Are you looking forward to Forum reforms?

Then why HAVE it?

First, they don't NEED to have that rule. Because, as both you and I have pointed out, they can ban anyone from the game at any time they want to for any reason whatsoever.

Second, if they don't really mean that rule, why have it?

Either say it and mean it - or don't say it.

Because what happens is that people who care about another player being able to continue to play the game - no matter what is said on forums - are less likely to report that person's posts. The ones who woudn't mind seeing another poster gone from the game don't care and will report as much as they want.

The whole thing is as if the penalty for stealing a loaf of bread were death. How many of us would report that theft, knowing that the person would be sentenced to death?

And the policemen - the ones charged with watching over the place, how likely are they to actually actually turn in the person who stole bread?

That is always the unfortunate effect of any penalty/punishment which is overkill.

It dilutes the entire purpose of setting any kind of rules in the first place.

coco

I plan to shoot it down.

So...

what are the changes going to be?

I will post it soon.

coco

Sorry, dude. They announced yesterday the introduction of a Global Garoad Extrusion Filter.

I voted "no", but people just laughed and pointed at me.

Will it be grounded on sound philosophical principles or will it be instead a trancription of your own personal needs and ideologies? As soon as Prokofy, er, you are finished with it, please do post it.

~Ulrika~

CIY - Cover Your Ass. This way LL makes it quite clear they can take that action.



I don't look at it like that.

I abuse report things that need abuse reporting.

If it gets a person banned, from forum or game, it was that person that got themselves banned, not me.



Red Herring. Attempting to reduce by absurd example.

In addition, the idea that the forums and SL are seperate is so laughably wrong as to make me question the inteligence of anyone who seriously believes it. I can get neg rated for something I say on the forums. Many people are, quite frequently, by certain posters. Thus, the worlds are connected.

Because it is not the rule *itself*. It is *punishment* for breaking the rules. And there are many other *punishments* that lead up to that final one. So they *do* mean the punishment. You are just confusing the punishments for the rules.

And I'm honestly curious why or how you think the SL forums are not a part of the SL world? I of course believe there is no seperating the two, and I see others do as well. Others have given great reasons why one is not a seperate entity from the other. So I'm curious to hear your reasons for why you believe they are?

Because of what Jake said above, Pendari.

Ulrika, where you been? And when the heck are you ever going to give up your delusion?

Let me ask all of you a question:

Why do those of you who like this rule/policy/okra that if a person gets banned from the forums, that person gets banned from the game like it?

I've heard lots of arguments for it, and you've heard lots of arguments from me against it. I'm not really talking about those reasons/arguments now.

My question is more - why on earth do you want this rule? Why would anyone want this rule?

coco

P.S. Reuitsky, the cover your ass explanation is the absolute best one I've heard so far. As for the reporting, however, understand that there are some of us who are less likely to report due to the severe punishment.

Because it's a deterrant.

Coco, reach back into the ExpPsych classes you took in university. Behaviors and Human Pattens, Boundaries and Consequences.

I know there is still some contention about the exact relationship, but in the end, no behavior can be changed unless motivated by a consequence.

LL doesn't have many options for "positive" consequences to reinforce positive behavior, but they do have quite a few "negative" consequences to avert negative behavior. And the more significant that consequence is, the more likely it is to be seen as something to be avoided, and thereby be a motivator to alter behavior.

The question of direct relevance between SL and it's forums isn't really pertinent. The purpose in its entirety is to make breaking the rules an unpleasant, unwanted thing for everyone.

That's it in a nutshell.

So the only reason any of us behave in the forums is because we are afraid of getting banned in real life?
Who does the rule deter? Has the rule thus far stopped forums from being closed because of incessant personal attacks?

Has it reduced the number of personal attacks?

Can anyone here say "I was going to post this insane bigoted hateful personal attack, but guess what, because I might get banned from the game as well as the forum, I won't do it?

To me the rule is merely a statement of position, it was a way to make people understand that LL was taking the forums seriously. From my perspective, the rule is meaningless, because by the time anyone gets the point of being banned, a whole lot has happened to clue them in to the peril of their conduct.

For me the world of the forum and the world of the game is night and day. There is very little cross-over. I see the condcut in the forums and I have a genuine fear that my advocacy of controversial issues will make me a target of a "forum troll movement." thus I think that it is safer to narrow the ban and not broaden it.

Because it's already part of the ToS. Your account can be cancelled without warning, and all your stuff deleted. This is how every single online game or environment I have partcipated in works.

That "rule", as you insist on calling it, most likely to add more of a dramatic flair to your caps riddled posts, does, and will exist until SL ends. All they did was clarify and make public actions they could already take, and in fact have taken in the past. The "rule" is an extension of the ToS, and won't be going anywhere. It would be foolish business to revamp the ToS to cripple one's (LL's) own power to police their property.

They do mean it, but only as a last resort. My thoughts are, they simply wanted to say, "hey folks, knock it off, we're going to be more serious about enforcing the ToS in the future!"

See above.

Yeah, well Coco, you have sort of done a chameleon act with regard to this. I remember you saying you would never post again in the general forums, because you were "afraid of losing your game." Which is it? And you wonder why I sometimes question what really drives your crusade?

