Discuss New Forum Policy Here - Pt 2

Huns,
Some people can't even keep forum drama on the forum. They have to do things like talk about it in the Welcome Area. I think cases like that (dunno if you've ever heard of that kind of case) are evidence that this sort of punishment are warranted. And the bottom line is each person gets a warning, a suspension, a ban from the forum before they have thier SL account jeopardized. If a person can't say to themselves "Gee, I got banned from the forums, maybe I should stop posting there." and not keep making alts and griefing the forums with them, they are a clearly a problem with the SL community at large.

I totally agree Huns. These new rules seem draconian to me.

Alexa

Isn't the term "most of us" pretty much defining the word subjective in the following sentence?

I still say give it a chance first before condemning it. Maybe I'm naive or Pollyannish, but I think LL came to the decision for a reason. I can't think of them just doing this for the fun of it and then sitting back and watching people suffer needlessly. I would hope the warning system would be sufficient to prevent most from being banned in both mediums.

I trust LL with the money I invested in land and objects. I would like to think I can trust them to moderate the forums and in world behavior in a fair and just manner.

I wish I could give all of you who are concerned a big hug and do or say something to make you feel better but I know that's just silly.

We are all adults and I think if we just gave it a chance and moved forward, it won't be so bad and might even be better.

If down the road, there are still problems, then we can work on proposing a better solution. I may be wrong but it seems like everyone felt victimized to some extent and maybe this policy will prevent that from happening to "Everyone". So isn't that good?

There are good arguments for and against this new policy, and as I have stated I am strongly FOR it.

However I would like to comment on this notion that forum posters must now fear for their land holdings. They paint a picture of this minefield of subjective Linden judgement. Everything is going fine until you make that one false step and BOOM!! Account loss and financial losses hit you out of nowhere. I think it's fair to say thats not how it will happen.

A better analogy would be a mother who threatens to dicipline her ADD-suffering children on the count of 3:

"That's it...I am going to count to 3 and then you're going to get it!
One.... Two.... I mean it! you stop that right now!
One... Hey put that cat down!
Onnne.... Twoooo.. Two and a haaaalf... Stop stabbing your sister this instant! Oooooonnnnneeeee....."

Today a budding forum menace can scan the archives and notice that they have about a 4-6 month grace period and a plethora of warnings from the Lindens before they have any actual concern. Land arrangements can be made at the troll's leisure.

why even have forums for resident interaction?

seems to me this venue decreases interaction inside SL, and as such it makes no sense to me that LL even hosts it. if the Discussion and Classified sections were closed, perhaps some of those conversations/requests/etc would migrate inworld where they belong. then there wouldn't need to be policies that "link" the two.

obviously for those who wish to interact in this way, there are other forums outside LL's control; forums which i'm sure will see an increase in traffic with this change in policy.

tbh the only reason i read these threads is because LL is involved in these threads. seems to me that LL has (perhaps unwittingly) created it's own competition to SL. if LL is going to allow 3rd party forums to operate without ensuring they abide by the ToS in the same way this forum does, then this forum is, imo, a distraction and i'd suggest LL rethink what it is they're doing.

I don't know if it would be possible to do something as broad as this inworld but it would be nice to try. I for one like to come here while I'm working or otherwise unable to log into SL.

As for letting a 3rd party moderate these forums, I know of some games who have done that and it wasn't the same. I like seeing the Lindens here. I think it's a nice touch.

I detect a hint of disingenuousness from those who are now "worried" about losing their land. Sounds more like some sort of protest than actual fear...

I'd just like to point out that the first thread was funnier because Jeska closed a thread she had started!

Nolan, I have no land, but I AM worried about losing my game. I am an outspoken individual. There has already been one person who said I was running the risk of being banned for my "actions" - i.e., my posts. My game is important to me; I enjoy it; and frankly, you lot just ain't worth it.

For me, it is also a protest of sorts, in addition to being a formal acknowledgement of the fact that you have won. You can have the general forum* without worry of me coming in and spoiling things with my "negative" and "divisive" observations. The other forums are less controversial and heated, and perhaps I can still participate in those with less penalty.

A third reason - as you will know soon if you read the SLH, since I just wrote it there - is more interesting. I don't write in such a way that invites warnings, and having feeling that extra bit of weight on my shoulder of self-righteous people who will read my posts with an eye toward ARing them (a practice I don't participate in), just pisses me off, frankly.

