Dysfunctional SL forums...Vote!!

LETS WRAP THIS UP!

Vote for zero or more of your favorite options. I have provided a summary along with Pros and Cons for a quick look-up if you need one. If you need more information you can find a valuable discussion here: /120/7b/44410/1.html

Please remember that this poll is intended to get a general feel for what the current most active members of the forums would like to see. Aimee Weber is NOT Philip Linden and as such nobody should assume the victory of one option in this poll will make it law.


***EDIT: SPECIAL NOTE. The results of this poll will be presented as...

"AMONG THOSE WHO ADVOCATE CHANGE IN THE FORUMS, THESE ARE THE MOST POPULAR OPTIONS"



Create a “Rants and Raves” section. Move impolite, disruptive, or needlessly repetitive posts to this section (Linden discretion)
Pros: Original threads can stay on track in a polite fashion; Rants enjoy freedom of speech in alternate thread.
Cons: Increased burden on Linden Administrators; May be regarded as a license for bad behavior; several senior SL members have indicated that this method had already been attempted unsuccessfully.

Create a “Higher Standards” section. Move impolite, disruptive, or needlessly repetitive posts to General forum (Linden discretion)
Pros: Original threads can stay on track in a polite fashion; Rants enjoy freedom of speech in alternate thread. This solution is additive in nature, meaning it doesn’t change the rest of the forums in any way. Instead it simply adds a new section with different rules leaving the old sections as they are now.
Cons: Increased burden on Linden Administrators; The name “Higher Standards” may imply “Lower standards” for the rest of the forums. We may want to rethink this name.

Allow thread creators to delete posts from their threads. These types of threads would be clearly marked.
Pros: Original threads can stay on track in the fashion intended by the thread creator; “Rants” could be reposted in parallel threads unabated; Community takes part in administering the forums which may reduce the burden on Linden Administrators to lesser levels than they are now; Thread Creators will earn good/bad reputations based on the way they administer their threads; There can be as many posting standards as there are thread creators, eliminating the need for a one-size-fits-all solution.
Cons: Deleting posts could make it difficult for Linden Administrators to investigate abuse complaints. If a “great” post is deleted without the poster saving it, they may not be able to recreate it in a parallel thread with the same quality. This starts to approach a kind of censorship.

Allow thread creators to move posts from their threads to a "Contrarians Views" section
Pros: Original threads can stay on track in the fashion intended by the thread creator; “Rants” could be moved to a parallel thread unabated; No additional burden on Linden Administrators; Thread Creators will earn good/bad reputations based on the way they administer their threads; There can be as many posting standards as there are thread creators, eliminating the need for a one-size-fits-all solution.
Cons: Some thread creators could stop all dissent, even when polite and non-disruptive. This would force new threads for each opinion on a subject.

Community based shunning (ignore the troll)
Pros: No burden on the Lindens to administer or implement. No worries about abridging free speech.
Cons: Extremely difficult to unite the community in this way for any length of time. Very small number of “troll feeders” can bring down a thread, even when the rest of the community is on best behavior.

Do not permit alt accounts in forums (only 1 forum account to Credit card/IP)
Pros: Prevents a single person from creating the appearance of support for universally condemned ideas; Forces posters to accept responsibility for their posts.
Cons: May eliminate some legitimate posters, such as members of the same family, dorm, or company.

Ban people for persistent, impolite, disruptive or repetitive posts (Linden discretion)
Pros: Since it seems that 98% of our problems come from 2% of our users, this could very quickly clean up the forums.
Cons: Heavy handed approach begins to look like actual censorship; Lindens are notorious for their aversion to banning people, meaning this solution may rarely ever be evoked;

Implement "Slashdot" system where posters are scored and people can select minimum post scores for viewing
Pros: Successful implementation at Slashdot widely praised; Users get to select their own tolerance levels; No post (within TOS) is ever moved or deleted; Causes no additional burden on Linden administrators.
Cons: This WOULD create a burden on Linden developers. Implementation may be expensive and/or time consuming (I am not sure HOW expensive this would be, but the cost wont be zero).

Impose some limits on number of words posted over time. Some suggest charging per 500 words, some suggest a solid maximum.
Pros: Would force users to compose their posts more carefully and concisely; Eliminates non-stop diatribes; would prevent highly vocal minority from dominating the direction of the forums.
Cons: Some very long posts that are not considered problematic may be curtailed by this system; if money is used, then the rich would have move of a voice than the poor; Word limitations may make users feel confined and reduce their creativity (why do all your posts look like classified ads?)

