the proof is in the pudding

/274/f1/90622/1.html
with clue at: /274/f1/90622/2.html#post911885


/274/f1/90622/1.html#post911825
/invalid_link.html
v.
/274/f1/90622/4.html#post913480

tool: http://babelfish.altavista.com/

Yeah, but Captain Mods-a-lot there has already been established as enjoying her newfound privs just a little too enthusiastically, when she abusively exceeded her rights as a ResMod and changed the content of posts made by other residents.

Great choices, guys!

Нет, доказательство не находится ' в пудинге '. ' доказательство пудинга находится в еде '.

-Ghoti

Ps. LOL, that does not translate very well... 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating.'

Is that person still a mod? And why? ABusing your powers is a reason to lose it. And they knew editing wasn't allowed.


Is that chocolate or tapioca pudding? My dad told my daughter that tapioca pudding has tiny fish eyes in it, so now she won't eat it. I could kill him.

It's weird, for somebody who is so concerned about ARs, when I ARd the post about moving it, I didn't get an instant response. Probably something lost in translation.

That is not necessarily so, and I don't believe it to be so. There was nothing in the instructions the resmods got about not editing posts. At the same time, there was a button to edit posts. That individual was doing as the job as she thought it was supposed to be, with the tools given to her, as she said.

As for the tapioca, I don't blame you for wanting to kill your dad!

coco

Tiny? They're not so tiny. They're actually a pretty good size, kinda like unpopped popcorn kernels, but mooshy.

Tapioca pudding = fish eyes in glue. Google the phrase "fish eyes in glue" and you'll discover that I am not alone in my opinion.



P2

I believe it was abusive, coco, and yet still agree with your post about this. If they weren't told that they shouldn't edit, and the edit option was available, I can certainly see why a person would edit it.....


......except the item that was edited wasn't against the forum rules.

Now, Taco, let's not let common sense get in the way of giving sanction to abuse of power.

And that she said they were told they weren't allowed to edit.

From what other mods have said, they were told not to edit posts. Just because the edit tab was there doesn't mean it was ok to edit.

If someone asks me to watch their purse while they leave the area for a few moments, it doesn't make it right for me to go through it...

Doesn't make it right? It's your obligation to mod that purse. What if there were drugs in there or evidence that the purse owner was a terrorist or there was money you could use to buy lunch?

Maybe this is an inside job on the part of the mod to prove a point about modding by resis

what are you people talking about?

The naughty 'f' word (which was not directed toward anyone) was edited out of one of Cristiano's posts by a new ResMod during a 'permissions mixup' in the forum software, as well as another edit she admitted to but I never saw.

I have no idea either, I don't speak Russian. :-/

I agree that part was startling. Just going by the Forum Guidelines, however, a person could reasonably think those words should be edited out:

"Second Life is an adult community, but Mature material is not necessarily appropriate in all areas (see Global Standards below). Content, communication, or behavior which involves intense language or expletives, nudity or sexual content, the depiction of sex or violence, or anything else broadly offensive must be contained within private land in areas rated Mature (M). Names of Residents, objects, places and groups are broadly viewable in Second Life directories and on the Second Life website, and must adhere to PG guidelines."

and:

"Any unrated area of Second Life or the Second Life website should be considered non-Mature (PG)."

The resmod would have had to have also read Jeska's explanation, which appeared in some thread somewhere, to know what this really means:

“The Community Standards state that PG areas (including the web site/forum) should not contain "intense language or expletives" (my emphasis) - the Forum Guidelines further this by stating that "aggressively offensive personal attacks" (again, emphasis mine) will be removed. In practice, this means that minor cussing has been acceptable on the Second Life forums, but slurs, vulgarity, chat sex, descriptions of sex, etc. are not. In other words, "Quit your bitching!" (exclamation) is OK while ‘You are a raving bitch’ (personal attack) is not OK."

Which in turn supercedes Robin's earlier interpretation, also appearing in a thread somewhere:

“We borrowed from the movie rating system in using that rating name but its real value is in designating a space in SL where profanity, nudity, and adult content won't be present."


One would have had to have followed the forums pretty well to be aware of this particular explanation by Jeska. Just by going by the rules, one would reasonably think that edit would be called for. Particularly if one had happened to read Robin's earlier explanation of it.

So this resmod had every reason to believe that those words should be edited out, unless she had happened to follow this particular issue closely, and had read Jeska's explanation.

And Jonquille, I don't remember her saying that. I'm just saying that given the instructions they were given, and the rules as they actually read, the result isn't surprising at all, and certainly no nefarious motive need be attributed to it.

coco

P.S. Jonquille, I can't state this for a fact, but I think the elusive other edit the resmod referred to was in fact her asking me that same night to edit my thread (where I suggested I was starting to think Siggy was stupid), which I did (after writing her an irate PM objecting to it).

bladyblue also accused someone of racism, rabiddly arguing the point in spite of the obvious lack of racist context, and she was a mod...

notice she is still a mod (a sfar as I know)

I'm finally starting to worry about Resmods.

Check out this week's Metaverse Messenger. Specifically 'the Katt's meow' section.

Here's my thing.

This whole mess is the Lindens' fault, not the resmods' fault. It is the Lindens' fault because they won't part with the money to mod the forums properly, and they also won't part with the forums.

It is the Lindens' fault that they can write rules, but they can't agree on what their own rules mean. It is their fault that they write one thing and then say it means something else. They need to get their act together.

So as mad as we might get about this mod doing this or that mod doing that, I say let's not focus on the individual resmods, who are only trying to help. The actions, yes - but not the individuals, or attributing awful things to them, etc. This program has already caused enough heartache among the resmods.

coco

The resmod mess on the whole is the lindens fault

Resmods screwing up is their own fault, in most cases.

I think Taco would make a wonderful ResMod. I don't think he would let the power go to his head at all.

Phoenix...I like tapioca pudding. It is NOT fish eyes in glue.

Hi this is bladyblue. This is the second time I've been accused of being a ResMod. I really don't know where that one came from. I'm not a ResMod. But I could be wrong.

You are right, in law there is a saying I am sure all have heard that goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse." People must take responsibility for their actions and those who dont, and hide behind others to avoid facing the music, lack character.

So many great points are made in this thread. We keep repeating the same comments about the resmod program and its time that LL listen. Those who post are the users of this part of SL content and we do have good ideas about what would work and what doesnt.