It just isn't worth the risk of losing my game, any of it.

coco

*this particular thread, being the exception, and even here, I just wanted to answer you on this.

Hugs to you Coco....looking for the SLH now

not what i was suggesting. apologies for not being more clear.

re: "dual banning"
Good arguments for both sides the subject, either of which I could support.

A disciplinary system which distinguishes inappropriate forum-behavior from inworld-behavior strikes me as analogous to say, not being fired from one's job after being arrested in a Friday night bar brawl -- The brawl isn't germane to work, therefore no consequences at work..
Viewed that way, I can regard separated punishments fair and appropriate.

On the other hand, the forums are not some corner dive isolated from any "real" workings inworld. It's a different kind of environment, but nonetheless part of the total environment which SL residents navigate. It is a community gathering place offering mechanism -- arguably *the* mechanism -- for sustained community voice on issues of importance.
A part of me sees banning offenses not simply as offenses against individuals filing ARs, but also as offenses against the community as such, in that all of us subscribe to a set of standards for inclusion within it.

To me, "Dual Banning" is the reminder -- or threat, if you prefer -- that anywhere this side of the login prompt, we remain always members of a community responsible for our behavior, even when entering the stink of the corner bar.

Jeska Linden,

I am afraid you have become a victim of a typical conflict resolution nightmare scenario: you've become a weapon.

Haven’t you ever seen 5-year-olds provoke each other in an escalating tit-for-tat push-fest until one of them feigns injury and screams “Mommy, Mommy he pushed me." This is an example of using an authority figure as a weapon.

Usually, forum posts along the lines of “I am offended by the tone of this forum” are actually passive-aggressive attacks quite deliberately designed to “get somebody in trouble”. While I am appalled at some of the things I’ve seen in the forums, and I agree with the policy changes, I am a little dismayed that you would permit these changes to appear so obviously as a concession to a manipulative and vindictive faction (i.e., the purportedly “pro-polite” faction, which is in reality largely the “anti-certain-people” faction.)

To put it bluntly: You cannot appear to rely on tattle-tales to identify forum guideline violations. Forum moderators must READ THE FORUM, and independently identify violations using their own objective judgment. (I did say “appear to rely”. What you actually do doesn’t matter. It is what people think that counts. )

When there is a seemingly inattentive authority figure available as a weapon, conflicting 5-year-olds will compete to see who can be the most provocative without crossing the line. Forum participants are no different. This can create an acidic competitive environment, with perhaps less overt aggression than before, but with undercurrents of innuendo and rule-skirting slights that are just as abohorant to anyone tuned-in. The "improvements" are only superficial, and the underlying competion may actaully worsen.

I don't mean to paint everyone who is unhappy with the tone of the forums with the same brush -- I myself have also posted my feelings on that. It is not the posters in this thread who are saying "I like the changes" that I am talking about. It is the ones who agitate for censorship and actively campaign to get the rules changed to make it easier to get certain hot-heads into trouble. I agree with the changes to the guidelines, I just hate to see the manipulators win. It puts a dent in my level of admiration for all things Linden (which is still quite high).

Buster

I think Jeska and the other mods deserve a lot more credit than you're giving Buster, and I'm not sure why you're helping to give legs to the myth that some influential cabal pressured LL to remove a certain someone. It's clear to me, and I'm sure to the vast majority who've been reading the forums over the last nine months, that the recent banning was the direct result of that individual's behavior and that it was deemed over the line and overly disruptive. It truly baffles me that anyone who's been paying attention could believe otherwise.

I agree Chip. I will go further, and say that these types of sentiments, that Jeska/LL is being "used", are nothing short of insulting to Jeska and other LL employees. It assumes that they cannot see. It implies that they cannot think for themselves, and are just puppets.

I find that laughable, at best.

Furthermore, if I myself believed this about LL, I would quit and never look back, which sort of tells me that even the purveyors of this type of logic probably don't believe it.

What is it with this need to not only not take responsibilty for one's own actions, but to also try and help others evade it too, through diversionary tactics and insultive rhetoric towards LL?

This is not the first time someone has been perma-banned from the general section. There was no precedent set here. They did not ban in-world, where they just as easily could have under the new policy. I am sure there are many folks that would have liked to have seen an in-world ban as well - why didn't LL do it then - if some supposed cabal can get them to do what they want?