Moderators become more active, aggressive, and willing to enforce stricter rules of conduct across the board.
Pros: Some agree that forums under the guidance of highly active administrators are more productive and enjoy a more pleasant tone.
Cons: Increased burden on Linden Administrators; Some may feel oppressed.

I vote "NO" on all of these.

also a no vote

While I understand your concern and need to squelch the inane banter that 2% of the population here tends to dish out.
IMHO,None of these options are viable.
Your pros do not have enough weight against any of the cons in the list.
Unfortunately all the offered solutions would create more descent than we currently have.

So I am voting "NO" to all of the above.

If you would like further information about my opinion IM me in world some time and I will discuss it civily.

Sincerely, Shadow

Aimee,

I am disappointed that your poll did not represent the fact that several people said that no changes were needed at all - there is no option to vote for none of these options, to leave the forums as is. Thus, unfortunately, the poll has a bias. I

... hit 'send' too early? -grin-

I do agree that the 'none of the above' option should be added for those who wish to state their opinion that no change is needed.

Look, I'm all for free speech and stuff, but casting a vocal 'no' vote without even a slight suggestion of improvement isn't exactly doing the community a favour either. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think this is more to form a direction for improvement rather than a final say.

I challenge anyone who votes 'no' to at least qualify their response with a reasonable counter suggestion, to keep this thread from becoming a complete waste of bandwidth.

Huh. I certainly wasn't intending to create bias. As a multi-select this poll felt a bit more like a shopping cart for options (when you dont buy anything at the store, you don't go to the casier to ring up NOTHING). A non-vote is a vote. That said, those who feel passionately about doing NOTHING to change the forums should absolutely post that here.

ALSO... When presented to the lindens I will word it as such....

"Those adovcating change in the forums favor these options...."

That way it is clear that this is not a raw percentage of the whole population, but instead a percentage of those who agree they want change.

Hows that?

my no vote is my feeling that no changes are needed

I gave a detailed reason why I didn't think changes were needed in the discussion thread for this subject.

Aimee,

Not voting is not the same as seeing a percentage of people who say no changes are needed. I know this is presented as a shopping list of improvements - no improvements needed should have been one of the options.

As I said, the results will be presented as

"AMONG THOSE WHO ADOVATE CHANGE IN THE FORUMS, THESE ARE THE MOST POPULAR OPTIONS"

So there will be no deception as to the meaning of the data.

I know, I am not saying it is deceptive, you just lack an important part of the data - you can't extrapolate and say what the percentage is of those who do not want changes. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I was just surprised you did not include it as an option since it was clearly discussed in your thread.

To quantify your request is simply this.
Structuring any form of moderation via public control promotes the very thing that some have tried to squelch.
Lynch Mobs.
Thus any form of the changes listed promote "Lynch Mob" mentality whether it be on an individual basis by quantifying posting levels or simply allowing creators to delete threads.
These are neither equitable nor viable solutions to a perceived problem.
The issue is everyone is tired of certain individual rhetoric spun with vehemence on a daily base for a set period of time.
Everyone has a bad day, month, year or whatever, but in most cases its the vehement responses that fuels the attitudes to continue their repetitive actions as they are trying to get a point across and cannot communicate on everyone’s level.

I know I am guilty of the same things.
I know I am guilty of being a shit head at times.
But for the most part, so are each and everyone else offering up these "Solutions"
I will even state that I feel some of the forums that were closed by the moderator, were uncalled for as well as being biased even though when examined closely was not in violation of the TOS.
But again that is my personal opinion.

However, after stating all of that it doesn’t mean the current forums are bad or in need of a revamp technically.
I think the Revamp needs to come from the individuals as a whole and their perceptions on Ideas and or other people’s views from all perspectives.
Respect goes a long way and lately that is what the forums have tended to loose more so than any technically offered solution can solve.

Sincerely, Shadow.

Yes, perhaps you're right, it is flawed. However, have you ever gone into a restaurant and looked at the menu of choices, sitting for 20 minutes trying to decide what to eat because everything sounds so good?

Perhaps this is only the preliminary round. The top four suggestions can be used -- with a more appropriate 'abstain' vote -- in a second round of votes. Therefore, your vote in THIS round still counts.

As the first to post a bare "no" vote, I apologize. I'm already on record in the thread that preceded the vote and didn't think it was necessary to repeat myself. Although, now that I think about it I was accused of being vague.

I believe this is a behavior problem and that no technical solution will address it. The best that comes up is "don't feed the trolls" ... but then who defines the trolls. Im sure the guy living under the bridge doesn't think of himself as a troll. Just an unusual person noone seems to like.

And Im sure that lots of the people /I/ would deem trolls think of themselves as angelic saviors and wouldn't for a minute think that "don't feed the trolls" might apply just as well to them.

