Moderators=ThoughtPolice?

AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR AR

stifling conversation, suppressing an open exchange of ideas, coercing behaviour. the moderator is displaying intolerance towards those with any literary interest in metadiscussions on roleplay

is it LL policy to quickly and effectively silence and language that may intentionally or unintentionally draw attention or shed a negative light on the roleplaying of slavery, misogony, and other forms of dehumanization?

is moderation effectively normalizing the roleplay of the indenturement, abuse, and exploitation of women? are residents effectively becoming convinced despite their liberal western values that the roleplaying of many of the most reprehensible aspects of human history is anything but offensive?

is LL actively promoting certain forms of roleplay as the institutional secondlife lifestyle? is it doing so that is truly the vision of the metaverse or is it because LL has fallen victim to their own language of freedom and tolerance being exploited by lifestyles which promote the opposite?

notes:
this is NOT a thread asking why another thread was closed
this is NOT a thread discussing the rezmod program
this IS a thread discussing whether SL forum moderation is a form of thoughtpolicing, whether it is effective, and what that suggests about LL's vision of the metaverse

1. Resmod program is a joke
   
2. Resmod program is not cool
   
3. I am not a resmod
   

Nuff said.

OK

So what thread got resmodded then?

You changed my quote and have made it look as if I said something I did not say? I am reporting your post.

We need more resmods and more control on the forums actually.

Too many thread get derailed too flippin easily when certain people want to use it as a platform to attack those like me who happen to think differently.

Lewis

"me me me"

stick to the topic.

We need less moderation, so I can spend more time attacking Lewis Nerd.

It is.

There are rules, which you either abide by or accept being moderated. If you don't like the rules, don't post.

Therefore moderating is not "thought police" in any way, it's just helping people to abide by the rules they agreed to.

Lewis

I get moderated so regularly that I've stopped noticing.

*Whacks Jauani with a rolled up newspaper* SHADDAP, ya mutt!

God, I hate little yappy dogs.....

Can someone tell me the way to Bakersfield? I need a truckstop so I can sleep.

Sure seems like it doesn't it? That was a pretty disgusting display of resmodage.

Rename it Cessmodding!

Iunno, i'm delerious!

Well, OP, since you bring it up, is it alright when it's the, as you presume to label it, "indenturement, abuse and exploitation" of men? We're not all Goreans, and even Goreans have the occasional kajirus. What about when the one doing the "indenturing, abusing and exploiting" is a woman? Does it matter if we chose the lifestyle freely and happily, or are we not allowed to indulge in such crimethink, to expand on your comparison, as would lead us down such a path?

Just curious.

IF a person has been affected by a circumstance, AND that particular category of circumstance is under discussion, THEN it is not me-oriented to bring up one's own experiences.

Thus, if getting warnings and suspensions, for instance, is under discussion, and I bring up my own experience with same, that does not indicate any sort of moronic ridiculous self-absorption.

It would be moronically ridiculous, however, to maintain that despite the topic, and despite how it has affected a person, that person can NEVER ALLUDE TO his/her own case.

Not only is that completely illogical, the only reason that logic error is resorted to is so that some OTHER person can ACCUSE THE FIRST person of something, i.e., say something nasty, condescending, insulting, and marginalizing the individual.

Like you just did.

In an attempt to stifle the speech of that individual.

Bleh. I was going to answer the questin at hand here. Maybe I still will. But I find it incredibly ironic that in presumably being against the thought-controlling mechanisms of the resmod and the moderation system, one would take the time to try to slap down another resident and say his thoughts are irrelevant.

I will say that I'm not a fan of having threads on this topic locked. No understanding comes from stifling discussion; that just allows ignorance and misunderstanding to fester and grow. I'd much rather, personally, that this were left alone to be discussed freely because, quite frankly, I'm not ashamed of what I am or what I've chosen.

But in the end, forums aren't free things, and moderators will do as moderators will.

stay on topic! it is not about "anybodies case." i am very clear about the topic.

i'm not stifling speech. i'm trying to keep you from derailing the thread. if you want to discuss the resmod program or your personal suffering, go make a thread in the resmod forum.

Help, I am starting to see mirages and steak dinners!

I voted yes due to the fact that a recently closed thread was simply closed because the moderator "thought" that it "may" become ugly.


this is downright censorship at no time before the thread was closed was there any TOS violations.
IMHO this is complete and UTTER BULL SHIT!!
When were resident mods given the power to close threads soley on the basis that they think it will turn ugly and possibly violate the TOS
a quote from the res. mod from a closed thread
"Let's stop this before it becomes an ugly thread, shall we? In my judgement the original post is an attempt to present an inflammatory topic (Gor) in a light that is almost guaranteed to start a flame war were it allowed to continue"

Fucking bull shit we cant start closing threads before they become ugly this is almost guaranteed to start a flame war .

why not just close the fucking forums because every thread has the potential to cause a flame war .
this is
bull shit bull shit bulls shit.

ya know i don't give a fucking shit if i get moderated closing a thread before it violates the TOS is complete censorship and if this is to become the norm i want nothing to do with LL or second life.

this is a violation of our basic rights as human beings
good men and women are dieing for us at this moment so that we can keep our rights as human beings.
and freedom of speech is on top of the list

Wrong. This is a private forum, and you have no right to freedom of speech. LL can do what they like here and theres nothing we can do about it.

