think i'll get an answer on this?

I always take the comment "nothing has changed" as a compliment. I didn't agree to become a resmod so that we could come in with the strong hand of the law and tighten this up into Disneyland. I did it so we could preserve the forums and preserve forum culture*. If we now have 146k residents and the forums are still what I loved about them when we had 20k residents, that seems successful to me.

I appreciate all the constructive criticism about the program. It's a new program and we are working harder to make it better and more consistent. In response to a lot of the constructive criticism there is a lot more inter-resmod communications and joint decisions as well as a lot more Linden feedback in our resmod forums.

* note also why I'm willing to "take so much heat", even though it's not that hot.

I'll give you one concrete, personal example which may well get me sent to the cornfield or banninated. I cannot speak for "the community" but found this to be an example of appalling moderation.

I happened to notice Richard Pryor's death last year and with all possible respect intended toward someone who did much to expose the racism present in contemporary American society and said something to the effect or "I hope Mr. Pryor enjoys his stay in. as he would call it, '*edited* heaven'" for which I received a suspension for "intolerance". That's an egregious problem to my eye, not because of my suspension (which really didn't trouble me at all) but is indicitive of really sloppy moderation.

Are you less baffled?

No. Avoiding racial slurs isn't exactly a hardship and simple common sense should have told you that it had a high probability of being offensive to many. Seems to me that instead of taking responsibility for something that was clearly a rather foolish thing to post you're trying to shift responsibility to the forum moderation.

Do you actually believe yourself? I assume you are aware of Pryor's significance, his pointed politcial humor and the manner in which, by using language that some people thought offensive, attempted to "detoxify" the term or at least bring out into the light what was being said only clandestinely.

If I were to say that I was raised by "martians" would that be similarly "intolerant"? What if I were to mention my "mentally-retarded" relative? I have little doubt that you have likely noticed the way in which the gay and lesbian community in the US quite consciously turned the use of the word "queer" from a slur into a badge, and likely also the way in which the "crippled", "handicapped", "disabled", "challenged", "differently abled" progression failed to acheive the same effect.

Sure, I can avoid strings of characters representing words that some use as racial slurs, but do you disagree that the facial intent was one of homage and respect? Do you want adult discourse or candyland? Please accept my apologies if you find the use of the term "candyland" offensive.

Introvert, first of all.. aww shucks, *blush*, thank you for your kind words! /bow

but more seriously, i have to disagree with closing/moving the forums. it would splinter the community in what would almost surely be an irrevocable manner. i can easily see where the advantages would be, but the harm it would do wouldn't be worth the sacrifice.

as for the Richard Pryor remark.. while i'm not surprised it resulted in a form of moderation, i AM surprised at the same time. taken at face value and/or out of context, i can see where it would be offensive. even in context for some people.. but this is a good example of where ResMods could actually be helpful. had someone posted it to the thread where ResMods discuss threads before acting on them (yes, we have a thread specifically for threads/posts we're not positive about and share our thoughts to come to a more unified and informed conclusion).. anyhoo, had it been posted there, i wouldn't be surprised if it would have resulted in being left alone. all it takes is for it to be explained that those were Richard Pryor's words, not yours. he was reknowned for making such comments (which i feel helped the fight against racism) and had that situation been fully understand, i doubt you would have received said suspension.
--

Chip, (this is both in response to you and for everyone to read) i think it's a combination to be completely honest. i think the main problems are:

-SLers desire stronger communication with the Lindens, which may be as simple as them posting more often in General. as well as more forthcoming responses in some cases.

-i don't think the community as a whole is trying to break any rules, they're simply trying to get them defined in a manner that can be clearly understood and thereby followed. the forums were fairly calm compared to the storm the ResMod program stirred up. but that was a natural progression.. all of a sudden rules were being enforced more often, but they weren't very clear to everyone.. even to the ResMods. people started pushing boundaries more than they had been, i don't think to cause trouble, but to help define those blurred boundaries. it resulted in a more clear definition of both language and imagery that is allowed here.


these areas were very grey, but weren't tested (or contested) nearly as often as after this program began.

