Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Magnus Brody

The Forums Are Far Too Boring

Recommended Posts


LlazarusLlong wrote:


Derek Torvalar wrote:

 

This is all well and good Perrie but you are assuming that they are always acting on their own initiative. And this is not the case for the most part. Those that call attention to the 'blithering idiot' remark are forcing the knee-jerk reaction. It may be the person in question filing the AR but it also maybe just an observer not even really participating in the discussion who AR's it. And this needs to stop. The mods should be reasonable enough to let some if not most of the barbs just play, regardless of who does the ARing. Moreover, those that do AR in that circumstance should be the ones getting the week long banning.

 

...I wonder if I could find another three or four readers who think using blue text is causing them "annoyance and alarm", and get a group-RIC going...

You're not suggesting that I may be doing this intentionally, to be provocative or antogonistic? Are you?

Are you ok with the font size?

PS Try Syo (If memory serves). I think she is particualrly aggrieved by it.

PPS No come to think of it she was peeved by me addressing the mad bag lady as McMasters.

PPPS Who the hell knows now. Quick, ask me if I give a damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Derek Torvalar wrote:


LlazarusLlong wrote:


Derek Torvalar wrote:

 

This is all well and good Perrie but you are assuming that they are always acting on their own initiative. And this is not the case for the most part. Those that call attention to the 'blithering idiot' remark are forcing the knee-jerk reaction. It may be the person in question filing the AR but it also maybe just an observer not even really participating in the discussion who AR's it. And this needs to stop. The mods should be reasonable enough to let some if not most of the barbs just play, regardless of who does the ARing. Moreover, those that do AR in that circumstance should be the ones getting the week long banning.

 

...I wonder if I could find another three or four readers who think using blue text is causing them "annoyance and alarm", and get a group-RIC going...

You're not suggesting that I may be doing this intentionally, to be provocative or antogonistic? Are you?

Are you ok with the font size?

I find most of what you post extremely provocative.

Oh, and as far as the font size goes, it's not how big it is that matters, it's how you use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


LlazarusLlong wrote:


Derek Torvalar wrote:


LlazarusLlong wrote:


Derek Torvalar wrote:

 

This is all well and good Perrie but you are assuming that they are always acting on their own initiative. And this is not the case for the most part. Those that call attention to the 'blithering idiot' remark are forcing the knee-jerk reaction. It may be the person in question filing the AR but it also maybe just an observer not even really participating in the discussion who AR's it. And this needs to stop. The mods should be reasonable enough to let some if not most of the barbs just play, regardless of who does the ARing. Moreover, those that do AR in that circumstance should be the ones getting the week long banning.

 

...I wonder if I could find another three or four readers who think using blue text is causing them "annoyance and alarm", and get a group-RIC going...

You're not suggesting that I may be doing this intentionally, to be provocative or antogonistic? Are you?

Are you ok with the font size?

I find most of what you post extremely provocative.

Oh, and as far as the font size goes, it's not how big it is that matters, it's how you use it.

Substance, with style and flair.

 

Sounds right.

Reflects your clarity and depth of understanding admirably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Xiola Linden wrote:

The post was a genuine and heart-felt interest in getting more feedback -  not just on the things that have been discussed already in this thread, but additional thoughts and ideas on what would make the forums more interesting to all Residents (old, new, forum-lurking, high participation, or any others who come to the forums). My hope it to take that input and feedback and try to put it to the benefit of the community here in the forums.

I understand that there are concerns about some moderation decisions. That point has been made and noted, and currently, those questions can be 
addressed via the support channel. 

 

Look at the record of Blue Linden and Blondin Linden for two different approaches.

Blue was the forum / blogs / answers Linden some years back. He'd have very regular (daily or weekly, I forget) forum posts about what he was up to in SL. I think that went a long way towards getting people engaged.

Blondin was an inworld linden. He held a whole lot of office hours. The poor guy took a severe beating on a regular basis because one of the groups he was tasked with the Zindra community - during a very nasty infighting between two groups in that community. I think that eventually caused him to leave SL... BUT his intent and method... was good for creating engagement. It could be replicated in the forums: a regular "forum hour" where a linden comes in, takes a limited number of questions, and answers them, then lets a topic spin off.

