what are your gripes about the new resmod system?

This is a difficult topic Chip. I don't want to deal in hypothetical issues because that would be unfair (and largely invalid). But when a system has blaring vulnerabilities to abuse, I think it's valid to say "let's patch these issues up." The problem is, I think any acceptable patches could make the program unusable. That's why I am advocating a rollback.

I've named numerous examples including the fact that disinterested Resident Mods have NOTHING to lose for posting Abuse Report records to third party sites. Has that happened in the past three days? No. Are what is left of the current RedMods likely to do this? I doubt it! But it's a vulnerability that should be patched up.

censorship and all the chilling effects that go with it. and note not only is this about what has happened, but what might happened. but ll doesn't really seem to be of the mind that "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."the evidence for the thread moves has been that some of them were biased. the bias indicates a problem with the resmod selection process. it's not a big deal until it happens to you.

I would actually go a step further and state that threads being "mis-moved" has been an issue for a very long time. Way before the ResMods came onto the scene (I've ranted about it myself in the past). That is one of the reasons the current ResMods (along with Jeska and Torley) are discussing this issue as a main concern and priority dealing with the forums. And the input from all of you is a great help!

Have there been any examples of censorship? I have concerns as well but I think the hypotheticals are being overstated. What would make me feel better about the program would be to have publicly stated and clear guidelines along with disciplinary consequences for mods who abuse the position (for example to have the publishing of abuse reports on 3rd party sites verboten and punishable beyond just losing mod status). These are volunteers with only a two week term (which is hardly enough time for a reign of terror) and I think it's important that we give them the benefit of the doubt for the most part and not characterize them according to worst case scenarios that haven't happened.

As for it not being a big deal until it happens to me... well frankly it wouldn't be a big deal to me even then. If I start getting unwarranted warnings that have the potential to add up to getting banned then I'd complain, but having a thread moved is a total non-issue to me.

Well, if perfectly legitimate threads discussing concerns directly related to LL or Second Life suddenly begin dissapearing or being moved to off-topic, it does seem like censorship. And there have been some damn bizarre thread movements and/or dissapearances lately.

In the grand scheme of things, it is no big deal. Nothing on the forums is a really big deal. But is does seem a step in the wrong direction.

That's why I asked for examples because I personally haven't noticed any (which isn't to say that it's not happening, just that I haven't noticed). The only one I thought was a bit odd was having an off-topic portion of a thread about ResMods (where it veered off into a discussion of child support) plucked out of the thread and stuck in off-topic. It didn't seem unwarranted but I like to see off-topic portions of threads kept in their original context.

I'm actually shocked that we have seen a single example of ResMod problems this early in the game!

If you asked me before hand, I would have assumed that during the first few weeks of the ResMod program we would see everybody (painfully conscious of the spotlight) on their absolute best behavior. The loss of vigilence and temptation to abuse any privileges would only come weeks later when the program is established and unlikely to be questioned.

But my argument isn't based on current observations in the first few days of the program (even if there IS some possible support there). It's criticism of the blueprint. I don't have to build the house before I point out that the blueprints forgot to include walls (OK, that's hyperbole but you get the point.)

I never said I felt ignored. I said the numerous posts that were reported were, and I do agree that the task of moderation was always too much for Jeska. Also, the posts in question were reported by many!

Does it help to email another Linden when Jeska failed to moderate? I doubt it.

I'm a little late to this conversation, for which I apologize. One point of clarification with respect to the people included in the ResMod group. Aimee posted this:

The selection process that choose unaware/uninterested/inactive players over a huge list of qualified, enthusiastic volunteers was the first red flag, but I was prepared to give it time.

We first created a long list of people who we thought would be great contributors to the program, and who have exhibited leadership in one way or another on the forums. Admittedly this list was subjective, so then we also called for volunteers. The final list is a pool of people from both the original list and the volunteers, vetted for prior contributions as well as prior infractions. The current group of ResMods is a small subset of this larger pool.

Our intention is to rotate people into the moderator group from this pool. Those who
choose not to participate will come out of the pool along with anyone who asks to be removed. New people who want to participate and have been active and constructive in the forums will be added. Over time we believe that we'll end up with a group of people who both enjoy the leadership role and have the respect of the community they're supporting.

I kinda see it the other way around. Sometimes you don't know what the problems are going to be until they surface. That's why I'm not too concerned at the moment but reserve the right to get that way later on

Thank you for this clarification but the crux of my issue is that "interest in the job", "familiarity with the forums (enough to know this program existed)", and "active participation in Second Life" was not included as a prerequisite when they should have been.

