Formal Warnings

Because the enforcement of the CS and ToS within the forums is in a state of flux (and has a reputation for being inconsistent), I thought it would be useful for folks who receive a formal warning to share it here along with why they received it (in general).


I received a formal warning last night. It was in regards to a short post and my only post in the thread. It celebrated a banning with a religious word, mentioned that person's name, and then provided two technical (nonvulgar) descriptives.

Because it was the only edited post in the entire thread, one that was eventually locked, I thought I could compare it to the other posts to understand why it and not the others were subject to editing and why it generated a formal warning. My results are:

1. There is a post two down from mine asking folks to complain about my post.
   
2. My post used a copula to link a name to negative descriptives. (i.e. Charlie Brown is short.)
   

I believe the incitement to action in a following post combined with the simple nature of my post made it low-hanging fruit for moderators.

In the future I recommend:

1. Critiques of individuals should be in complex form, longer than a single sentence, and with negative descriptives attached to actions not to a person.
   
2. In the event that there is a follow on post which includes an incitement to report, it's never too late to edit your post yourself and add an apology. (I had actually contemplated this.)
   
3. Use the SL forums for general discussions and advertisements and use SL Universe for discussions about individual players.
   

Anyone else had a formal warning since the policy change?

~Ulrika~

Well I suppose the old adage still applies - If you can't say anything nice about a person, don't say anything at all.

Alexa

Or you can say what you feel, and suffer the consequences, which is more fun anyway.

But who wants to read group hugs and sycophancy?

Maybe we should just stick to ideas...

Someone PM me what Ulrika said, I'm curious. Actually, how the heck am I supposed to know what can get me in trouble if you keep deleting it?
BTW Ulrika, I sent you an email with an LSL script the other day, did you get it?

I'll PM you with what I said. It's one of the least controversial things I've posted to the forums.

Thank you for the script! I just got back in town last night and I'm catching up on email now. From your explanation in the email, I now understand what's going on. Thank you for your time, Eggy!

~Ulrika~

Ulrika, I just saw your quote and I have to say I am absolutely shocked at how utterly innofensive it is. LL is seriously on crack here, and I will post that quote on the history wiki for everyone to see and judge for themselves.

I like to think they are erring on the side of caution.

I am glad you are still here Ulrika.

I think the boards are getting better and I know I feel more comfortable posting.

I don't think this is something to get too upset about it.

I hope I didn't upset you, I was trying to be supportive but picking my words carefully.

I know. It's bread-and-butter mild compared to my usual fare.

I had hoped that the reform in forum policy by LL would come with more consistent moderation. Instead, the moderation remains inconsistent, while the punishments have become more severe.

This, of course, is a symptom of the LL oligarchy and all oligarchies in general -- as citizens, we have no control over policy, no influence over judgement (moderation), and no avenue for redress (metamoderation). We're at the mercy of a system which is easily gamed, lacks sufficient staff, and is applied inconsistently. But that's a different thread.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika for president!

You know, I'm pretty certain there's a whole lot of crap I disagree with Ulrika about.

Yet, I still adore her for reasons I can't quite explain.

<3 Ulrika

Amen!

I loves ZugZug, she is a guilty pleasure of mine.

I love Ulrika with inflamed passion! *covers ZugZug with tender kisses*

Ulrika, had you ever received an informal warning before this formal warning? I'm just curious if this is something that's gone straight to a formal warning, missing an informal one.

haha ulrika you are a victim of reverse KGB tactics! sucker!

I have read the unedited post, and it's really not that bad. Much less harsh than many of the things the person Ulrika's post targetted has said, on innumerable occasions.

If anything, this just proves that there is no favortism.

Wait. Are you talking about life under the capitalist, war-mongering, people-chewing, spirit-sapping, yellow-running-dog autarky of Linden Lab? Or are you talking about life under the capitalist, war-mongering, people-chewing, spirit-sapping, yellow-running-dog autarky of the United States? I'm confused.

