Moderation rules question

If a post has made their RL indentity public at SLCC, in several magazine articles and happen to have say, umm a Wiki entry. Would linking to any of those articles since they are about Second Life and the person has volunteered the information be a violation of the rules? I thought it was established a while ago that it was not a violation of the rules, but it seems that today it is a violation of the rules. Can we have an answer?


Feel free to move this thread to some forum where it won't be read at all.

*moved to the Korean forums*

Whenever a ResMod is presented with a thread where they believe a rule has been broken - they are supposed to close the thread for Linden review. In the case you are referencing, the thread was reopened. In other cases, it may remain closed.

Then the ResMod shouldn't post WHY they are closing it if they are just "marking it for Linden review." Just close it and shut the hell up. They DON'T need to wax poetic on how well they know the TOS.

The ResMod closed that Anshe thread stated a rule she supposedly thought was broken. It wasn't.

In fact, THAT should be the rule. ResMods, if you keep this horrible program which I'm sure you will, should just close the thread with NO COMMENT. Then it's up to the Linden to come in and say why it was closed or reopen it.

Someone needs a nap

Aaron used to be quiet and mild manner. The Res Mod program has made him angry and jaded. I think we have found yet another reason it needs to be disbanded. Turns nice people ANGRY.

the problem here is that ResMods have been asked to just close a thread and say nothing, others want an explanation.. and still others want humor infused into said reasoning, while even others wish to see no humor at all.

beyond all that, ResMods are instructed to leave a reason why a thread is closed so that the community isn't left wondering why in the world it was closed in the first place.

so, when one of us leaves a reason for closing a thread, or rather the reason one of us has based our opinion on, we're simply following instructions.

if the community at large can come together and give one solid answer, maybe we can adjust for it. otherwise, we're stuck pleasing some of the people smoe of the time by following the rules given to us from the get-go.

if it seems like a thread was unreasonably closed, rest assured it will be re-opened. as was the case with thread in question here. (which also answers the opinion that a thread closed by a ResMod who gives any reason at all will remain that way. apparently this is not the case and fair judgement will be imparted as best as can be)

Not unlike alcohol or working in the restaurant business.


I'm seconding the nap suggestion too.

Just my 2 cents,

These forums are amongst the worst moderated out of several I belong too.

However with the RESMOD program not yet being so old its stuck in its ways there is hope that out of the rough a shining diamond will appear.

Let's all back off with the anger and finger pointing,
make with the constructive criticism and support instead,
and maybe, just maybe it will bloom into a swan from its ugly duckling start.

When you moderate you write a damn book and it is entirely unnecessary and too long, sort of like this post.

Since RedMods seem to not know the rule or the rules can change at any second or on a whim depending on moods and winds for the day; they shouldn't comment except to say closing for review or whatever. When they start quoting policy and making comments that makes them seem like employees. Well, maybe that is good in case one day they want to sue for wages.




The above statement confirms the beliefs of a lot of posters that there are no real rules, just whatever seems ok for that day or moment.

Exactly. There are no rules. We've already heard from Satchmo that it all depends on who you are and who is doing the reporting.

Lack of rules is one reason why there is no way a resmod - no matter how conscientious - can possibly do anything besides move a few threads around, and get criticized no matter what they do. I think they should all quit.

coco

Actually there are, they are just selectively applied. It is completely about who you are, whose whim it is, and I think the cycle of the moon.

Yes, that is what I meant. I was busy trying to edit that, and my cable was goofing up, and I had to phone downstairs to get the girls to switch the phone line, so I could get on AOL and say . . .

. . . exactly what you said above, only better than I would have.

coco

IMO yes the resmods should just close the offinding post and STFU then if theres an issue noone can go back and quote a goofy reason ect, just close the thread let the lindens review it, and if theres any heat, guff, or shinagins the lindens can deal with it.

I mean as far as i know none of the resmods are paying their account fees to get all the free HELL they ever wanted, the lindens on the other hand are being paid to, let them deal with it, your just there to point things out.

The forum TOS states that personal attacks are not appropriate in forums. There is nothing wrong with discussing the Wikipedia entry that was posted about somebody. However, suggesting that somebody would do "vanity" and to wrongly imply that she would create Wikipedia entries about herself I consider one personal attack.

Maybe editing the post with the personal attack in this kinda case would have been better than closing the thread.

The resmod program and the constant updates on my first morning off a week make me angry..and I'm usually a teddy bear.

Of course noone cares enough to listen to the large groups of people speaking against both.

Oh, ands resmods, no bother replying to my comments. I really don't care what you have to say.

Well ya know what they say - one persons 'personal attack' is anothers 'likely scenario'

For the record, Eggy was not attacking you by calling it a vanity page, it is exactly what it is called by the Wikipedia, and in fact was slated for deletion for that reason. It was not an attack against you personally, Anshe. Whether created by you or anyone else, pages about individual people that are not public or historical figures are considered vanity pages, regardless of their origins or purpose.

Well I don't see the big deal about creating some rules for the res mods. I also don't see the problem with consistancy being acted upon. It's almost as if the Lindens are afraid to define some rules for the resmods.

X is ok
B is not ok
X, C, J, G, are very questionable.

Very questionable things should be decided by a majority vote of the resmods.

Letting ppl make up the rules as they go along is not working.

Good luck to you.

Cat

Ahem... Anshe... no one was calling you vain. VANITY PAGES, that's what Wikipedia calls them, are not allowed. You cannot have pages, written by you or not, that exist to toot your own horn.

Perhaps knowing what the thread was actually about, vanity pages, would have helped in this situation. Vanity page are not allowed in the Wikipedia.

Cristiano, people are getting tired of half-assed attacks like the recent one by Eggy. You can claim what you want, of course it was directed at my person and one attempt to mislead people and stick "vanity" label to my name.

Anshe, Wikipedia itself calls them "vanity pages". Its part of the term. I can understand if something's getting lost in translation, but its part of the language, and not a derogatory statement. A desk with drawers and a mirror where women can sit and put on makeup is also called a "vanity", that's just some of the wierdness of the English language.

Exactly that is your misconception. "Tooting my horn" requires that I (or an affiliate) am somehow involve or at least informed. However, this has not been the case.

Deliberate or not, you and others made one assumption. And that assumption is wrong. I politely informed Eggy about this, but he did not feel to compell to correct his post or apologize.

Whether or not a page about Anshe even qualifies as a vanity page is questionable. After all, a page devoted to a leading figure in online communities would be a lot more justifiable than, say, if someone put up a page devoted to me.

Someone may very well go to Wikipedia, wanting to know, "Who is this Anshe Chung, anyway?"

I'm sure Wikipedia is full of lots of people besides Elizabeth Taylor and the Queen of England; probably a number of them of lesser import than Anshe Chung.

coco