Did Anyone Read This? Res Mods Phase 2

I hope they don't base future decisions on past mistakes!

I find this statement quite illuminating. I had been under the impresstion that it wasn't about what people liked or disliked, that it was about what the rules are and how they are enforced (or not).

If these are PG forums, then there are certain words that are just unacceptable, no matter how they are used or what their intent. This is not something that is "open to interpretation."

If my neighbor asks me not to use profanity in his home, then that doesn't mean I can use those words if Im joking. My neighbor has made it clear he doesn't want to hear those sounds in his home. The "why" isn't my concern, my respect for his request is.

BTW .. if my neighbor visits me, then shouldn't my respect for his request extend to my own home when he's present.

If I can not articulate my feelings and thoughts without that vocabulary, then Im a poor communicator. If I cannot control myself then I should not visit my neighbor.

It really is just that simple. It doesn't matter if people "like" that or not. It doesn't matter if that feels too much like "disney.com". It is what it is.

If that is not the result that LL and the community want, then they should change the label on the forums and stop trying to pretend they are PG and give them their true label.

This stream of excuses and explanations just continues to demonstrate, in my opinion, why residents shouldnt be put in this position.

Well, except that it is. The mods have said as much.

PG itself is open to interperation... I've heard pretty much the entire spectrum of profanity in PG movies at one time or another, for example.

That said, enforcing rules that annoy people is never good, when its a for-profit company. If the rules annoy, the rules maybe should be changed.



The lindens make the policy, and in this case, their policy /is/ exactly that. So your right, in a sense.



No, not automaticly. While it may be polite, you are under no obligation whatsoever to do so.




This point has been argued before, but the gist of it is, yes, you can convey thoughts with a limited vocabulary. Hell, we could probably convey the gist of 99.9% of things people say with a few hundred words, at most. That doesn't mean that the surplus of words to choose from is bad, on the contrary, it enriches language. While being able to use less words is a skill, so too is cunning use of more words.




Except since this forum exists as part of a service we pay for, you're wrong - What people "like" is important. Its not the final word, but if you don't take it into consideration, you aren't a wise company.




Again, PG is up for debate.

I find nothing persuasive in the rationalizations I've read, and my position continues unchanged.

For this program to have any chance of success rules must be applied consistently and fairly. If they can not be, then they must be changed. Some people getting a free pass to do and say anything they want, while others get reprimanded for doing similar or "lesser" things, with the excuse that everything is "open to interpretation", is simply an abuse of power.

I'm neither rationalizing nor trying to change your position, I'm simply stating how I see things.



Power will always be abused, of course. It's inevitable when humans are involved.

And I agree there is inconsistency.

But I don't think a list of "forbidden words" is even close to the right answer.

Hiya My point realy wasn't about profanity, it was about consistancy in the rules. How can they allow ppl to say "f you" to each other and call it a pg forum. That seems more than silly to me. While we are on the subject simply adding a profanity filter that is optional would at the very least show that LL is attempting to make these forums pg.

As they stand right now on the pg vs allowing ppl to cus up a storm is again silly and counter productive imo. It's those kinds of rulings by LL that are some of the most inconsistant. If this is a problem for them change the rating to Mature. Either way I don't much care, I'm more interested in a consistant even handed forum. Which we do not appear to have presently.

So see I have offerered up a couple of ideas on this one part I find a problem with the forums. It depends on what the majority wants imo. There may be other solutions I haven't even thought of for this particular part of the problem in the fourms. I'm all ears.

Cat

If it's not about profanity, stop using that as an example, because it's pretty easy to defeat

I've heard "fuck you" in PG movies before, for example.

Oh geez come on now. It's a valid concern that is part of the problem and that is why it's included. Which movie was that?

I agree completely ... the point isnt about the profanity itself but about all the ambiguities and inconsistencies it illustrates.

Rejoinders that focus on the example and not the amiguities and inconsistencies further demonstrate that the point is either being missed or ignored. One might conclude that that focus is an effort to turn the example into a red herring to distract readers from the point.

