Is that what you really want? Sounds like gradeschool to me.
I read "gradschool."
These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE
Should moderators close threads due to rude posts? |
|
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
![]() Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
10-17-2005 12:44
Is that what you really want? Sounds like gradeschool to me. I read "gradschool." _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
10-17-2005 12:51
You have your terms all wrong. "Rude" is a subjective term and can't be used, "harrasment" is defined in the agreement and *is* already used. Personal attacks are already outlawed as well, so I can only assume that "rude" in this case means those ... "Clever ways of insulting people that dont actually break the rules " (and there aint no way to enforce against that.) Similarly, you say "reprimand" for rudeness also, but the only reprimands in use are banning and warning before banning. To get a ban or even a warning of a ban for being rude (*outside* of the rules already in place to define behaviour) is certainly over the top IMO and unecessary and unfair etc. Finally, think for a second what the implementation of this idea would be like. Jeska (and probably four more assistants) would have to troll the forums all day long wagging their fingers at folk and generally acting like your mother? Is that what you really want? Sounds like gradeschool to me. ![]() Hi Dianne, Actually, enforcing the current rules would solve the problem. I understand there is only one moderator for all the threads, so I ask knowing perfect enforcement isn't likely going to happen. I would like to think the moderator would try to be even handed though. For example, we see threads that are very old, with hundreds or even thousands of posts that have no point, pretty much silliness for the sake of being silly. Then I see a thread closed with the reason: "This thread has reached a level of discourse where there is no obvious constructive discussion going on, even for the off-topic forum and as such is being closed." The discussion is slightly heated, but clearly points are being made on both sides of the issue. My point is, rather than closing a thread, the trouble makers be removed so the smooth flow of ideas can continue. Closing a thread because of a few disrupters seems like the easy way out. Please don't take this as a slam on LL or the moderator. I'm just asking, if SL's forums were to be the best they can be, wouldn't it be better to remove people who break the rules than to close a thread? |
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
![]() Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
10-17-2005 12:54
Please don't take this as a slam on LL or the moderator. I'm just asking, if SL's forums were to be the best they can be, wouldn't it be better to remove people who break the rules than to close a thread? A better solution would be to start an SL Forums chat room so those of us unable to play SL can avoid clogging up the forums by taking it head to head, real time. ![]() _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
ZsuZsanna Raven
~:+: Supah Kitteh :+:~
Join date: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 2,361
|
10-17-2005 12:59
Ok I must ask, why did Jeska move this to Off-Topic? I consider this to be a General thread. Off-Topic would be more like people chatting about how much their chia pet has grown since last week...
_____________________
~Mewz!~
![]() |
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
![]() Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
|
10-17-2005 13:04
Ok I must ask, why did Jeska move this to Off-Topic? I consider this to be a General thread. Off-Topic would be more like people chatting about how much their chia pet has grown since last week... You're on a need-to-know basis and guess what? _____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey |
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
![]() Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-17-2005 13:05
Ok I must ask, why did Jeska move this to Off-Topic? ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Dianne Mechanique
Back from the Dead
![]() Join date: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 2,648
|
10-17-2005 13:21
Hi Dianne, Actually, enforcing the current rules would solve the problem. I understand there is only one moderator for all the threads, so I ask knowing perfect enforcement isn't likely going to happen. I would like to think the moderator would try to be even handed though. For example, we see threads that are very old, with hundreds or even thousands of posts that have no point, pretty much silliness for the sake of being silly. Then I see a thread closed with the reason: "This thread has reached a level of discourse where there is no obvious constructive discussion going on, even for the off-topic forum and as such is being closed." The discussion is slightly heated, but clearly points are being made on both sides of the issue. My point is, rather than closing a thread, the trouble makers be removed so the smooth flow of ideas can continue. Closing a thread because of a few disrupters seems like the easy way out. Please don't take this as a slam on LL or the moderator. I'm just asking, if SL's forums were to be the best they can be, wouldn't it be better to remove people who break the rules than to close a thread? Rules have to be clear and unambiguous, and a lot of the determinations you are asking to be made are not only not very clear, they are out and out subjective. Jeska can only enforce harrassment or personal attack if it *is that, which she does already IMO. I think you are mixing terms again with this post also in that you seem to equate a lot of the "sillyness" with this same kind of rudeness that you are trying to describe. Sure there are threads that go on and on about nothing or are just silly picture threads, but that is not the same as "rudeness" or "harrassment" and is not actionable. That's what you get in "off-topic" and all Jeska can do is move the threads there. Because the harrasment rules would not apply, and becasue a warning would have to be given first, to selectively remove disruptors from a thread, would Jeska to make subjective decisions about who she thinks might be "screwing up the thread" and ban them from posting on a thread by thread basis. Aside from the sheer amount of work, it just wouldn't be fair. _____________________
.