 

The ONLY suggestion I've seen in this thread that I think might be good for moderation is a policy to attach to the notice sent to people, which section of the TOS they have violated. I think a lot of people presume they violated nothing and take on an assumption that it was wrongful. I do NOT pretend to believe that telling people what they violated will actually cause them to recognize it... but it seems like a good idea anyway.

 

On the other hand, calls demanding apologies to past members are... not something I agree with. Anyone who demands an apology for the way the moderation is enforced on them almost by that demand demonstrates that they needed entitlement adjustment.

I may not agree with every decision made, but there's a time to just move on and go forward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Xiola Linden wrote:


Dresden Ceriano wrote:

Thank you for reading it and replying, Xiola.

The one thing which I believe would make the greatest difference is simply requiring the moderators to state which section(s) of the ToS/CG a post was in violation when issuing their warnings.  Then, we'd know that at least some thought was put into the process and wasn't simply a blind reaction to a RIC.

Plus, requiring them to reply should someone object to their warning would be nice as well.  I'm not suggesting that they get into some ridiculous back and forth with every person who questions them... just a simple acknowledgement that what they've said has been, at least, read and hopefully given a bit of consideration.  And perhaps offer a bit of clarification if need be.

...Dres

Hi Dres,

Thank you for the response. All moderation related feedback will be shared with that team. by me, in addition to taking some of the ideas that you've mentioned and seeing what steps (if any) would make them feasible. The CG and ToS should be easy for someone to interpret and understand in the event that there are questions about a decision, but also before an event even occurs. There are many things to consider, and that is what I am hoping this thread will help with. 

Thanks again for your thoughts and time.

 

~Xiola

I'm hoping it will help as well.

It's not necessarily those who question a decision that need to actually be able to understand and interpret the ToS/CG.  Rather, it's those who make those decisions who must have that ability and, also, be able to demonstrate that they've diligently applied it.  Moderators simply must be held accountable for having the ability to explain the reasoning behind their decisions.  Otherwise, it's not unreasonable to expect that people will simply assume there was no attempt to apply any sort of reason in order to reach them.

If you expect us all too be held accountable for interpretting the ToS/CG and not expect us to want those in charge of policing them to be held to an even higher standard of accountablity on the matter, you're delusional.  And I sincerely hope that isn't the case or nothing will ever improve around here.

...Dres

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:


Xiola Linden wrote:

Hello all,

This thread has been a very interesting read - and I wanted to touch on a few things as well as to ask some questions about what you feel would make the forums a more interesting place for all Second Life Residents.

In regards to moderation - the moderators do their best in helping to uphold the ToS and Community Participation Guidelines, however if you feel that a mistake or misunderstanding was made, the best route is to contact support so it can be reviewed. 

One thing we'd like to do is start more threads that will allow feedback on announcements here in the forums, but it sounds like you may have some additional ideas about what you would like to see and what you think would make the forums more interesting. What other channels do you think may help contribute to the community here as well?

We appreciate your constructive feedback!

 

Well, to start you did do one thing very right here.  You posted under your actually Linden name, not some impersonal enigmatic psuedo name like Linden Lab or Commerce Team Linden that we have no idea whom we are responding to.

Sometimes things seem almost Kafkaesque, we don't know the charges against us as we are judged by unknown persons in a secret court.

Those of us who post here regularly are fairly well versed in the Community Standards.  And while I agree overall with them, they can be applied in a heavy handed way.

As an example, if someone were to call me a 'blithering idiot' so be it!  Let the people reading make up their own minds if I am or not.  That stuff doesn't always need to be deleted!

If the rhetoric is getting out of hand in a thread, a Mod should pop in and warn us to tone it down.  Not knee jerk censorship pull the posts and send people to a corner for a week.

There has been so much stuff we have discussed in the past I could write a book but it's late now for me.

And I will echo this,
Void Singer
still needs apologised to.  I know was a long time ago and I wouldn't expect you to do it with researching the facts.  That has been a blight on this Forum ever since it happenned. 

All wonderful points, Perrie.  I especially like the one about the Mods sometimes popping into threads and suggestion we tone it down.  I believe that just that sort of little push would, in many instances, provide incentive enough for people to check themselves and scale back their rhetoric while in the midst of a potentially contentious debate.

