Free Expression and Moderation Reform

Didn't I just explain that a couple posts up?

Because I've seen the worst of some of the best people in these forums, and I choose not to give them the ability to delete or alter my words.

Do you give strangers in-world Modification rights over your property?
Do you leave Edit on on your land?
If not, why?

Yep - totally! Your absolutely right thats how I'm thinking of it!

It comes down fundemental differences in how you view people.

Here's a real life example from my own experiences:

We did a series of stories on religious viewpoints several months ago - showing the similarities and differences of various faiths... a very objective series that most were happy with. The Rabbi we interviewed wanted a copy to keep , so I was dubbing it for him.

He was telling me how the community of North Las Vegas was so wonderful, they raised 30,000 for a kid needing chemotherapy - and how great and good and giving all the folks were.

Next to me he saw a stack of tapes I was about to go through and work on for the next newscast, and asks me what they were.. I told him:

I got a man burned to death in the desert, a gang shooting where they missed their target and shot a little girl in the head, a jewelry store where the 80yr old worker was beat to death with a hammer, a carjacking, a meth lab arrest, and a quartered torso found in a suitcase in a dumpster.

Where did all this happen? he asked me. I had to reply, "Today, in North Las Vegas".

Your experiences may have you looking for the overall good in people, but I judge them by the overall bad.

Siggy.

you don' t think they could restrain themselves if they were moderators?occassionallyfor what it's worth i turn it off because i don't trust strangers.

to me your questions and what i'm talking about are apples and oranges.

i would trust many people in the forums to be reasonable moderators - even if they've shown bias in the past. i know these people. and i generally trust ll's ability to pick people. and people often rise to the positive expectations placed on them.

but i don't necessarily trust strangers. i don't know them, why i should trust them... and the evidence is that some strangers will be dorks. but sometimes and in cases i trust them. again people often rise to the positive expectations place on them.

while i feel i know some forum residents well enough for me to trust them, i'm not a complete fool. i think the risk of exile from sl would be deterrent enough, but probably (hopefully) unneccessary.

I wouldn't trust a lot of people in the forums to be reasonable moderators - because they've shown bias in the past.. I know these people - as well as you can online - although I also trust LL's ability to pick people, people often sink to the negative when they are given power over another.

Its all in the experiences.

I think Jonquille and I have both seen enough of life's crimson underbelly to leave us hardboiled realists, and maybe just a tad cynical.

I don't like the idea - I don't think it would be a step in the right direction for the companies official forums.

If that's what they want to do, I think we've both said we understand and respect the descisions the make - we would, however, choose to stop posting to them.

I think my viewpoints and thoughts on why *I* don't like the idea have been adequately expressed.. I don't think that there is anything you could raise from my posts that would invalidate what is a lifelong way of looking at the world either.

The one thing I wanted to make sure was that I disagree with the *idea* - on principle, not the source (merwin himself could have suggested it and my posts would be identical).

From here you can only agree to disagree - I don't think further point lifting is going to further this anymore.

Siggy.

In a word, no.

I agree very much with Siggy:


"Apart from that - as I said before - I simply don't think any resident should have that kind of privilege over another.. I think it should remain in the hands of LL and their employees."


And with Jonquille:


"Do I want volunteers from these forums to be able to delete posts they don't like, or alter the words of others? Not a chance in hell."


Having said that, some of the best moderators I know are volunteer mods. Some of them have gone on to become paid mods at other game companies.


But I believe mods should always be paid. First, because they will do a better job and feel more responsibility to be unbiased, as whenever a person gets paid for something, they take it more seriously, as a rule. And second, because no one on God's green earth should be expected to do such a difficult, thankless job without pay. (Which is why I never did it in TSO.)

Now, here is the interesting part:

When TSO had paid moderators, you would get suspended or banned from the game if you got suspended or banned from the forums.


When they went to outside boards, with volunteer mods, that rule went out the window. And as I have said before, nothing became worse without that rule. In fact, several of the old forum rules were dropped. (A board we shared with Prok, by the way.)

I think it would be very unlikely that a company would use volunteer mods and also give them the power to take someone's game away. This is just a practical consideration. And it's why I doubt the Lindens would institute draconian new rules, then go to volunteer mods.


And in any case, volunteer or paid mods, this new rule making it so that if you are banned from the forums you are automatically banned from the game is a bad one.

If some of the mods are actually just older players now getting paid by the company for modding, then the new rule is just that much worse.

Since we now have that unfortunate rule, it is little wonder why, if we went to volunteer mods, many would stop posting.

coco

Can you imagine the uproar that would cause?

