Proposed Changes to the Forum Guidelines: Please read post below before voting.

The Lindens state that the purpose of the Forum Guidelines “is to promote discussion and education about Second Life. We believe in an honest and open free exchange of ideas, and in always maintaining a respect for the opinions and positions of other people.”

Below are the propositions to be voted on, and the rationale for why each would promote the Forum’s mission statement, rather than diminish it in any way. Please read these, and then vote for those changes you would like to see take place, if any.

1. In order to discourage personal attacks, delete the following sentence from the Terms of Service: “Please note language, such as ‘fraud, liar, cheater, griefer, troller, jerk, scam artist ‘ etc is strongly discouraged, but will not be removed.”

Rationale: Having this sentence in the Forum Guidelines encourages, rather than discourages, personal attacks, and has the effect of diluting the stated purpose of the forums to post respectfully.

2. Strengthen enforcement of the rules against personal attacks.

Rationale: Too many personal attacks – which includes hounding and/or harrassing an individual resident with repeated negative, personal commentary on that resident throughout various threads – is the root of most forum problems. Taking these personal attacks more seriously, by issuing more formal and informal warnings, would increase the freedom of expression of those being subjected to the attacks, and allow for their full and equal enjoyment of the forums as is their right as residents.

3. Add the option for moderators to remove individuals from a thread, rather than closing the thread, in cases where that would be more helpful.

Rationale: Individual residents, or several individual residents, can cause a thread to be closed by derailing it, ridiculing it, or making personal attacks in it. This is unfair to those who want to discuss the subject civilly. The option to close the thread entirely would, of course, still exist.

4. Remove the portions of the Forum Guidelines which say that a resident who is suspended or banned from the forums is also suspended or banned from the game.

Rationale: The forums exist for the purpose of discussion about SL, and the Forum Guidelines literally encourage debate, which often becomes heated and personal. Residents can and do occupy different camps in these debates, and those with minority viewpoints are both more visible and more vulnerable to seemingly running afoul of the forum guidelines. Those with more popular viewpoints enjoy less individual visibility and vulnerability.

In-world, however, offers many other opportunities for violating guidelines than the purely verbal, and open invitations to debate heated subjects are infrequent. The environment itself differs, too, in that conversation takes place in real-time, in avatar form, and with other "real-world" types of cues. Being banned from the Forums is sufficient and appropriate punishment for repeated violations of Forum guidelines. Being banned from SL itself in addition is overkill, and has a chilling effect on freedom of expression within the forums, particularly for those with minority viewpoints.

On the other hand, once a resident has been banned from the game itself, no purpose would be served by allowing that resident further access to the forums, particularly since no non-resident is allowed access to the forums anyway.

Not being able to follow Forum Guidelines doesn’t mean a resident can’t follow in-world rules. If an individual then goes on to violate in-world guidelines, banning them from SL itself is appropriate punishment for repeated in-world violations. Making in-world banishment concurrent with forum banishment only diminishes the freedom of expression enjoyed in the forums, and similarly reduces moderators’ freedom of discretion and latitude, by making penalties unduly severe.

Moreover, the discipline policy of officially making forum suspensions and bans extend to SL itself is unnecessary, since LL always retains the right to eject anyone from SL for any reason at any time, and can still exercise that right concurrent with a forum ban whenever they wish. Having it stated as an automatic policy merely reduces the Lindens’ own options and latitude.

5. Forbid thinly-veiled threads clearly meant to address a single individual, even if that individual is not literally named.

Rationale: This would more accurately reflect the spirit of the guideline that states:

“Also, threads that are addressed to a single individual or group are inappropriate on the forums, this includes slander or ‘naming names’ in a posts title, starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc”

One need not literally name an individual to nonetheless post an entire thread intended to ridicule or belittle that resident and/or that resident’s beliefs. This portion of the Forum Guidelines could be revised to say something like: “. . . starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc., or any thinly-veiled attempts to clearly do so, even if the individual isn’t literally named.”

6. None of the above.

Self-explanatory. Please choose this one only if you have chosen none of the others.

coco

#2 is the only one I opt for. Stronger enforcement of the currently existing rules and consequences.

I like #2 and #3.

I think #5 is way too vague. If something is obvious enough to be seen as an attack on a particular person even without naming them, it will get removed under the current rules the same as any other. Also, some genuine threads or posts might get removed under the revised rules simply because a person read it and believed that it was "clearly" an attack against them... even if the real reason was perfectly benign.

1) Discouraged language included in personal attacks is still rule-breaking behavior and is still subject with the consequence system. Simply having the Lindens sensor the message afterward is not likely to have any effect on further discussions. Doubly so that it's likely the moderators won't get to it immediately.

