Group forum moderation

Many have asked the question, "How could Ulrika, a non-citizen, still have the power to moderate the Nealtenburg forum, After asking a Linden, here's the explanation.

Ulrika was the founder of the in world group Neualtenburg way back when. Despite its inactivity, this is the group to which the forum is tied, As the founder of Neualtenburg (the SL group), Ulrika became the first moderator when the group got a group forum and the only avatar that can indicate to LL whom should be added or removed as a forum moderator.

Therefore the answer to the question, "Whose inaction allowed Ulrika to remain as a moderator?" seems to be Ulrika's

FYI. more detailed information on this issue has been shared directly with the SC.

Claude, your transition into a politician is complete. You have created a scapegoat based on false presumptions and went straight to the public with it. Also commendable is making a foreigner outside the current system culpable.

However, as Stephen Colbert would say, you're not giving people the whole story about truthiness. Behold:

1. The forum was created on 17 Sep 2004 with Ulrika Zugzwang and Kendra Bancroft as moderators.
   
2. After the creation of the constitution I became Dean of the SC sometime in 2005.
   
3. To be consistent with the constitution it was determined in late Oct 2005 that only SC members should have the ability to moderate the forums. At this point the moderator list became my responsibility.
   
4. On 05 Nov 2005 Gwyneth Llewelyn and Aliasi Stonebender, members of the SC were added as a forum moderators.
   
5. I resigned on 22 Jan 2006.
   
6. Gwyneth Llewelyn was then promoted to Dean. At this point the moderator list became her responsibility.

So, from that list of factual statements, one can draw several conclusions.

1. I am responsible for failing to remove Kendra as a moderator.
   
2. Gwyn is responsible for failing to remove Kendra and myself as moderators.
   
3. Gwyn should add the new members when she gets a chance.

Using a similar argument and precedent as a guide, only SC members should have the ability ban individuals from the sim as well.

~Ulrika~

Thank you for clarifying the city chronology. However, there is at best a great deal of uncertainty whether Linden Labs recognized any of the events listed above. From what I can tell, although it is certainly possible that I misunderstand something, your role as founder of the in world group makes you the only one capable of adding or removing moderators. A limitation in LL's way of doing things seems to created a situation where LL didn't care who held what role in the city government. I don't know whether Gwyn has tried, but when I asked how one removes a group forum moderator, I was told that the group founder had to do it.

This is incorrect. I am unable to add or remove moderators, only a Linden can do that. When I added members to the moderator list, I sent an email to [email]forummaster@secondlife.com[/email], which at the time was Jeska Linden. I've attached the email I sent to add Aliasi and Gwyneth below:

From: Ulrika Zugzwang <ulrika.zugzwang@gmail.com>
Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: forummaster@secondlife.com
Date: Nov 7, 2005 10:28 PM
Subject: Add Moderators

Could you please add Aliasi Stonebender and Gwyneth Llewelyn as forum
moderators for the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forum.

Thank you.

~Ulrika~

In the future, I recommend doing your research and seeking understanding before accusing an individual of malfeasance.

~Ulrika~

Pardon me, I should have said that as group founder,you were the only person whose request to add or remove a forum moderator the Lindens would honor.

Also, I am not accusing you of malice. At worst, I have suggested an oversight on your part.

Claude, do you actually know or is this more supposition made up on the fly to contort to the new facts as presented?

Given that publicly accusing me of malfeasance could be seen as libel, I recommend you consult a lawyer (or member of the SC) before you make another post.

~Ulrika~

I didn't see this thread until just now, but my understanding is that Claude is right about this. At least that is the answer that some people have received from some Lindens. As we all know the LL policy can be rather fluid at times.

It's also an emotional "colouration" to talk of this in terms of malfeasance, ineptitude and (your favorite) "incompetence." If a member of the SC (or anyone), did not take someone off the moderator list it is technically just an oversight or an error. Determination of whether the error was made in fact because someone was incompetent is something that must be done later, and not by you.

Such accusations are something that only the SC or some other governmental body of Neualtenburg can decide. To repeat such them over and over as you have been doing is something more deserving of a lawsuit than anything Claude has said.

More judgments based on speculation and uncertainty -- and this time from the SC itself. It looks like this is yet another case you're going to need to recuse yourself from. Are you sure you're up to being a member of the SC?

What a fun sentence. I don't know if it's the British spelling of coloration or the fact that it's oddly quoted but I like it. I'm also quite fond of the string of words "malfeasance", "ineptitude", and "incompetence" of which one is apparently my favorite, although, given that I used none of the words in this entire thread why that is so is a mystery to me.

