Discuss New Forum Policy Here - Pt 2

i insist you call me gort!

none of this ort business for me!

Sorry about writing again. I can't help myself.

Did you two not just read Jeska's request to get the thread back on track?

Or did that not apply to you?

coco

I so completely beg your pardon.

that's generally the problem in the forums.

lighten up.

I might when you stop deliberately misunderstanding me in one thread then creating an entirely new one to slander me.

coco

it's not all about you, you know.

Well if you didn't have such a foul mouth, we wouldn't be in this predicament, Merwan.

hi susie

i can speak as someone who HAS been attacked on these forums (and called some rather NASTY names). personally, as an antisocial person, it doesn't bother me at all, i get a chuckle out of people who take second life so seriously that they need to attack other players. honestly, i'd rather take that abuse myself than see somone who would be hurt by it get attacked verbally.

as far as the new policy goes, i think it's a good one. warnings and bannings across the forums/world line will make the point sink in better. with a world growing as fast as we are, i do believe there need to be SOME rules.

bette aka reddish

so shoot me

I think everyone has made fairly vaild points (while they/he/she/ort were on topic).

The crux is that certain styles of post cause flame wars and that is the end of the thread.

If these types of post, despite warning, do not disappear, then the assumption can justifiably be made that the purpose of the poster is to provoke flame wars, and destroy the threads and eventually the value of forums. Regardless of whether the content of the post (on the far side of the flames, when I read the post) is valid, accurate, succint, pithy or profound. It's the flames.

I agree with coco on a LOT of points; but if the choice is one head on a pike, and peace, or ten (minus one) heads on a pike, and then peace, well, it's ONE head on a pike. Regardles of any ideas of conspiracy or whetever. It's mathematics.

Could be that that was the wrong head, but only time will tell.

Part of forum culture seems to be to flame a bit. And there are others besides Prok here who LOVE a flame war. But I trust that the purpose of the rules is to keep the forums meaningful, and have full confidence that persistent flamers will in fact get the attention they deserve ... from the Moderators.

It's not about personal issues, I think. Though it IS about flame wars killing forums, and flame wars leave everyone flaming... and touchy ... and suspicious of any apparent injustice. Which in turn makes every post personal

EXACTLY why action, drastic if necessary, has to be taken to kill flame wars.

Prok's initial posts normally had a valid point, but buried under a bit of flame. His (I say He cos he presents himself in SL as He,and Prokofy Neva has NO other existence than the way he appears in SL, he HAS no Real Life Gender - the player behind him does) reply post often had a valid point, barely discernable under the thick layer of flame bait, and his later posts were just flame throwers.

I read his posts anyway, cos often under all that was a valid point. But it was VERY hard work for me; for the more passionate posters here, impossible, and not something that LL could support, in my opinion.

Not all posters are as vocal as Nolan when they fire back, but I have seen Prok flame everyone everywhere in one post, where his original point was extremely valid. So he killed his own value to the forum, and actually has NOT lost his voice. He did that to himself.

Keep up the good work, Jeska. You have a lot of support from people who want the forums to be a place where you can freely and openly exchange ideas.

And I trust you know how to handle a loaded gun

If the tying of forum behavior to the game were just on account of Prok, then it is pointless, since he is already gone from here, and since he was banned from here before that rule took effect.

If it is on account of Prok, then it is just a part of the "Prok Act" and it's generally accepted that laws made because of just one person are generally bad laws.

If we have little action for months, then the remedy is not necessarily drastic action at this point, but merely sufficient action, whch lies somewhere between little action and drastic action.

I don't think the choice is one head on a pike versus ten heads on the pike. I understand your sentiment there in terms of just removing a person from the forums, despite how little I may like that or consider it justified in any individual case.

But when the ability to the game is affected, I don't think we need to have ANY heads on pikes.

Speaking for myself, I don't like being the next in line. I might take some chances and suggest new ideas and/or stick up for various people and/or principles if the worst that can happen to me is being banned from the forums.