2) I'm not even sure this one is possible, at least not without about five full time, 'round the clock moderators. So far as I am aware, LL doesn't tolerate personal attacks at all - through in order to be come aware of them, there usually has to be an abuse report. Still, this one gets my vote as a faster response would make a real difference.

3) Microbans! I'm not sure the forum software is capable of this fine-grained removal. If so, I'm not sure what a microban would accomplish that a suspension from the forums wouldn't also accomplish. LL is concerned with allowing for the occasional mistake, thus the warning system. I'd prefer to think that one could post one angry, attacking message and have the opportunity to recover and move on rather than finding one is no longer allowed to post in a thread.

4) This does not effect freedom of expression - unless you include attacking people and making discussion difficult "freedom of expression". People with minority viewpoints are held to the same standards as everyone else, not stricter ones.
I think the appearance that minority viewholders are more likely to be consequenced comes from the following: Three popular viewholders and one minority viewholder; The three insult the one, the one insults each of the three in turn (these are seperate events, not in the same thread or at the same time). All posts get ARed. Each of the three gets an informal warning. The one gets an informal warning, then a warning, then the breif suspension.
I can't see how we'd change that without making this a free-for-all.
I say keep this, as it makes the idea of being a tomfool seem just that much less attractive.

5) When entering a grey area such as this, you do take the risk of squelching free expression. You end up drawing finer and finer lines around what a "veiled attack" really is. You have to question motives every time someone even might appear to be questioned or examined. Eventually you just don't dare post an open opinion that anyone might take offense to.

Here's a thought -- Linden Labs spent considerable time coming up with their rules and they know better than you or anyone else outside Linden Labs what they wish to accomplish with them.

Rather than continuing to try and force your version of 'how it should be' on the rest of the world, perhaps you would consider that 'how it should be' is precisely 'how it is' because 'how it should be' is determined not by you, but by Linden Labs.

Have yourself a nice, big cup of 'Get Over It', tootz. This tune is old and the only thing you're going to accomplish by insisting on playing it ad nauseaum is alienating others.

Not that I mind you do so... but really, you can't be so obtuse as to not understand you are doing so, can you?

I object. There was no food item.

Give it a rest.

I agree with this... let the lindens moderate the forums and enforce the rules... posting a poll is meaningless... people voting means nothing and will not ensure any of these ideas will ever be added...

as a previous forum moderator/admin for gaming and other sites, I know it's not easy and I have to say that these SL forums probably allow more bullshit than I'd say 99% of other forums I've been involved in...

so, just go along your merry way, read the rules, know the rules and follow the rules... if you don't like them, you are not being forced to post here... if you want your own set of rules, set up your own forums and have as many or as few rules as you like... and that's exactly what I tell those who don't like the rules on the forums I moderate...

Coco. This is a very well thought-out vote proposal with fair and balanced options. Well done.

I voted none of the above.

me too

Jauani's Translation of Forum Reform articles

1. please make it impossible for forum discussions to identify or deal with shady characters, misinformers, forum trolls, griefers, and stupid people. these people should be given a free ticket to disrupt and damage the sl and forum experience with impunity while the community members are unable to address the problem due to doubleplusgood forum reforms

2. jeska is not doing her job properly because people are allowed to disagree with me and my associates and point out the inconsistencies in our poorly concieved ideas.

3. please don't deprive people the opportunity to beat a dead horse even though LL and it's representatives feel that the discussion is not productive for their goals

4. Just because LL owns SL and is engaged in a business of providing an entertainment service, it should not have the right to protect it's business interests as it sees fit from players who might be consistantly taking actions that hurt the game environment and experience for others and consequencly the game and companies reputationa nd bottom line.

5. I need point number 5 for a segui to point number 6.

6. None of the above.

Jauani's Translation of Forum Reform articles

1. please make it impossible for forum discussions to identify or deal with shady characters, misinformers, forum trolls, griefers, and stupid people. these people should be given a free ticket to disrupt and damage the sl and forum experience with impunity while the community members are unable to address the problem due to doubleplusgood forum reforms

2. jeska is not doing her job properly because people are allowed to disagree with me and my associates and point out the inconsistencies in our poorly concieved ideas.

3. please don't deprive people the opportunity to beat a dead horse even though LL and it's representatives feel that the discussion is not productive for their goals

4. Just because LL owns SL and is engaged in a business of providing an entertainment service, it should not have the right to protect it's business interests as it sees fit from players who might be consistantly taking actions that hurt the game environment and experience for others and consequencly the game and companies reputationa nd bottom line.

5. I need point number 5 for a segui to point number 6.

6. None of the above.

I'm just wanting to know what I need to do in order to get called "tootz".

I voted for removing the 'Banned from forums/Banned from game' option.

What Cienna said.

I nominate Jauni for the "Dripping Sarcasm of the Month" post and hereby award her the Golden Bib for those drippings.