As far as reporting goes, I personally only report egregious stuff, like swearing at or libeling people. It's part of our duty to do so if we see it. Just as in RL, if you see a crime, you're supposed to report it. Your refusal to report bad posts is your own quandry, and it doesn't afford you some higher moral ground because you won't.

Your constant repeating this mantra about reporting is over dramatization. You have no way of knowing who reports, when and why they do, and who they are reporting. You have no way of knowing that LL acts because of reporting. You cannot read minds and speak for other people or LL. Again, you are assuming. You are also insulting Linden Lab. If you really believe that a group of people can get LL to ban someone, why are you here? I know that if I believed that I would slam the door and never look back.

Oh lord. If you are going to parallel being banned from an online environment with being executed, there is no point in arguing with you. That is simply a leap of hysteria I will not going to allow myself to take, and you shouldn't either.

Well, it hasn't changed how I go about my Forum life. In other words, I am no less or more likely to report a post than I was before the policy clarification. This is because I already undestood the ToS.

It isn't about liking it. It's about accepting it.

I see that it has had a positive effect - there is much less back and forth, and turning of the forums into a personal blog to air interpersonal grievances.

It's really simple.

I am suprised, with your psych background and having raised children, that you do not understand and recognize this.

Actually, yes.
Though not precicely that. The strength of a deterrent for an otherwise adult person with a well fomed sense of living in a society and community is assisted control.
Personally, I have been on the verge of posting some rather mean attacks. The deterrent - really, just recieveing a warning, I don't need the threat of losing access to SL, but there will be those who do - did make me pause, and the attacks didn't get posted. Clearer arguments did get posted.
This consequence is really only nessesary for a tiny minoroty of people who might post in these forums. And seeing as there's a string of warnings, suspensions and a review before reaching that point, I fail to see how this consequence might be considered too much. It does not come into play untill the poster it would be applied to has proven that they can not be a civil member of the community.

All I know is that since the policy has been in place, no one has belittled me in the forums or in-world. I was followed and harrassed in-world because of comments I made in the forums.

I have enjoyed posting since the new policy. If this is changed, I will not be able to post.

I can't understand why anyone would want to force me to not post anymore. What have I done to deserve not being able to post in a comfortable environment.

I have helped people since the policy was in place. Before this, I was afraid to ever speak up in the forums becaus I was afraid of being harrassed.

This policy is like being given the keys to freedom. Please, please, please do not take it away.

I know you think you are protecting people who might not be able to control themselves. But what about people who are useful and helpful and who can control themselves? Do we not deserve protection as well?

But see Jillian you were deterred by a warning. I fo you are not deterred by warnings, then the fear of a ban will not be enought either. People who push the limit in such a way as to be banned likely bveleive that the system is broken and they need to fight agaist the ban, or the forces that cause them to get banned. Outside of an Insta-ban offense, I think that there is little deterrent to someone whose conduct is such that they will continue despite being warned that the could be banned from the forums.

Jake, I can't accept that leap. There is no clean definition between a social human and an antisocial one. Human variance is too broad. There will be those willing to take a warning or a suspension, but who would stop short of being banned from SL. And they would outnumber those who would be undeterred by any consequence.

In which case I have no particular desire for them to be in world either.

I agree.

I agree because, if they can't behave in a forum after mutiple warnings and suspensions, where the only weapon they have is typing, how can they be trusted inworld, where they can go beyond simple typing, and do some "real" damage with the additional plethora of tools and options available to them?

Hit it on the head.

/me bows

Poop head!

*TEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE*

*ahem*. Sorry.

I agree with the current policy because of these reasons (previously stated but summarized here):

1. Our actions in the forums DO have a direct effect on our second lives in-world. If the effect is joined why should the punishment for the cause be separate?

2. No other facet or feature of the game is isolated (or even proposed to be) when it comes to diciplinary action. Nuking Gibson does not get you suspended from Gibson, it gets you suspended from the game. Profanity in a PG area does not get you suspended from PG areas, it gets you suspended from the game. Harassing behavior in IM doesn't get you suspended from IM it gets you suspended from the game. I don't feel the forums should be different.

3. I do indeed believe the full game ban works as a deterrent now, while the embarassingly feeble diciplinary action offered by the Lindens in the past invited and encouraged reprehensible behavior.

And to address Coco's more qualitative question... ya... I like how the forums are shaping up now much more than they were a few months ago. I think things are pretty damned nice around here! I wanna keep it that way

Nuking Gibson does get you a big serving of Enabran kicking your ass, in any case.


Seriously, though, don't nuke Gibson. We're having enough trouble with Sim FPS lately. :|

Of couse someone in world conduct could independently justify them being banned in world as well. You see that someone who is as bad in world as they are on the forums is clearly subject to discipline in both places. I am talking about the person who is opinionated and controversial in the forums, but who simply hangs out in world and does nothing to upset anyone. Can you by absolute certainty tie the two behavior patterns together? I can't. Its very easy for me to see someone advocating a position in the forums and yet not troubleing any one in world.

If someones conduct is mirroed in both places they could be punished in both places.

LOL!

<3 Gibson

I don't think anybody should be banned for being opinionated and controversial nor do I think anybody HAS or will be. Though I understand "opinionated and controversial" is the popular term used to white wash a career of TOS/CS violations.