But if being banned from the game itself can happen to me, then I'd just rather not take those chances. And when ten people consistently jump on one person's posts and ideas, complete with personal attacks, one runs the risk of getting pretty fed up with it and saying things one normally wouldn't.

(This is, by the way, an entirely foreign position for me to find myself in, in any forum, anywhere on the Internet, or any place irl. I'm a law-abiding citizen almost to a fault, and have taught my girls to be law-abiding as well. No one has EVER - irl or on any forum - said any of the things that have been said to me here, and no one anywhere else would even think of it. Well - maybe with the exception of the SLH.)

Here, though, I know if I upset the status quo too much, I will make people unhappy and they will (and do) call me a troll. I know that I could eventually be banned for that. That would be a worthwhile risk to take for the benefit of speaking my mind in the forums. But getting banned from the game for it - no. It would be kind of ironic - not to mention pointless - to end up banned for the game from a desire to better it. Besides, I've already paid for a year, and money don't grow on trees in my household.

It just isn't needed for anyone to be banned from the game for what they say on the forum. It does, though, effectively silence any dissenting voices, like mine. Which is probably just fine with a lot of people, so what the hey. I guess it works out well that way.

coco

I think ppl should really shut the hell up about 'Prok'.

A. Prok and alts aren't here to defend themselves.
B. It really is pointless dredging up a load of crap ALL THE TIME that won't get you anywhere.
C. Prok and alts have been banned, they don't need to be mentioned in EVERY SINGLE
THREAD EVER.

I know ppl are trying to get points across, but GOD, we are now flogging the Prok horse, just like Prok was flogging the FIC Horse. Its done, its dusted, its over MOVE THE HELL ON.

When will it stop!?

Im reprinting what i said in the other related thread since it seems relevant-
***************************************************************
Well , I have some comments about all this.

There was one poster who was particularily aggrivating who skirited the letter of the rules by all accounts, in uncountable posts.

This degenerated into flame wars and personal attacks with a huge number of other posters here. I disagreed with this individual in posts myself on occasion.

That person was removed from the fourms - and the entire battle resulted in these Strict rules. With the apperent Draconian Caveat of banning you from the entire game if you get out of line.

Ive noticed that the forums seem quiet - maybe even lifeless. maybe in small part becuase no one wants to get banned from the entire game of Second life for making a mistake. Maybe im just over reading and the forums are quiet becuase the troll that was removed stirred up a lot of activity.

Now people want to argue for a much freer reign again. Well , if they do so , shouldnt the infamous troll be given a reprieve?

Seems to me that you cant have things both ways - if you want that person gone then the rules to prevent others from behaving that way have to stay.

Or else in 3 months or 6 months or whatever will be a new person with questionable motivations and methods who will skirt the freedom of expression and cuase a new clamoring for tighter moderation.

I remember disagreeing with he person who was banned of how i felt the forums were seperate from the game. He disagreed with me , argued they were one in the same and thought neg rates for forum behavior were a good thing.

In the end LL agreed with him - forums and the game are not seperate - banned from the forums equals automatically banned from the game.

I still think this is a mistake - Forums by their very nature lead to misunderstandings, are prone to Trolls and flaming, and becuase of the non immediacy of the conversations lack a true perspective of discourse often.

So I wonder to myself - someone was banned for extreme behaviour, new rules were put in place with some very sharp teeth. So bad that many are leery of how to act on the forums. Others who make what they think are benign comments are saying they are being reported or what not.

It sounds like the old addage -

Be careful what you ask for - you might just get it.

Well, I'll stand by my opinion that this new policy is a good one. Especially since finding out that as it stands now, a person can be banned from the forums, yet still read them. I know of one person who was banned who states that they read everything posted and then they send notecards to people in world with their "opinion". So as of right now, no one who talks on the forums is safe from a past forum griefer who is still able to be in world. Perhaps with the new rules, that will change.

I agree WIllow.

And it wasn't just Pork - many of us, me included, share some responsibility for bad forum behaviors re: Pork.

What's important is to learn from all this and move forward.

Well now that we have some clarity on the issue I feel better about posting again.

I still have my concerns about faults AR reports being abused to get rid of individual thinkers LIKE ME

With that said, you can bet I will be posting again.