(Editor's note: We've had to stop giving out the Tongue-In-Cheek Award as some of you were turning the other cheek as we rez'd the tongue.)

The Forums have been fine since the new policy change.

I agree with Cienna. Any of the proposed changes would cause way more work for LL than is reasonable, especially deleting specific posts and then the ensuing, "why did you delete my posts and not this other post that was just as bad". Plus sometimes closing a thread is necessary, it allows newer fresher ideas to be brought to the table rather than rehashing the same thing over and over and over again. In the last few days, I don't think there has been as many thread closings as in the past. In fact, some posts have gone on far longer and in a kinder gentler tone. (Note I did not say perfect.)

No. 4, to me, is based on faulty logic. Especially since lately everyone has been behaving themselves. LL took this step because they felt it was necessary. I think it's one of the reasons the forums has become somewaht better. Do not take this away, please.


As for no. 5, if you feel it's wrong to do that sort of thing, just don't do it. The tools to stop this are already at your disposal. If you feel this has occured, report the thread.

From: Seth Kanahoe

Thank you for spewing sense into this thread.

Bravo Cocoanut very well written! I voted and it wasn't for "none"

Don't let the negative ppl posting get ya down, I think you have ever right to state your opinions and you did so very well! Bravo

Cat

Don't mistake me. I could not possibly care less that she posts her opinions. It isn't the opinion I have issue with, it is the borderline obsession with which it is repeatedly thrust at everyone, regardless their weariness of hearing it. Most people, people possessed of some semblence of social graces, understand that when everyone around you says 'Nice, but I disagree, please do not mention it to me anymore...' that bringing it up to them is not only in poor taste, but insulting.

This is a poor execution of an obviously self-serving idea, in my honest opinion. It is an idea that has no apparent base in the reality of the forums, who owns them, or is responsible for them and, for that alone, is misplaced and undermines the authority of those who are responsible for them.

Repeated acts of deliberate instigation by a single individual are being noted as what they are.... and soon enough, this individual will find herself in the same shoes of her over-glorified mentor. Personally, I begin to hope to the same end, for I am quite, quite sick of her inane, insipid, and wholly political agendaism.

...this will not end well

Can we discuss the issues/ideas and not the people, please.

I'm asking very nicely, please don't derail this thread.

Everyone has the right to voice their feelings with out calling people names.

Cat, I am waiting to post my thoughts in this thread. I want to give as much attention to detail and thought as Coco took the courtesy to do for us. I think her Poll/Post was well written, and I would say that noone felt she did not have a right to bring this issue forward in her own words and thoughts. Whether others feel it was "necessary" or not doesn't matter. No one would argue that Coco did not have a right to post this.

However, I do not think those disagreeing with her poll/post are "negative ppl". I think we all have a right to be heard and to express our thoughts on this issue. And I think anyone that would dismiss the responses without a thought or care, is just as "bad" as anyone would would dismiss the original post/poll outright.

Just because *you* feel the responses should be taken as negative, does not make it a fact. The responses should be taken individually, as they stand, and as either agreeing or disagreeing (or somewhere in between) posts. There is no negative or positive here. There is no right or wrong. It is just individuals posting their thoughts.

Very well said - I could not have said it better myself.

While, I, too, can appreciate the time taken to assemble this poll, having read it, I don't feel as though any new information, viewpoints or agumentative support have been provided. It seems to be a lengthy synopsis of Cocoanut's forum-related posts from the last two months. I suppose this might be useful for those who haven't read all the other Cocoanut posts on this subject.

A question that has been brought up in other threads and that bears mention here: If there is general indifference or outright rejection to the proposed forum reforms, will we still be subjected to further discussion of them? Can this be the definitive forum reform discussion before we, as a community, move on to more pressing matters than controlling the conduct of others? If not, and if response to the poll is irrelevant, what was the point of structuring this thread as a poll?

I have watched closely as some forum fireworks have exploded over the past months. Kaboom They are amazing to watch, they dazzle and amuse, but they are over just as quickly as they had begun (one would hope).

With regard to propositions #1 and #2, have you noticed how many people offer apologies and/or voluntarily remove themselves from the forums when issues get heated? While 'heatedness' (that involves direct personal attack)is not to be encouraged or embraced, there is a large group of people who, at least, take ownership of their comments/opinions. Personal responsibility is, to me, far more essential than regulatory or punitive actions on the part of some outside entity.

Proposition #5 causes me the greatest concern. Determination of 'thinly-veiled' is unenforceable. Becuase many of those who post here are in possession of tremendous intellectual capabilities and remarkable wit, it is not unexpected to see the microscope turned--it is, I think, a form of social critique.

Though these propositions have been carefully thought out and worded, I do not wish to see any changes, at this point.