...Dres

P.S. I hear what you're saying about Void, but, as sad as it is, I believe that bird has flown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

And speaking of Void, if I remember it correctly she never asked for nor expected an apology. A post she wrote was summarily deleted. It was a post that had to do with the Forum (though really the Answers Forum in particular) and suggested things that didn't sit well with some people at LL at the time. Her complaint was that when she attempted to communicate with the CS team to ask why the post was deleted she was rebuffed, completely. Not even a reply to say, "We're not going to tell you.".  She felt she was entitled to an answer and that her long and quite well documented history of being one of the most prolific helpers and explainers about SL should at least give her that privilege. When she didn't get a reply, she decided to leave. In effect, she was saying to the powers that be: "Fine. If you don't feel I'm contributing anything of value then I'll stop bothering to do so." It was a sure loss for the Forum, but she wasn't banned.

I happen to think she was exactly right. I think people who really go out of their way—for years, and on a daily basis—to post information and ideas for SL users new and seasoned, should be given a little extra status for that. Not everyone agrees with me, but that's nothing new. As to whether she wants to come back here, I don't know but I tend to doubt it. She seems to be pretty comfortable across the street.

Please though, could you pick some other avatar image? I just do NOT understand how so many people seem to gravitate to that angry female one. It must speak to some deep-seated being inside, waiting to be unleashed. ;-)

 

ETA a little more about Void

Edited once again because a paragraph was quoted and I saw I'd spelled 'privilege' wrong. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

The ONLY suggestion I've seen in this thread that I think might be good for moderation is a policy to attach to the notice sent to people, which section of the TOS they have violated. I think a lot of people presume they violated nothing and take on an assumption that it was wrongful. I do NOT pretend to believe that telling people what they violated will actually cause them to recognize it... but it seems like a good idea anyway.

Sometimes warnings are actually given out wrongfully, but even if they're entirely justified, it would just help to let everyone know that it wasn't just some arbitrary reaction to a RIC and that the moderators are actually doing the job they're being paid to do.

The fact that, at times, moderators already do this, shows that it's not outside of the realm of possibility for it to be done.  It's just not done with any sort of consistency.  I see no reason why, with a simple memo, LL couldn't require them to do it for every single disiplinary measure they execute.

...Dres

P.S.  Some people are still resentful of Void's treatment by the powers that be here and quite rightfully so.  For you to suggest that either she or those who care about this forum and miss her being here are somehow suffering from entitlement issues is simply disgusting.  Though I do agree that letting go of it and moving on might be the best, and most likely the only, thing to do at this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

Having had the job of moderating a forum as one of my professional duties before - I would NOT agree to this part.

If such a reply were public it would only serve to create a public fiasco.

If it were private, it would only end up being a complaint medium and would result in boosting the sense of denial among those moderated.

There are forums all over the internet and such levels of entitlement are not the norm. It bogs down resources, leads to a sense of being 'under attack', not among the mods, but among those who develop a sense that they are unfairly moderated.

Adults need to just learn to move on to the next topic, or rephrase their point in a manner less troubled. Its one thing to just move on if a place is toxic or full of harrasment, but another to do so because one is not given special vindication.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

This is pretty much exactly what I suggested when Xiola asked.  The fact that at least some people seem to believe it a worthy suggestion gives me hope that something might actually get done about it.

...Dres *crosses his fingers*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

Having had the job of moderating a forum as one of my professional duties before - I would NOT agree to this part.

If such a reply were public it would only serve to create a public fiasco.

If it were private, it would only end up being a complaint medium and would result in boosting the sense of denial among those moderated.

There are forums all over the internet and such levels of entitlement are not the norm. It bogs down resources, leads to a sense of being 'under attack', not among the mods, but among those who develop a sense that they are unfairly moderated.

Adults need to just learn to move on to the next topic, or rephrase their point in a manner less troubled. Its one thing to just move on if a place is toxic or full of harrasment, but another to do so because one is not given special vindication.

I understand what your saying and honestly believe that some of your points do hold some validity.  Or, at least, they would in a forum with a functional moderation process... this is not that forum.

That being said, I don't believe that expecting a reply to a question is too much to ask, even if the answer isn't to my liking.  Not even replying is simply disrespectful.  You may call it entitlement, but as a paying customer, I expect to be treated with a modicum of respect... go figure.

