Catalogue of Abuse

[Patroklus Murakami]

The following is an account of the harrassment and abuse I received as LRA earlier this year. This is what prompted me to resign.

1. The problems began at the RA meeting on 10 February (transcript here).

Beathan began by complaining that his bill to change the RA procedures had not been put on the agenda despite the fact that it had not been submitted according to the procedures (the same ones I'd been using for over six months and the same ones used by the previous LRA for the previous year and a half).

ThePrincess then went on to demand that Leon Ash (who was replacing Bjerkel Eerie as CSDF rep on the RA) should be formally sworn in despite being told that this had never been a necessity in any previous RA. ThePrincess made the following comments implying that the agenda had been 'fixed' in some way:

• Beathan Vale: Pat — why isn't my bill on the agenda?
  Patroklus Murakami: what was your bill beathan?
  ThePrincess Parisi: cos he told me he does what he wants, use the remedy available beathan

• Patroklus Murakami: (we = the CSDF)
  Beathan Vale: (we also = the SP)
  ThePrincess? Parisi: oh .. that explains why his bill is first cindy

Finally, ThePrincess raised an item that wasn't on the agenda, the new sim. The RA meeting rules in use at the time were clear about this. Nothing gets put on the agenda in the meeting. ThePrincess went on to repeat rumours about the CSDF.

• ThePrincess? Parisi: is that so bad or is it true cdsf is going to try to stall it
  ThePrincess? Parisi: i heard you were, now i wonder for sure

2. The problems continued at the RA meeting on 17 February (transcript here).

ThePrincess started by complaining that the agenda had not been publicised in advance and that 'Any other business' was not on the agenda despite the fact that the agenda was put together in the same way it had been for the two years previously and I had explained my objection to 'Any other business' which can (and have) be abused as an ambush item.
MT then went on to request that the order of the agenda be changed when the rules of procedure in use at the time put the LRA in control of the agenda at all times. This took up the first twenty minutes of the meeting and Leon left in disgust at the way that people were behaving. Beathan suggested he should resign!

• Beathan Vale: that was uncalled for - frankly, if Leon's skin is so thin, he should reconsider his service

ThePrincess went on to insult me, calling me a 'political griefer'.

3. The RA meeting on 24 February was marginally better (transcript here).

After I asked everyone present to observe some simple rules of order (much less elaborate than the ones the RA recently passed) Beathan Vale said: "OK — another meeting run by LRA dictat"

Once the meeting had ended though, ThePrincess went on to question the decision to adjourn and to move discussion of an agenda item to the forums in order to allow for Chancellor's Questions to be taken. She went on to accuse me of trying to block the expansion of the CDS (despite the fact it was one of our manifesto commitments) and, along with MT, hurled abuse at me. The full transcript is here. From the transcript with my commentary in italics:

• [2008/02/24 14:28] ThePrincess Parisi: no im not you are tryin gto block the expansion of the sim bill
  [2008/02/24 14:33] ThePrincess Parisi: why are you being so much a poo poo head

This is quite funny as insults go, but it's hardly parliamentary language

• [2008/02/24 14:41] MT Lundquist: you are an arse at times

I can't deny that this is true.

• [2008/02/24 14:41] MT Lundquist: if you worked for me
  [2008/02/24 14:41] MT Lundquist: i would fire you

MT has since has the grace to apologise for saying this. Nevertheless, it was very upsetting at the time, especially in the context of the other abuse I was getting.

• [2008/02/24 14:42] MT Lundquist: you cant run meetings
  [2008/02/24 14:42] ThePrincess Parisi: f put the fucking other business on the agenda
  [2008/02/24 14:42] ThePrincess Parisi: lol
  [2008/02/24 14:42] ThePrincess Parisi: poo poo head
  [2008/02/24 14:42] ThePrincess Parisi: is that abuse
  [2008/02/24 14:44] MT Lundquist: Pat as i say if you worked for me
  [2008/02/24 14:44] MT Lundquist: you wouldnt for very long

It isn't reasonable to expect people to work for the CDS under these conditions.

[Beathan]

Pat --

As catalogues of abuse go, this one seems light. It speaks more to your thin-skin than to anything else. (My remarks about Leon are similar. If a person cannot tolerate honest disagreement so much that they can not bear political debate, the RA is not the right place for them.)

