Never mind Torley - did you see the new announcement?

then WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY SO. Then I could have pondered that and discussed.

It is absolutely not necessary for you to sequester your actual thoughts about the topic and state instead that "Nowhere in the announcement does it say anything about resident moderators being able to give warnings" not to mention saying "yet you have some how parlayed this into the ability to get people banned on a whim"

when you knew all along where I was getting it from, and just had another view and explanation of it. And I never said anything about "on a whim" so you just threw that in there to be even more provocative.

You could have said how you interpreted this, and then discussed it with me, OR you could put it all in the worst way possible and suggest that I am deliberately manipulating things and devious or I'm stupid, one way or another.

So don't tell me not to get hostile when you don't even SAY your own ideas but instead just attack me for my interpretation of it.

Next time, try discussing the actual ideas that I am trying to discuss instead of just suggesting that I am "parlaying" things out of nowhere when it is right there for any reasoning person to see and question.

And now you decide throw in "conspiracy theories". Oh yeah? As if this set-up isn't totally rife with potential problems and everybody knows it? Oh, not only am I "parlaying" things, I'm also now imagining conspiracies. Very good, Cristiano.

I talked about this earlier tonight at Simball with some friends who are mods, and they don't like the sound of it either, and consider the consequences very harsh for violating board rules here in the first place, not to mention how problematic it becomes when you give players that power.

But - let's just not actually discuss that, Cristiano. Instead let's talk about people "parlaying" things and having "conspiracy theories." I guess I'll just have to have my discussions about how boards work - like I have ALWAYS had them for the past several years - with my friends who run the boards at TSO and SWG.

Somehow they see these potential problems as I do, and so I guess we are ALL just parlaying stuff and investing in conspiracy theories to even talk about it, so just everybody, remember Cristiano is right: It's all in my head.

I had no idea where you were getting it from, so don't tell me what I did or did not know. I saw you making repeated statements, and did not know what you were basing that on, so I asked. You are the one who flipped out.

Note that once you finally did say where you were getting that idea from, I gave you my thoughts on it. You continue with the devious, stupid, manipulative thing - that is your own bizarre take on things. No where did I say any of those words, or even imply them, so once again, attribute your own hangups to someone else. I don't know what your problem is honestly. I will tell you not to get hostile when it is absolutely unnecessary. You did the same thing to Aimee the other day - if you want to flip out, knock yourself out - but I will push right back against you acting that way.

I did discuss the idea you were putting forth, which was that this would lead to residents being able to suspend other residents and get them banned - AN IDEA YOU PUT FORTH REPEATEDLY. There was nothing at all about residents being able to give out TOS warnings anywhere in what was said - like it or not, you added that part, which is just putting out FUD about the resident moderator program.

Considering that the thing has not even been implemented it yet and you've damned it to a bunch of people just getting people banned that they don't want in SL, hell yes I would say you are full of conspiracy theories that have no basis in truth.

They are not giving players the power to grant people warnings. I am glad that you can talk to your friends from TSO, but that has zero bearing on SL or how LInden Lab operates - it is irrelevant.

There you go dropping credentials again. I don't care if your friends are the freaking CEO of Maxis or Sony Online Entertainment, none of that has any bearing on how Linden Lab is going to run their resident forum moderation. I imagine if you are presenting it to them as "Linden lab is going to let other players suspend/ban players from SL", then yeah they would see it as a problem - big shock.

If Linden Lab clearly states "we are going to allow forum moderators to give formal warnings", then you have something to freak out about and I would agree with it. Until then, you are damning a program that has not even been implemented yet with criticism that is not even valid. I don't have to be right for you to clearly be wrong.

- At least for the near term, posts reported by the “Report this Post” button will still go to Linden Lab staff for review

That is the sentence. Now in your opinion, I have no reason to "freak out" about this or even mention the potential problems until if and when they say, "We are going to allow forum moderators to give formal warnings."

Well, what on earth do you think the sentence above implies? How can anyone miss it?