Answer: LL acted of it's own volition, and in the best interest of it's business and players.

Because - they generally only act if they get abuse reports.

Then they consider and act upon that individual case, without regard to what others have done.

Thus, people can influence what they look at and enforce through repeated ARs of posts.

Those of us, like me, who don't report posts, are at a disadvantage.

Previously, I was at a disadvantage only in terms of losing my posting privileges - or, at the very least, finding myself having to tiptoe carefully after a warning, informal or otherwise. (Which has never happened.)

Now, I am at risk of losing my game as well, if enough people take offence at my opinions and decide to report me. That gives other people too much power.

coco

Coco, I don't think you are at risk. I think your posts have all been rather well. From what I've seen you've represented yourself in an adult manner. I honestly don't think you have anything to worry about.

Please don't leave us.

One of the things I find disturbing in both of the policy discussion threads is the periodic perception that banning is the simple result x-quantity of people hitting the red and white Bad Post triangle, as if it were a voting booth or such.
I tend to think there's more to the process than an =Sum() cell on Jeska's copy of Excel

That is all pure speculation. As you are not a moderator on these forums, you do not know what their criteria is for acting upon a certain thread or post. Do you not think that now that the stakes are even higher in terms of discipline, that they will not scrutinize the posts even more before acting? You make reference to all these people reporting posts - how do you know what is or is not reported, acted upon, considered, or even what discipline is or is not given to particular people?

None of that is for public consumption. These posts that keep implying (or directly saying) that Jeska et al. can be manipulated by some angry powerful forum cabal are not giving any credit to them as moderators - it just makes them sound like puppets that can be manipulated. Do you not think they read these forums and only come in here when someone complains?

Unless you work at LL, this is 100% speculation.

See above.

See above.

Well, I could say that I don't believe you that you have never reported a post, but that would be speculation.

On a side note; I find it extremely laughable that Prokofy claims he never ARed anyone. I sure seem to remember him say he was going to a few times.

And it is the same now Coco. You know why? Because you aren't here in the forums tearing people and their businesses down on a daily basis. Being banned in-world over bad forum behavior hasn't ever happened yet! Not even to Prokofy, so I fail to see the point in this line of logic.

Insultive (to LL) speculation. If you really believe that LL is so insidious nefarious, and so shallow as to be easily swayed on major issues, why would you stay?

i am fully in agreement with huns in regards to permabanning. the real reason we are here is to play SL, and not being able to participate properly in the forum should not endanger ones participation in SL.

I made no reference to the "recent banning", and I thought I made it clear that it is the appearance of reactionary moderation that I am commenting on. (See this thread for evidence.) The rumor already has legs, I am commenting on the rumor. It is the credibility given to that rumor by the circumstances of the rule changes that bothers me.

Buster

Well, I certainly know of a case where two people argued on the froums, and one of those people went to the WA and made comments about the argument - without actually naming the other person. The other person's friends happened to be there and relayed what was going on to him, and he teleported in immediately and said a number of hot-headed things to the first person. The first person responded in kind, and the second person pretended to be outrageously offended, which he really oughtn't have been, considering how he had comported himself. I think you know where I'm going with this. You are free to send me a PM here or in-world if you want to continue discussing this. Please be cool-headed about it if you want me to pay any attention to what you say.

If that person wants to keep sending LL 10bux over and over again to post one sentence and get banned, fine. Perhaps trial accounts could be limited to posting in the technical issues forum, so that it actually costs people 10bux each and every time they get kicked out of the forums. There is also the possibility of using subnet bans to make it slightly harder to get back in.

Perhaps, but only if you assume that the content of all posts is essentially the same, full of ToS violations and personal attacks. Only they're not. Your posts, for example, have always been polite and respectful. Never once have I seen you attack anyone, even when you were honestly being treated unfairly. Even if you were as universally disliked on the forums as it sounds like you feel you are, even if every one of your posts had a dozen ARs filed, all that would do is force the Lindens to read them. Finding nothing objectionable, they would have to dismiss the reports.

In fact, if enough people consistently filed false reports, I would imagine there'd be quite the radical rethink of the AR system.

Disagreeing with vocal posters won't get you banned. Personal attacks and harassment will. I've never seen you do that, so you have nothing to worry about.