Again, you identify two issues with me. First, my complaining that my bill was not on the agenda when I believed that it had been properly submitted for inclusion. You explained that you had not received the bill. I then agreed to resubmit it at the next meeting. Problem solved (from my perspective). Where is the abuse in that? You seem to say that others picked up my cause and championed putting my bill on the agenda -- and that somehow I am to blame for that. I just don't see how that is a fair or honest accusation you are making against me here.

Later, fed up by the process problems on the RA and partisan manner in the RA was run, I did quip about "another meeting run by LRA dictat." Those don't seem to be fighting words that qualify as abuse. If they smart, I submit that they smart because they land so close to home.

Again, if you want sympathy, practice honesty.

In conclusion, unless the CSDF wants to run the CDS as a virtual Zimbabwe -- allowing debate, voting and discussion only insofar as it is in the CSDF's service -- then, yes, it is eminently reasonable to expect the CSDF to continue to participate in our democratic institutions even in the face of opposition. What is unreasonable is for the CSDF to expect no opposition -- or to denounce that opposition merely because it uses forceful rhetoric and aggressive tactics.

Beathan

[Leon]

<cut>In conclusion, unless the CSDF wants to run the CDS as a virtual Zimbabwe -- allowing debate, voting and discussion only insofar as it is in the CSDF's service -- then, yes, it is eminently reasonable to expect the CSDF to continue to participate in our democratic institutions even in the face of opposition. What is unreasonable is for the CSDF to expect no opposition -- or to denounce that opposition merely because it uses forceful rhetoric and aggressive tactics.

Beathan

Can we please stop this nonsence about comparisons to Zimbabwe?

Comparing any situation in Second Life to Zimbabwe is trivialising the situation in Zimbabwe, where people are literally dying. I realise it is lovely and colourful imagery, but do try for some perspective.

I am not speaking on behalf of the CSDF, this is merely a personal request.

Thanks
Leon

[Beathan]

Leon --

Point well-made and taken. I will stop.

Beathan

[Leon]

Thank you Beathan

[Danton Sideways]

In fact, it was Pat who first used the Zimbabwe comparison, on his blog. Pat had sound reasons for seeing similarities between the rump RA and Mugabe's dictatorship. For as soon as the CSDF representatives had resigned from the assembly, in protest over abusive behaviour, certain parties promptly profited from their absence to pass a series of measures which were inimical to CSDF.

The type of attacks carried out by ThePrincess constitute what Prokofy Neva calls "under the radar" griefing. That is, there is no single flagrant incident which clearly constitutes unacceptable behaviour, but a constant stream of snarky low-level attacks, which add up to a major psychological onslaught. Along with the public chat dialogue shown in the transcripts, one must also add the private IMs which ThePrincess initiates during meetings, and in which the insults tend to be much stronger. During the latest RA meeting, after having made a comment on legislation promoted by ThePrincess, I had to inform her that I was going to close our IM window, because she was privately throwing too many insults at me.

I personally believe that the abusive behaviour shown by ThePrincess, both in public and in private, correspond to the well-know phenomenon of the internet troll. Such trolling must be vigorously controlled by moderation, and in the last resort may be resolved by a ban. As an impartial moderator Jamie is doing a pretty good job of limiting the abuse during the RA meetings, but I think we all need to monitor this situation closely, as a community. And I would like to ask Beathan, and certain other allies of ThePrincess, why they are siding with her and defending her, instead of looking out for the well-being of CDS?

[Cindy Ecksol]

I personally believe that the abusive behaviour shown by ThePrincess, both in public and in private, correspond to the well-know phenomenon of the internet troll. Such trolling must be vigorously controlled by moderation, and in the last resort may be resolved by a ban. As an impartial moderator Jamie is doing a pretty good job of limiting the abuse during the RA meetings, but I think we all need to monitor this situation closely, as a community. And I would like to ask Beathan, and certain other allies of ThePrincess, why they are siding with her and defending her, instead of looking out for the well-being of CDS?

I hadn't noticed much defense of ThePrincess, Danton, not from Beathan and not from "certain other allies" whomever they might be. Personally I don't expect my friends to be perfect, nor do I expect them to consider me perfect. And when I see them doing things that are beyond the bounds of what I consider to be "good taste" I tell them about it in no uncertain terms. They may agree or disagree, but in any case I understand that I can't control them, I can only state my opinion and offer advice that they may or may not follow. Oh, and another thing: I deal with these things on a one-on-one basis. Unless my friend chooses to share what I've said, no one else will ever know. My experience is that this is the method most likely to encourage reconsideration of inappropriate behavior, since it is not as likely to back an ego into a corner.

