Formal Response to a Formal Warning

Okay, let me be more clear.

Don't group me with Darko's comments. You have personally attacked people in previous threads, not just trolled. But, the bottom line is maturity and reputation. You accuse LL of playing favorites with people they like.
Well, in a way, they do.
I think it's completely justifyable to respond to people with a reputation of being immature with a much greater level of skepticism and restraint.

Now, you've gotten a lot better in the last couple weeks, and I've said so, but it takes longer to regain reputation than to lose it.

You've admitted that you troll, you hijack, and you've personally attacked people. Then you ask why you're not being fairly? Considering how much work you've created for the forum moderators responding to complaints about your posts, I'd imagine you're being treated very fair.


This refers to the "joke" thread where you "pretend" to insult Willow. Since there was little indication upfront that this was a joke, then the average reader will respond this way, and so would Lindens from 3rd party complaints. Hence, crying wolf makes people run to see what's wrong.

Well, apart from not understanding how I grouped you with Darko, I get what you're saying. And I've answered every single one of your points in previous posts. Mostly, and adequately, as far as I'm concerned, in the direct reponse to your first post. Which you then accuse me of "restating what you've already said"... well, thats because you're not saying or asking anything new *shrug*.

I dunno what else to tell ya?

Why anyone at LL would take your complaint seriously after how much crap you've pulled on these forums?

Answered previously. Including in the post to you before. Read what the warning was for. Not what you imagine it was for.

Yes, we could all conclude that it was an excuse for a more general warning, but that's not what they said and therefore not how I'm going to read it.

Should they take my complaint seriously?

No. Quit bitching.

(ooh. bitchy. you can tell my true intention in this post because I didnt use a smiley or LOLOLOL to end it)

p.s. Stop making me troll my own thread.

Well there are no other interesting ones to troll

and NO I won't quit bitching byotch

Wait... we better NOT go down this route again, I will be bored if I get suspended...
Nvm... already am...

Next time any of you feel the urge to use a rude word, or to prod someone with a stick - simply chuck in a link to the sluniverse.com forums instead and go post it there. Then you can use whatever language you want. At least up until you hit Cristiano's decency boundaries and he starts censoring. Haha..

I think it's always going to be a tricky issue when you're posting 'difficult' material on an official site like this one.. but as there is a perfect alternative that is independent - then use that, vote with your fingers.


Jai

Yup me and cristiano discussed this His forums indeed rock, as does sl00ts forums, cept no-one goe's there, so its BORRRRRRRRRRRING...

Actually, let's make the assumption.

Let's assume abuse reports are opened, examined, and closed, like other corporate trouble ticket / report type case-by-case documents. A complaint comes in, it is investigated, it is resolved. Employees are expected to resolve issues in a timely manner.

Now, on previous reports with you, Kris, they've shown leniency, closed the reports. Finally, another report comes in, and you have such a thick file that they no longer can show leniency. As for the internal report, they document that you have a history of abuse reports, and thus address the issue for what it is. A resolution simply can't be "gave general warning for general abuse" because their internal standards likely indicate that there needs to be a specific reason why the warning was given - a standard to actually prevent discrimination against players.

I'd say this completely makes sense.

Going back to your cop analogy then...

A cop stands every morning at a busy junction and watches 100's of motorists speed past him way in excess of the speed limit. Every day... the same people.

So every once in a while, when he can be bothered, he pulls one over and books them for an incorrectly aimed headlamp.

Let me modify that.

A cop sits in his/her car every morning at a busy junction and sees dozens of motorists speed past. At the same time (s)he is given complaints from other motorists that (s)he is required to read, investigate, and respond to each and every one. (S)He reviews videotape of the junction, determines if a violation took place, and uses judgement to give out fines.

(S)He does not have a radar gun to determine speed. (S)He can tell if people are really drunk or dangerous, or when there's a car wreck, but speed is fairly relative. His/her superiors have instructed him/her to use best judgement anyway. Motorists who are ticketed too much will stop taking the toll road that (s)he patrols and will take a local route instead, so some leniency needs to be shown to make sure revenue is not cut.

One particular motorist speeds all the time, tailgates, and has been in a few car wrecks. So far, this motorists has gotten away with warnings, at worst. This motorist causes another minor fender bender. The cop gives out another warning.

In this example, the cop is being way too lenient with everyone, true, but the motorist is no exception to the rule - if anything, has been shown extra leniency.

Dude, you have way too much time on your hands. lol

Why doesnt she have a radar gun, btw?

Ok. you've made your point and I've made mine. Being told not to start joke threads is not going to deter me from trolling, since that wasn't what the warning was for. So if that's what the Lindens intention was, they fucked up by not just coming out and saying the truth, and made themselves look hypocritical in my eyes into the bargain.

