Improper Censorship: Thread Closed???

Zapoteth Zaius closed a thread because it discussed the topic of another thread that was closed for AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT REASON.

Thread one was closed because it named names in violation of the TOS. Thread two was closed for the following reason posted by resmod Zapoteth Zaius:

This thread is being locked for Linden Review.
Quote:
Reposting – If a moderator removes your post, do not repost it elsewhere. Do not repost threads that have been locked or deleted and do not repost content that has been edited or deleted by a moderator. Furthermore, please do not post a "why did my post get removed" post. Send any further discussion regarding post removals to [email]abuse@lindenlab.com[/email].

Once again we see an ill informed, untrained resmod act improperly. Thread two should not have been closed merely because it addressed the topic of thread one without the TOS?CS naming names violation. This is inane stupidity since discussing this important topic without the TOS/CS violation should be encouraged.

I mean think about it, if i post a thread about dogs and in it a TOS/CS violation arises related to naming names, then does it follow that all subsequent threads covering the topic of dogs be closed?

DUH....come on lets get some training to these people if they cant figure it out for themselves.

What is the term I am looking for?
"Glutten for punishment"
That's it.

consistency, clarity, transparency
one out of three ain't bad...

works for baseball

Hiya Zapoteth hun! How are ya??

If a discussion about dogs turned into "I have a black lab, they're the best dogs in the world and you're all insensitive idiots and probably hate your own inferior dogs too" every other post, it would still probably be closed.

I just looked at those threads, Cory, and I don't think that is what happened.

I think Katykiwi is right, and it is a point I made on the TSO forums, when they were still ruled with an iron hand. Once a rule beside the point to the discussion was broken (such as naming names), it meant you could no longer ever have that discussion at all.

coco

I think Enabran explains it pretty succinctly in post #2.

/108/9e/96084/1.html#post955301

The rule about not starting threads saying "why was my other thread closed" seems perfectly sensible to me, and come on, the original one had entirely degenerated and this new one starts off by suggesting that it might have been closed because LL are actively trying to promote paedophilia.

/me rolls eyes

If the topic could be reposted in a way that doesn't reflect the original poster's personal issues - in other words, an actual discussion of a topic as opposed to accusations and name calling originating from one individual's past experiences - I think the thread would stay open.

Its a sensitive subject for a lot of people (obviously so), and as such it takes a lot of people walking a fine line to keep attacks and insults out of the discussion. The thread last month about erotic art vs promotion of rape was a good example of everyone taking a step back and discussing the issue without lashing out at those that disagree.

I'll take "Justified closing, nothing to see here" for 800, Alex.

yah know? if you want ll to respond... try posting to the answer forum...

how's this?
/139/68/96156/1.html#post955855

otherwise write your own...

i'm not convinced the lindens read the forums. or rather i'm convinced that they pretend they didn't see some of the threads...

I think some people may think the thread was closed due to the nature of the content..

You said yourself that the second thread discussed a topic from an earlier thread that was closed. RTFM one more time, dear.... you posted the Linden's comments yourself, where it says:

I read through it and it pretty much came down to beating the hell out of a dead horse. The back and forth between the original poster who was unable to really "hear" what anyone was saying and those trying hard to convince her she could be agreed with if she'd just settle down and listen.... wasn't going to end anytime soon. Probably closing the thread would allow everyone to just stop and calm down and think rationally later.


Quote: "Torley Linden & Paedophile Posts?"
Quote: "DUH....come on lets get some training to these people if they cant figure it out for themselves."


As to the quotes above, a message to the original poster of the closed thread and one or two others... Torley, Zapoteth, anyone else whose job it is to monitor these forums are just doing their jobs, they are following rules that have been laid out for them and anything they do in following those rules is not a direct attack on you nor is it an excuse for you to accuse them of something or insult their training.... that certainly isn't going to get anyone on your side.

The thread constituted a "why was my thread closed" posting, and as such, should have been closed for that reason, according to the guidelines.

from the protect act of 2003

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SN00885:@@@L&summ2=m&

edit: before someone responds here.

yes there was a similar law that was repealed in 2002

the protect act of 2003 was signed in 2003

Getting tired of self proclaimed lindens/ one linden .......closing threads because they themselves like either the people or topic replies from a choosen few posters.....Its report time people.

Stoneself is correct that the PROTECT Act has not been overturned - the previous version was. As such, this raises an extremely interesting question. A depiction of a child avatar in a sexual situation in SL would constitute virtual child pornography, and as such, would be illegal under this law.