...Dres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

 

And speaking of Void, if I remember it correctly she never asked for nor expected an apology. A post she wrote was summarily deleted. It was a post that had to do with the Forum (though really the Answers Forum in particular) and suggested things that didn't sit well with some people at LL at the time. Her complaint was that when she attempted to communicate with the CS team to ask why the post was deleted she was rebuffed, completely. Not even a reply to say, "We're not going to tell you.".  She felt she was entitled to an answer and that her long and quite well documented history of being one of the most prolific helpers and explainers about SL should at least give her that privelege. When she didn't get a reply, she decided to leave. In effect, she was saying to the powers that be: "Fine. If you don't feel I'm contributing anything of value then I'll stop bothering to do so." It was a sure loss for the Forum, but she wasn't banned.

I happen to think she was exactly right. I think people who really go out of their way—for years, and on a daily basis—to post information and ideas for SL users new and seasoned, should be given a little extra status for that. Not everyone agrees with me, but that's nothing new. As to whether she wants to come back here, I don't know but I tend to doubt it. She seems to be pretty comfortable across the street.

 

Precisely.

During this time I rarely strayed out of the merchant forum, but I was aware of Void. Everyone was aware of her. She earned the moral authority to claim that she was falsely accused of violating the forum guidelines. The moderators cared so little for the forums that they were fine with letting Void leave rather than to review their decision.  

When Ebbe first came to this forum and announced his desire for open communication, I said, Then begin with opening the JIRA to the public again.  And he said that he had been discussing that very thing with devs -- and shortly thereafter it was opened. There was a step to take which showed that LL was willing to do more than just talk about better communication, and Ebbe took it.

If LL is sincere in wanting to address the problems created by knee-jerk moderation of the kind applied to Void, then let them take do more than talk.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

Having had the job of moderating a forum as one of my professional duties before - I would NOT agree to this part.

If such a reply were public it would only serve to create a public fiasco.

If it were private, it would only end up being a complaint medium and would result in boosting the sense of denial among those moderated.

There are forums all over the internet and such levels of entitlement are not the norm. It bogs down resources, leads to a sense of being 'under attack', not among the mods, but among those who develop a sense that they are unfairly moderated.

Adults need to just learn to move on to the next topic, or rephrase their point in a manner less troubled. Its one thing to just move on if a place is toxic or full of harrasment, but another to do so because one is not given special vindication.

 

 

 I did say it would lead to extra work, I was quite aware of that. I never even considered the idea that any such correspondence would be public. I also said that only one exchange should be allowed; if the poster in question was still unhappy with the decision she would have to pursue the complaint through other channels.

 My idea was to add a little 'burden of proof' to a RIC. If a post is deleted due to a RIC (as I think most deleted posts are), the poster should be told what the violation was, and she should be entitled to contest the violation once, directly, via email to the mod. Hopefully that might result in someone actually reading RIC'd posts, rather than just assuming that whoever reported them was correct about the supposed violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dresden Ceriano wrote:


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

This is pretty much exactly what I suggested when Xiola asked.  The fact that at least some people seem to believe it a worthy suggestion gives me hope that something might actually get done about it.

...Dres *crosses his fingers*

 

It's called "feedback" in these word-trendy times. But in these times, that really is the best word. Just, for crying out loud, let me know you saw my message and you'll think about it and give me an answer. It's a basic. Little wonder that your suggestion is getting support from others of us. From a Forum perspective, lack of feedback has been one of the most constant laments. We do see better things, since Ebbe arrived. The fact  Xiola (She-Demon of the Arched Fangs) posted directly to this thread being a prime example of said better things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

Having had the job of moderating a forum as one of my professional duties before - I would NOT agree to this part.

If such a reply were public it would only serve to create a public fiasco.

If it were private, it would only end up being a complaint medium and would result in boosting the sense of denial among those moderated.

There are forums all over the internet and such levels of entitlement are not the norm. It bogs down resources, leads to a sense of being 'under attack', not among the mods, but among those who develop a sense that they are unfairly moderated.

Adults need to just learn to move on to the next topic, or rephrase their point in a manner less troubled. Its one thing to just move on if a place is toxic or full of harrasment, but another to do so because one is not given special vindication. 

Yeah, yeah .. color me late to this party but ..

I've been known to stomp on a few toes in these and prior/other forums. I've received "time outs" for various things too. I've sat in the Mod chair, not just on Forums but in other forms of "Social Interaction" as well. With that said, I totally agree with Pussycat that Adults need to learn to just take their medicine and move along.

BUT ...

No one ever learned to CORRECT bad behavior just by a quick smack and a time out. They have to be TOLD why and what they did that was wrong. Without being told how they stepped across the line, 99% of folks havent a clue and thus won't ever attempt to change their behavior.

