Civility and maturity (from Jamie)

[Jamie Palisades]

I seem to use these words a lot, lately. So do others. There's a reason: those qualities have deteriorated in CDS government and policy discussions. There are things we can do about it (skip to the bottom for that).

It's not one person. We're like that Pennsylvania town sitting on top of a coal mine fire: overly touchy, overly factionalized, resentment simmering on multiple sides ... one small spark sets off rounds of recrimination. ThePrincess, lately, has been one of those sparks -- but she's hardly alone -- the *current* round of incivility and indulgent taunting, from multiple factions, goes back at least to the lengthy and disappointing Forum spats in the second 2007 election.

This is unacceptable. It must stop, or it will wither CDS. If we're not decent and fair to each other, it's demoralizing. People leave. Usually people in two classes we need. New citizens -- who justifiably are put off by screaming matches. And our creative contributors -- because they DO more -- and so feel they're owned some degree of appreciation, and they're right. Note, everyone in CDS -- creatives, elected officials, appointed ones, and NGOs -- are volunteers in some sense. Volunteers who are demoralized, leave.

This is not just one person or faction. This has happened before. Neualtenburg became NFS by putsch. Various officials and would-be officials of CDS have been hectored or jeered out of place, time and time again, sometimes snarling all the way. No one is covered in glory by such events. What IS IT with the local love for drama, tar & feathers? No, when someone is nasty to you, you do NOT improve the situation by being nasty back. Knock it off, please.

CONSTRUCTIVE STEPS

a. In official government activities, like the RA, we can choose to enforce civility. Justice makes that point here: [1]. Trying to do so, in the short run. We'll see. Good presiding officer methods sometimes help. I have hopes, but it's too early to tell. Watch the RA Forum boards (or at least the ones to which I am allowed to post) for more on this. We may also investigate doing some explicit training. See [2].

b. In the Forums, we can enforce civil behavior. There's a code! [3] Among other things, the moderators may delete bad, deleterious, off-point and rude stuff. MANY debates on the Forums have sunk into immature, rude behavior. The moderators -- at the moment, mostly another incarnation of the time-challenged SC -- historically have been pretty lax. Probably this is not deliberate. But I think it needs to change. The moderators should step it up. But it would be ruinous to have moderation done aggressively in a one-sided way -- or even seem to be so, if the active moderators are not diverse. (Only one CDS faction, or only members of one government body, or only the Old Guard, or only a close group of likeminded friends.) So: I suggest the moderators recruit some new talent from among a few mature, diverse people with sufficient time to help [4]; and start moderating *everyone* who's rude.

c. In elections, we have a special way to enforce civil behavior :) We can vote people or even factions out of office, if their behavior or performance is appalling. Keep that in mind, too.

Regards, Jamie

[1] http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php ... 686#p10395
[2] http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1689
[3] http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?p=36#36
[4] See my next post in this thread.

[Beathan]

Thank you Jamie for calling us all back to task.

Beathan

[Jamie Palisades]

Above, I suggested that the CDS Forum moderators expand their ranks, and then become more active in removing posts that violate the moderation guidelines. The criteria I suggested were these: mature (e.g., calm and not fractious), diverse (as to faction, tenure in CDS, etc), and available (reasonably, regularly participating in SL and CDS). By the way, it looks to me like the current moderator panel probably was assembled with the same equanimous spirit, and some of those same criteria, in mind! But a while ago: and at SL speed, time commitments and roles change fast, so refreshing might help.

There are plenty of possibilities, based on those criteria. I'm pointing them out for two reasons. One is so there's no question about feasible help for the moderators. The other is that it's good for us to POSITIVELY acclaim people who are a constructive influence, and make their contributions to CDS in a manner that is unfailingly welcoming and improves the community spirit.

In my opinion: here are some obvious examples: Cindy Ecksol, Danton Sideways, Sonja Strom, Bjerkel Eerie, and Symo Kurka. I'd add Alexicon Kurka if he wasn't already chancellor. If we needed more of the Old Guard of long-time citizens to balance the moderator panel, other obvious examples include Moon Adamant, FlyingRoc Chung, Brian Livingston and Sudane Erato (though, again, some or all of that second group may be overcommitted already).

