1. This is a tough one. As I have already said, I think Prok's presence in comments threads on blogs tends to discourage other people from posting their own views. She just takes over and bludgeons people with repeated postings of her view of the world - a view that is often self-congratulatory, snide and rude, not to mention LONG.

It's a shame that one can't just limit comments to a particular size, or limit the number of comments from a single person on a given blog entry.... but then both SLI and SLH are stretching the blog metaphor way out of shape.... It really doesn't suit community communication.

I don't like banning either, but I can bet that we'll see more people posting comments, with a more varied world-view, post-Prok.

Only time will tell I guess.

Posted at 6:06AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Mabb Dilweg

2. I think my answer has to be, that it's easy to let people we find easy to agree with to have their freedom, but it is a true test of our attitudes to freedom and censorship if we can allow someone we radically disagree with to have their say.

As Beatrice Hall wrote, in trying to sum up the attitude of Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I dislike Prokofy's comments often, and I maintain that much of what is said in him comments are untrue, but I still think it should be possible for him to say them. It's easy to skim over comments from people if you don't want to read them.

Once you start to censor people because you dislike what they say, that's already manipulating the truth.

Posted at 8:50AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Caliandris

3. Can comments be limited to 250 words or less? Usually, that's enough for most pithy comment posters. It would be fairer than banning...

Posted at 10:54AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Corey Akula

4. Prok, banned from SLI? Are you all insane? You are provoking her to push back!

Look what simply existing got the poor folk in Baka
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79eyLe2i7BQ Prok pushes back! I fear for you all.

Posted at 11:56AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Snowie Elfington

5. Any blog or forum administrator is entirely within their rights to ban someone for any reason they see fit. But doing so simply because you disagree with someone changes your service from a public venue into an exclusive "club". The question is: is that happening here?

Reasonable criticism or open debate is fantastic. Endless echo-chamber rants, however, serve primarily to silence everyone except for the poster with the greatest volume.

Some folks use their posts as a weapon: to belittle or demean others, to bury dissenting perspectives in sheer word count and post frequency. Stating an opinion is one thing: attacking others who have differing opinions is something else entirely. Prokofy does not debate: he attacks anyone who disagrees with what he has to say, categorizing them, belittling them, and demeaning them. Others practice the same methods, but Prokofy buries them in overwhelming wordcount and post frequency.

I think my perspective is somewhat akin to what Mabb has expressed above. I'd prefer to support Prok's "right" to post, but only so far as it doesn't inhibit others through the toxic effect his posts tend to have on discussions.

Posted at 11:57AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Tomas_Hausdorff

6. To say Prok was banned "for making comments we disagree with" is dishonest and fails to recognize the plethora of opposing views expressed in comments here at SLI that stand unhindered.

If you distil the legitimate "opposing views" from any Prokofy post, what would be left behind (in great mass) would be lies, aspersions, thinly veiled accusations, and ad hominim attacks. This is what gets Prokofy banned from so many places, not the opposing views.

Posted at 11:58AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Aimee Weber

7. Conversation includes the stuff we don't want to hear, no matter its form. It's the FOUNDATION of blogging. And yes, if a forum adminstrator or blog owner wants to ban, it's entirely their choice to do so, with the risk that it is a throwback to the older days of media with top-down, censored speech.

I have said before that I think Prok can be out there, and has an interesting path of logic, and probably takes more words than necessary to make a point (making it harder to really hear what is being said and making it really easy to look at 'damn that's a long-ass comment, yo'). Prok makes great points, albeit 47 pages in, heh. But that's neither here nor there.

It's rule 101 of blogging. Seeing how people on other blogs and forums go round for round for round with Prok, it's somewhat proof that it's a part of the equation that must exist.

While I disagree with much of what Prok tinfoils about, I disagree MORE with the notion of banning.

Posted at 11:59AM on Jan 8th 2007 by Eric Rice

8. Banning Prokofy from SL Insider was a mistake--a mistake that should be reversed as soon as possible. In general, his comments have been on-topic, respectful, and interesting to read. I'm sure I'm not alone in having enjoyed reading them as much as some of the stories he commented on.

As far as I can tell (based on the timing), the comments that triggered the ban were made on the article, "Hyperbole! (The New Genocide)" (posted by Aimee Weber on 01-06-07). I'm sure I'm not alone in reading that article as a deliberate attempt to bait Prokofy by mocking what was a very unsettling contact by a SL griefer and grid attacker with one of his children. I know Aimee Weber and Prokofy Neva have a history of conflict dating back several years--and try to keep that in mind whenever reading any comments by one on the other--nonetheless "Hyperbole!" damaged my opinion of SL Insider. And SL Insider's banning of Prokofy has damaged it even further.

I can't claim to be unbiased. Prokofy is a friend, while I've only had one brief conversation with Aimee. But I've also really enjoyed SL Insider up until this point, and have friends on the staff. In my eyes banning Prokofy both decreases the credibility of SecondLifeInsider.com and cuts off a valuable source of comments.