This issue cascades down to issues of Resident Moderate accountability. Losing their Resident Moderator status is not an effective deterrent to people who never really wanted to be Resident Moderators.

I'll keep the light on for when you arrive, Bro <3

Robin, why not publish the pool list as it stands now and get it over with? That way uninterested folks can opt out and arguments can be raised about problem kiddies aforehand and we can avoid this type of drama in the future.

I'll tell you what has me upset Robin. MOst of the people on the list DO NOT participate regularly in forum dialog and posting, and that may not be bad thing. But what has me upset is that two of the resmods have regularly abused the forum posting rules by posting harassment posts, rude nasty personal insults, etc. They have been such glaring offenders and I am flabbergasted that they were not issued sanctions that would have disqualifued them from resmod participation.

Yes ok, we have Jeska's friends on the list, and perhaps yours. But damn it, how the heck did two of the top ten forum nasties end up on the resmod list. It really makes the whole system like more of the same old same old...toss the favors and benes to friends. The persons who selected and agreed upon these two resmods are disregarding the forum posting rules, the CS, as well as the selection criteria for a resmod.

The complaints raised about this issue are complaints about the process; a process that affects us all, and are not merely complaints against the selection team or the resmods chosen. This system has been imposed upon us all so lets make it fair.. Lets try to get it right. Lets get rid go the two bullying nasty resmods who have in the past participated in forum feeding frenzies where a bunch of forum nasties gang up on another member and for no reason other that being mean, post personal insults and abusive comments.

How do you think it makes members feel when they are now moderated by two nasty forum bullies who have harassed them in the past? Is that right? No maam.

That would be sort of ok, but really, a disinterested person shouldn't BE on that list. I know the philosophy of the "reluctant leader", but I really would like the folks that have a say in my diciplinary record to have SOME kind of interest in keeping their position.

I feel certain there are still folks who were nominated on that list just like the current one. There are I'm sure folks that volunteered who indeed are ready to opt out now to avoid being the subject of exactly this type of drama.

*sneezes*

bless you

Thanks for admitting that the list was subjective and explaining how the list was created, but you really aren't telling us anything new here. How the list was presented was a mistake and most people agree, why not admit that?

Or was it your intention to post a list of people who wheren't aware of the whole deal, in the hope to push them in the role? I can understand that sometimes happens for noble goals. But really modding the SL forum isn't a noble goal, it's a hell of a job. What was the thinking in this?

Also you completly ignored all the privacy concerns there are, why do mods need to know who have has ar'ed a thread? A post violates the tos or not, it should not matter who or how many times it is reported. The idea that they will be able to contact to the reporter for more information is nice, but it doesn't weigh as much as my privacy. People that AR a post have some responsebility aswell, just write in the AR box to be as complete as possible why you AR or else it might not be understood.

I can understand there is need for mods, but this isn't the way to go, imho.

I VANT DA TAQUILA LADY!!! GImme gimme

Hehe. Why does the thought of you and I drinking Tequila together remind me of Thelma and Louise

*peeks in the trunk of the car*

Problem:
Mistakes happen all too often. Mistakes that are not rectified, problems that are not rectified within the current system. Given the choice of putting my future in the hands of other residents or avoiding doing so. I would have to choose avoidance.

Solution:
Hire more employees.

---
If SL was a game and no rl money other than a basic subscription changed hands then I would not have a problem with the Res Mod program.

SL however is a Marketing/Development tool and strives to be taken seriously as a web based service. Some subscribers invest thousands and even ten's of thousands of dollars. In this service.

When push comes to shove, it would only take one mistake in judgement to potentialy cause RL monitary loses. Knowing full well this mistake could be made by another subscriber, and not completly in the hands of LL. I would have to say; No thank you.

Censorship? Of course, post and hope you didn't offend, incite anger, etc. or not post and suffer no loss what so ever as a result of your opinion.

For me that is a no brainer.

Cat

Ack, I'm agreeing with Coco. But she's dead on target with this.

Surreal, it *IS* funny how this program has made strange bedfellows of otherwise bickering residents!

Actually maybe THAT would be a good forum moderation technique. Just as the forum bickering starts to reach an unacceptable level, the Lindens can implement some terrible new program that will bring everybody together in opposition

I personally would not have a problem with a discipline ruling for ResMods that if they abuse their role, they are perma-banned from SL as a whole. It would of course require a list of what "abuse" involves, but I think all the "possible abuse" concerns raised by forum members thus far would be valid ones to add to the list. That is at least my opinion.