I'm sure there are others I've missed, to whom I apologize. And I only am paying attention to behavior in the last 18 months of which I'm aware. Please spare me any posts disagreeing with any of the above. Post your own POSITIVE views instead. Still. See? We DO have lots of experts who are positive, pleasant and communitarian, AS WELL AS constructive and talented. Thank God for all of them, who make my life in CDS and SL better. Regards Jamie

(P.S., no, I don't think I should be a moderator. I'm interim LRA. I think the head of any CDS government body is a "player" on this field, and would find it very difficult also to be and be seen as a good neutral referee.)

[Sonja Strom]

I believe this is also what Symo Kurka was talking about here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1689

[Desmond Shang]

Mmm. Indeed I think tantrums are very unbecoming, and a horrific indicator of how ugly a community could be.

But on the other hand, it's proof that democracy is working.

Should such proof be necessary? Is it disgusting? Of course such displays are enough to turn anyone's stomach.

But I can't think of a better proof that democracy has really arrived, than the day when someone would be able to spit in Sudane's eye with prejudice, and get away with it simply because they could.

Sudane you know I would never wish to see you insulted - but it would be a real turning point, and a sort of parental victory for you in a way. A victory made even bigger if you got fed up, and left them to manage the region tier too. Your experiment will have graduated, and could then invite you over on holidays to show some historic appreciation.

* * * * *

As for constituencies, it doesn't surprise me at all that they like fighters representing them. If you federalise into little regional blocs, don't you think each bloc's representative would strive to have $L and attention dedicated to improving their hometown?

That's politics for you. If someone doesn't like ThePrincess or Beathan or whomever else, let their own constituents replace them. Any other means would be antidemocratic. If they are fighters and 'getting the job done' - or even simply blocking what they *don't* want done! - it seems the very system is rewarding the behaviour that causes concern.

Of course this is a big deal. Attempting democracy, and furthermore attempting to be a *first* democracy - well, the effort has cost the citizens dear. If expansion, economic prosperity and civic reputation are goals, all of these have suffered terribly.

It may, however, be worth it in the end. Democracy can't just magically exist in a vacuum, inherently good unto itself. Doesn't work like that. Perhaps certain lessons have to be taught or learned the hard way, before people figure out how to make democracy work overall.

From the outside, I see a lot of embarrassing fighting. But also I see dedication between the lines of vitriolic text. I think each one of you could stand up and say: "I love the CDS. I love what it represents, I love its goals, and I am passionate about my part in something larger and better than myself."

[Jon Seattle]

Jamie, Beathan has been working very hard to spread the following rumor. It is utterly unfounded of course:

If the CSDF breaks up into a coalition of pseudo-parties to unfairly increase its electoral share, then we will know that it is interested in electoral manipulation. If it does not, then these whispered concerns can be dismissed as unfounded paranoia.

This really could be a sticky wicket the CSDF has created for us -- and if they are, in fact, planning to manipulate the by-elections by running a coalition of fragmented pseudo-factions, it will be stickier yet.

And further, I notice that one of the people you propose for for the moderation committee implies that I violated voting confidentiality and released election results without authorization in this thread:

http://forums.slcds.info//viewtopic.php ... 585&p=9720

Which of course, I would never do. It seems to me we are rapidly creating an environment where speaking out to defend oneself against attacks, innuendo, and false accusations is considered a bad thing and one where the accused are to be automatically judged guilty. Participating in the political process or volunteering is to take on a terrible risk of attack. Is this what we have to look forward to in the CDS?

[Beathan]

Jon,

I am not working to spread that rumor. I have heard that the tactic might be tried. The tactic is possible and dangerous (as discussed at the last RA -- and as acknowledge by no less a personage than Gwyn). If tried, it would be wrong. If merely an unfounded rumor, then the accusation is itself wrong. I have been very, very careful to never indicate that I believed the CSDF was planning to use the tactic, as I had no evidence beyond rumor and innuendo that the CSDF was considering the move. This should be clear from the very quotes you cite. Read them -- sentence one "this is the rumor"; sentence two, "if true, it would be unethical." I don't see how I could have been more clear that I had no good reason to assert the truth or falsity of the rumor. However, the practice described is so bad that I felt I had to call it out to prevent it from being used -- by any faction.