Let's not bother to make the same point in different ways to each other for the rest of the day, shall we? Neither of us are wrong, because it's merely a personal opinion. We'll each read into it what we want to, I guess. You have more than enough of my opinion on the matter in this thread to understand my position very clearly, whether you agree or not.

Radar gun - the radar gun was an analogy for a clear cut "this precisely is okay, this isn't" which isn't possible to have in any social group.

I think lots of people have different ideas of trolling, which is why there seems to be a miscommunication. Is trolling simply posting a lot? being disruptive? Outright rude / attacking? Maybe you're too caught up in the words?

I don't see the hypocrisy. Well, problem 1 is that I believe you mean "inconsistancy", because hypocrisy would indicate that Lindens were trolling the boards making attacking comments.

As for inconsistancy, I think it's pretty clear - they are fairly lenient across the board unless it's a flagrant offense.

Trolling, as I understand it, is making a post, usually negative, with the intent of eliciting a response.

So pretty much every participant in these forums then?

Yes, we have all been assimilated. *Watch your future's end.*

That's not quite a sufficient definition. Because the forums are public, and implicitly ask for a response, every single post would fit into that definition.

But I get what you're trying to say - let me try and re-word.

First of all, "usually"? Some people understand trolling implicitly as negative, others say only really negative posts are "trolling".

It's not simply "negative" either because I think constructive criticism is different from trolling, and yet is still "negative".

Perhaps "attacking" or "fighting words" could be a better qualifier - "making a post, usually using attacking and/or inflamatory comments, with the intent of eliciting a response."

but just "a response"? Again, in you remove the word "usually" then you could explicitly label that response as negative, attacking, angry, etc.

so "making a post, using attacking and/or inflammatory comments, with the intent of eliciting an angry response".

Is it another Black Saturday approaching

It's 5:30 AM. I realize I wasn't very expansive, however, I do know what it means. I have been on the web for a long time.

That said, I don't really view Kris and Willow as trolls, as their posts are usually lighthearted & silly, not mean-spirited. I don't think they intended to draw angry responses, even though that was the result in some cases...

Maybe we can label them as Silliness Trolls. Note the *ST * on our lil troll friend's tunic.

Awww... My hair is like that in the mornings too

Actually Nolan, I don't consider myself a troll either for the same reasons, but everyone else calls me one, so it's easier to go with it

Same as my old forum title - which I oughta reinstate, I guess - which was an amalgamation of everything I've been called by people here ("Socially Sanctioned Drahma Inducing Forum Trolling Attention Whore".

And as for the responses, well, we can't be held responsible for how people attack us following our posts, now can we?

Hard to believe as it may be, those are exactly my own thoughts with respect to most of my posts.

I rarely intend mean-spiritedness... if someone gets hurt, is that my fault if I didn't intend it?

These forums being among the roughest I have had the (mis)fortune to post on and to read, I don't really see myself as all that different from the majority of drahma queen who post here - which is roughly 90% of the posters it seem to me. As I mention in another thread, drahma exists in most posts to some extent - and in some, it is merely more obvious than in others.

So, I don't consider myself a troll... I don't mind being called one, but I don't see myself as one. I do play as rough as I see others play, however, and I do not apologize for that. It never amazes me, and I even bet with myself about when it will happen and who will claim it first, when I get labelled a troll in any thread - it's usually the refuge of someone who doesn't play as hard as I do and is upset that they have been bested in some way - by me or someone else. Troll? Been there. Doesn't matter.

I was just browsing the Guidelines to see what their definition was...

Guidelines:

Discipline
Be respectful. 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 forum privileges suspended or banned. Repeat violations could also result in your Second Life account access being suspended and possibly banned. Violations are evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the severity of the offense and *(past history of violations.)* The following types of disciplinary action are possible remedies for inappropriate posts.

This is in no way mean't to scrutinize anyone on my part nor have I you concerning any post regarding abuse reporting. Though you think it's a bit humorous with the AOL immaturity of a 12 year old that I told you that using "LOL" or " Grinning faces behind some posts that people make..the reason for this advise is that..if it is a joke..symbols help to let it be known.

I think the keyword they infisize is *(past history of violations)* but I do not know what others have done nor do I evaluate it. I understand your concern regarding others and favoritism if that is the fact and I understand roleplay because I am a roleplayer. But if anyone is going to roleplay and not reveal that it is such..personally I would roleplay an act where if it is not known to the parties involved of your role, that it is done in a non-offensive manner to anyone. I also understand that some of those that are offended fight fire with fire out of emotional anger and the reason these acts get torn into drama is because there is no water to drouse the fire..meaning or LOL!

The pre-emptive strike that is all flame and no water can result in a wildfire. This is a general statement not intended to target any individual.