No accusations were made. However, I did provide a list of facts and then drew several conclusions from those facts based on city law as I know it. I apologize if deductive reasoning has been outlawed since my departure in N'burg, as I certainly don't want a lawsuit. In the future I'll base statements on things that I heard from some people that might or might not be true due to fluid Linden policies, as is the custom.

~Ulrika~

Yeah, right.

You know very well I was referring to a propensity for stating your feelings and your conclusions about the facts as if they were the facts themselves. It's a familiar debating style.

Labeling a (possible) mistake by either yourself, the Lindens or the SC as a definite "incompetence" on the part of the SC, is precisely that kind of statement and it is that particular colouration, which you have repeated several times now, that I was referring to.

In case you didn't really get the first part, I was saying that the Lindens were asked and that the description Claude gave you was in fact what they gave as an answer. I qualified it because different individual Lindens can and do give entirely different answers to the same question.

As for certainty, you seem particularly short of it yourself on this issue, yet it doesn't stop you from ardently arguing your side of the same debate.

I am sure you feel you are right, maybe you are, but I don't think you have thought about it the facts of the matter as much as you believe you have. Personally I haven't decided the thing one way or the other because I couldn't get to the hearing today due to the anti-Semitic grid attack.

For the life of me I can't figure out why you keep quoting words like "incompetence" above. I haven't used the word anywhere in this thread, so it isn't a direct quote. It also seems unlikely that you're implying sarcasm with the quotes when the preceding word is italicized for emphasis. Colour me confused!

What does it even mean to be short of certainty while ardently arguing and how does this relate to the topic at hand. I don't even know how to respond to stuff like this.

I'll post some factual information after a little more research in a few minutes.

~Ulrika~

One does not need to use the word "incompetence" to insinuate it.

Granted, but why the mystery quotes on it then?

~Ulrika~

Here's a list of facts arranged by date that should be considered while deliberating this case. At the bottom of the post is a list of references matching the list of facts by number with links where appropriate. Doing a thorough search revealed some great stuff, including the Linden policy on forum moderation as well as an important discussion on forum moderation that took place right after I resigned.

Facts

1. On 16 Sep 2004 a request was made to create the forum with Ulrika Zugzwang and Kendra Bancroft as moderators.
   
2. On 17 Sep 2004 the forum was created and an email from the Lindens stated that it is the moderators duty to maintain the forum.
   
3. On 02 Nov 2005 in this thread it was determined that the SC has a constitutional obligation to moderate the forums.
   
4. On 05 Nov 2005 Gwyneth Llewelyn and Aliasi Stonebender, members of the SC were added as a forum moderators.
   
5. On 09 Nov 2005 it was announced that Kendra was left as a moderator until forum-moderation bill clarifying roles passed into law changing this.
   
6. The forum bill was never drafted or passed into law.
   
7. On 22 Jan 2006 I resigned.
   
8. On 29 Jan 2006 forum moderation was discussed at an RA meeting, where Gwyneth stated that the SC is responsible for moderation.

So there are a couple of ways one could analyze this:

1. From the Constitution, those who are responsible for the forum are the SC, with the Dean being accountable. Removal of SC members is the responsibility of Gwyneth, as confirmed by her own post. In this case I committed a transgression by engaging in moderation, while not being a member of the SC.
   
2. Looking only at Linden "law", those who are responsible for the forum are the moderators themselves. Removal of SC members is the responsibility of Kendra, Gwyneth, and Aliasi. However, from the Linden perspective my moderation is not a "crime" as I am on their list of moderators and moderated what I perceived to be a personal attack in line with the forum-moderation guidelines.

In the City, local laws that are more restrictive than Linden "laws" always supersede those Linden "laws", so the first in the list seems to be the best interpretation to me.

Dang, I should've been a lawyer. I can't wait for the upcoming IP case.

~Ulrika~


References

1. Email creating the N'burg forum:
   
   CODE

   From: Ulrika Zugzwang <ulrika.zugzwang@gmail.com>
   Mailed-By: gmail.com
   Reply-To: Ulrika Zugzwang <ulrika.zugzwang@gmail.com>
   To: groups@lindenlab.com
   Date: Sep 16, 2004 9:01 AM
   Subject: Neualtenburg
   
   I would like to request the addition of a moderated group forum.  We
   have the required number of members.  We are currently using a single
   thread in the "New in Second Life" forum to communicate and would
   benefit from our own group forum greatly.
   
   Name:         Neualtenburg Projekt
   Moderators: Ulrika Zugzwang, Kendra Bancroft
   
   Vielen Dank!
   
