"Last Edited by ____ Linden"

I made a post in the Burning Life General Discussion thread the other day, as follows. This present post is about the EDITED tag that follows. I've blanked out the first name of the Linden, as this present post isn't about that person, but is instead a question: How often does this sort of thing happen?

How often does a perfectly innocuous post (and I may mention that I have a record of the original post---which is identical to what you see here) get tagged as having been Edited for Something Nasty, when in actual fact NO EDIT has occured......???

Anyway, here's the post and the Edit comment:

10-03-2008, 06:57 PM #193
Ponsonby Low
Unregistered User


Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 172 I've been enjoying my trips over there---some lag issues, but not too bad.

I'm wondering to what extent the word has gotten out about this to actual Burning Man attendees---is there something at the event itself that tells people that Second Life has its own version? I'd think that people who have already been there would have the deepest emotional response to the SL version.

(Of course BM attendees are probably split between those who are more prosperous than the average person, and those who decline to participate in Society, and thus are much LESS prosperous than the average person. And that last group wouldn't necessarily be online...)


((I apologize if this has aleady been discussed--I confess that I haven't yet read all of this thread---))

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by ____ Linden : Today at 02:14 AM. Reason: Personal attacks are not appropriate in the forums. Flaming (posting a message that is intended to incite anger or directly attack a person or persons), ...[is] strongly discouraged."- ____ Linden

***************************************************************


On the same page (#13 of the thread) there IS some unpleasant back-and-forth present. I would guess that the Linden in question....simply missed on their aim.

But I am truly wondering how often this sort of thing happens.

well, ive had similar copy&paste edits dropped into my posts as well. i had one not long ago that basically accused me of trolling which was pretty annoying.
im not sure what triggers them. i suspect that particular linden may have a limited grasp of the english language.

That hadn't occurred to me---that some of those moderating the Forums might not be English speakers.

That has me wondering what phrase or phrases in my post sounded like Flaming! I mean, I wasn't even talking about any individuals.

I dunno. False accusations aren't nice. I would think that if there were a lot of them, LL might want to rethink the 'letting people with little English moderate' idea.


(Or on the other hand, it could still be the case this time that the moderator just accidentally clicked on the wrong post. In cases like that, I wonder if they ever remove the falsely-accusing Edit notation?)

i assume you mean Katt... she just has her own style of moderation.

Her Own Style includes false accusations?

I think they edited someone's thread and accidentally posted the 'edit' line in yours

I honestly think you're correct. As you can see if you go to that page, there ARE some hostile (or at least semi-hostile) posts on that page.

But I'm still wondering: how often do such errors---which are really false accusations---occur? And do those who make the errors ever correct them?

I'm not saying it's a gigantic big deal. My general style of posting is probably enough to clear me of the false accusation.

But still---it's icky to have it standing there. Immortalized on the Internet, as it were.




(And as a side issue, it's informative about the people in question, if they make the errors and then let them stand, rather than correct them. Not that the information will necessarily be of value. But I guess it would give us grounds for doubting future accusations made by the same person, or at least would lead us to reserve judgment about the person accused.)

I'm sure it doesn't happen very often but mods are human, and if there was some hostile back-and-forth in the thread, the mod may have been jumping from post to post, and there you have it.

Well, that's understandable.

I did put a 'wha???' post in the thread. I would hope that the moderator in question would consider correcting the error.

Which leads me to ask: Other message boards I've been on have a thread of some kind in which people can ask about moderator actions.....does this one? (I haven't seen it, but maybe I'm not recognizing it when I see it...)

I just went Inworld, and basically the same message from the Linden in question was waiting for me.

Actually that gives me some hope that the person will see that they posted the Flaming accusation in error (but only if they read replies to their IMs, of course. It's possible that they never look at replies, in which case I'm in the same position I was before).

Well, we shall see.

I got a reply from the Linden in question, and I would like to give that person credit for having replied (to my in-world IM).

It turns out that the person DID take my remarks (reproduced in the first post, here) as "Flaming".

I replied that I believed that this was an incorrect characterization.



Now, we---or those of us who have seen this thread---will be able to take the measure of the person in question, with regard to the extent to which they are Authoritarian.

An Authoritarian will delete this thread.

If the thread is gone, we will know.

And in general, I'd just like to say: no enterprise of the size of SL---or even of the size of this Forum---can survive without rules.

I never support Flaming.

But to say that my remarks constitute Flaming indicates, in my opinion, a lack of good judgment.

These are not personal remarks, because they would apply to each and every person who took remarks such as those in the post in question, and labeled them "Flaming".




.....but I rather suspect that this post (and the rest of this thread) will be seen by only a few. Because I believe we've seen a strong indicator of the type of political philosophy held by the moderator in question---one that brooks no dissent of any kind.

Moderating gone mad imo but then some Lindens just seem to make the rules up on the fly whilst others are excellent with residents

I can't see for the life of me where the flaming accusation comes from tho, the mod in question ought to get their backside in this forum for a change or at least be consistent, glad they don't MOD our RL forums lol

I doubt this treath will get deleted, but it is against forum rules to starts a treath about a particilar AR, in your case a forum mod/warning but that only results in a lock.

In that case IBTL

That may be so, but modding ought not be capricious and unfair, particularly since suspensions and bans here are being tied to inworld accounts - and if a Mod makes an error they ought to say so, delete or correct their edit/comment and apologise IMO.

If PL's post is quoted whole and verbatim, I can't see any flame there either.

--
Aes

Maybe the post is offensive if you translate it using Babbler into whatever is the native language of the Moderator. I can't see any flaming as it stands, although the hyper-politically correct might take exception to a valid distinction being drawn between monied and less-monied attendees at BM. Inclusivity discrimination gone mad?

Pep (Pirate? Klingon? Welsh?)

Also IBTL, offering my support for the OP regarding what appears to be a very poor interpretation of what he wrote. I see no flaming expressed nor implied, just a personal observation and a sociological statement, but sadly, not everyone's grasp of the english language, nor their interpretation of perceived criticism, is as finely tuned as it should be

you call BM attendees poor, maybe the Lindens don't pay their staff enough and the moderator took exception to that?

That's what I'm thinking. It was either that or you were implying that all people who participate in the Burning Man were considered poor and anti-society?

Never attended a BM, so I couldn't judge one way or another.

Nah, I think Ponsonby's saying that some of the attendees are probably pretty rich - which goes to show that interpretation's a slippery fish, doesn't it? And I wonder whether the less prosperous 'wouldn't necessarily be online' because they decline to participate in society, or because they're poor...? I reckon they might be MORE likely to be online BECAUSE they're not so prosperous and can only afford to get to the SL BM, not the real Nevada deal

Anyone can see that I have been more then slightly perturbed with Katt on more then one occasion. But to be fair, I know I would hate to be dumped into this job and her style of moderation does seem to be evolving. So guess I am just going to keep my fingers crossed.

perhaps our ebay mods are trying the forums out? I dont know but when they arrive and start modding with no idea what these forums are about and people start loosing their SL accts due to some post on these forums or even 3rd party forums its time to simply ignore the 'official' forums.

You may want to review the forum guidelines.