Discuss New Forum Policy Here - Pt 2

I love it!!!!!

Please note that I also said I didn't care if they arrived at their idea in a drunken state. Actually they could have been reading tea leaves and I still wouldn't care.

Well, since you have used that example on more than one occasion, most notably this one, in which you offer no such disclaimer, I hope you understand why I pointed it out:

This seems to be an assumption of motivating factor, something you profess to be adamantly against. Not only that, it's a character attack on people who choose (read: not "are forced") to respond to attacks made against their character or business.

That said, is asking us to assume and or define the motivations of the people you are describing not contrary to that virtuous behavior which you are trying to guide us towards?

nolan, seriously you should give it up. the only reason some people are banned from the forums and some others are not is very much the "kgb style" AR-reporting. there are people who constantly skirt the tos chasing the dog of the month around the forum kicking him/her at every chance and getting no more than a slap on the wrist. it's easy to kick the dog because nobody will care. in fact kicking the dog is sometimes worth a lot of points.

Just wanted to remind everyone to stay on-topic and be sure to refrain from attacking a person when disagreeing with their opinions. Thanks.

Oh you clever rascal you! *Spits out the hook*

You've got to admit, he makes a good point about passive-aggressive behavior.

I've come to this thread very late and haven't read it all. Sorry if I'm duplicating comments from earlier.

The general principles of not attacking people, locking rather than banning threads, warning and eventually banning people I don't have a problem with.

My issues is more with what invokes those steps. If any one person has the power to say "This is bad in my opinion" they are, by its dictionary definition, in the role of a censor. Having strict, clear rules e.g. no swear words in any language, no mentioning another person's name at all (except maybe in the birthdays etc. thread) still leaves someone checking, but we hopefully approach the situation where people *do* know the rules and there can be a general agreement that these posts break the guidelines and deserve a warning/banning.

My worry is that under the current regime it is possible for someone who expresses unpopular views in a perfectly polite and otherwise suitable and legal fashion can still be hounded, warned and even banned.

An alternative would be to list, suitably edited, the offending phrases, so we know what's provoking the warnings and can adjust suitable OR indicate that we as a group disagree that should be banned. If someone posts that 'Eloise Pastuer is a biatch' (that's me please note) and that's enough to get them on this disciplinary process, then a forum containting posts including the warning that saying 'XXX is a biatch' will start it lets us all know where we stand.

Okay I think I see what you are saying but have I done this? I can't tell if your post is addressing all posts or just a specific one and I really am trying to be move forward towards a constructive forum. In order for the forum to do sowe have to address all concerns.



Again, maybe I'm not seeing it but I can't see where even during the most heated of the debates in the past that I have used passive-aggressive behaviour. (Sorry to bring up old stuff but it's relevant here). In the cases when I was attacked and belittled, I was attempting to use the forums as I perceived it's purpose.



I understand some concerns that the system could be used to hound unpopular posters. The solution would be for all of us to be on the look out for such a situation and use the AR to help Linden Labs be more aware. As I perceive some have expressed concerns that either LL may either wittingly or unwittingly allow some abuse to continue then as responsible citizens the solution is to assist them in anyway and the best tool we have is the AR.

The examples of unacceptable phrases is a great idea. BTW.

I see some great ideas in the post. I see some people expressing their heartfelt concerns and I applaud all of us for wanting this forums to be the best they can be. I think now that we have looked at all the possible pros and cons to the new policy, we should work towards solutions that will help this policy work. And if we see it just won't work after giving it a try, if SL looks like it's going to become a ghost town because people are being unfairly AR'ed and banned, then we could implore LL to rethink and rewrite the policy

I hope this makes sense. I have been thinking about this all night and bothering my poor bf with my thoughts. I like to find solutions, am I being unreasonable?

I agree with Huns Valen -- forum bannings should not affect access to the world of SL. The mediums are different enough that griefers in one will not necessarily be griefers in the other.

As you can see, I'm not in charge of managing the forums. I'm just an LL developer and just another forums poster who sometimes makes official LL statements and sometimes states his opinion.

Now if I ran the forums... things would be Different!

First of all, I would never delete a post or thread unless it revealed RL personal information. Even vile offensive insults would remain since I think they serve to reflect more poorly on the poster rather than the target, and should thereby be a matter of record.

Second, I would reduce the threshhold that determines an offense. If I think you're being a putz or an ugly troll then you lose some forum posting capabilities. If you're easily offended and reactionary then you also lose abilities to post.

Loss of forum posting ability would take several forms, ranging from:

Temporary suspensions from postings.
Reduced words per post
Reduced posts per hour/day
L$ cost per word/post
Lockout from sub-forums
Complete ban from all postings

Which countermeasures I'd deploy would initially depend on my whim until I had derived the optimal formula for punishment given the parameters of each situation.

That's what I would do if I ran the circus... er forums.