   ~Ulrika~

   
   
2. Email from Jeska which states that forum maintenance is the responsibility of moderators.
   
   CODE

   From: jeska <jeska@lindenlab.com>	
   Mailed-By: lindenlab.com
   To: Ulrika Zugzwang <ulrika.zugzwang@gmail.com>
   Date: Sep 17, 2004 2:16 PM
   Subject: Re: Neualtenburg
   
   I have added your group to the forums and added yourself and Kendra as
   the moderators. I have also pasted the group forum moderator guidelines
   below. Please let me know if you have any further questions.
   
   Cheers,
   Jeska
   
   
   Group Forum Moderator Guidelines
   
   As a moderator, you'll be responsible to maintain your forum. While
   Linden Lab values freedom of expression and allows a great deal of
   latitude in the use of the Second Life Forums, there are certain kinds
   of discussions that are inappropriate in this venue and that diminish
   the community by their presence. The following types of threads and
   posts should be removed immediately when encountered in the Second Life
   Forums:
   
   · Personal attacks on the character or reputation of another Second Life
   Resident
   · Accusing a specific Resident or Residents of Second Life Community
   Standards and Terms of Service violations or real-world crimes
   · Inviting or encouraging other Residents to target a specific Resident
   or Residents in a manner objectionable to the targeted Resident
   · Inviting or encouraging other Residents to violate Second Life
   Community Standards and Terms of Service or real-world laws
   · Revealing personal or real-world information about a Resident beyond
   that contained in the Resident's First Life Profile
   · Using hateful or derogatory language to describe a specific Resident
   or Residents.
   · Linking to third-party content that violates the Second Life Community
   Standards and Terms of Service
   
   If we see a problem we will ask you to edit your forum. Should your
   forum consistently fail to meet Second Life's Community and Forums
   Standards, your group's forum may be closed.
   
   Thank you for your work in this experiment.
   
   Linden Lab

   
   
3. Post that describes the transfer of moderation duties to the SC. From this thread.
   
   From: Ulrika Zugzwang

   Moderation can only be performed by members of the SC who act as the enforcing and judicial body of the city. Currently, I am the only active moderator of the forum but we can certainly add Gwyn and Aliasi if she's confirmed.
   
   
4. Email showing the addition of Gwyn and Aliasi to the moderators list.
   
   CODE

   From: Ulrika Zugzwang <ulrika.zugzwang@gmail.com>
   Mailed-By: gmail.com
   To: forummaster@secondlife.com
   Date: Nov 7, 2005 10:28 PM
   Subject: Add Moderators
   
   Could you please add Aliasi Stonebender and Gwyneth Llewelyn as forum
   moderators for the "Neualtenburg Projekt" group forum.
   
   Thank you.
   
   ~Ulrika~

   
   
5. Announcement that Kendra was left as a forum moderator. From this thread.
   
   From: Ulrika Zugzwang

   I left Kendra as a moderator, as I've been thinking it might be a good idea to keep the head of the AC as an observer. Unable to moderate, she'll still have the ability to look over deleted threads to make sure everything is OK with the SC. It's a way of adding transparency to the system.
   
   
6. I couldn't find information on the moderation bill.
   
7. See forum signature for resignation.
   
8. Statement from Gwyneth that the forums are constitutionally a responsibility of the SC. From this thread.
   
   From: Gwyneth Llewelyn

   Ok, the forums are constitutionally a responsability of the SC.
   
   

Look, I was trying to be nice, but I am tired of arguing with you about this you just don't even make any sense. Also, this is supposed to be decided by hearing and is primarily an internal Neualtenburg matter.

As is your wont, it seems like you are trying to take all these issues to trial in the forums themselves while refusing to show up at the hearing that your actions are most responsible for initiating.

In regards your use of the word incompetence, I am wrong. The word you have been using over and over to describe the SC's actions is "negligence." You have used this term many many times in the last little while in reference to the fact that the SC did not remove you as moderator for the forum. It is one of the key points of your debate. I apologise for getting the wrong word in this last two or three posts, but all my arguments still stand in terms of your coloring the debate with language that suggests certain actions instead of merely stating the facts.

I think it's fairly easy to get the word wrong though, you do it yourself one post above. you say this:Yet one post earlier in the same thread you say this:(To illustrate what I meant about colouring the facts, I could have said instead that you "threatened" this, but that would just be my opinion)

The stuff where you are attacking my writing style I will ignore, I never claimed to be a professional writer nor that posts to the forum constitute that activity if I was. Most likely by "used none of these words in the entire thread" you really meant that you had not initiated their use or used them against others rather than simply utterance. See? We all can use confusing or bad language at times.

