Are you looking forward to Forum reforms?

Hon, I can't find the exact post, but I remember you posting that the forums were affecting your game play. Can't you see how the two are related? They need to be linked. The other problem, I think, was alts coming back and posting. Please don't take this rule away.

It takes two to tango. There are ppl in the fourms who push each others buttons. I have personaly taken steps to avoids such negative situations. I however cannot control the choices others make.

More so my views on many things in SL have changed, so you see it's not realy my way or the highway. I hear all sides of the issues reguardless of my passion for any issue then I make the choices that feel right to me.



Cat

PS: but this thread realy isn't about me its about a poll made in anticipation of another poll that has not been published yet. Have a good day ok.

You called it illogical, and you do not work for LL, yet you deem to speak for them. Uninformed.

I beg to differ, you bring it up quite often as a argumentative standpoint to try to scare others into seeing it your way. You have even vaguely insinuated that certain people are in danger. it's quite obvious Coco.

You just did in this post.

YES! Now we're getting somewhere! LL isn't in the business of of just slam dunking people, even though you would like to promote a feeling of fear that they will. They take everything into consideration. If you're a big old jerk on the forums, and an angel in-world, you're likely not going to get the double slam.

It's not a rule. It's a consequnce for breaking rules repeatedly and with multiple warnings and suspensions. I see that you want to desperately paint it as a "rule", I can only guess that this is because you want to fear people into seeing it your way. Your insistence on labeling it a "rule" belies your claim of not employing scare tactics to drum up support. it is a consequnce for breaking the rules repeatedly and ignoring warnings and suspensions.

People who cannot control themselves are bad for SL, whether that be inworld or on the forums. They cost LL man-hours and input from some who might otherwise offer it. If I write harassing letters to my cable company on a regular basis, they may just refuse any more correspondence from me and shut off my service. It can and has happened. There must be a threshold in place that helps a company decide at what point it is no longer finacially worth dealing with certain types of customers.

They might, and probably will. This consequence, which has already existed since the inception of the forums and SL, gives them more leeway and more options. To paint it otherwise is simply a red herring.

Too bad. It's not like SL is going to come to a standstill because they lose one customer who has added something of value inworld. How many politicians and execs in RL have gone to jail? Lots, and some of them contributed greatly to society. Contribution should not gain one access to leniency for misdeeds. Thoughts to the contrary are truly "FIC" thoughts. That simply contributing buys one immunity from sanction.

If it's costing them man-hours to deal with the crap being spewed by thet person, I would say yes.

No, no, no, they haven't. There are a myriad of degrees of disciplinary measures they can take. You are over-simplifying to cause fear, yet again.

If it was conceived for one individual case as you claim, why is that person not banned inworld as well?

You are making a whole lot of assumptions on the behalf of LL. You are also coloring them as incompetent. Many of them came from other game companies and they have a whole lot of experience in these matters. You don't, and your fear mongering over avenues that already existed isn't going to change that fact.

Honestly, based on your posts over the last few weeks, I do not agree that you do this at all. You *appear* to do just the opposite. But oh well, we can agree to disagree.

Ok

"They take everything into consideration. If you're a big old jerk on the forums, and an angel in-world, you're likely not going to get the double slam."

YES, YOU ARE! Because you MUST. According to this inflexible rule.

That is my whole point.

coco

Who wrote this? Where is this written?

coco

You mean like "Fuck your opinions!"?

Or like "Fooking moron"?

Or like "Pieces of shit"?

This and more can be found in the original announcement:
/3/ae/50540/1.html

Can you provide me with a concrete example of where LL says "they must"? I read it as a possibilty. Honestly Coco, it seems as though you are being intentionally obtuse here.

It is not a rule. Just as warnings, suspensions, and bans are not rules.

It is flexible, because it is not compulsory that they invoke it - as we have witnessed by the continued presence of the person you claim it was invented for, inworld.

Coco, I understand your argument that the forums and game should be separated when it comes to diciplinary action. You say bad forum behavior only be punished in the forums, and bad world behavior only be punished in-world.

Have you considered further refinement of disciplinary scope? For example, if I am an angel in my home sim, but regularly crash other people's sims, perhaps I should be confined to those sims where my behavior has been good rather than suspended from ALL SL. Or maybe I have only nuked the welcome area but I am fine everywhere else, so I should only be removed from the welcome area.

You could also refine the scope along the KINDS of behaviors. For example, maybe I have never used a scripted object to grief someone, but I HAVE cursed them publically in a PG area. Rather than suspension, the Lindens could disable my public chat capability in PG areas while allowing me to build or do other things.

Any comments?

The thread was really hilarious and fun for a while, but now has gotten dangerously serious and on-topic. Should this thread be moved to General since its so on-topic and serious all of a sudden? It certainly doesn't belong here!

-Flip

Thank you, Pendari. That is what I remembered.

Nolan, call it a rule, call it part of a body of rules, call it a policy,call it a TOS, call it anything including late for dinner but don't let's argue that semantic inanity further.