Nobody is dying on these forums for any rights you may feel you are owed. The fact you have none doesn't seem to come into it. You may want to follow your own advice and leave real life political issues out of a thread about a computer game forum.

Lewis

Jauani, in my opinion, at least, your questions might have been ignored by some because their wording is blatantly manipulative. No space was left in your phrasing for the possibility that LL leaves us alone because we're not harming anyone, because we have a right to explore our lifestyle as consenting adults without being harassed, etc.

Your questions, as they're phrased, come off suspiciously as: "Is LL trying to force the D/s, especially Gorean, lifestyle on us all? Are they really that nefarious, or are they just that foolish and shortsighted?" And so on.

Nor do you have free speech per se here. Again, I'd personally prefer to discuss this openly anyway, although I see no clear indication that that's what you really want, but the moderators DO get the final say in these things.

Where was I.

Yes, moderation in these forums does amount to thought control, and worse, it represents all kinds of social engineering for which I don't blame the resmods, but their superiors, the Lindens.

I don't know which threads you are talking about here, but I voted yes, and I further suspect that your basic hypothesis regarding moderation effectively normalizing certain behaviors, while quashing any attempt to discuss them which might put them in a negative light, is spot-on.

I would view this particular situation, however, as a mere subset of the overall effect of promoting inconsistant moderation on a myriad of subsets of individuals and groups. This has the effect of not applying law in any sort of unbiased and standardized way, but actually encourages Lindens and moderators to take into consideration the things the Lindens consider more "human" - such as, well, who said it?

By allowing such divergent notions to prevail over law, we end up with a very complicated system of who said what, to who, and why, and we end up with many small subsets of individuals and groups, and an extremely complex system of unwritten law. We end up with moderators constantly guessing at motivations (and being EXPECTED to guess at them in making decisions), and that is probably the worst quagmire invited by this system, in that decisions of justice and punishment become based upon the very thing that the enforcer can LEAST know.

I think all this comes from a faulty notion of tolerance. Without effective law, tolerance becomes a constantly shifting value, depending on the opinions of the enforcers, and their guesses as to which laws really apply and which don't, or which they feel like applying and which they don't, and when they feel like enforcing them on an individual and when they'd rather not. This allows for more, not less, prejudice to enter into every moderation decision, and thus sullies the entire moderation system, and any system of justice intended.

In other words, in trying to be "tolerant," what happens is each decision becomes less based on actual principle or law, and more driven by the moderators' personal opinions, which they somehow view as the "human" aspect. Because of that, the rights of others - to present an opposing view, or even to exist without institutionalized prejudice - are trampled, and various permanent sub-classes are formed, ranging from individuals to small groups, who are expected to learn their place and behave accordingly.

That's how we get different law for different people, and that is how ultimately, as you say, any dissenting opinion, as on the topic you suggest here, or any other topic, gets suppressed and punished.

Thought-police? Very definitely. The less law you have and respect, the things begin to look like thought-control. And when you have law by thought-police, you have rules that can never be determined, either because they don't exist at all, or because their existance and meaning is deemed less important than the individual moderator's interpretation of them. That interpretation then ranges so far and so wildly that there is essentially no justification left for the application of the law to one individual versus another - in other words, the interpretion is so unpredictable as to become meaningless, along with the law itself.

By not having respect for principles which should guide everyone, for the law as expressed in its words, the TOS becomes meaningless and exists only AS a method for thought-contol. And the punishments for not figuring out one's expected place in that system are harsh. In the real world, one is not expected to interpret the law in terms of one's place in the pecking order, or whether one group of people is considered sacrosanct as to criticism (which may be the case in the subject you are alluding to above), or for any other reason that can't be quantified verbally.

Having said all that, though, I would agree that certain measures are vital (and easily verbally quantified and enforced) even though they serve to suppress speech: namely, rules forbidding racist or ethnically intolerant or hateful speech (and this includes anything celebrating the acts of Nazis or terrorists). In those cases, the dangers and undesirability of allowing speech far outweigh in importance any one individual's freedom to engage in such speech in this venue.

P.S. What, Crucial? You mean they closed a thread on the basis that it MIGHT get bad? I'm going to have to go look up that thread.

Went and looked at it. Could have saved myself a lot of pontificating, above.

Short answer: No, it is not right to close a thread that wishes to discuss philosopical angles regarding this or that lifestyle. Probably should have just moved it to sandbox.

it's a free world. while i find the entire idea of glorifying slavery and sadism to be entirely offensive, i do not begrudge adults to roleplay a fantasy life as they wish. i would remain wary of it however.

what i find unacceptable is muting any discord. sl has yet to be anything of political consequence outside of sl. but it does keep us captivated by its internal politics. LL now wishes to stifle any internal discord with the community. to what end? to destroy the significant historical meaning in our civilizations past transgressions?

is there no imperative that if LL allows players to roleplay acts of slavery, misogony, sadism, bestiality, and pedophelia in SL, that it should also very much allow other players, at every instance, to at least voice their opposition and concern?