You threw the first punch, just like the time you gave my personality one star. Did I ever give your personality a one star? No one even ASKED you to do that. And now we have "somehow manage to parley," "conspiracy theorist," "bizarre," "have some kind of a problem" and all that stuff you have added, and you wonder why I get upset.

"Note that once you finally did say where you were getting that idea from, I gave you my thoughts on it."

Then you completely missed my entire first post, where I bolded those parts of the announcement. I already addressed that, made it quite clear where I was getting it from, and would have welcomed your belated thoughts on why you thought I was wrong. I didn't welcome being told I was imagining the whole thing.

Yes, talking with the others does have a bearing - if I discuss forum problems with friends who are mods on forums for years, then yes, that does have a bearing. This forums isn't so unusual that one can't discuss the problems with prior experience informing the discussion. Anyway, my point is, I can discuss things like this with those people - but with you, it's I have to be "bizarre" or something.

If you call me comedy gold, like Aimee did, damn straight I'm going to holler about it. Guess what: That isn't something I did to her. She called ME that. The same thing here: You are the one calling names and casting aspersions; I'm the one saying STOP. You are also the one who found it necessary to tell everyone on the forums that you gave my personality "one star." I should have hollered more about that then, instead of just being spectacularly hurt.

"Push back" indeed. You should think about what you are saying in the first place! It's MY pushing back that you don't like.

I haven't "damned it to a bunch of people." I've stated my OPINION. I've pointed out the dangers I see. You apparently don't think I should be allowed to.

Conspiracy theories, my ass.

coco

You threw the first punch, just like the time you gave my personality one star. Did I ever give your personality a one star? No one even ASKED you to do that.

It's not right to push ppl beyond what is considered in good taste.

I further speculate that had someone other than Coco made the point it would not have received this reaction.

If you call me comedy gold, like Aimee did, damn straight I'm going to holler about it. Guess what: That isn't something I did to her. She called ME that. The same thing here: You are the one calling names and casting aspersions; I'm the one saying STOP. You are also the one who found it necessary to tell everyone on the forums that you gave my personality "one star." I should have hollered more about that then, instead of just being spectacularly hurt.

Isn't this kind of a pointless remark? Along the lines of "If Gramma Dawson had said this, no one would have given her any trouble, but since it was Al Franken/Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/<Insert Abrasive Personality Here>, he gets all sorts of grief!"

I dunno, I think we all are perceived according to the amount of credible discussion we bank. And when we're continually banking alarmist, hysterical rhetoric instead of realistic discussion on everyday matters, we end up causing a very itchy, must-be-scratched rash on the perceptions of others.

Kind of like poison ivy? Reaction varies from one individual to another. To those who are sensitive, it is unbelievably hard not to scratch. I know from experience and that is why I take a wide berth when I see it. Being aware of my own sensitivity to it, making contact with it is unfathomable.

I further speculate that had someone other than Coco made the point it would not have received this reaction.

this is just another opportunity to waggle the finger and tsk-tsk someone for daring to question someone viewed as the underdog.

I further speculate that had someone other than Coco made the point it would not have received this reaction.

Isn't this kind of a pointless remark? Along the lines of "If Gramma Dawson had said this, no one would have given her any trouble, but since it was Al Franken/Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/<Insert Abrasive Personality Here>, he gets all sorts of grief!"

I dunno, I think we all are perceived according to the amount of credible discussion we bank. And when we're continually banking alarmist, hysterical rhetoric instead of realistic discussion on everyday matters, we end up causing a very itchy, must-be-scratched rash on the perceptions of others.

That fact is going to be a nightmare from some, and a merciful relief for others.

What reaction are you talking about, exactly? Could you quote some of those reactions?

Cocoa posted several times about residents having the ability to ban other residents from the game. No one even commented on her remarks until Cristiano asked her where she was getting that from, and she took that as an attack and flipped out.

So, you think if someone else had posted multiple times that residents were going to have the power to remove other residents from the game, no one would have asked them where they got that information?

I think it's a pretty reasonable question to ask someone, and this is just another opportunity to waggle the finger and tsk-tsk someone for daring to question someone viewed as the underdog.