As long as we are on the subject. I would like to add the following. When it come to SL perhaps it would be best to adopt ESRB rating for online games rather than movies. As SL is more like a game than a movie. (thats not saying its a game so simmer down , just more like/simular in qualities in some aspects k)

Here is a link to the Geek Squads ESRB ratings page and their meanings. As you see there is no PG rating within them.

A Guide to ESRB Video Game Ratings and Descriptors

Clearly SL fourms fall under AO 18+ because we talk about everything here.

Cat

OK, if you want to forget about the profanity, what about personal attacks? If some of those things I cited above don't clearly count as personal attacks, while much milder things do, then I suggest they do away with the rule against personal attacks.

coco

Thanks Jim I agree with your posts as well this one also.

Cat

From this slate article, this is mentioned:

I'm fond of citing Albert Brooks' experience in 1985 with Lost in America because it so gorgeously encapsulates the issue. The MPAA gave the film an R rating because of a scene in which Brooks' protagonist babbles to his wife (Julie Hagerty) that he wants to "fuck" her over her office desk. That's unacceptable, said the ratings board, because "fuck" is used in a "sexual context." Brooks pointed out that if the character, instead of saying, "I want to fuck you over this desk" had said, "I want to fuck you over with this desk," the film could have gone out with a PG-13.


From The Untouchables, 1987, PG-13:
Fuck you and your family.

Spaceballs, 1987, PG:
"Out of Order? Fuck! Even in the future nothing works"

Soapdish, 1991, PG-13
"What I feel like is Gloria-fucking-Swanson"

lemme know if you want more, I like to look up stuff.

Now we are getting there Defining the problems that exist. Excellent post Coco
Instead of completly doing away with the rules are there any other options? Perhaps the mods/resmods don't have a criteria set forth to determine what is a personal attack. Maybe we could be proactive and help define a that list?

Just some options folks

Cat

Thanks Taco that helps. So as I see your examples those are all (edit meant in jest, comical) The verbage was meant in a joking manner. The verbage was not however used as a weapon.

Do you think that is the difference in these examples? Of PG vs M and content of profanity?

(i love mel brooks movies hehe)

Cat

Uh, The Untouchables was not a comedy. Unless you have Al Capone confused with W.C. Fields!

I mainly just wanted to type "fuck" a bunch, to be honest.

But since you asked, I looked here and found:

if a film uses "one of the harsher sexually-derived words" (such as fuck (fuck: Slang terms for sexual intercourse) ) once, it remains eligible for a PG-13 rating, provided that the word is used as an expletive (expletive: A word or phrase conveying no independent meaning but added to fill out a sentence or metrical line) and not in a sexual context.



so I will try to limit myself from now on to only say fuck once per post, and as an expletive.

I saw him do that bit on stage once, George is also one of my favorites. His humor always has truth to it.

Cat

I just had to link that

I had already corrected myself.


""It's what you do that counts and not what you say; therefore I fired my press agent."
WC Fields

Testing the waters are we? You do realize that the inconsistancy in these forums may lead to your being used as an example right?

Which is my point.

We are discussing the ratings as they pertain to an inconsistant rule in the fourms. The verbage is neither here nor there so it doesn't matter which cus word is used. Ppl are focusing on the f word for its "shock value" doing so may or may not lead to action taken against the poster. Personaly I would want a to know before hand if a mis-used "word" could cause a perma ban. Not after the fact.

Cat

right, but I'm trying to fucking explain that under a pg system, swearing is not automatically disallowed.

I would say these forums fall under M, based on the definition. One thing that is not allowed here is visual sexual content, which is what the AO18+ is really geared toward. We do have strong language, mature themes, and thanks to Cory Edo, graphic violence.

As a side note, isn't it stupid that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, with all its carjacking, home invasion, cop killing glory got an M rating - but that the hidden sexual content in the game would have warranted AO18? It shows some of the stupidity of ratings and the strange priorities where sex is considered more harmful than violence.

And I am telling you that those who are moderating the forums are not doing so consistantly. One mod may say the above statement is fine while another may say its meant to incite anger.

Russian Roulette?