think i'll get an answer on this?

right on.

The "N word", how cute! So much less offensive when we use such circumlocutions to discuss what a historical personage said. "N word" makes me think of trees of green, red roses, and whiskers on kittens and doesn't suggest any term that some commedian used to "make millions" while accidentally changing the face of contemporary discourse on the subject of race.

Perhaps the wise moderators missed the use of words "queer", "crippled", and "martian" in this thread. As a queer, crippled Martian the use of these words make me feel like I've been drawn and quartered.

Somehow, I think it lost something in translation.

Jeska, I'm offended by the term 'white person.' The proper term is European American. Make sure to enforce this defense against the classic racial slur at every opportunity.

At the risk of having my head eaten for dinner~~

The conversation, to this point, has been truly thought-provoking. Indeed, much of the good that can be done in both SL and in the wider world, I believe, comes from discussions just like this one.

That said, I think the thread has strayed a bit from the original poster's topic. As I read it, the issue at hand is, ahem, the Resident Moderator's program and its efficacy. Is it possible to continue this very valuable and very important discussion?

I would contend that the ResMods outshine the LL moderator in terms of judiciousness and reasonability, but you probably could have guessed that.

Is is not possible to have a positive effect upon an entire culture and make money while doing so? Are you asserting that Mr. Pryor put himself at risk with the prevailing norms and the mainstream media firms with works such as That N's Crazy just so he could make a buck and that striking at the everpresent racism in the US was mere crass commercialism? I think if you claim that, you are likely insulting Pryor's motivations.



Sure, according to Wikipedia:Is it not possible for people to change their minds without renouncing what they'd said before? Is it conceivable that someone can feel that their use of an epithet to shock in order to get people to re-think their preconceptions may get stale or that his sentiments may have changed after seeing greater racism elsewhere, or that after twenty years, that perhaps he'd worn out the shock? Why is "n....r" as a historical reference to be abhored, but "motherf.....r" acceptable? I don't know the answers to these questions as I've not even read Pryor's biography, but you did solicit questions and these are honest ones.


And just because I was fearful of choosing a "poser" in my citation, I checked with AMG:Whether you like to believe so or not, I'm trying to be sensitive and understand your point of view but am having difficulty. And although I am not African-American, if you are assuming that I am not a member of a historically discriminated race nor have had to contend with stupid, violent, racial bigotry directed at me, you'd be mistaken.[moderator note: I edited this post because of the many complaints received about the language, not about its content.]

Apparently not.

i need to address a couple things here for clarity's sake.

1) (speaking for myself) i have no behind-the-scenes friendship with LL. i volunteered, i was selected for whatever reason and as such have tried to perform in this position accordingly.

2) from my viewpoint, there are three basic reasons why a ResMod may post to a thread. the first being to encourage positive conversation.. as is part of the description of the position. second, because there is something that relates to them, or the ResMod program, personally. and last, because.. well, we're still members of the communbity. i'm being comlpetely serious here, do you mean to say that ResMods shouldn't be posting like everyone else? in your eye, should ResMods be stripped of the right to involve themselves in a conversation simply because it inteersts them?

3) the thread about child support wasn't closed due to "off-topic-ness", it was because there were personal attacks and because it dealt with personal and private issues.
my thread where i posted some things about my RL activities was Off Topic.. and i started it in Off Topic.. so, no reason to close it (no real attacks, some harsh words, but no "personal attacks" also, it wasn't there to chronicle my RL activities, if you read the original post in that thread you'll see i was simply trying to keep track of my time spent on the forums. it was like a timecard for me to referrance and for anyone to make silly commeents in if they so pleased.

4) i agree we should not be seen as "leaders"; however, our function is more along the lines of "augmenters". but again, are "subjective opinions" to be abandoned? upon becoming ResMods, should we forego our human nature and simply act in a mechanical manner? i'm truly trying to understand your viewpoint on this. i don't see why this should be.. well, as long as our posts are of a positive nature. i do agree that ResMods should not be making any derogatory comments.
for instance, this very post is an example.. should i not be able to respond? should i just "take my lumps" and limit myself to solely moderating?

and no, i'm not asking the community how to do my job.. i'm trying to coalesce information that would be helpful in the growth and molding of the ResMod program.

i think what Satchmo was referring to was the spirit of the forums. he remembers when he first came here, how these forums were full of ideas and the wonderment of this (then new) world. compared to current days, he is still seeing the same spirit living on.. there have always been heavy debates about many facets of SL, both in-world and in-forum. the important part is that there is also the spirit of discovery, the spirit of a wild new frontier still flourishes here.. THAT is what is nice to see still around.