-also, you're on the right track when focusing your eye on the community. don't get me wrong, i'm not pointing any fingers.. i'm simply saying, we're all adults and as such should be able to act as such.. but this goes both ways. some things will ruffle feathers, but if it's sloughed off without much ado.. it loses it's power and the tone on the forums would ring with stronger civility.
now, to counter-point that, the same goes for those who make those types of comments. if some things were toned down, just for the sake of being polite to our fellow SLers (instead of due to "rules", the forums would come a long way towards the positive environment that the ResMod program is trying to nuture in the first place.

-which leads me to consistency in moderation. extremely hard to acheive even for one person when moderationg such a behemoth of forum activity. difficult as well for a group of people to acheive, not necessarily harder, just different tactics are needed to moderate evenly. and this is the final point the community is clamoring for, from what i see.
take into consideration though that the ResMods, and the program, have been actively taking steps in this direction ever since our/its inception. we have made some very large strides towards this end as well. no matter how harsh any given thread has been, they have ALL been part of the communal voice guiding how this program should function. it's a community service and as such, community input is taken very seriously. some major changes are due to different outcries from all of us.

--



(wow, will i ever learn the meaning of "brevity"?!? )

I'll put the question back to you... do you actually believe yourself? In what way does not being allowed to use the n word negatively impact your SL forum experience of that of anyone else? While I understand the context in which you used it, most people would not. Further, it has absolutely nothing to do with SL. I'll assume this was in off-topic, but even there you could have delivered exactly the same message without using the word. Personally I'm not offended by such things but admitting the fact that a lot of other people are (not just a tiny vocal minority I'd guess) is entirely reasonable. So you used the word and got a slap on the wrist for it. Boo f'ing hoo! Don't say it again. Problem solved. To you that somehow equates to a need to close the forums? Sorry, but nothing any of us has to say is that important, and certainly not something so completely off-topic. Next.

Thank you for your pontification disguised as a response. Next.

i'm going to adhere to the politically correct definition of tolerance and pretend that i believe that you mean this sincerely. then i'm going to laugh myself into mental hysteria.

but more seriously, i have to agree that closing the public forums would destroy the forum posting community. however, it would have a neglibible effect on the second life community.

I'll repeat my question... how does not being able to use the n word negatively impact your forum experience or that of anyone else? If I had my choice the forums would be completely unmoderated, but we have the situation we have and I simply don't see the required compromises as the kind of hardship you apparently do. That was really the best example you could come up with?

Chip, with all the respect in the world (you know I agree with 99% of your posts) this confuses me. It seems to me that you're repeating the same word the the other person was suspended for, and you're relying on the moderators to assume you're using it in an acceptable context ('discussing a point about it'), yet the argument you seem to be making is it's not ok to use the word, in any context?

Well, hell. Chip, if I run up to you and batter you senseless with a two-by-four, I hope you realize that if you're upset about it, it's you who has the problem, not me.

coco

Glad you enjoy the "forum culture," Satchmo. Lots of people have enjoyed lots of cultures which have been extrememly damaging to certain people within said culture. I don't think you should want to preserve something that isn't fair to everyone.

coco

not really... because posting about (and protesting) one's own disciplinary actions in the forums is forbidden.

which is a problem in and of itself.

you can't fix a problem like uneven discipline if one can't even talk about it in open forum.

I don't see how you can sit there and defend the idea that using the n-word in an obviously non-hostile and historically correct context is easy to avoid and understandably bothers "many" (here we go again with the "a crime is only a crime if it affects many" ...

...while at the same time defending the idea that saying "fuck you" (and the endless profane and vulgar variations on same we've seen), etc., in a hostile context is NOT easy to avoid and shouldn't bother anybody anyhow, and if it does, that's their own problem, because, see, it doesn't bother you. (And it doesn't bother you if it bothers anyone else.) Cause damn, people just can't help saying, "fuck you," "shove it up your arse," etc.

But they can avoid other words. Right.

coco

Look, here's the primary reason why I find the vast majority of the complaints against the current moderation extremely short-sighted. We have two groups of people complaining... there are those who think the current moderation is annoying because they'd rather there be less moderation or none at all. We have another group complaining because they feel there should be more moderation with rules that are more strict. Both points of view ignore the fact that someone's going to lose that battle or are simply a one sided argument that assumes their particular camp will come out better off. To me, the current system, imperfect as it may be, at least seems to be aimed at achieving a compromise between the two sides.

