Please Update the Forum Posting Guidelines

The postig guidelines athttp://forums.secondlife.com/faq.php do not specify that the residents here should not post on certain topics. In a recent post a resmod stated:



If our threads are closed for a certain reason by a Resmod that are not specified in these guidelines, it appears that the Resmod closing the thread is "making up" reasons to close the thread.

Resmods, can you please request to LL that they update the Forums Posting Guidelines so that they are up to date or stop closing threads when they do not fall within these guidelines. If some residents are making "politically charged" posts, it needs to be defined what LL's definition of "politically charged" is and that it will not be tolerated. Please also specify that general discussions are not to be tolerated if that is the case. If so, then NO general discussions should be tolerated...and should not be picked over.


I think if there may be some confusion. This is one sure fire way to clear things up so we are all on the same page...that is if it is intended for us all to be o the same page...and I hope that this is the case.


Thank you for your time,
Maddy

MadamG, I"m going to ask the question..what do you really want to have happen? In this forum world, what is it that you want? Strife to be chastized and fired from a volunteer position? Want him to apologize for any and all deeds you feel that has been done to you? Do you just want to continue the tirade just to keep this drama alive? Maybe I didn't guess the right answer, please enlighten us as to what you truely want to happen.

My post was calm and specified my request. Your post seems inflamatory and seems to go off-topic. I do not intend on responding to you further because the points you have made in your post are not my views. They are yours.

That sentence is a tough one, it can be read a couple ways depending upon how you interpret the commas.

By definition of trolling & flaming, the types of posts made are off-topic / politically charged. Separating the two is next to impossible, in these cases if the trolling isn't blatant, then other factors can play key roles as well.

Long before I took up the more relaxed policy (to relax enforcement so discussion can happen) before RA was opened and for a while after, I argued for a strong rule enforcement policy. It was neither denounced or adopted. As you can tell I don't want this now, I also don't want more power (my life is stressful enough as it is).

I did tell LR about my plans to be less strict and they seemed to think it was a good idea as it would reduce problems for them, which on the whole it has but it has created new ones.

I do see that there is a problem here but I don't think it warrants a modification to the guidelines. I've tried to make things more transparent with posts like this and the one you quoted. It's pretty much always been my policy to respond to questions/debates about ResMod issues.

@milady: I can neither confirm or deny the existence of (forum) ARs that answer your questions. I really can't say anything about this as it would be a breach of the Private Discussion guideline. What I will say is that I try to treat all forum residence equally, and when rules are broken and a pattern is noticed, they get fed to Linden Review. To assist LR, I often provide a background to accompany any new users in the system, which is typically a list of interesting posts. The great part about the forums is that it records everything. It's an Orwellian wet dream without the stigma.

On a side note, I'm considering a swing towards stricter enforcement for Ageplay threads (closing them) based on a handful of arguments depending on more the one of the guidelines (the ideas are still forming in my head on this one). The entire thing has gotten out of hand.

Thanks for your reply Strife. I am hearing you say that YOU are planning on changing your level of strictness and target certain threads (age play, specifically). Do all these decision rest on your shoulders? Is Linden Lab no longer involved in deciding what's not to be posted here?

So you are changing the rules, but you do not think the gudelines need to be updated regarding this?

Your post only confirms and magnifies my initial post. YOU are making changes and no one knows that you are doing this but YOU. If you decide to target age play threads and you start locking them, Strife...those who are starting these threads have no policy, rules, or guidelines to reference. They just see you closing them because you want to do so.

If it were in the forum guidelines that "You are not to start threads that fuel discussion about politically charged subjects" then people will see that and be less likely to start those threads. If it says that "You are not to start multiple threads on the same topic", people will be less likely to do this....

AND when you close those threads and submit them for Linden Review because they continually violate the guidelines, the forum community will have no choice but to stand behind your decision because it is obvious that a rule was broken. This includes me, Strife.

Right now, there is no rhyme or reason to much of what you do when you close threads and nothing to reference. Even if you could STICKY an announcement when these changes come about, it would be nice. If the age play threads are becoming too much, make a sticky and then reference it in your post when you close the threads:



Otherwise, if you are closing our threads for your own reasons (meanning a reason that is not posted in the forum guidelines or other official document) then it really gives the impression that you may be doing so for your own personal reasons. ...and submitting people for Linden Review because they have violated YOUR rules doesn't seem fair. These rules need to be made public so we can all see them and comply.