As long as there is consistency in the forums I don't have a problem with the new rules.

Cat

Speaking for myself only, it's not that these new rules rule were in place specifically to deal with a specific individual, it's that this specific individual was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back. There were many individuals before him that also were a destructive influence on the forums, and there will be others in the future that will likely rival or surpass his skill at causing flamewars.

The Lindens are having to strike a balance between openness of speech and maintaining a constructive forum environment. Until recently they seemed to prefer the side of open speech, and expected people to stick to their honor in posting responsibly. The problem with the honor system though is that eventually someone is going to come along and deliberately try to see how far they can push the interpretation. This time it was a person with the avatar name of Prok. It could have just as easily been someone else sooner or later; it just happened to be him that pushed the Lindens over that 'enough is enough' line.

Free speech - especially in a private forum like these - is not a right, it's a privilege and a responsibility. Nor is it free. If one wants to be able to retain the freedom of speech here, then it is their responsibility to not abuse the privilege given to them, and to post constructively and thoughtfully.

Yes, it sounds like a case of a bad apple ruining the barrel, but he was neither the first bad apple and likely the last. He's just the one that the health inspector happened to smell.


- Newfie

It is the tying of what one posts to one's ability to play the game that I am opposed to.

Only.

coco

I have to agree with Catherine on this.

I have hugely cut down my postings here, and mostly only post on technical issues now.

If the Lindens could give us a better idea of just what is likely to be considered offensive it would help. The only example I have heard of since the new guidelines *was* Draconian and entirely uncalled for IMO.

When the result of being banned is so large, and the thing that engendered it is something that you could say on the street in RL any day of the week, it is hard to feel "safe" or like you really have freedom of speech.

I would like to re-state my opinion that the forum changes are *not* necessary and never were and likely will not work the way they are set-up.

I would like to further *re-suggest* that a better solution is to have a "bitches and rags" section or whatever you want to call it. Where people are *allowed* to say what they actually think and not worry about abuse reports.

Traditionaly these type of forums are set so there are no follow-ups, just the rants. It allows people to say the kind of things often considered "offensive" or the personal comments that often drive a thread off the rails. Becaue no one can rally follow-up its just a long series of hateful crap usually, but it keeps it out of the rest of the forum in my experience.

.

I absolutely disagree. Nothing in the new situation does anything to silence dissenting voices. Just rude, insulting, inflammatory voices. I have posted strong dissent in the past, and I probably shall again.

Far from feeling a new need for silence, I feel the opposite. In the new situation I feel it is less likely that I will get insulting personalised responses and harassment. More possiblity for decent debate on the issues.

We should get more free speech, and more honest dissent. Not less.

I agree, Diane. When delineating a fine line, perhaps the best method to demonstrate or discuss where it is via some examples.

Here is my own little attempt (partly copied from another post of mine):

1. Posting "your argument is totally wrong and here's the counter-argument" is fine.

2. "Your argument is rubbish or low-grade or stupid" is very dubious, even with a counter-argument. Wrong side of the line in my opinion, but could be negotiated I suppose.

3. "Your argument is wrong so you must personally be stupid, ignorant, pathetic or malignant" is absolutely not ok, and is exactly what our mega-troll got rightly banned for doing, endlessly and irredeemably.

And if you infer something from a post, which was not directly said, then do please respond describing it as an inference, not as having been in fact said. That was another tactic of the deceased mega-troll, along with continually attributing entirely erroneous and denigrating motives to others.

Do the examples seem about right to other people ? Any others near the borderline ?

I agree with all of those.

I also agree with your other post about the new forum policy creating more room for honest dissent, and less for insulting dissent.

It became the only way, sadly. Without a punishment to be feared, no control can be exercised.

Yikes this thread is still alive and kicking! For the 100 millionth time I will repeat what I think the new policy is all about: POST ABOUT OTHER'S IDEAS AND NOT ABOUT THE POSTER THEMSELVES.

I know some people would like this defined further but to me it is very simple and if you follow it you will not risk losing your Second Life.