fairness and logic ARE being attempted. it may not hash out as well as it should all the time, but we're only human and doing all we can to try to moderate evenly. not to mention, trying to define Linden rules more clearly for the community at large, including Linden implementation of the same.

still think its lame to shut down an entire thread instead of deleting the offending post's (yes you can do that, well someone at LL can but it would require effort)

the problem i have is most of the steer the conversation post ive seen is a slap on the wrist and a paragraph from the TOS

"now now billy thats a personal attack" tos tos tos, that doesnt really pont the conversation anywhere, the flames continue and maby a cupple days later theres another "now now billy" post or the thread is completley closed, never mind theres 4 pages of good info before all of that.

if they are going to do it, do it right or not at all.

i like the optional profanity filter idea! it's been discussed before in a couple places and it just seems like a perfect answer to the problem. i wonder if it would be possible for the list of defined words to be "per poster"? or is that not possible without some non-existant upgrade?

in other news, IW assets/accounts being linked to forum behaviour does seem a bit stringent. i can understand being suspended from in-world activity, but to be able to lose everything due to forum behaviour? sounds too harsh.. effective... -ish, but harsh. has this been submitted as a proposal yet?

then folks wouldn't have a full quota of things to bitch about....

Or maybe they'll spiral down into something even more assinine.. who knows?

Speaking only for myself, I dont expect the resmod's to refrain from posting as participants in a conversation.

What I do expect is that they be perfectly clear when they are "wearing a participant hat" versus a "ResMod hat".

As I've said elsewhere, it's vitally important that it be crystal clear which of the multiple roles occupied by the resmods is currently at the fore.

This is not unreasonable behavior ... meeting facilitators, for example, are expected to do so.

An optional profanity filter will do nothing to turn a personal attack that just happens to also be profane into something acceptable.

coco

thanks nope I have never done a proposal but I will give it a try after some sleep thanks for the idea and note.

Cat

That's probably why so many people have 'alts', so they can post with a secondary identity and not have to worry about their main account being affected.

Hence why this board is full of so many trolls.

Lewis

True Coco, but some change in a positive direction, is better than none. I'm thinking about that issue too I just do not have any solutions right now.

What would you suggest on the personal attacks issues? My biggest problem is drawing the line on what is and isn't absolutly an attack. Maybe we should all start talking about what we all agree on in that area.

Cat

Lewis if an alt does post and does get caught its against the tos. Unless of course the main account has been closed. All accounts are tied to the cc used for the account and the alt. so if one gets banned they all do. That are tied to that cc. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but seems kinda stupid to risk it all to troll the boards. Wouldn't suprize me if it were happening, I just hope it's not.

Cat

I just finished the proposal, thanks for the suggestion Cybin.

Prop: 1053 - Forum Posts and IW Asset Rule, Should Be Removed

Prop: 1053
Name: Forum Posts and IW Asset Rule, Should Be Removed
Category: web site
Subcategory: forum
Author: Martin Magpie
Prop Date: 2006-02-22

Feature Detail:
As the rules stand right now, if your banned for your opinions on the forums you risk loosing your IW assets. This is to include: AV, Inventory, Land, Money, Group Status, IW Standing, LindeX account monies both L$/RL$.

I propose that LL remove the connection between and rule that states if you are permanently banned in the forums, your also banned in world.

I've written several posts for this thread, Catherine, but decided not to post them, because I've said it all before.

Having the TOS repeated back to me when it doesn't mean a damn thing pisses me off, and being told that they want to "create an environment where everyone is treated with respect and everyone feels safe" is just a totally insulting slap in the face.

We know that warnings and suspensions have nothing to do with what someone actually said. I get an official warning for daring to talk back to a Friend of Jeska, whereas someone else can tell others to go fuck themselves and nothing will happen.

AND we've been told this is because "a certain few" of us don't really count. OK, then, I say screw them and the horse they rode in on.

I guess, as you put it once a while back, Catherine, my give-a-damn's broke.

If they get this thing anywhere near rational or fair, fine. But since the Lindens are incapable of admitting they actively discriminate against residents, even when their own resmods are explaining how and why they do, I'm not holding my breath.

coco

I have three cards, all of which I could use to create an independent 'alt'.

If it works on IP banning, then anyone using something like AOL gets screwed.

Is there actually any proof that alts get caught, or is it just one of those 'urban legends'?

Lewis

I'd be surprised if anyone ever had all their alts banned, and never got back in. IPs can be changed, you can have more than one computer with different IPs, and there are always pre-paid debit cards, buying accounts, friends who give you accounts. If somebody wants in, they're gonna get in.

But all that isn't necessary. LL has never been good at tracking people to accounts. They just don't seem to care about it.