I'd like to say Strife that I am in no way yelling or shouting here, but I am just trying to offer a resolution that everyone can be happy with. Everyone will feel comfortable posting here if they know what is allowed and what is not and also if they know that the rules are going to be enforced on everyone, not justa select few. So basically, to summarize:

Set rules (don't just make them up as you go along)
Enforce the rules
Don't discriminate

Thanks for your time Strife!

I keep LR in the loop on these issues and get feedback from them. I don't make decisions of this magnitude on my own and not without extensive thought. Threads still get sent to Linden Review.

It's not a bad suggestion once you get past the thorny exterior. Make everyone happy? Not a chance. Will people rebel against it? Without a doubt. Will they eventually accept it? Probably. Do people read the forum guidelines? Sometimes (it's funny many people equate the Naming Names rule to the TOS, no idea how they got that idea). I suspect people have an idea of what the guidelines say and they figure as long as they aren't any worse then anyone else then they are in the clear. Which leads me to believe that the best way to get people to understand the rules is to have an active moderator who is in the trenches and does things publicly. People learn the rules by what and how it is enforced; and after a while the rules just start enforcing themselves.

Set rules - Not my job, I don't want it
Enforce the rules - *whistles innocently*
Don't discriminate - *sighs* are you trying to provoke me? Life is too short.

Hi! While we understand there'll always be vigorous debates about topics like this, I just wanted to clarify that because of how complex issues can get in longer threads, a touch of simplicity may help here: that is to say, off-topic threads should be closed because they've derailed and are no longer productive. Meaning, a conversation beneficial to the participants, as opposed to back-and-forth personal attacks. Also, threads aren't closed for being "political" per se, but those often tend to be off-topic in the wrong forums — when they could instead be continued in private, in appropriate inworld avenues, or on Resident-run forums that welcome them. So it's a generalization, but historically, not an unreasonable one.

And it's not topic-specific (e.g., ageplay, landbots) but more often has to do with the fact that Resident Answers (where most of this happens) is not for general discussion, but earnest Resident-to-Resident help. We hope to keep the channel open as long as it's broadly useful.

We have several Resident Moderators still volunteering, helping us out, and bringing threads to our attention in the ResMod forum, that's correct. I still, almost daily, check for those notices. There are times when "bad threads" aren't reported to us and hence missed until later, and others where they are in the queue and get to them eventually. That may understandably lead to confusion. So, I ask for your patience on this, and also, as I haven't been much on the forums lately — time stretched thin on numerous other projects — good news is that Heretic Linden has recently come aboard here to help us out. You may've already seen her many energetic posts!

Finally, to recapitulate, ResMods make decisions and if they aren't sure, I ask them to err on the side of caution, and of course, the threads undergo Linden Review after. If a perfectly productive thread's closed mistakenly, I can certainly apologize and reopen it. As alluded to, what I'm particularly interested in is helping provide a more accessible Guidelines, because it still gets missed, or frequently not followed. Paying attention to them helps us all have a better, healthier forums. So if you have suggestions (we tried things like making them bold in a bigger font before, and that didn't work), please say so.

Can we also get posters to use text formatting and emotionally-charged words to be censored too? And maybe those that dismiss others when speaking in a public forum, asking public questions.

And oh, people that have the letter G in their name. Yeah, that works too.


- Newfie

Newfie PendraGon?

Just a question.

Can't say I didn't get the irony of my own post Sometimes the good has to sacrifice to get rid of the bad!


- Newfie

MISS TORLEY: Those threads about Voice were NOT off-topic; they contained nothing that I could seriously call "vigorous debate";
they were NEVER derailed; they WERE productive; they weren't even political; they could NOT be accomplished privately; they WERE beneficial to the participants (highly!); there were NO back-and-forth personal attacks that I recall; and they WERE, in fact, the epitome of "broadly useful".

coco

Thats MR.Torley

Coco, can you direct me to that thread, please? Thanks.