguments are just as valid. This whole discussion sounds like and intellectual wank a thon. ( and yes, i used spell check here to make sure i didn't offend anyone)

---

No, everybody does not have valid thoughts, opinions or arguments and your post is evidence of that. Your premise is false therfore your argument is invalid. 

If people are going to present their stupidity as a substitution to rational and reasoned argument then they should expect others who know the difference to point out their deficiencies and inadequacies. If they are unable to confront their stupidity, which they have themselves put on public display, and then have it subsequently pointed out for everyone to see, then they should not be posting on the forum. They should not be filing inappropriate AR's  confusing the mods as to what is authentic and what is merely egocentric  whingeing and faux butthurt looking for dysfunctional sympathy from the pretentious.

What happens here on the forum is demonstrative as to what happens to the boy who says the emperor has no clothes. He is slapped down and banned.

Outrageous.

---

Damn, you put it so much better than I... glad you're back.

...Dres

[Sy Beck]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"Griefing in the Forum occurs when the focus of a discussion moves from the issue at hand to the poster."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I like Perrie. I think he's a great guy.

---

I saw what you did there.  :smileywink:

[Venus Petrov]

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

"Griefing in the Forum occurs when the focus of a discussion moves from the issue at hand to the poster."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I like Perrie. I think he's a great guy.

---

Griefer!  :matte-motes-bored:

[Maryanne Solo]

Perrie is spot on in his asessment.

You have to laugh and roll eyes when someone presents multiple links to discussions past to prove a supposed point. Or out of the blue comes a totally off topic personal attack. All too common I am afraid.

I wonder how many people bother to actually become involved in observing such petty detective work. It's like kindergarten all over again.

Truly laughable.

omg I found Rudi's missing content:

**** ** **** *** ******** *** **** **** \o/

 

[Venus Petrov]

Why, right now I am laughing and rolling my eyes.  Different reasons, too!  Who'da thought?

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Thinking about all this I was reminded of this old adage:

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

Griefing in the Forum occurs when the focus of a discussion moves from the issue at hand to the poster.

So what are your thoughts on this?

---

 1)   That old adage is one that is often attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, but there's no evidence that she actually originated that line.    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Eleanor_Roosevelt

2)  My understanding of the purpose of that adage, is to discourage pointless gossip.  It's pointing out that gossip, for it's own sake, is not a particularly intellectual pursuit or use of a good mind.

3) What that adage does not address, is the fact that in order to understand how and why other people think and act the way they do, we must delve into their thinking process.  I see no other way to do this besides examining who they are, how they think, and what background led them to their conclusions.  

As other people will often notice something that I do not, it is most useful to delve into the thinking process of an individual by discussing that person with one or more other people who's opinions I value.  (in other words...discussing them and making value judgments)

4) This process is done all the time in the professional world.  Professionals in medicine, legal, political, education, safety and law enforcement use the process of vetting and examining others to determine if a candidate is mentally, emotionally and educational suited to the position. 

5)   Discussing another person is also vital to understanding how some have formed prejudices, and through that examining of the person, we can come to a greater understanding of how they came to have those prejudices.  We then can chose to try and affect change if that is deemed desirable.  Again, this is done through discussing that individual and their thinking.   If one is looking at opinions as opposed to facts, I don't see how it's possible to separate the opinion (idea) from the person.  

6)   Also, great minds do discuss people...and make judgments.  It's how humans function. 

 

"Plato was a bore."    - Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)

"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."    - Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

"I'm not going to get into the ring with Tolstoy."   - Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)

"Hemingway was a jerk."    - Harold Robbins

 

If you know anything about US American history, you'll that the Founding Fathers were men of great minds...and high ideas.  Yet, those same men, engaged in the most brutal, slanderous, and pernicious gossip toward one another.  Lives, families, and careers were at stake...duals were fought.  All because these men were discussing, gossiping, and examining one another.  

So, why would these great men, who were embarking on a great world changing event lower themselves to gossip?   Because it's how power and influence work.  People want to be able to influence the thoughts and actions of other people.    Each of us here is trying to carve out our own sphere of influence.   Those that don't admit it, well they are being disingenuous. 

But, that's it.   Discussing, other people and their thinking, is how we can put our stamp of approval on said person.  Or our disapproval.  It's how we can challenge them if we think their ideas are wrong....by showing that the way they think is wrong.  By showing that how they came to their conclusions is wrong.   Hard to do that without bringing the actual person into the picture. 

[Rage Riptide]

OP got griefing mixed up with trolling.

[Aylin Moonshadow]

 

[Void Singer]

Derek, we've disagreed in the past, but THAT post.. two thumbs up and a tribute lighter...

@Rudi:
I had such high hopes seeing your first (readable) post... it was intelligent and literate (if a bit dry)... I'd probably read more of what you had to say instead of skipping over it if you kept that format... just saying.

[Storm Clarence]

---

Aylin Moonshadow wrote:

  Mind you, I do not define coexisting peacefully as never disagreeing or having a different point of view.  There are issues that I have taken a very strong stand against in this Forum.  Nor do I expect every one to always get along.  I am not that naive.  But I do believe we can disagree and still maintain a modicum of civility IF we want to. 

---

You are PICard.

 'Prime Directive' :

(this forum) should become a place where people can confidently play and disagree without being disagreeable. We seek to recruit more kindred spirits to make coherent arguments regarding the conduct of the forums to Lexie and her Mods. If we are successful then I am sure that we will be able to enjoy ourselves and develop the interest of lurkers and new joiners in participating confidently and comfortably.

 

ETA: No life preservers required.