No. I received a single informal warning about two months ago from Pathfinder for an unrelated offense, albeit the former was about an order of magnitude worse. In the first one I was accusing Coco of being Prokofy's alt (I was so very wrong), whereas in the censored post I was expressing my honest relief that he was finally gone.

I think the moderators, with their need to be even handed, while dogmatically adhering to vague guidelines and rules, are as much to blame as the perpetrator for allowing the suffering to continue as long as it did. It should've been stopped months ago. Then the fact that I called a person a destructive, envious, quasi-intellectual wouldn't even be an issue.

~Ulrika~

Yet another reason why the world of SL needs Freedom of Speech and the Right to Self-Representation.

I found your post to be wholely acceptable. I should by all rights be able to share my opinion that any person in particular is (insert derogetory word here) provided evidence to fight charges of slander or libel (slander and libel only apply when the charges arn't true) and as long as I do not do it in a harassing or threatening manner (IE, only once).

It bolster's my petition for the Right to Self-Representation, because I am sure you would have liked to be able to dispute these charges, especially under the label of free speech.

I know you have been with me on this one... just another bit of proof though that in one's SL one has no rights.

(edit) As for a consenting opinion, I also believe that prokofy was a hippocrit who only supported rights and freedoms only as long as it personally benefited him. The point of rights though is to benefit SOCIETY, even sometimes at the cost of your own privelage not to be offended.

I just did some digging and found my prior informal warning in my PM inbox. It was not related to my formal warning, so it did go directly to a formal warning in this case. Now that I reflect on it, it hardly seems like my post in question (kept on the SL History Wiki somewhere) warranted a formal warning.


On a related note, I've attached my prior informal warning:

After I received this, I started the "Is Identifying Alts Against the Rules?" thread in the General forum. We found nothing in the CS, ToS, or Guidelines which strictly forbids a person from discussing alts.

I was motivated by the fact that Prokofy had been using alts to amplify the forum chaos and suspected Coacoa was simply the next alt. (Coacoa is not Prokofy's alt.) What's interesting is that forum abuse from alts has now been addressed by the modified forum guidelines.


So that's twice for me, both times related to Prokofy and both times were really questionable moderation calls. That's not to say that I haven't done things that truly deserved a good warning -- I have! It's just that neither of these had anything to do with them.

~Ulrika~

It's silly to clamor for free speech within someone else's house. If Linden Lab wants to ask any of us to leave because we're urinating on their potted house plants, that's their prerogative.

It is in the best interests of Second Life that forum moderation be consistent and fair, but do let's remember that wholly unrestricted speech is both impractical and unnecessary within the forums.

Or would you like for someone to fill a general forum thread with obscenities?

So what are we saying? That LL is targeting certain people - such as Ulrika and the "Dearly Departed One" - who have a certain kind of "outspoken quality" on these forums? For what purposes? To quell this quality and deter others from embracing it?

Oh wow, am I on the (black)list?

Ulrika, thanks for clarifying I guess I'm a little perplexed myself at you getting a formal warning for the content of that post. I'm beginning to wonder if changing the rules is a way of discouraging people from using the forums. After all who's going to put their SL existance on the line by saying something that may be construed as really bad under what appear to be extreme rules, or a moderator's extreme use of rules.

Maybe there will be nobody left on the forums in a couple of weeks if they hand out formal warnings for "somethings and nothings" like this.

*big shrug*

There is a big difference between disturbing the peace and free speech.

Saying an opinion against someone or something is vastly different from a post which is full of obscenities for obscenity sake. That could easily be deleted just for being OFF TOPIC.

This is not my thread, but I use it as an example of where free speech could enhance and improve the life of all SL residents. I see it WAY too often as a cop-out arguement that free speech will allow people to break OTHER regulations. FREE SPEECH does NOT equal absolute freedom without regulation. It is the right to state an opinion.

Ulrika,

It was an unpleasant posting - but I would defend to the death your right to be as unpleasant as you wish in these forums!