Firstly, I was very sorry to read Catherine's post saying she is going to stay away from the general forum. I hope you reconsider Catherine.

If we go back to when Prokofy was posting, I read more than one post saying fuck you and fuck off to him, far worse than he wrote about anyone in reply. I should have AR'd those people but didn't, which I deeply regret. He was driven off the forums and it will be a worse place without him.

I have never AR'd anyone on the forum, but I am going to be much more vigilant from now on.

Can we, do you think, now have posts which discuss the issue and not rip individuals to shreds in the forums? I pretty much always agreed with Catherine's posts, but I have seen her mercilessly attacked mostly, I have to say, by the old clique on here. And yes, there is such a clique, whatever you may say.

Alexa

Shall we call you the Marquis de Sade? Those punishments are fiendish, and potentially effective. Should you ever have the fortune/misfortune of running these forums, consider adding the vowel block to your toolbox of reform. Offending posters have all of the vowels stripped from their posts.

Lol good idea Ardith.

Very fiendish

Alexa

I am working on a voluntary program called "Towards a New Civility." This program will have guidelines for people to voluntarily adhere to. Anyone wishing to discuss these guidelines with me, e-mail me ingame.

coco

I like the idea of escalating hurdles for repeat forum offenders, so I would take that vowel stripper and enhance it to take out all consonants (but with as many vowels as they want) if they continued their nasty habits.

Also, in the case where words cost L$ maybe I would make the letters cost different amounts, with a running total down at the bottom of the edit widget.

I really hope so Alexa. Previously there were constant attacks, insinuations, provocations, and outright lies against anyone perceived to be part of the "old clique" as you put it... accusations of being some kind of manipulative cabal. Accusations of stalking, fraud, collusion, groupthink, and a hundred other baseless fabrications hurled at a few people on a continual basis. It was open season on anyone well known or with a successful business and if they dared respond to slander and insinuation they were written off as bullies and Linden favorites who got where they were through special favors. It gets bloody old. My point being... it goes both ways.

But you'd lose the cute moniker for it! Everyone wants to see a public disemvowelment!

I think they should lose abilities to read. If they are that easily offended then not being able to read it would be a act of charity.

All topics will be replaced by pictures of fluffy bunnies and other heart warming imagery. When they feel capable of dealing with the real world then the disney filter will be turned off.

Reactionariness will be measured by script using a crude word matching formula. Words will be graded and the average score would be available on the poster's profile.

British posters with high scores will be awarded a special "Daily Mail Reader" title which would be visible on their in world profile and could not be removed without Linden assistance.

Maybe we each need some kind of agressiveness/sensitivity score as part of our forum titles so people responding to our posts can guage their risk of upsetting the apple cart.

Earlier I have agreed with Huns about how permabannings of the forum should not immediately equate to SL bannings. I wanted to make a clarification and add a second point.

I think that suspensions of both for any violation in world or on the forum is fair and productive. Losing the ability to play SL for a few weeks is a much bigger consequence than losing ones voice on the forums for most players. With our real life identities protected from the foolishness we post here, there should be something of consequence. but in terms of permabanning, the two should be seperate.

I think a permabanning of the forums should at first only include the discussion forums and maybe the LL forums. the Classified forums are linked too closely to InWOrld activities. To cite the recent example which has sparked this discussion, if Prokofy is indeed banned from the forums in their entirety, then her InWorld activities, where she is a good "citizen", is being severely jeapordized. As long as players banned from forum discussions don't use the classifieds to tranplant their discussion area griefing, the classifieds should be made available to them.

Best post in this thread after Huns Valen. Lindens should listen to Linden

I think he is allowed to access and post in classifieds.

coco

good point. sounds to me like another reason to remove that section from the forums and let it develop inworld.

Notice, everyone, how Juani uses his (hers? it's hard to tell from the picture) post to continue -

- to OUT REAL LIFE INFORMATION or at least what S/HE THINKS IS REAL LIFE INFORMATION -

with impunity.

Anybody want to report that one?

Nothing considers itself more impervious to the rule of law than a mob. And THAT is the greatest danger we face here, and always have.

I maintain there is no crime worse than someone attempting to publish real-life information about a player.

But I guess calling someone a prom queen is, really, just a whole lot worse.

coco

Excuse me. I meant to say, "pointing out that someone's name is reminescent of that of a high school prom queen."

oh get real! is this some more of the reverse kgb tactics?

peoples gender is not the tos violation. posting their name location etc is a tos violation. i'm not going to waste my brain censoring gender in my text when prok has had the audacity to compare herself to my mother in an inworld conversation. if you don't want me to use your rl gender, DON"T TELL ME! if you want your gender secret, keep it to yourself.

I think it is a TOS violation. Is gender specified on his profile? No.

Just as I think calling someone an alt is a TOS violation.

coco