"Short of certainty" refers to the fact that in your initial exchange with Claude you don't actually reply to his last claim that only you can ask for moderators to be removed as the founder. In fact you ask him if he is certain of that fact as if you yourself are not either. Then you derail the whole thread a different direction to avoid the nasty possibility that you might be wrong there.

It is interesting that the thread is now so long and that the central point of it was approached so closely and then quickly backed away from. Will the question of who's responsible to remove moderators ever be answered?

In short, you accuse me (and by seemingly by association the whole Nburg government) of making yet you don't seem to me to be certain of the facts yourself. Yet you are arguing your side of who's right and wrong in this affair as ardently (or more so) than we or I am. As I said I haven't made up my mind yet.

You say you don't understand some of my posts, but I must say I have been having the exact same trouble with yours. You say a couple of posts up that this is even though this is the first hearing the SC has has since I have been a member. I know your not crazy, so I am sure you are referring to something there even if it's only a mistaken recollection, but I cant see what it is. I find your communications increasingly confused and hard to appreciate lately.

I'm glad you got that off your chest.

In regards to the topic of the thread, I believe the extensive information I compiled sheds light on internal N'burg culpability, as well as whether and how I might be charged for my transgression. It's not often that a "terrorist" will help compile information and provide analysis to aid in an internal investigation and possibly their conviction.

~Ulrika~

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I've collected a plethora of relevant information along with links for verification but all members of the SC can do is trade forum quips. If this government is to function and be taken seriously, its members must at least make an effort to put aside their personal feelings and accept the responsibilities of their roles. Otherwise it's just a make-believe government that appears to function when everyone's getting along and disintegrates when they're not.

I myself had to agree to moderate myself shortly before I left in the external forums, convinced in part by a great email from Gwyn, which I can repost if there is interest and she doesn't have a problem with it.

~Ulrika~

Sure, Ulrika, go ahead to repost my emails

I have been silent so far just because I have no answer from the Lindens that it's possible to remove moderators from a group forum, when that request does not come from the group founder. Actually, the only document that I have to that effect, a transaction between another citizen and a Linden, claims the contrary: that it's impossible to remove the group founder from moderator status, and that only the group founder is allowed to add/remove moderators. In particular, it was stated to be impossible to remove the group founder as moderator (apparently, not even through abuse reports). Like Dianne mentioned, I'm fairly certain that the answer can vary depending on the Linden asked.

Since I don't have permission to post that exchange with the Lindens, I have sent two emails to request clarification on the issue. Of course, the Lindens have much more to do than pay attention to our quibbling, and since this request of mine will only set a terrible precedent, I'm quite sure that Jeska will have to go to Robin or at least to Philip to grant it.

At this point, I'm not really willing to press the issue further; I'll patiently wait for an answer, but just for the sake of argument. And no, I won't insist with the Lindens to get an answer fast; I respect their time and priorities, which are not the same as mine; feel free to press them more, if you wish.

This post of mine is just an assumption of my incompetence in overriding the Lindens' internal systems.

I'm not a member of the SC, in case you missed that.

Outrageous as usual.

Just to steer the thread back to the actual topic though, here are some facts for ya:

Here is the point of the thread (It's first sentence in fact).Now the very latest info we have is that except under some unsual circumstances or great exception granted by the Lindens after review, you are the only person that can remove yourself as moderator on this forum or ask yourself to be so removed.

The point at which Claude points this out to you...... you (bafflingly) accuse him of possibly libelous statements and don't answer the point. You then steer the thread off into oblivion making statements about the SC and the Nburg government far more fitting of the "libel label" than any Claude made. I understand you didn't know this information previously and it must be hurtful to find out you were wrong, but it's pretty sad to create all this acrimony merely to cover up your mistake IMO. At least that is the only reason I can see to attribute all this nonsense to.

It also seems clear to me from the reasons you posted for deleting the post on the other thread, (the act that started all these problems), that you knew that you did not really, or should not really have the right to moderate this forum.

You are the one that caused the crisis knowing full-well that you had no right to interfere.

It's questionable whether or not this forum should even exist. The Neualtenburg Projekt group that started it is pretty much defunct and has nothing to do with the day to day running or Neualtenburg. None of the groups currently in use for members of the Neualtenburg government are reflected there.

How many of the twenty people who's joining of that group made it possible to start this forum are still in it? How many are even still playing the game? Does the group itself even exist in SL anymore?

These are questions crucial to the question of moderation of this forum that you know, yet haven't said anything about.

In short, it's all about you.