Beathan

[Flyingroc Chung]

I am against any strong forum moderation. All it does is create more drama about how unfair the moderators are.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I am against any strong forum moderation. All it does is create more drama about how unfair the moderators are.

<Cindy steps up on soapbox>

I thank Jamie for mentioning my name as a potential fair moderator, but I agree wholeheartedly with Flyingroc on the subject of forum moderation. I have had QUITE enough experience with a much larger forum that has its own occasional drama (although not nearly as much as this one!) and I am not willing to attempt to moderate this one.

Having said that, here is what DOES work: a concept I call "self-moderation." Principle #1 is is that if someone posts something that makes you want to scream back at them, DON'T. Instead, write to them directly about how unfair/stupid/idiotic/otherwise offensive their posting was TO YOU and why. Speak directly, speak for yourself, be polite, and DON'T make the conversation public. There is also an option to inform the moderators if a posting is patently offensive, and especially if it seems to violate any of the TOS for Second Life. But my experience has been that when someone posts something offensive and NO ONE responds in public, there is essentially no drama: the thread dies. It's only when people feel compelled to get in the last word that the thread grows and causes even more dissension and bad feelings.

Principle #2: don't post personal attacks, period. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but when someone forgets that the PERSON and the OPINION are not the same thing, bad stuff happens. Yesterday at Alex's executive meeting, we remarked on how we all managed to disagree and "attack" each other's ideas, but we all understood that it was not the PERSON who was being attacked, just the idea. At the end of the meeting we had worked hard and were still enjoying the process of working together. Not only that, I'd venture to say that coming OUT of those meetings we have more respect for the others than when we started. Those meetings work because we all understand that it is not necessary to dislike a person just because you do not agree with his/her ideas/politics/attitudes/modes of expression/whatever. To say (especially in public) "X is and idiot because she believes QQQQ" is simply counterproductive. There are no idiots in CDS, at least none that I have met. There are MANY whose opinions/attitudes/whatever are completely different than my own. One of the real challenges here is to learn to tolerate the diversity of thought without allowing it to get in the way of appreciating the PERSON. Harboring grudges (especially long-term grudges) hurts no one more than the holder of the grudge. Try letting go of even ONE resentment like that and actually having a civil conversation with the one you thought was an enemy and you may find a friend. Hard to believe, I know, but that really IS the way things are -- unless you choose otherwise.

So rather than set up a new moderation panel, I propose that we attempt "self moderation" in a serious way. If you see a posting from someone else that just absolutely STEAMS you, try responding (moderately) directly to the poster OFFLINE. Imagine that you posted something objectionable and received 10 direct IM's about it clearly and civilly stating why it was a problem. I think you would be inclined to re-examine your posting, and, hopefully, modify it and maybe even apologize for it if it was inadvertently offensive. And if YOU would react like that, how can you not give someone else the same opportunity to act in a mature fashion?

I hope so, anyway. This kind of conscious moderation has worked reasonably well with my large forum. But I suppose that it could be that thinking it could work here is just too idealistic, even for a group of self-proclaimed idealists

Cindy
<stepping down from soapbox>

[Jon Seattle]

I am not working to spread that rumor. I have heard that the tactic might be tried. The tactic is possible and dangerous (as discussed at the last RA -- and as acknowledge by no less a personage than Gwyn). If tried, it would be wrong. If merely an unfounded rumor, then the accusation is itself wrong. I have been very, very careful to never indicate that I believed the CSDF was planning to use the tactic, as I had no evidence beyond rumor an innuendo that the CSDF was considering the move.

Very cleaver Beathan. So you run around repeating a completely unfounded rumor, even a post saying you are "depressed" about it. This is very clearly the "we all love you and we did not put any credence in rumor that you beat your wife" ploy. You just hope that you get people scared enough to repeat the rumor and react. It's not a tactic I would ever try.

