think i'll get an answer on this?

So, Stone, the answer to your title question is "apparently not."

Wow... I don't get this either.

I've participated in lots and lots of forums and I've never seen this much drama over a moderation system (and it's not because it's a particularly bad system). It's one reason I tend to stay out general forum threads lately... the vein-popping drama. I'm guessing there is a large silent majority that don't have much of an opinion either way about the ResMod system. But most ambivalent people don't bother to post.

Forums almost always need some kind of moderation. LL is trying this way. Kudos to those who are offering calm, constructive ideas to improve it. But if the way a message board is moderated makes your blood boil... you need to take a break from that forum.

Its not that cut and dry. My objection differs from both postions you cited. LL stated they are initiating a forum moderator program and then Jeska began talking about the resmods acting in a leadership capacity, making the program seem more like LL appointments for governance of the membership rather than mere moderation of posts on the forum.

Thats my objection. Resmods should moderate, meaning review posts for TOS/CS violations and act accordingly, WITHOUT EDITORIAL COMMENT, pursuant to well defined standards. The standards should be clearly defined and published so that the members and the resmods can view them. The standards should be applied consistently and the res mods themselves should be required to comply. Remember, justice is blind.

Instead what we have been given is a system where LL has selected a few friends to act, as Jeska stated, in a "leadership" capacity. Wait one minute, I thought this task was to merely review and moderate forum posts.

What we have ended up with are a group of members who seem to inject themselves into every thread, responding to posts as if they were made for their opinion and really they seem to end up vomiting their opinion on the forum as if each post was intended to elicit and "deserved" their comment. What a drag.

Must we now be subjected to anal exam summaries of a resmods real life activity and opinion merely because they are a resmod. Hey, close my thread on wasting money on internet and online games while beign unable to pay child support while a resmods thread on his every activity during the day remains intact? Talk about off topic and inappropriate.

If LL is going to impose this system of forum moderation upon us, then dont make the resmods into unelected leaders. Assign them the appropriate duties to merely moderate the posts for well defined violations and prohibit resmods from posting subjective opinions in threads, and acting as though their personal opinion governs us and speaks for LL in the process.

The bottom line is, are the resmods moderators or are they as Jeska stated, unelected leaders imposed upon us? I can accept moderation if I must, but I totally reject this leadership crap Jeska defined.

You don't really need to get trained on the ll forums. When a person is first hired, they don't have experience on those particular forums, but there is a big distinction between "experience" and "training."

Unbiased people - oh yes they do exist. They are people from the outside, who don't care who says what, but only whether the thing should not have been said.

A professional person would be one, of those who apply for the position, who has a professional resume in online gaming or something else applicable, who knows what message boards are, and has some experience in them, preferably in modding or running them. Who doesn't have any dogs in the fight at all.

From that it's not a huge leap to interpreting the rules in a reasonable fashion and in a much more consistant and fair fashion than we have now (and/or rewriting them if deemed necessary).

Experience here is a bad thing, if it means - as I'm beginning to think it heavily does - understanding the community as they used to be back at 20k members, and trying to preserve it the exact same way, with that - rather than fairness or logic - being the driving principle.

It's that kind of thinking that can lead to new members (or unpopular older ones) getting disciplined more often because they threaten the old ways. It's that kind of thinking that defines "community" as "those people we already know and love," and defines newer members as outsiders who must conform or die, for whom the standards will be a great deal harsher.

It's precisely that kind of thinking that leads to different rules for different people, which is what we have now, under the guise of "flexibility" and what "the community" thinks is okay.

coco

predictability goes a long ways toward fairness.

what does or doesn't get moderated (punished) isn't always clear. one of the reasons for this is that people can't even talk about their punishments and if they were fair or not. without this kind of visibility, it's hard for people to learn what is going to get moderated or not.

rules don't actually need to be stated for people to learn them. this is how people get socialized. however, stating them makes it easier to learn and adhere to them. even if done in broad strokes. board stroke can be clear. what the forums has now is bits and pieces of policy here and there, a tos/cs/guidelines that don't seem to be applied in any consistent fashion, and ultimately confusion about what is or isn't allowed.

however, in even social setting where the rules are unwritten, while flexible, the rules are fairly regular. people are not surprised by how most people react in most social setting.

even people are predictiable to a large extent. you don't have any written rules, and i'm not surprised by your reactions, and you've been pretty predictable in your objections and your style.

however, people are often surprised and caught off guard by what is or isn't moderated in the forums. that is to say the forum moderation is unpredictable (aka inconsistent).

it's clear that there is some intent to the moderation, but that intent isn't coming through. a statement of intent (that aligns with actual actions) would also go a long way towards improving the forums.

that is to say, while rules don't need to be written to be learned... they must exist for them to be learned.

http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=89451

not great answers... and i find robin's "i'm speaking up" in need of a few additions... but anyhow.

i'll count it as progress.

Like, oh, just casting about for a purely hypothetical complaint... maybe like complaining that people oughtn't be concerned about things that you aren't?

maybe, but he provides a great foil to explore the issue and further discussion about the topic.

Chip,

I would welcome no moderation at all. I would even accept hard moderation. But whatever we have, it must be consistent.

We don't have that now, and you might be able to accept it, but I certainly can't. I don't see, for example, why Introvert should be suspended for quoting a particular word in a positive context, and at the same time you are not, even though you used the same word in a neutral context.

Once we have consistency things will be a lot better. I don't think the current resmod program will give us consistency though.

what Selador said. Plus, look at his icon, he is giong to kick somebody's ass soon.