Which was my whole point in trying to discuss the position that until we acknowledge that this is a behavior problem and take responsibility for our individual actions, technical changes just wont cut it.

Again, I apologize. I thought we were at the "show of hands" part and that the "lets talk this over part" was done. (Although, I don't recall seeing a motion to close discussion and take a vote, now that I think in it.)

Slashdot style moderation system would be best. If you wanted to wear out your mouse scrollwheel reading nutjob posts modded to -1, you certainly could, no data is technically removed, just filtered as the user sees fit at what level they prefer.

Aimee, you rock

Sure, that's valid. No one wants to have their opinion squashed, everyone wants to be counted. Personally, and emotionally, I wouldn't want my opinions to be cast aside either. However, we're talking about "communities of practice" here... (incidently, I suggest reading http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/404/lesser.html). You can't hope to please every last individual, you can only hope to form a commonality that shares the same spirit... and taking the top 80% is a way of doing that.

In spite of my expression of disappointment that there was no "please don't change the forums" option, I just want to say that Aimee has done an amazing job of approaching this subject and trying to bring about positive change. I tend to lean more toward the less is more approach to moderation - I find editing of posts, even harsh ones, irritating and lean much more toward freer speech. I think improvements that in no way limit our speech would be best, and thus I voted for the slashdot style ranking to give us options. I still think no improvements are really needed, the balance seems pretty good now, but if we are going to make changes, I would hope they would be minimal.

thank you

Why are you frowning?

i vote no.
my counter proposal. leave things as they are.

I voted for the Rants and Raves section, and for more stringent moderation of the rules already in place.

But, my real votes are for people acting like adults, even when responding to those who haven't, and in utilizing the Ignore tools we already have.

I vote no.

There should have been a "none-of-the-above" option.

And no, I'm not going to elaborate.

coco

I vote no to all of these changes. The only thing I'd sanction is a more systematic and aggressive policing of the forums using existing ROC and TOS by the Lindens. I'm happy to take my lumps in such a system, if indeed such aggressive policing will ding me. Because I'm confident that it really isn't going to ding me as much as those numerous nasty people who stopped at nothing to disagree with me, including revealing my RL information, revealing my alts, and doing a host of other types of verbal harassment in game and out.

These changes are unnecessary, don't achieve the stated goal anyway (getting rid of me, which is what they are all about, and nothing else), and can't be implemented without in fact harming even the sainted few in the FIC like Aimee, who will quickly find how much these cramped and narrow-minded concepts for expression prove too limiting to have a good, useful, democratic discussion.

Lindens can't possibly conceive of putting in changes that are only designed as a backlash against one person, myself, and possibly add blaze, who has done a good job of frying me even further to a crisp as a "lightening rod" by putting up polls, and starting threads, without my participation in the decision, using my name, or accreding phrases to me which I never said.

For example, it's useful to point out again that I never called SL "a dog's breakfast". I have a lot more respect for the Lindens and Linden Labs than to put such a silly and vituperative phrase out into the community. In fact, if you read my posts closely, I never say anything nasty about Linden Labs or about Second Life, the world, and its majority of players because I do respect them and have great admiration for what they do. I have respect for my own work and my tenants, too, and I don't think any of us are "a dog' breakfast".

I could also note that while I coined the term Feted Inner Core and Tekkie Wiki, I never posted anywhere near the volume on those subjects that others, including blaze did, and I certainly didn't fan and fuel the flames of hatred by starting whole threads and polls about the Tekki Wiki such as to even drive a Linden out of his lair to respond. That was all achieved by blaze, not me, and he is to be scolded roundly for that.

He's done an excellent job of whipping up further sentiment against me, even as he hides behind me and lets me take the rap for things he thinks.

Generally, speaking, bad cases make bad laws. And in that sense, I'm a "bad case". When you cook up entire laws named after people to change something about a society, you leave that society a little poorer and a little nastier and a little more brutish -- and sometimes a LOT more brutish. We have only to think about such named laws as the "Jim Crow" law or the "Smith Act" to understand a bit about that.

I think probably the best advice I could give those who don't like my posts would be to put me on ignore and move to their own discussions with their own little threads. There are only about 6-8 of you. Go back to discussing clothes, dates, sexay avatars, whether there should be kids or sex in SL, and other sex-related topics -- that's got to be more fun than discussing communities, zoning, classes of players and their behaviour in the game, etc. That frees me to talk to the remaining adults here without asses, and fruit, and swear words, and stupidity in my face every five minutes.

What this entire display has done for me is to convince me of the mediocrity of some of the minds here. They can do nothing but figure out how to preserve that same level of mediocrity to which they are accustomed. Let them LOL.