Taco, your point is well taken. One of the luxuries we still have is that the rules aren't engraved in stone and allow for some leeway depending on context. Along with that comes the price of our context not always being understood and being dependant on the subjective reasoning of the moderators. I think that's by far preferable to more draconian rules that don't at least attempt to take context into account. When I fall on the wrong side of that line I'll take my lumps along with everyone else.

that's a leading question. do you still beat your wife?

the question is "how did not being allowed to use word '*edited*' in a positive fashion negatively impact your sl forum experience or that of anyone else?"

and the answer is clearly that it got him suspended. and it stiffled his speech, and makes people become confused about what speech is allowed and not allowed. and it calls into question the judgment of the moderators.

Exactly. What was said about most regular forum perusers not being able to tell what will be modded rings true to me. Chip, you have issue with using a word that can be offensively used whether or not it is used in that way (ie there are some words, and not the famous 7, that simply must not be uttered under any circumstance). I don't understand this.

I also don't understand why people don't seem to grasp that there are a truly wide variety of thoughts on how the forums should be and what exactly the guidelines seem to mean. Given this, how can you suggest that no moderation is required? Well, because YOU don't think so. I don't either, but to dismiss all the people of the opposite opinion as having no legitimate point is foolish.

It is up to LL to make these determinations, make them clear and stand by them. I am still waiting for this to happen. All the "answers" have added no clear value and are relying on the same sort of vague language that we are having issues with in the first place.

No to this.

I don't want to be a "training ground" where some resmods - other residents like myself - get to practice, with my account and my money hanging in the balance. That's what we areadly have NOW.

I want unbiased people moderating these forums, who have experience in it in the first place, and who are hired by the Lindens for the purpose because they have a proven track record.

coco

that's one way to cast things.

the other way to look at thing is that things have been unfair and that the resmod program magnified those unfairnesses.

you don't actually need more rules to fix the unfairness. clarity doesn't require more codification. but it does take leadership and work.

again, you use a rhetorical device (the excluded middle) to oversimplify the situation. the choices aren't "no rule" or "too many rules". the goal is better rules and applications thereof.

The subjective reasoning of the moderators has been rudderless and often followed the same nonsensical reasoning that existed prior to the RM program.

I don't want draconian rules (I want none actually, but will accept that doesn't work), but a hundred different subjective views on what is acceptable doesn't work.

There really is a simple solution to this. We can all just quit posting and then there'll be no modding necessary. Additionally, has this topic surpassed the SG topic in threads created and locked yet? Sorry for the run on sentence, NOT.

how would people get trained on the ll forums? even if they were hired?ok, but try to rephrase that in more practical terms. "unbiased people"? no such beast exists, at least not in any literal sense, so what you mean here in practice? and (i don't know) do "professional" forum moderators exist? and would they want to work for linden labs?

Gabe, we're almost on the same page except for one point... because of that wide variety of thoughts and sensitivities I think it's not possible to have crystal clear guidelines without sacrificing compromise. I'd rather have there be some inconsistancy than to throw compromise out the window, and that's what will happen if we have a strictly defined set of rules. If we end up getting warned or disciplined how about just accepting it like adults and moving on? The same goes if we feel offended by something someone posts that doesn't result in disciplinary action. I'm perfectly willing to accept the resmod program as a work in progress without feeling a need to protest it. It is what it is. I also don't believe for a second that any clearly defined set of rules will make people happy. People will just find something new to complain about.

Either would be better, Chip, than what we have now - either far less to no moderation (with the rules rewritten to reflect that) OR more moderation.

But not with rules that are more strict. With rules that mean what they say.

If the rule says, "don't attack other players, be respectful, and remember this is a PG area," then it is completely reasonable, even mandatory, if you are operating with any sort of logic and linguistic understanding, to rule that hostile and profane attacks against individuals actually are.

"Leeway on context" hasn't been done whatsoever. I can't even think of an example where that was the case. There was no leeway on context in the Richard Pryor example, and the only "leeway on context" done in the cases of personal attacks was the context of who was saying the attack. Some people get to curse others out; others don't get to say boo.

coco

Unfair according to whose subjective point of view? Things are either more codified or they're subjective. Pick one. The only way to have it both ways is to accept the system we have now.



What better rules should those be and how would you better apply them? Do you have a solution? I don't. Someone is always going to feel that any solution is unfair. To think otherwise is simply naive in my opinion.