"Serious Discussion" forum Poll

Poll:

"Serious Discussion" forum. The only purpose of such a separate forum, would be to have adult discussion about SL. Any spam, trolling, or off topic posts would be removed. By the mods (or the person who presents the topic. unsure if that’s even an option LL would implement.)

Yes or No?

I can agree to this! then stay the hell outta there!

Good Idea...

I think...

But if we just stuck our off topics to off topic we would be cool! *yes I know i'm guilty too*

I voted yes

Alexa

howe du u voat on teh polle? loll fic

w/e jew

<3

Right on folks! keep voting please

Cat

Yes. I'd love it.

However you should realize it won't be the paradise you think. I forsee that a serious-discussion forum would be run by those with razor-sharp logical minds that deconstruct the arguments of the irrational. It could be a kick in the pants for a lot of folks.

~Ulrika~

I voted yes.

coco

I voted no. I'm cool with a heavily modified forum in theory, but the identity of the moderator I can see some concerns.

With a VERY active Linden moderator (which such a forum would require) the drama from either an overzealous edit or an underzealous pass could lead to drama too easily. Sure, such drama might get kicked out of the thread eventually, but it will just go to other forums to clog things up, at least on occasion. Also, this will require more work for the Lindens, and if the choice was an FTE to moderate such a forum versus an FTE for coding, I'd take the latter.

The other option, moderated by the thread starter, has different issues. In a sense this is like the group forums, at least last time I checked. There is considerable risk that a thread-starter could "moderate" out opposing viewpoints. The other side of course will respond in kind with their own thread. I'm not saying this will always happen, but I would be surprised if it would never happen. I'd suspect a number of such threads to become echo chambers.

Some issues can be relatively well handled by moderation, but some, (off topic political, EDIT or certain SL topics) could be a disaster. Mailist moderators are usually consistent, an ineffective moderator (either way) leads to the death of the list and folks go elsewhere. The increased number of moderators and the increased number of threads, well, it's not easy to moderate well.

A side option: last time I tried (months ago) one didn't need to be a member of a group to post in the group forums. If this was required (I know, group limits, but assume we had more than 15), this would allow some overall moderation as well. But instead of editing individual posts, we would be inviting or disinviting people. This still risks being an echo chamber (but there are plenty of those on both sides anyway everywhere on the net) with less technical or time requirements. Just a thought.

ETA: Bottom line, no to Linden-heavy moderation. As for thread starter moderation, not as against, but wary.

The "NO's" have it. Good to know

Oh and I finaly figured out what FIC stood for this weekend

"First Internet Customers" so now you know

Didn't you propose this like a yearand a half or so ago so you could delete the post of anyone who'd disagree with you?

I voted no. I think the lindens have adequately expressed that we are supposed to act like adults in any forum. I harldy think that calling a forum the "serious discussion forum" will do anything to alleviate the problem of personal attack.

I guess for me, the whole implication is that unless the lindens make us, we will act like kindergarteners. It should not be Jeska's job to smack our knuckles witha ruler. I think the forums as they are are a fine place to hold a serious discussion if we as a community would put an effort in to behaving ourselves.

Wow your trying to start something? Shock get a life will ya.

Yes i did ask a simular question a year ago and I will ask this question again a year from now. Tough shit if you don't like it. pfft.

Jake and I are FAR too serious most of the time as well.

I have a ridiculous idea... how about giving people who start threads the ability to lock them (not edit or delete specific posts) when they think its gone far enough? In the spirit of trying to get the community to police itself... it'd be interesting. The problem I foresee with that, however, is people locking a thread, then someone else starting basically the same thread to continue flaming / trolling.

Any other ideas?

-Flip

Have I ever mentioned how fond I am of your posts, Jellin?

Dunno Flip might work, might not. Depends on the resident some are far to immature to even consider this a serious idea.

Cat

Well, Flipper, I think a big part of the problem is that those most often rallying about having serious, adult discussions seem to be incapable of having them or understanding what that means, so it is an endless loop. I don't think we need any additional tools - we have ignore, we have the ability to just not post.

We are never going to get perfect behavior out of these forums or any others. The funny part is, most of the time, the truly serious topics do end up being discussed well. It is a lot of the trite bullshit drama that some people consider to be serious that goes up in flames, and then they cry foul. Again, endless loop.

Gee it sure would be nice if I could post without fear of being attacked. here we go again.

I would be concerned about it tunring into a popularity thing. Some might edit, delete posts of people they don't like while leaving posts of people they do like.

Immaturity is such a subjective term.

I like this Idea Flip, if it weren't so serious!

But seriously, I think that even if I have the power to lock my thread, I would still be subject to moderator review, and reposting closed threads can get you banned. I do think though, that there is also potntial that someone could make a post of opinions and then lock it, but people might still want to discuss the topic, so restarted threads might need more scrutiny. If that makes any sense.

Exactly - true, serious discussion means being able to back up the things you say, and to stand your ground or conceed it if you realize someone else is right. Time and again, the reason things go south in a thread is because someone takes any question about what they have said as a personal attack, and any effort to show the lack of logic in what they have said is just met with stonewalling, whining and diverting from the issue at hand (along with bursts of profanity). The irrational hypocrites need not apply, because they would get eaten alive in a true serious discussion, and of course lament the inability to have a serious discussion.

trying to incite anger, how obvious. Reported.

I agree - any situation where you give someone heightened powers over others, there is potential for abuse. While there are some people who could probably be fairly unbiased moderators, the much great possibility is that a situation would emerge where someone would delete posts they disagreed with or were critical of their ideas.

Can people be warned for filing false forum reports? You know, just like filing a false police report and receiving a fine or jail time. Just curious.

I am sure this will be reported also.