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

This is a great question and I would love to hear Coco's answer. If "none of the above" prevails, will this issue be restated and repackaged over and over until you get the results you want? Or will we be done with this? Just curious.

I think my position is has always been clear. I think the TOS as it is does an adequate job of dealing with the issue of personal attacks. I would like to see a bit broader enforcement, as I feel many people have gotten away with proliferating personal attacks all to frequently, but on the whole I think this aspect is adequate.

Of course I will always take the position that coduct in the forus should be treated as disticnt from conduct in the game, but I have set out my position on this numerous times in other threads.

Before I respond to this issue, I want to try and explain my mindset. So bear with me a moment.

I do not consider SL a game. I never have and never will. The Lindens themselves in various statements have expressed the same. So in my mind, the forums associated with the Second Life world should not be treated as other "game" forums. SL is unique, new, and the goals are not like any other we have yet experienced. Therefore I feel we should approach any issues involving SL in a way that we have not approached most others. Dare I say, we should approach these issues as human beings that are determined to explore a second life. Based on these thoughts, I give my opinions on Cocoanut's well thought out post/poll.



I do not feel that this TOS statement needs to be removed. I think that one of the things the Lindens recognize is that we are all human here. And if you cut our words with too fine a knife, you cut the ability to express ourselves. There are also times when these very phrases are used by those trying to warn others about a person, issue, or group that we may seriously need/wish to look out for. There are *very* much times when these specific words are needed and are an asset to the community. There are also times when these words go too far. Thus why I think the TOS is written as it is. I think the Linden mods already do a fine enough job understanding when a line has been crossed here. Thus I see no need for further reform.



I already feel the Linden mods deal with Personal Attacks to the best of their ability. We have the option to AR a post, and often that is what they need. I do not so much feel the rules need to be strengthened, as I feel more mods need to be added.



I do not agree at all with this. The policy would lead to cries of favoritism, as well as mixed feelings on why one person was silenced and not another. Either everyone has a right to their opinion and thoughts and can write so, or no one does. One person's perception is not another person's. And you cannot relegate speech based on perception alone.



Without going into my myraid of reasons why I believe you cannot seperate in world from the forums, I will state that I think this new rule is very fair. By the time a person reaches the point where their forum behavior also bans them from in world, they have become a person that this world does not need to deal with.

I believe this because it is going to take several warnings, suspensions, reviews, and such *before* a person would ever get to the point of being banned from both places. And after that much forwarning, anyone that finally does get banned, will certainly not be someone that deserves to share any part of this community.



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





Unfortunatly, this option again leads to much speculation and he/said she/said type of situations. The Lindens, as outsiders of the conversations, can see well enough when something is deliberate against one person, and when someone is using a metaphor. Despite the fact we have wonderful creators in SL, even the best of writers is not so able to hide their true intentions when posting their thoughts.




For these reasons, I choose None of the Above. I think the rules as they stand are fine, and in some cases more strict than I would wish, but the punishments I agree with without any issue.

This is our second world. No matter who you make yourself out to be visually, underneath we all share the fact that we are human. And there is no way we are going to see how a second world could work and exisit, if we do not allow for the simple fact that sometimes humans are not so wonderful, not so kind, and yeah they do screw up from time to time.

Stated with infinitely more grace, patience and eloquence than I ever could have mustered, Pendari. I share your reasoning on this issue.

Coco,

If you believe in your heart of hearts that forums and in-world are two different things, do you denounce negative rating in-world for forum arguments?

The rules are rules, clear and concise. Count your lucky stars that your mentor malcontent was not permabanned in-world too.

BTW, I voted "none" on this absurd poll. Talk about thinly veiled...sheesh.

Yes I do denounce neg-rating in-world for forum arguments, Weedy, and I have said so both here and to him. And I am thankful that he wasn't permabanned in-world, too; that would have been a grave injustice, and I would have missed him. He is not my mentor, however.

coco

You may have missed him, but that would have been the truest justice. Now he has become a spectre who looms in the shadows of the darkest rooms and taints the world with his malevolent reek.

I knew I'd regret answering any questions in this thread.

coco

Why?

I thought your answer was acceptable.

I voted none of the above. I feel it is up to Linden Lab to determine the amount of enforcement that they feel is necessary for healthy forums. They, and only they, have the right to determine that for all of us. I do not want anyone trying to force their subjective opinions and individual morality on an entire group of users, and will fight those efforts every step of the way. Censorship is often borne out of good intentions, and I have not doubt that for the most part, Cocoanut's intentions are just that.

However, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The proposed changes would have a chilling effect on speech, and that is the far greater danger than any of the shortcomings of the forums put forth in this poll. In another thread, I saw the phrase "you're wrong" put forth as example of a personal attack, along with a list of posts from one person that were somehow representative of hideous personal attacks, but to the majority of observers in the thread, were mild statements of opinion. In the end, it seems it is not about protecting freedom to speak, it is about limiting dissent.

This shows me clearly that no amount of policing of the forums will ever satisfy the requirements put forth, because the target is so arbitrary and ever changing. The only thing that all of us can do is look inward at our own posts, and decide how we want to represent ourselves to others. Spending the energy to do that, instead of trying to control others and dictate their behaviors, would be far more productive in the end.

Coco, you're response was fine. I'm hoping this thread can stay on topic. I think we all need to take a deep breath before hitting the reply button. Think, is this comment going to add to the discussion or take away from it.


Let's try to keep snide unnecessary remarks out of it. Even if you are just thinking to yourself. Think the thought and then push it aside, please. Stay on topic.




A proud member of PIC = Pudding Inner Core
__________________

Oh?

/130/3e/55592/1.html

The topic is banal.

True... But! (I know, I always have a big but!)
Cocoa has every right to post her desires for how things should be here. It's no different than my/our posting to Feature Suggestions, the Hotline, or anyplace else we post to request change. It's not an insult to LL to make suggestions that they do things differently. It's only an insult when we insult how they're doing things now.

Post on, Cocoa!

But... (there's my But again) please do take into account what you learn from this thread, and from all the other threads you've suggested these same changes in. Understand why people are acting defensively, or offensively, or apathetically. Don't dismiss those who don't agree. Don't assume anything is a personal attack unless it personally attacks you. In fact, don't make any assumptions at all. Take the posts for what they are, and question/comment where you feel the need.

You've posted your long-awaited poll. People are answering. Accept what we're saying, or don't, but acknowledge it.

Given the daunting cost of setting up a website where the original poster could make whatever rules pleases him or her, I can see that it is important to attempt to force other site providers to conform to his or her editorial predilections.

In fact, I really don't like the logo on google.com, and I'm gonna harp at them until they change it to suit me.

Back-benchers in Parliament: "Down with it all! Down with it all! Well said, bloody well said! O, couldn't have said it better mehself! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!"

"Wait a minute, laddies, you're not harumphing loud enough!"

"Harumph! Harumph! Harumph! Harumph!"

"Better, boys, that's better now... !"













Don't assume this is a personal attack. Take this post for what it is: A satirical blitzkrieg.

Cocoanut's proposals are well thought out, generally reasonable, and stated convincingly - even if I'm not entirely convinced. Further, some of the responses in this thread are... words fail me... Based not on the efficacy of her ideas, but on the context of her prior behavior? Um, irrelevant?

No, on second thought, I don't believe it. I don't believe that some people would hand Cocoanut such excellent justifications for her proposals. I'd rather believe that they're appreciating her effort - even if they may not agree with her - by serving up fine examples of shallow and questionable forum behavior specifically addressed to each of her points. Rhetorical gifts, maybe.

Harumph.

I have issues with proposals #1 and #2, because of the technical and judicial issues of enforcing them fairly. #3 and #4, I agree with in principle, but again, I'd stipulate specific guidelines, both for mods to follow, and for necessary exceptions that will inevitably occur. #5 is unenforceable - I understand the sentiment, but I can only see more problems created than solved. The larger problem is always in the execution. While I think Cocoanut tried to address process issues, I'd want to see more before I could think about agreeing that something like this should go forward.

On the other hand, I'm still not convinced any of this is needed. The difference between silly behavior and destructive behavior is hard to pin down, as parts of this thread illustrates. And I don't think we have the right nor the need to legislate against silly behavior. Like flies, drama, religion, and the poor, it will always be with us.

one could post well thought out responses to coco's articles for discussion but experience shows it just goes in circles intill someone passes out from dizziness. no thanks. my post offers the potential results and imbedded biases and meaning of the proposal without being open to for discussion.

Hey don't knock the power of your harping. You blasted my site, so I changed the logo.

Your site needs more Aimee.

Nice job of summing up your thoughts and suggestions Coco. I think Pendari's response was excellent and I don't have much to add.

I think people should place more importance on controlling how they react to things, even clearly rude things, than on trying to dictate how others behave. As individuals we are only able to determine our own behavior and no matter what rules are in place there will always be people who act or speak out in ways that we may not like. It's an immutable aspect of human nature. Beauty isn't the only thing in the eye of the beholder

Given the overwhelming "None of the above" response, I am reposting my earlier, un-answered question. (55% None of the Above, after 1000 thread views)

Ah, Enabran. Have you not learned? Such pointed questions demanding honesty and an actual commitment to more than alarmism go unanswered ever.

Yah. he's kinda dense that way