Just a note: the aforementioned suspension preceded the ResMod program, and I imagine was applied hastily (and perhaps somewhat understandably) by what may have been one moderator who had a stack of ARs to look at and didn't have time to look at it in context. However, as Cybin noted way above here, had it been handled by someone(s) not so overtasked, the outcome might have been different.

Of note, I now bear a "rapsheet" and although I submitted a polite request for reconsideration of the "offending word" in context and explaining the context, I received naught but an auto-reply receipt.

Someone above mentioned "socializaion". I had also received:for which I quite literrally have no idea to what it was referring nor was I able to find anything edited I said in the week prior to that notification or anything that I even think might have been possibly misconstrued as such. Lest anyone think I doth protest too much, how the hell am I to moderate my conduct given the paucity of information regarding my alleged infraction? Yes, I knew that the N-word could be flagged when I wrote it; I'm not that ignorant. But for the depth of information in this other "violation", it could be a mere clerical error for all I know. And I'll never know otherwise nor have the ability to know.

That is another example of ineffectual moderation. I don't go around trying to piss people off, and if I did, I'd love to know what I did so that I can avoid such in the future. Punishment requires correlation with conduct to be meaningful.

I'll wager that if everyone wrote down the clear list of rules they'd like to see consistently enforced every one would have a different list based on different subjective points of view and any attempt at boiling them down to a common consensus would result only in more of the same complaints or bring us back to what we used to have before everyone decided to start complaining in the first place. Rinse. Repeat.

Which is precisely why we invented judiciaries, because the panoply of human conduct is far too broad for codification. Nevertheless, you probably know people whose judgment you trust more highly than others even on nebulous ethical issues, based in part on your recollection of their history of past judgment and the consistency of it.

You can't write rules for people like you do for machines. Even obvious ones like "don't murder" have mitigating circumstances that require considered judgment of context, motivation, intent, reasonable sense of peril, etc.

Again you are trying to create a false dichotomy: either X is clearly right or clearly wrong. Which is puzzling as you normally present yourself as being far more judicious and open-minded about myriad subjects.

I don't think I am. I'm suggesting that because so much depends on context and subjectivity that consistency is impossible unless you remove all consideration for context - something I don't think we really want. If we're going to try and keep context part of the equation then who better to moderate than community members who are more likely to grasp it? We just have to accept that it won't ever be perfect because everyone's definition of perfect is itself too dependent on subjectivity.

Of course this is so. The questions remains as to what to do given this fact. Are we to find acceptable that any number of RMs will subjectively determine TOS violations for one post while another potentially leaves an exact same post unmodded? This is not a good situation.

I have seen quite a few posts lacking in common decency and even more posters being unable to see from beyond their own experience or to recognize the difference between insult and injury. This does not give me reason to believe that any vague rules (or complete lack thereof) will do anything to move the forums in the direction that LL wants.

If we're playing panoply, can I be the little car?

What is there to do? You can't make something inherently subjective somehow not subjective. I'm glad to hear that resmods discuss posts among themselves and arrive at a consensus opinion before deciding what to do about it. That seems pretty fair to me and a good way to try and mitigate differences in interpretation between various moderators.



I think the thing LL probably wants most is for everyone just to chill out and maybe start doing more posting about SL instead of posting about posting about SL.

For once I read an entire thread and I have to honestly say that every use of the "N" word felt like a physical blow to me. As as African-American, I could care less what Richard Pryor did or said with the word. Was it funny? At the time in the right company, very funny. However, if you're honest with yourself Mr Pryor accomplished what he set out to do - he made millions. I remember one of his tapes was after a trip he made to Africa where he had such an enlightening experience that he publically stated he would never use the "n" word again in his comedy.

I totally digress from the topic but I did want to throw that in. Is it bannable? Everyone who used it would have to be banned then in my estimation. And whoever made the comment that it is liken to say your brother is "mentally retarded" or whatever, really needs some sensitivity training. Any questions, I'm more than willing to take the time to answer.

My apologies for repeating it, Jana.

I understand that. I would just like it honed a little. I would not mind seeing some kind of moditude test that would indicate how well reasoned a potential mod really is. I know this is a loony toons idea, but something to give them direction prior to stumbling in actual mod practice and being vilified publicly would be a good idea. And I know there is now a transition process etc, so I guess I'll see where that nets out.

That would only work if the Lindens overseeing the forums themselves could pass such a test, which is doubtful.

coco

Well, I didn't say it was reasonable

Besides, it could just be used as a self assessment that nobody else sees the results of. Like finding out how well you know your mate from Cosmo's "You Must Take This Test" section.

Here's 20 actual scenarios. *Scribbles answers* Here's what LL would expect a mod to do. *Hangs head in shame at failing since "no mod necessary" was not the correct answer for every question*

One step in the right direction that would not impact the entire forum in a negative way would be to simply add a profanity filter. Optional of course.

EDIT: Also remove the link between the forums and IW assets. If your going to allow free speech then allow it. Don't hang our IW assets over our heads as some sort of threat.

Cat

I have removed the intolerant language from this thread, the Community Standards clearly discourage intolerant behavior of any type: "The use of derogatory or demeaning language or images in reference to another Resident's race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation is never allowed in Second Life." This means that using such offensive language is not allowed in the forums and it will be removed.

I'd like to clarify further, context is of course taken into consideration when disciplinary actions are determined. The Community Standards, guidelines we all agree to within the Second Life community, work to create an environment where everyone is treated with respect and everyone feels safe.

I can understand your point of view on this. But all I can say is that I would never accept a position where I had power over other users unless I was sure my performance would be monitored by more than one other independent person.