Avatar Xyz, who you've been battling with off and on for the last year, now not only has control over your posts, but over whether you play the game at all.

The forums would be real damn interesting for a few days after this was instituted, in the way that a fatal train wreck is interesting, but...

Thanks, but no thanks.

We already have at least one mod that was culled from our ranks.

This person is now a LL employee.

How much of a difference do you think it makes whether or not they are payrolled or voulnteers?

This is a straighfoward question, I am currently pondering this myself.

I think it not only makes a difference for many people in how seriously they take the job, I think it also makes a HUGE difference in how seriously the players take them!

Which is another disadvantage to being a volunteer mod, especially if people know who you are. Once people know who you are, the screechings of favoritism can be heard on the moon. Along with, "That person is just a volunteer, anyway." On the other hand, when a mod keeps secret who they are in the game, they learn a lot of things about other players they once thought were nice, when they start getting these poison pen pm's from them.

All in all, I figure it is way better for them to be paid. AND to keep their game character/s secret, if possible. That alone helps to keep bias to a minimum. They see how people really are in a situation, thereby getting a much more objective view of the situation, and they feel no pressure to take it easy on their personal friends.

coco

Basically the same difference it would make whether I allowed a 'concerned citizen' to strip search me or whether I allowed a member of national security to do it. There's a chance of corruption either way, but the latter actually has something to lose if s/he does it on whim, or acts inappropriately. The difference of letting an acquaintance hold your life savings or letting a bank do it.

Or to keep it in SL terms, the same difference as allowing Avatar Xyz rights over your land and property, and possibly your account, and allowing Lindens that right.

I trust LL employees to act in the best interest of their company, because it is their livelihood, and they've made a commitment to that company by going to work for them. Volunteers have made no such commitment. Volunteering could be a lark... something to amuse themselves with. I know first hand of at least one volunteer (Mentor) who has been caught numerous times reselling other peoples' works without permission. I have yet to hear of a Linden doing it.

Ha ha! Point taken.

~Ulrika~

Here's a question. How would you feel about players moderating some of the lesser forums? For instance, having three or four players volunteer to monitor the Land and Economy forum with Linden oversight?

Or alternatively, perhaps player volunteers could look over threads taking the time to put things in context and then make moderation suggestions to the Lindens. The Lindens would review the suggestions and use them to make edits if necessary. (I like this idea. )

~Ulrika~

I thought that's what we have right now, Ulrika. Any of us is an acceptable volunteer, and we communicate with them via the AR button. How is the idea you like fundamentally different, except that we can all do it instead of just a selected few ?

Exactly. I'm already a moderation-suggestion volunteer. I suggest they review something for moderation by hitting the Report icon.

I'm not sure how I can state it more clearly than I have, but I'll try.

I do not want other paying residents having any more control over our ability to post than we already get through reporting bad posts. Not in General, or Shopping, or any other Forum.

I have already seen relevant posts get removed from some of the Group forums, simply because the moderator didn't want to have to address whatever they posed, and I don't use those forums because of it.

When given a little power, some people become way too over-zealous. This isn't an 'if' thing, it's a 'when' thing, and I don't want to see it here.

I do not expect the right to free speech in a privately run forum, but if someone is going to silence me and/or change my words, it's going to be the governing body, and not my neighbor.

It's a completely different concept than the AR button.

The AR button is useful for addressing single-post abuses, such as violations of the Guidelines. It's rotten for alerting moderators to thread-wide or forum-wide abuses and harassment. For instance, a single post in a thread might not break the guidelines but several posts within a thread or even throughout the forum could be collectively seen as abuse or harassment which is against the Guidelines.

The concept of moving the moderation from the single-post scope (AR button) to a thread- and forum-wide scope (looking at context) is part of the proposed moderation reforms. There was a question a few posts back asking how the Lindens could accomplish this given their limited resources. A solution is that they could offload the thread- and forum-wide moderation recommendations to selected users.

~Ulrika~

It's interesting that you said "governing body". How would you feel about the ability to personally elect these user moderators to be representatives of how you'd like to see the forum run?

If someone were being to heavy handed, one could simply vote them out.

(It's interesting how free expression and democracy seem to run together.)

~Ulrika~

To the first idea, no. Since when is Land and the Economy a "lesser"forum? And I don't want volunteers anywhere.

To the second one, oh wow - now you just KNOW I love the HECK out of that one, don't you! That's the one where player volunteers look over threads, put things "in context", and suggest to the Lindens that Coco should not be allowed to add her commentary, despite the fact that she breaks no rules.

coco

No

Yes!

"I do not want other paying residents having any more control over our ability to post than we already get through reporting bad posts. Not in General, or Shopping, or any other Forum."