Posted at 2:12PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Carl Metropolitan

9. Actually, I don't agree that allowing free comment is the foundation of blogging; surely that would be the fact that anyone can have a blog and respond in kind, that commentary is distributed and nobody has overall control. (Though of course there are issues concerning how effective that is in practice.)

Publishing a post attacking a specific person and then banning them when they respond, though, strikes me as rather poor form.

Posted at 2:28PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Ordinal Malaprop

10. Oh, and perhaps my brain has finally made a dash for freedom out of one of my ears, but I cannot for the life of me see where I might enter this "password" which the "please activate your comment" message keeps telling me I have. I'm sure that it used to be possible for commenters to log in to SLI.

Posted at 2:31PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Ordinal Malaprop

11. Prokofy left a hideous attack on my personal blog some time back. My personal blog, which has about three SL-related entries in total, will not be used as a vector for her shit. From time to time I have deleted or banned certain commenters and while it never pleases me to do so the fact of the matter is I don't necessarily have to host every little gripe that someone wants to feel they've the right to spit out everywhere.

Dissenting opinions are fine; I've allowed those in my own site. Someone called me a prick for getting involved with Anshe and I didn't delete it. However when someone moves into the realm of attacks, and disgusting ones at that, I feel no obligation to provide them a soapbox. I don't think that lessens my credibility in the least.

Prokofy continually manages to get banned from every place but her own site. That reaction doesn't come about on the first vile post, or the second, or the third. It comes about after people have finally had enough after months of continual abuse, destruction and attacks. People have far more patience with Prokofy than she deserves and she continues to push and push and push on sites that she doesn't own, that she doesn't pay for, that she doesn't host, that she contributes nothing towards but hatred and jealousy.

Prokofy is a disease, and one that the internet in general would be better if it kept fighting.

Posted at 4:28PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Joshua Nightshade

12. The problem with Prokofy is that she totally dominates any thread that she comments on through sheer numbers of words. She never posts less than 500 words, churns out many thousands of words per day across any and all sites talking about SL.

What's more, a lot of what she posts is simply rant material, with insults to anyone who questions her. She simply refuses to answer a straight question about anything she posts, while cross-examining anyone who disagrees with her like an amateur lawyer who's watched too many daytime legal mystery shows.

I'd have no problem banning her, because essentially what she does is what she would count as griefing: constantly burying any hope of real conversation under a tonne of words, few of which add anything to the discussion. Essentially, she's poison to any thread she comments in unless everyone simply ignores her - which is hardly the point of comment systems.

Posted at 6:27PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Ian Betteridge

13. Stan: Prokofy's had free reign of this site for a long time. It's got nothing to do with her age or gender that the people who pay for it finally had enough. They don't have to justify it to you. It's not a service that you are owed. It's their site, and they can police it however they choose. Given the nature of Prokofy, they policed it saintly for a substantial amount of time, but it's not good enough for Prokofy, because if you give her a little, she'll demand all of it. In short, if you have an issue with how she was banned, host your own blog, or sod off.

Posted at 7:08PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Joshua Nightshade

14. Banning Prokofy from SL Insider was a mistake--a mistake that should be reversed as soon as possible. In general, his comments have been on-topic, respectful, and interesting to read. I'm sure I'm not alone in having enjoyed reading them as much as some of the stories he commented on.

As far as I can tell (based on the timing), the comments that triggered the ban were made on the article, "Hyperbole! (The New Genocide)" (posted by Aimee Weber on 01-06-07). I'm sure I'm not alone in reading that article as a deliberate attempt to bait Prokofy by mocking what was a very unsettling contact by a SL griefer and grid attacker with one of his children. I know Aimee Weber and Prokofy Neva have a history of conflict dating back several years--and try to keep that in mind whenever reading any comments by one on the other--nonetheless "Hyperbole!" damaged my opinion of SL Insider. And SL Insider's banning of Prokofy has damaged it even further.

I can't claim to be unbiased. Prokofy is a friend, while I've only had one brief conversation with Aimee. But I've also really enjoyed SL Insider up until this point, and have friends on the staff. In my eyes banning Prokofy both decreases the credibility of SecondLifeInsider.com and cuts off a valuable source of comments.

Posted at 8:36PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Carl Metropolitan

15. Prokofy doesn't have friends. She has people who haven't disagreed with her yet.

Posted at 8:43PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Joshua Nightshade

16. I have debated commenting off and on all day. I have decided that my sense of fairness compels me to do so.

I have personally felt Prokofy’s acid pen. He called me just about every demeaning and insulting name and adjective possible. Afterward, I attempted, without success, to have him banned from that forum for the virulent attack he leveled against me. Prokofy thinks very little of me. So, I am hardly a Porkofy apologist.

However, I believe, banning him from Second Life Insider was wrong and I suspect politically motivated. Although I have not read everyone, I have seen nothing close to what he wrote about me in any of his posts that I have read.

There is a big difference between long, endless, conspiracy theory arguments and outright character assassination. I have seen nothing approaching the latter in any posts I have read. I have seen many people ridicule, taunt, and provoke him in this and other venues.

Like Carl, I believe SLI has harmed itself and shown a lack of integrity by banning Porkofy. While the owners of SLI are free to do as they choose, I believe they should consider the ramifications and the loss of impartiality such actions reflect.