Here is the rule/TOS/policy/okra:

"We believe that in-world and forum behavior are linked and behavior carries across the boundary. This means if you are suspended or banned in-world you are also suspended or banned from the forums, and vice versa, if your account is suspended or banned from the SL Forums, it will also be suspended or banned from in-world."

Looks pretty clear-cut to me.

coco

P.S. The continued presence of the person in-world who caused the "Prok Act' to come into being is no different from the persons also in world who have preceeded him in being banned from the forums. The rules we have now regarding forum behavior don't apply to them.

I was surprised to see it moved here to begin with, but this is a very good question. When a thread gets moved to "off-topic" does Jeska simply consider it good filing practice or a sort of punishment? Has an off-topic thread ever been moved back to General as a result of a shift in topic? Would Jeska do it automatically or would somebody have to request it?

Somewhere in here, between helping my husband with his school stuff and reading this thread, I meant to say that I do understand the arguments for keeping the rule. I just think they are much weaker than the arguments for ditching it.

coco

876 points crit hit for taking your own tongue-in-cheek poll so seriously. 1004 points self-ridicule hit for not owning up to the tongue in your cheek.

You die. Long corpse run to follow. Take a deep breath, Jauani, it's only a game, right?

876 points crit hit for taking your own tongue-in-cheek poll so seriously. 1004 points self-ridicule hit for not owning up to the tongue in your cheek.

You die. Long corpse run to follow. Take a deep breath, Jauani, it's only a game, right?

No!!! IT'S MY SECOND LIFE!!!!

seth, i am 50% tongue and cheek, 50% foot in mouth. 50% of the time

Your insistence on mislabling a consequence as a "rule" is what led us to the semantic issues. The policy is a set of rules and the possible actions that may be taken if you breach said rules.

Your claim that LL has to follow this policy to a "T" is illogical hyperbole. It's not as cut and dried as you would have people believe.

Example: It's illegal to possess marijuana in most states, yet many times the cops just dump it out on the ground and yell at you. It is a case by case basis, and they consider several factors.

Yes, and I agree with that thought process. So do most others, from what I can garner from talking to folks inworld. What you are conveniently leaving out, is the fact that it takes progressively more serious warnings to even get to the point of a suspension or a ban. Then, you still get a review by a randomly selected jury of your peers. How many other "games" allow for this?

Well, that's your claim. That it was because of Prokofy. Yet, they didn't use it on him. They posted it for the rest of us to see and absorb. Let's face it, the forums had become a really crappy place, and they wanted to clean it up. So they gave us something to think about before we go off on others. Did you ever stop to think that they may have clarified and made public the policy for all of us?

P.S. One of the things I miss most about living in Texas is okra! (As long as it was deep fried or pickled, no boiled please, it has the texture of snot)

Sounds like an; unwavering passionate conviction.

Well I think Jeska tries hard to make things good filing practice, and doesn't move topics to punish the posts. If she wants to punish the posters then she has other remedies availble.

I think that to get to the point of getting banned takes a lot of effort. And not just on the part of the person getting banned. I have always made clear my position that antagonism takes two, or more. Somehow all this ganging up against one person for their posting style or thier opinion seems to put particular players on the denfensive. Oddly enough most of the acrimonius disputes have nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

As much as I can say that if somone calls you a Hypocrite, for example, you should turn the other cheek, I cannot avoid the notion that telling someone they are a hypocrite is something that should be avoided too. Somehow in the forums it seems to go directly from "I disagree with you" to you are an indiot trolling moron, who is so wrong it is not funny, and further more your children will be born blind and stupid because I disagree with you, you are a whining, lazy, hypocrite who knows nothing about the real world or SL and you have no business being here. If you do not think the GOM value of the linden should be above $4 US per $1000 Linden you are a hippie communits who knows nothing about SL and only wants free poseballs." Some how this makes people defensive. Part of acting like adults is leaving the jabs and jibes at home.

As far as the relationship between being banned in world and banned in the forums, I still beleive they should be separate. The forums present very narrow issues that people can be passionate about and thus a person can be over the top in the forums and entirely non antagonistic in world. The sad thing of course is that we all discuss this like we expect to be banned.

It would be nice to keep things separate, but people do things in-world as a result of things that happen in the forums. There are people who have been neg-rated in-world because of something they posted in the forums.

Besides, since the new policy came into play, I think everyone has been, for the most part, behaving themselves.

I do not want this policy to change.

__________________________
"To announce that there must be no criticism of
the president, or that we are to stand by the
president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and
servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt

This is another good point. The forums and in-world are not really separate. People post products and events in the forums because they know it will have a measurable impact on their in-world endeavours.

However if an individual relentlessly slanders and harasses somebody in the forums to the point of being banned, the results are not isolated to the forums. The victim could see tangible losses in sales and in-world harassment due to the smear campaign. The Lindens certainly know this, which is why our notorious "forum perma-banned" Prokofy has free access to the classified section.

I agree.

I am not sure why some feel the need to compartmentalize.

The forums are an extension of SL.

Stating that one is a different entity on the forums than they are inworld, smacks of two-facedness to me.