black art furniture & classic clothing =================== Black in Neufreistadt Black @ ONE Black @ www.SLBoutique.com . |
Kevn Klein
God is Love!
Join date: 5 Nov 2004
Posts: 3,422
|
10-17-2005 13:43
I understand your feeling on the matter and what you are asking for, but I dont think its really possible. Rules have to be clear and unambiguous, and a lot of the determinations you are asking to be made are not only not very clear, they are out and out subjective. Jeska can only enforce harrassment or personal attack if it *is that, which she does already IMO. I think you are mixing terms again with this post also in that you seem to equate a lot of the "sillyness" with this same kind of rudeness that you are trying to describe. Sure there are threads that go on and on about nothing or are just silly picture threads, but that is not the same as "rudeness" or "harrassment" and is not actionable. That's what you get in "off-topic" and all Jeska can do is move the threads there. Because the harrasment rules would not apply, and becasue a warning would have to be given first, to selectively remove disruptors from a thread, would Jeska to make subjective decisions about who she thinks might be "screwing up the thread" and ban them from posting on a thread by thread basis. Aside from the sheer amount of work, it just wouldn't be fair. Thanks Dianne for the detailed response. In the case I describe, perhaps I should use "personal comments" rather than "rude". The rules use this to suggest personal attacks are a bannable offense: "Please challenge opinions, state your own and enjoy the discussion, but do not cross the line into personal attacks and insults because you will risk having your Second Life account suspended or banned." I used to be an operator for several IRC channels, some discussing very heated topics. We used to hold to the rule of "talk about ideas, not each other". When a participant broke that rule, he/she was warned privately that personal comments are not tolerated. If they continued breaking the rule there would be a second warning, then a devoice for 5 minutes, then a devoice for a day. If the problem was persistant, the person was banned from the channel. |
Selador Cellardoor
Registered User
![]() Join date: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,082
|
10-17-2005 14:55
People keep saying that. I assure you I would be very happy to say anything I've ever said to anyone here face to face. I wouldn't say it in a forum if I wouldn't be prepared to say it! Why do you think I was referring to you? In fact this is something I have seen in real life. I used to be on CB radio, and the anonymity of being behind a mike had the same addling effect on some people. They would mouth the most terrible insults, but when you happened to bump into them in the street they would be transformed into meekness and civility. The only person I knew at the time that didn't make this transformation was indeed flattened by an irate individual. I think it says more about the people who keep venturing these stereotypes than the ones they accuse, frankly ![]() Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. _____________________
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
![]() Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-17-2005 16:43
Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. ~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|
Kris Ritter
paradoxical embolism
![]() Join date: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 6,627
|
10-18-2005 00:07
Why do you think I was referring to you? I don't. I think you were making a sweeping generalisation that is wrong. Well, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. It's not my opinion when I'm telling you a fact. And the fact is I'd gladly be as rude to you irl as I would here. ![]() |
Selador Cellardoor
Registered User
![]() Join date: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 3,082
|
10-18-2005 02:42
Kris,
I don't recall your ever being rude to me. ![]() _____________________
|
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
![]() Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
|
10-18-2005 07:37
Wait. I called that too soon. Kris is victorious.
~Ulrika~ _____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
|