You know you shouldn't be a moderator here, you know whether the forum should still exist or not, you knew you shouldn't have deleted that post by your own admission, yet you did it anyway, and that is what *caused* this whole crisis in the first place.

IMO it's just another silly game you are playing to teach us all one of your "lessons." The trouble is you aren't a professor anymore, at least not in Neualtenburg.

Absolutely. I have admitted that my action was a possible transgression from the start. However, we are all autonomous beings and any missteps made by others following that act are their own responsibility. If that were not the case, I could simply blame Sudane for *causing* the whole crisis with her uncalled-for snarky post. We all need to be responsible for our own actions.

What's interesting about Gwyn's post above is that her anecdotal information conflicts with the document that was provided to me by the Lindens (see my überdetailed post with references above). If what Gwyn says is true, I could be moderator around here without problem for life. If that turns out to be the case, I fully plan on replacing the word "Constitution" with "Claude's Kleenex", wherever I go.

~Ulrika~

There is no conflict, Ulrika. What you've got are the rules, as a group founder, for adding and removing members with moderator status to a forum group. They are correct.

To the best of Torley's, Jeska's, and Robin's knowledge (yes, I've promised not to bother them too much — they all have much more important things to do these days of multiple grid failures — but sometimes they have 2 minutes to IM us back), there has been no precedent for other moderators to remove the group founder. Since there is no abuse report on the forums (just individual posts that can be marked as abuse; you can't "mark for abuse" a moderator action), there is no reason to report the group founder's abuse. Thus the Linden silence on the matter. They need more data to send to their abuse team and use this case as a precedent.

I might imagine that at the end of the day, their ruling to remove a group founder would establish an enormous precedent, and even if there is sufficient reason for doing so, they will probably not remove them. Also, issues presented to their abuse team will take around 4-6 months to deal with. I really don't expect any reply sooner. Again, it's really not up to me (or any other resident, for that matter) to question Linden Lab's ultimate authority on setting up their rules. Unlike the Neualtenburg Constitution or the Neualtenburg Code of Law, we have no power to "interpret" or "question" Linden Lab's rulings, descisions, or best practices. Put in other words: we simply have no jurisdiction over the LL forums. Or, if you wish: although we might add as many nice laws and rules on our own system to say that "we will moderate the forums under N'burg law", that is jus wishful thinking, and something beyond our powers to do. We could write laws that would "allow the Neualtenburg Government to have jurisdiction of Dreamland and Ravenglass Rentals". They would be nice to read on the paper, but completely unenforceable, and thus worthless.

So, the group founder rules its own forums autocratically, unbounded and unchecked This was never a surprise to me (Linden Lab can be consistent sometimes!) and pushing the issue to see if we catch a Linden unaware of the others' decision, just to provide "more anedoctal evidence", is a waste of their time.

Still, as said, we'll go with LL's rules and their suggestions, and I expect they'll have a definite answer, to be given at their own time. Don't expect that answer "soon".

How curious. So that means you're sweeping aside the entire concept of moderator as seen from the perspective of the City government and simply handling this through the Lindens. In that case, I should just shoot Jeska an email, stating that as "founder" of this particular forum that I choose to remain moderator. Bam. Problem solved and end of abuse report.

~Ulrika~

If Linden policy disallows us to remove a non-citizen from the list of forum moderators, then what can we do, eh? Seems to me having discussion about city policies, laws, etc. in a forum moderated by a non-neualtenburger is not desirable. Especially if said non-citizen has a history of editing and deleting posts on a whim.

Thus if the Lindens can't or wont allow us to remove Ulrika from the moderators list soon, it has been suggested we move the discussion to some other forum. Either start a new group (I think we have enough members to do so) in the LL forums, or start a separate forums on a separate website.

Fascinating! I'm finally reclaiming some of that lost IP.

Seriously though, let me help you all solve this.

1. You should use this as an opportunity to formalize the SC's role as moderators (it's an unspoken law now). Writing laws that are actually needed now is much more useful than lining up a bunch of half-baked amendments.
   
2. Then interpret my behavior through the city's laws as opposed to going through the Lindens, which makes you all seem less of a government and more as a group playing government.
   
3. Finally, ask me to contact to Jeska to have my name removed as a moderator.

I don't know why these things are so easy for me.

Finally, in respect to the vBulletin system on which this forum runs, there is no such concept as a "group founder", thus removal of me as a moderator is technically possible and trivial. The only hurdle is Linden bureaucracy which conveys to me ultimate authority. If I abdicate, passing the title on to Kendra (who is also a "founder" then the problem is solved.

However, it will mean you might have to say "please" and I know that setting up a new forum would be much easier for most.

~Ulrika~