I read SLI because I felt it offered a balanced approach and broad range of information on Second Life. Does SLI want to become an extension of the Linden Blog where they censor the information that go out and comes in? LL is trying to paint Second Life in the best possible light. I can understand their actions better than I can SLI’s.

Posted at 11:32PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Jennifer McLuhan

17. Whether a post is "self congratulatory, snide or rude" is purely subjective, and even if the majority of others find that a post fits the above description, that doesn't mean that (a) it's not TRUE, or (b) that it shouldn't be allowed to be aired.

It is also a rather sad state of affairs if we propose to ban postings for being "too long". I realise that many people here have a 30 second attention span, or find it difficult to get their minds around words with more than two syllables, but it is never too late to learn.

The fact of the matter is quite plain and simple. This forum, like much of the SL websites, appears to be dominated by rather immature people who cannot stand the fact that not everyone agrees with their point of view, and are too lazy or incapable to argue back in an intelligent way, therefore the best way forward is to ban anyone who dares to offer a dissenting view.

I wonder if the same outcome would have transpired had it been the case that Prok had been revealed to be, in real life, a 25 year old guy? Somehow, I doubt it.

In summary: pathetic.

Posted at 11:41PM on Jan 8th 2007 by Stan Pomeray

18. Is Free Speech something that should only be limited to the strong and the brave? Or should we ensure that the weak and the timid feel that they may speak in an atmosphere of civility?

The first amendment to the US Bill of Rights was written precisely because people do not naturally tend to grant each-other this freedom.

Also, because the First Amendment was 'gamed' in order to suppress or prevent the rights of others, the US courts established several major classes of exception to the First Amendment.

If there's anything that this process has taught us, it is that the softly-spoken have a right to be heard, and that impediments must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. As soon as you infringe the rights of others by your speech, you have abrogated your first amendment protections.

Nonetheless, our parent organization has rules about acceptable material - simple civility being quite important, and those have been broken on numerous occasions. This action was taken solely on that basis.

Your agreement or disagreement is welcome here, on this point or any other. You may feel quite strongly, and that's fine too. Incivility is quite another matter.

Posted at 2:58AM on Jan 9th 2007 by Tateru Nino

19. SLInsider is a private forum. The owners of this forum and their agents (Akela, Tateru, Aimee, etc.) have a nearly unlimited right to allow or not allow whatever expression here that they choose. That being said, this debate then moves from the realm of what SLInsider _can_ do, into what SLInsider _should_ do, based upon their stated principles.

Tateru Nino wrote: “Is Free Speech something that should only be limited to the strong and the brave? Or should we ensure that the weak and the timid feel that they may speak in an atmosphere of civility?”

Let me spin that another way: “Is Free Speech something that should only be limited to the popular and the pleasant? Or should we ensure that those we dislike and do not want to hear may speak in an atmosphere of freedom?”

I would argue that the true test of the freedom of speech is not how well it serves the quiet, but how well it serves the unpopular. Well-loved people with crowd-pleasing opinions rarely need free speech protections.

Tateru Nino wrote: “Nonetheless, our parent organization has rules about acceptable material […]”

Your parent organization has a right to enforce whatever rules it wants to on its forum. However, as of now, the only posted rules are “Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry: inappropriate or purely promotional comments may be removed.” I suggest that these rules clearly posted so we know what is and is not appropriate.

Tateru Nino wrote: “Simple civility being quite important, and those have been broken on numerous occasions. This action was taken solely on that basis.”

Civility should go both ways. As an outside observer, it looks to me like Aimee Weber devoted a post into trying to provoke Prokofy Neva into responding—making light of what was clearly a personal and disturbing issue to him. When he responded, he was banned.

I urge that the SLInsider editors do the following:

1) Post the rules that AOL wishes to see enforced on this blog,
2) Make a practice of consulting with each other before posting something that is likely to be seen as hurtful or as a personal attack, and
3) Restore Prokofy Neva’s posting access.

Posted at 3:12PM on Jan 9th 2007 by Carl Metropolitan

20. I've started to intentionally stop visiting sites where Prokofy posts. Personally, I'm glad SLI feels that a civil discussion section trumps one person's insistence that rude behavior is a god-given right. That makes me feel more comfortable that I can participate in a discussion on SLI, and read it casually, without being drawn into an irrational back and forth with the same antagonist.

I've often said that I have little problem with Prok's expressing her opinions, its the way that she continually presents them. If one can't express those ideas without insults and personal attacks, then eventually someone is going to exercise their right to remove you from participating in what they're providing. This isn't a new situation for Prok, and I'm surprised that some still insist its everyone else's fault.

That being said, I view a blog much like being in someone's home for a discussion. If one isn't able to conduct themselves civilly, then its entirely to the blog owner's discretion to remove the person from participating. If I ask you not to be offensive in my home, then your right of free speech does not trump my right to ask you to leave - Prok has her own blog, where she's welcome to carry on her style of discourse where those that don't wish to be subjected to it can easily avoid it.

Posted at 4:34PM on Jan 9th 2007 by Cory Edo