Forum Guidelines: Discussion with Katt Linden

BTW - how about a golf clap round of applause for Katt? She's been thrown into the fire and deserves credit for not just raising the topic, but dealing with a few years of pent-up frustration.

If someone comes on the forums to badmouth their ex they just had a bad break-up with and posts some explicit pictures along with their RL details you would just want that person forum banned to come back with an alt ad nauseum until they grow tired of it?

More to the point: the policy has been in place for years now, has anyone ever been banned (not suspended, but an actual permanent ban) in-world due to what was said on the forums where there was absolutely no way to justify it? I realize it might require some careful stepping around the exact details if it's the case.

For the first part it would not make a difference. Banning them from in world does not stop them from alting up with a program to hide their ISP and keep right on posting to the forums or making Alts in world. There is no way banning them in world due to a forum violation prevents what you are suggesting from occurring.

On the second part it really doesn't matter how long the rule has been in place or how many have been banned from in world.

On the second part it really doesn't matter how long the rule has been in place or how many have been banned from in world. Just because the trigger has not been pulled does not mean it is a good thing to leave the gun loaded. The point is that there are good people who would benefit the forums that will not come with a stupid rule like that in effect. The rule makes no sense. You should not equate the forum behaviors with in world consequences.

(Actually, if I can make it to the GTeam office hour I'll ask whether they are responsible for ruling on forum bans extending to in-world and if they are it would be a lot more effective to discuss it with them rather than any other resident. Unless Katt says different I don't think she's responsible for that particular rule or has much say in it one way or the other)

To summarize, what's being asked for are a support forum, (content creation plus resident answers), and, a "pleasant chat" forum for people cheating their employers while bored at work, and, a hateful vulgar forum for people with drug abuse problems to say f*ck and *ssh*le a lot, engage in nationalist bigotry (since nationalist bigotry is not specifically mentioned in the Community Standards), talk about dolcett (with pictures), and such, which the pleasant chat participants will read but not participate in .

Ooh, just think of it, endless Bush versus Obama threads, that'll be sure to advance the development of the 3D internet. And they won't take a bit of work to write, just paste some old Bush-Gore threads into a word processor and run the find and replace and bit.

The GTeam is not responsible for policing the forums nor enforcing TOS, CS or other rules on the forums or other forum type areas of SL. I know 'cause I AR'd some JIRA posts and was told by GTeam folks that other Lindens are responsible for the forums and the GTeam's purvue does not extend to it. However, sometimes you get different answers to differently worded questions so do indeed come by the GTeam Office Hours and have a go.

I don't think people really have anything to worry about regarding this link. How often does it happen?

Those complaining about the link seem to have forgotten about the "Any reason or no reason" clause in the terms of service.

The only issue I have with such a link is if a forum infraction always leads to an inworld penalty, the vast majority of the time a forum penalty is suffice.

There are people who are banned from the forums right now who run business inworld, personally I think a fresh start should involve these people.

Banning someone from in-world is also quite ineffective, noone (or few) think LL should get rid of in-world bans. That said, I do think forum bans are a less effective deterrent with the decision to allow every no payment infothrow-away alt to post without their main facing any kind of penalty.

It matters a great deal because if it's been place for years but has never been used in a way that wasn't justifiable then you're just arguing for a principle that has no impact.

There are problems with the forums as they are (BBcode, lack of moderation, the current purpose of RA, which degree of general discussion is desirable and where it should go, etc) that actually need work and would have a big impact on the current forum community. Sidetracking by wanting the primary focus to be on possible in-world banning that never happens unless warranted isn't terribly productive. It *is* something that should be open to debate (although in a more productive fashion than is currently happening since there is little Linden feedback), but it's no more of a threat than it was last year.

There are some situations which just aren't excusable and the penalty should be there, if only to deter, in my opinion: disclosing of RL information, disclosing a permissions exploit, how to's for content theft, etc. None of those things relate only to the forums, they're tied to in-world and the penalty should reflect that.

Finally, contrast what some people post here and what they post in the thread about this one over on SLU. If the current guidelines get people to restate their opinions in a civil fashion or voice their disagreement with others without stooping to namecalling then they're serving their purpose.

(Actually, if I can make it to the GTeam office hour I'll ask whether they are responsible for ruling on forum bans extending to in-world and if they are it would be a lot more effective to discuss it with them rather than any other resident. Unless Katt says different I don't think she's responsible for that particular rule or has much say in it one way or the other)

Thanks for taking on the responsibility of asking at the G Team meeting. Please report your findings here or if this is closed PM me with the results if you don't mind.

I'm on the fence about whether LL should reserve the right to ban inworld as the result of forum transgressions..

Except for the most extreme cases, I'd rather they left that bit out.

A ban is the permanent deactivation of the violator’s account with the Second Life Forums and for the most serious or repeat offenders, could include a ban from inworld activities as well.

Aren't the "most extreme cases" the only ones the policy is talking about?

Aren't the "most extreme cases" the only ones the policy is talking about?
If LL leaves it out of the guidelines, they would NEVER be able to ban anyone inworld for forum aggression, griefing, slander, etc.. When I put myself in LL's position, I'm not sure I would sign on for that.
.

I think the current degree of socializing in RA, particularly amongst regular posters, may be intimidating newcomers. Let's make a General Discussion area, and see if that helps. Regulars can always use the "New Posts" button if they want to both answer questions and socialize.

Personally, I find myself less inclined to post news items about LL for discussion in RA. It just seems like the forum is busily occupied with the neverending thread and spinoff discussions, so I feel like I don't want to "interrupt" with a serious thread about, for example, why LL keeps bringing up Facebook when discussing SL community dynamics.
.

Personally, I find myself less inclined to post news items about LL for discussion in RA. It just seems like the forum is busily occupied with the neverending thread and spinoff discussions, so I feel like I don't want to "interrupt" with a serious thread about, for example, why LL keeps bringing up Facebook when discussing SL community dynamics.
.

Not everyone is a cold, plugged in cyberdrone, who never gets out and enjoys life away from their machines. People make friends here and like to share their experiences.

I still say that any new forum should be the one for these questions and answers and that resident answers should be left as is. Questions do get asked there, newbies do arrive and ask away. The broad nature of that forum lends itself to being the general one, the content forums are more specific and therefore attract more specific questions and discussions.