Since we're speaking about disagreeable behavior, it's probably appropriate for me to make a comment on the current election campaign. As most of you probably know by now, I have declared as a candidate for nuCARE despite the fact the the faction had previously decided not to contest the two empty seats. The only reason I did this is because it became clear to me that under the current system the election would be "more democratic" if there were three factions in the running than if there were only two. With only two, the "elimination option" is still essentially in place: the first-ranked faction gets one point, and the second faction gets zero. With three in the running, the "winner take all" option disappears: every voter is required to give at least one point to some other faction than the one they choose first. I believe that this is healthy and necessary, especially in the current environment of contention that we're living through.

I hope that all of you will consider your choices carefully and select not one, but TWO factions that you can support rather than voting AGAINST a particular faction. It's not only about platforms, it's also about the structure and function of the RA, the personalities of the individuals who sit in the RA, and the balance of power in the RA. If everyone casts their votes after considering all of these factors rather than the raw political advantage that "their" faction might obtain, I think we'll probably see the best interests of the CDS served. If not....well, we can have another three months of irrational behavior that causes the RA to get tangled up in procedural matters rather than moving forward in a substantive fashion.

Cindy

[Danton Sideways]

Cindy –

You must do more than just "offer advice that they may or may not follow."

If someone is actively engaging in trolling and griefing in a repeated and systematic way, you must withdraw your support from that person and from their political organization. If you fail to do so, you become a griefer along with them.

- Danton

[Cindy Ecksol]

Cindy –

You must do more than just "offer advice that they may or may not follow."

If someone is actively engaging in trolling and griefing in a repeated and systematic way, you must withdraw your support from that person and from their political organization. If you fail to do so, you become a griefer along with them.

- Danton

There's a difference between supporting a person's behavior and supporting the policies of the faction they represent. I still fully support the nuCARE platform. I do not support "griefing" tactics, period, no matter which individual is engaging in them. ThePrincess is not all there is to nuCARE, so please don't make the assumption that we all support her personal actions or that we are not doing anything at all to help her avoid engaging in ad hominem attacks.

I'm not sure what Pat intends to achieve by posting this "catalogue of abuse," but one thing I AM certain of: it's a good way to get us all distracted from more interesting and productive lines of discussion. And I think also that it will neither gain Pat any sympathy nor change Prin's behavior in any significant way. Can you imagine what it might be like if we all made a pact not to engage in ad hominem attacks between now and the end of the term and simply chose not to respond to any such attacks posted on the forum or to our personal IM's other then to say "I believe this to be an ad hominem attack and choose not to respond"? In fact, I'm going to sign up for that pact right now. Anyone else care to join me? Should be QUITE a challenge....

Cindy
<who's going to have a tough time refraining from saying "You're a nutcase!" to anyone for the next three months>

[Beathan]

Danton --

It is true that TP can be childish. When she is being childish, I don't defend her -- I ignore her, and try to get on with the CDS business.

With regard to disassociating with from an entire faction just because of the behavior of a single measure -- that is, frankly, insane. First, a faction is more than a single member. There is no faction, here or iRL, that does not have some member who will behave badly. If we condemn entire groups for the behavior of single members -- there will be no groups that escape our condemnation. This indicates that the standard is misguied.

Moreover, when doing the public business, we should expect our "alliances" outside our own factions to be temporary and issue-specific. Further, we should not hesitate to "make deals with the devil" when doing so produces good results on issues we care about. This is how I have behaved on the RA. When appropriate, I have worked with the CSDF despite my strong and well-grounded objections to Pat, and despite the accusations other members of the CSDF have made against me. Similarly, when appropriate, I have worked with NuCARE, despite my long-held suspicion of CARE (which has transferred to NuCARE to some extent) and despite my objection to NuCARE's apparent election tactics (which I believe were real -- if not fully carried out -- in the last election).

Based on this, I don't think that I can be called a solid ally of ThePrincess. I like ThePrincess, but lament her frequent petulant outbursts. However, I don't think I have any particular influence over her. Despite what people seem to think, I am not the Svengali of the RA.