Other paying residents now have more control over us than they should have, by having control over our ability, not just to post, but to PLAY THE GAME. This is a serious situation.

The rule that being banned or suspended from the forums means automatically losing the game itself gives more power to other residents than they should have. That rule should be rescinded.

coco

There's a box in which to explain what you intend to point out when you hit the AR button. You can outline the thread-wide or forum-wide problem of which that particular post is a part.

It's unrealistic to figure that the Lindens don't take into account the context of an AR'ed post. Clicking the triangle doesn't mean you're casting a vote to have someone warned. It just points out the post and relays your attached comments for moderator consideration.

As far as volunteer moderators on the forums . . . I believe we already have some. I recall a Linden making reference to member help on the forums recently (I wish I could remember it more clearly) that gave me the impression they're already in place. I'd be downright surprised if they were not. It's very common for large forums to have volunteers who'll send an email or IM (or even make a phone call after hours) to whatever staff member's catching on the forums if certain problems or situations come up.

There's a point at which it becomes impractical and prohibitively expensive to have a staff member review every post made on a forum. However, there are certain situations of which a staff member needs to be appraised immediately (threats to harm self or others, phishing, RL info posted without permission, underage poster, etc.). That's when it's necessary to use things like the AR button and member volunteers. Some sites will pay the volunteers in game money, a small amount of real money, or give them a special title. Some keep the volunteers under cover and some do not. It's standard practice in the industry, and it can work very well. What makes the difference is how the volunteers are administered and trained . . . which depends on the staff member managing the volunteer program.

Once again, NO. I don't care if they would be chosen by Lindens, by residents, or if they win the right in an essay contest. My answer is still a resounding NO.

Governing Body = Lindens. Those already in charge of governing the forums and SL.

Adding more governing by less qualified and accountable people is not going to bring about the right to free expression you claim to want.

I have anecdotal evidence that suggests otherwise, however logically speaking I am inclined to agree with you.

Fascinating!

Do you think this topic is worthy of a separate thread? I think folks might enjoy discussing user-based moderation (both speculating whether or not it already exists or discussing it hypothetically).

~Ulrika~

Other paying residents do not have control over whether you post, or play the game. Only YOU and the Lindens have control over that. You, by being able to think about what you post before you post it and exercising some self-control, and the Lindens by making the decision on what steps over the line. The only thing other players can do is draw Linden attention to something.

Ulrika tried to start a "get a Cocoa booted from this thread" campaign by suggesting everyone AR your posts, and there were a few people who seemed to agree, so it isn't a stretch to assume your posts have been AR'd a couple times already. Have you been booted? Have you received a warning? Have the posts been removed or edited?

Don't give the posters credit for more power than they actually have. You keep posting as if there's some formula that gets you auto-banned, and it's simply not true. No poster can have you suspended or banned. Only a Linden can do that, and they aren't mindless drones sitting there warning, banning and suspending every time an AR comes in. They read the posts in question first.

Jonquille, please try to understand that I have full confidence in the Lindens.

When I stop having that confidence is when I would stop playing the game voluntarily.

It is the bigger picture I have in mind: Already we have a situation where players act as moderator consultants in that they can alert posts. So we don't need any consultants.

Neither you nor I wishes for players to have even more power as volunteer mods, whether selected by Lindens or by AV beauty contest. (Though as Kim pointed out above, I don't believe we have yet established that we don't have volunteer mods already.)

To posit that other players alerting one's posts have nothing to do with one eventually getting banned from the boards would be untenable.

By the new rule, other players alerting one's posts can ultimately result in players prevented from playing the game as well.

In this very thread, we have seen a small campaign launched to alert my own posts.

That puts my posting ability in jeopardy. Whether or not the Lindens would see fit to agree is beside the point. The fact that I have been alerted already draws unwanted, undue, and dangerous attention to me. Should that sort of thing happen enough, I may, in fact, become "a problem" to the Lindens.

Now, that is just the risk anybody runs. But it is magnified now by the fact that not only one's posting ability, but one's ability to play the game is influenced in such ways by other posters' reports of one's posts, particularly when campaigned for in this way.

That's overkill. And yes, it is supposed to be automatic. A person can be punished in game, by having their game taken away from them, for what they say on the forums.

And all of the above is all the more reason why I am opposed to having volunteer mods. And why I am opposed to Ulrika's notion of getting rid of the clear-cut, easily understood rules, and instituting instead some sort of amorphous "in context" plan designed to cull out dissenting individuals.

The new rule is bad, creates a climate of fear that worsens, rather than improves, forum dialogue, and is completely unnecessary.

coco