[Sudane Erato]

Having said that, here is what DOES work: a concept I call "self-moderation." Principle #1 is is that if someone posts something that makes you want to scream back at them, DON'T. Instead, write to them directly about how unfair/stupid/idiotic/otherwise offensive their posting was TO YOU and why. Speak directly, speak for yourself, be polite, and DON'T make the conversation public. There is also an option to inform the moderators if a posting is patently offensive, and especially if it seems to violate any of the TOS for Second Life. But my experience has been that when someone posts something offensive and NO ONE responds in public, there is essentially no drama: the thread dies. It's only when people feel compelled to get in the last word that the thread grows and causes even more dissension and bad feelings.

Thank you Cindy! I truly hope that people can hear this.

...when someone posts something offensive and NO ONE responds in public, there is essentially no drama: the thread dies.

Repeated for emphasis. This is a "natural law" of forums.

Sudane....................

[Sudane Erato]

But I can't think of a better proof that democracy has really arrived, than the day when someone would be able to spit in Sudane's eye with prejudice, and get away with it simply because they could.

Sudane you know I would never wish to see you insulted - but it would be a real turning point, and a sort of parental victory for you in a way. A victory made even bigger if you got fed up, and left them to manage the region tier too. Your experiment will have graduated, and could then invite you over on holidays to show some historic appreciation.

OMG Des!... is this my long sought exit strategy??!!

Sudane....................

[Desmond Shang]

OMG Des!... is this my long sought exit strategy??!!

Sudane....................

Hey, if they don't at least have portraits of you and Ulrika gazing down over the governmental meetings after that juncture, I'm really going to sharpen my quill and make forum commentary...

[Sonja Strom]

While I agree with the overall principles of self-moderation that Cindy has gotten on (and then off of) her soapbox about here, I also feel that doing only what she describes would be to paper over the fact that there will naturally be disagreements between people.

First of all, whatever drama exists in the CDS is not mandatory, so if anyone does not want to participate in any of it they don't have to. For example, there are many CDS citizens who are hardly ever heard from in public, yet they choose to remain in the community.

Second, silence does not necessarily imply disagreement. For example, if someone were to post something in the Forum that we really did not like and we responded to them only with a personal IM, then no one else would know about our opinion of it or what our response had been. Others might even think we agreed, and that this is why we said nothing further.

If we must always only be nice at all times in the CDS, then that will not reflect reality. This said, certainly consideration of the other person and their best interest is always helpful. I am not saying here that there is no value in being respectful, as there certainly is a value in it. Yet, there are also some times when indirectness and remaining private are not helpful.

One question I have found easy to remember and ask myself as a standard measure is, "Are you kind?"

[Cindy Ecksol]

One question I have found easy to remember and ask myself as a standard measure is, "Are you kind?"

Yes, Sonja, this is a good way to phrase the concept I'm trying to elucidate. I would maybe say "are you civil?" Disagreements are important, and if they don't get aired and discussed, they will never be resolved. But there's a difference between saying "Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?" and "I don't understand how an intelligent person could possibly think such a thing." You get my drift: the first is kind and civil and invites discussion, the second is an attack on the person that only encourages a like response.

Bjerkel and I actually had an interesting exchange that elucidates this concept last week. The discussion was about forming a commission to visit other SL communities to find out how the "successful" ones dealt with expansion. Bjerkel was ready to just make a list of communities and go out to start visiting, and I commented that it might be a good idea if we first defined what we meant by "successful." A few hours later she IM'd me to say that she had just realized that she and I had different ideas about how to approach such a complex problem: I wanted to define terms first, and then go out and apply those terms to the world, while she wanted to go out and look at the world and use what she saw to define the terms. I laughed and pointed out that neither approach was "wrong" and that perhaps to address the expansion issue we actually needed to use BOTH approaches to a certain extent. Anyway, we had a great talk about the merits and walked away still friends and perhaps with some new mutual insight on what could be done next. Neither of us attacked the other personally, but we certainly debated fairly vigorously the merits of our ideas. It was fun and enlightening and hopefully will help both of us help the RA to move forward on the issue when it comes up again.

More of that kind of exchange (as opposed to the personal attacks which seem so much more common these days) would definitely be to my liking.

Cindy