With regard to the measures we passed after the CSDF left, I don't believe a single one was "inimical to the CDS". Further, none of the proposals (yet) has been new. All of them were proposed while the CSDF was still in the RA -- so it cannot be said that recent legislation has been an example of opposition parties taking advantage of the absence of the plurality party.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

Can you imagine what it might be like if we all made a pact not to engage in ad hominem attacks between now and the end of the term and simply chose not to respond to any such attacks posted on the forum or to our personal IM's other then to say "I believe this to be an ad hominem attack and choose not to respond"? In fact, I'm going to sign up for that pact right now. Anyone else care to join me? Should be QUITE a challenge....

Cindy
<who's going to have a tough time refraining from saying "You're a nutcase!" to anyone for the next three months>

Thank you for creating this challenge, Cindy. I will join you in
**The No "Argumentum ad hominem" Attacks Challenge!**
Signed,
Sonja Strom
<who's wondering how faithful she can be to her promise from now until August 1>

[Danton Sideways]

CDS is an internet community, as is all of Second Life. It is well known that the anonymity, or more precisely "pseudonymity", of online identity can bring out the aggressive side of certain people, turning them into trolls. When someone exhibits troll-like behaviour, it is the responsibility of the internet community to intervene to put an end to it. Usually moderators are named and trained to take primary responsibility for such interventions, but it remains everyone's responsibility to help avoid such abuse.

When I name a person who is behaving like a troll, it is suggested that I am carrying out an "ad hominem" criticism, in other words a criticism of the person. Well I am ready to assume that responsibility, and I fully intend to keep naming people who I perceive to be griefing. As Prokofy and others have so often pointed out, you have to respond to griefing or it gets worse. It certainly does not "go away" simply because one ignores it.

And those of you who talk of getting back to political issues are hiding behind various smoke screens in order to escape responsibility. If you are protecting, aiding and abetting a griefer, then you are a griefer yourself. There seem to be quite a number of you, in fact. And why are you all jumping on Pat in particular, and CSDF in general? Would it be because you see the leftist presence in CDS as some kind of threat? Is this really a case of personal griefing, or does it come down to political griefing? Either way, we have to set up stronger community moderation to prevent this kind of behaviour.

[Sonja Strom]

It seems very unfair as well as inaccurate to compare ThePrincess with an Internet Troll. At times she is disruptive, but at times she is also constructive. Everybody wants to have fun here, I think, which will result in occasional disruptions.

In any case, most of the reason why her actions would come under discussion in the first place is because she was democratically elected to a position of leadership in the Representative Assembly.

To find out more about what the term "Internet Troll" refers to, I looked it up in Wikipedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll). Interestingly enough, under "Usage" it says:
"The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem."

[Cindy Ecksol]

It seems very unfair as well as inaccurate to compare ThePrincess with an Internet Troll. At times she is disruptive, but at times she is also constructive. Everybody wants to have fun here, I think, which will result in occasional disruptions.

To find out more about what the term "Internet Troll" refers to, I looked it up in Wikipedia (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll). Interestingly enough, under "Usage" it says:
"The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often erroneously used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem."

LOL!!!! Thank you for taking the pledge, Sonja, and for clarifying EXACTLY what I meant using an outside source. Argument ad hominem is, of course, one of the classic fallacies, but I like to think that there is no citizen of the CDS who is not capable of recognizing and discounting such arguments once they are sensitized to the form.

Anyone else for the pledge??

Cindy

[Danton Sideways]

I'm sorry, Sonja and Cindy, but this is about people and their behaviour, rather than about abstract political positions. Your "ad hominem" remarks are senseless here. In order to say that I think the ThePrincess acts like a troll, I have to name her. Really, she is so intense that it is scary. All I'm asking for is better moderation, although it is unclear exactly what that means in a virtual world. On an internet forum it has to do with the words one uses, but in Second Life the possibilities for griefing are much more extensive.

And I say that the people who are supporting ThePrincess are making it easier for her to troll, and are therefore griefing themselves. She does not even have to defend herself, so many people are rushing forward to do that for her! It is thus entirely appropriate that I name those people also. And I therefore state that as far as they are supporting the trolling and griefing of ThePrincess, the following people are griefers themselves: Sonja, Cindy, MT, Bromo and Beathan.