Bill 4-24 Neualtenburg Projekt Forum Moderation

Bill 4-24 seeks to formalize the role and function of the moderators of official SL Neualtenburg forum. As guardians of Neualtenburg free speech, only sitting members of the SC will moderate the official forum. In order to ensure timely moderation, moderators will perform their duties as they see fit with the following provisions:

Succession: When a new Dean is installed, previous forum owner(s) will contact LL to change sole forum ownership to the new Dean. The Dean will ensure that only sitting SC members are possible moderators.

Activities: Each moderation activity will be logged for review at the SC meeting, this includes the content of deleted posts. Moderation logs will be made available in the SC transcript.

Regimes: One of 3 possible moderation regimes is possible: SC moderation which is used when a new Dean takes office, sole moderation and no moderation. Regimes can be changed by simple SC majority vote.

SC Moderation: All siting SC members are moderators.
In the event of a disputed moderation activity a simple SC majority vote will decide if the disputed moderation activity is undone and the forum restored to its state prior to the disputed activity.

Sole Moderation: The Dean is the sole moderator. Logs must be kept as above.

No Moderation: The forum is unmoderated. Evidence of moderation during this regime may be referred to the SC for investigation.

Then I would suggest That the City of Neualtenburg gets it's own forum.

This is the forum of the Neualtenburg PROJEKT --that is to say the original founding PROJEKT which began the entity known as the City of Neualtenburg.

The City uses this forum at my discretion. Not the reverse.

I'd kinda like to keep it all in one place. What if you were kept as owner but removed at Dean request as moderator? I'd amend the bill accordingly. BTW this isn't on the agenda tonight, we'll have at least a week to chew on this.

In fact, it works better your way. You're like the permanent "Governor General" who confers or removes moderator status when new SC members arrive/leave or when the moderation regime is changed.

I really dig it because it kind of makes you like the Queen in Canada. Really, I think it works.

I would deny the Dean's rquest politely and suggest that the City concerns itself with it's own rules while I continue to serve as the arbiter of how this forum is moderated vis a vis responsability to the Lindens.

The SC can be responsable to the the City.

This is exactly why I suggest that it be deleted altogether over here:

/103/89/101437/1.html#post996167

Conceivably we could start our own forum and leave this one, but then if this one remains, Ulrika comes back and we are left in the position of having a second forum using the Nburg name that exists (then) only to criticise and lampoon the real (new) Nburg forum.

Unless all this activity from Ulrika is simply aimed at the destruction of the project altogether, then this forum *should* be disbanded and the whole "Neualtenburg Projekt" group (which hardly exists anymore) should similarly shuffle of into the great good night.

If the need is to archive this forum for posterity, perhaps the Lindens can be petitioned (by Kendra) to have the whole forum locked?

Ok, here goes compromise attempt #2:

The Founders, *both* Ulrika and Kendra (if they so desire) remain fourm owners. They both also act as permanent moderators. The entire SC are moderators per SC moderator regime. Everyone logs and disputed activity voted on at the SC meeting.

The Founders are responsible for creating and revoking moderator status when the SC membership changes. Please forgive me, I didn't really understand the distinction between the city and the projekt. BTW we can even put this Founding role in the constitution. I'd like to see the Founders names in the constitution, maybe the statues can come after that.

The intent: Transparency and no one person permanently controlling free speech in the forum.

Kendra: Any suggestions? Would you be comfortable with anything other than the status quo?

I see my role as moderator on this forum to keep the forums to Linden standards of forum acceptability.

I see the SC's role as moderating the forums to keep to Neualtenburg City standards.

There is need IMHO for both.

I think you may be hitting your head against the wall here. The "founders" seem dead set against anyone playing in their sandbox.

It seems more and more likely that the intent here is simply to destroy Neualtenburg altogether which is what many people assumed was the point when Ulrika first resurfaced.

The statue idea is good though.

Maybe the "founders" can be bought off by the promise to put up some crappy prim statue of them in the town square?

Ok. I guess I can see that. I kind of thought that the City standards were sort of a superset of the LL standards, but I may be wrong there, perhaps some parts do not overlap.

Ok, let's say we remove the proposed vote on disputed Founder moderation activity. It's pointless if there is only one or two of you. We also take away the proposed Founder vote on SC moderation activity. You can delete all posts at will anyway.

If we proposed that, would you be willing to log activity and make the log available to the SC for the sake of transparency?

The SC might not go for #3, what about #2 with all moderators reponsible for city and LL standards (per their constitutional oaths)?

I think this is an unfair categorization of my intent. Thanks alot.

What *is* your intent?

My intent can be discerned from my posts. Are you implying I have a hidden agenda?

Hi Kendra, please don't be discouraged, anger gets the better of all us at times.

#3 is essentially the status quo, all that changes is that we ask founders to log activity for transparency. The SC vote piece would concern only SC actions.

So whaddya think?

Sorry if I was rude Kendra.

I'm just getting so damn frustrated with all these silly games today though.

This is a serious issue IMO.

Ulrika's return pointed out (and I believe this was her entire purpose), the need for the "new" Neualtenburg (the one after she left), to continue on it's own and not rely on mechanisms and (she thinks), IP that is not rightfully theirs.

I completely disagree on the IP issue based on what I have seen so far, but it's a fair assessment that we do need to "break" with the past. As long as Neualtenburg exists in SL as an entity how can a forum exist on the SL forum website that is essentially not under it's control but using the same name?

It creates a real conundrum IMO.

There are only two solutions that I can see (barring the possibility that all the forums just disappear and solve the problem for us).

1) 'Neualtenburg Projekt" group disbands or otherwise hands over control of the forum to the current government/city/state of Neualtenburg.

2) Neualtenburg changes it's name, or otherwise becomes not Neualtenburg anymore to disavow the current association between the two.

To me the second option is kind of like destroying Neualtenburg, which is why I phrased it that way.

I admit, I am quite perplexed by your recent actions, Kendra. You say Dianne mischaracterizes your intent, so there may be even more people confused about what exactly it is you are trying to achieve. I was hoping you could explain.

As any post that I might delete would be viewable by any other moderator --and also be able to be undeleted by any other moderator, I would say that I already operate with full transparency.

Further --IF an amendment to the Constitution somehow passes that states cleary that ONLY members of the SC are allowed to be moderators on this forum, I will step down from being a moderator provided the name of this forum is changed from "Neualtenburg Projekt" to "City of Neualtenburg".

I'm doing what any good mother does when her child is ready to leave home.

Ok, I didn't realize this about the moderation tools. So any moderator can undo any other's moderation action on a whim. The problem with this is what if the moderators do not agree on a course of action for a given post?

The only easy solution(s) to that are:
One moderator (that's a lot of power in one place)
No moderator (anarchy)
3rd party (LL?) moderation

What do you think? This is relevant whether we create a new forum or not.

I think if you can't get forum moderators to respect each other's decisions when all but one are SC members --you have worse problems than the forum

I view the SC as akin to a judiciary. I'd even like to rename it "The Judicial Branch" and purpose the SC titles to the University. If the SC is anything like the US supreme court there will be plenty they don't agree on, including moderation decisions.

I didn't say agree.
I said respect each other's decisions.

The founders and all members of the SC are moderators. Disputed actions will be immediately "undone" by the dissenting moderator and resolved by moderator vote at the next meeting of the SC. Each moderator gets a vote.

No logs or nothin'! You only vote on the disputed stuff. Anything disputed is untouched until resolved.

Hey, can't beat that. Whaddya think?

PS: If I get a negotiated settlement here I'm changing my label from 'Neualtenburger' to 'Solomon'

I'd say that's up to the SC to decide.