People are NOT mind readers. This is the #1 advice I give to newlyweds, new couples, new parents and anyone attempting to help grow, improve or perfect something. Give proper feedback. Do not hesitate to explain in great detail exactly what was done wrong. Then quietly close the door and let the lesson seep into the dark reaches of their thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Darrius Gothly wrote:

They have to be TOLD why and what they did that was wrong.

It certainly helps.

Of twelve warnings that I still have notifications of in my inbox:

 

 

  • three quote the "offending" text and specify which of the Community Standards they are alleged to be in violation of;
  • seven quote the "offending" text but don't specify which of the Community Standards they are alleged to be in violation of;
  • one specifies which of the Community Standards it is alleged to be in violation of but doesn't quote the "offending" text;
  • one specifies which of the Community Standards it is alleged to be in violation of but doesn't quote the "offending" text and doesn't even specify which thread it was removed from.

People are NOT mind readers.

Yes. Despite my own amazing psychic ability, I'm unable to do remote readings. I ain't Miss Cleo.

Edit: Spelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

 

Yes. Despite my own
amazing
psychic ability, I'm unable to do remote readings. I ain't Miss Cleo.

Edit: Spelling.

Ah, the silent p will get you every time.

Those were the days . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that by this time Xiola will have gotten the point that Moderation has been lackluster here. 

So I want to make a few more suggestions.  Though really it's just one.

More participation by Lindens.  Primarily in three categories.

1)   Technical.  Sometimes we are giving our best guesses when answering questions.  I do exend Kudos to the Devs, they have been more proactive to jump in with technical tid bits lately that help everyone.  More of this would be good.

   In this same category, get the Tips & Tricks active again.  It's been several years since anything was posted to it.  Though the videos should be reviewed by a Linden for accuracy, the videos don't all need to be authored by Linden Lab.

2)  Policies (TOS, CS, etc.)   We all do are best to help people who have specific, 'is this ok' questions.  We all do our best to apply the rules but sometimes we are simply not sure.  Getting clarification from Governance for instance could be very helpful.

3)  Long Term Problems.   Sometimes when people post here it's because a problem has gone on too long.  We had a club owner who asked our advice here once.  For over four weeks she was unable to get the SLURL to her club in events fixed.  She contacted support who told her to contact whoever who said it was supports job and litterly spent a month going in circles.

Or the pornographic griefing cubes that took over three weeks to get removed from G rated mainland.  If after three weeks of filing abuse reports on something like this it hasn't been fixed a Linden reading this Forum should be making sure something is done about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Darrius Gothly wrote:

They have to be TOLD why and what they did that was wrong.

It certainly helps.

Of twelve warnings that I still have notifications of in my inbox:

 

 
  • three quote the "offending" text and specify which of the Community Standards they are
    alleged
    to be in violation of;
  • seven quote the "offending" text but
    don't
    specify which of the Community Standards they are 
    alleged
    to be in violation of;
  • one specifies which of the Community Standards it is 
    alleged
    to be in violation of but
    doesn't
    quote the "offending" text;
  • one specifies which of the Community Standards it is 
    alleged
    to be in violation of but
    doesn't
    quote the "offending" text and doesn't even specify
    which thread
    it was removed from.

Quoting just because it is good documentation of part of the problem.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

I think that by this time Xiola will have gotten the point that Moderation has been lackluster here. 

So I want to make a few more suggestions.  Though really it's just one.

More participation by Lindens.  Primarily in three categories.

1)   Technical.  Sometimes we are giving our best guesses when answering questions.  I do exend Kudos to the Devs, they have been more proactive to jump in with technical tid bits lately that help everyone.  More of this would be good.

   In this same category, get the Tips & Tricks active again.  It's been several years since anything was posted to it.  Though the videos should be reviewed by a Linden for accuracy, the videos don't all need to be authored by Linden Lab.

2)  Policies (TOS, CS, etc.)   We all do are best to help people who have specific, 'is this ok' questions.  We all do our best to apply the rules but sometimes we are simply not sure.  Getting clarification from Governance for instance could be very helpful.

3)  Long Term Problems.   Sometimes when people post here it's because a problem has gone on too long.  We had a club owner who asked our advice here once.  For over four weeks she was unable to get the SLURL to her club in events fixed.  She contacted support who told her to contact whoever who said it was supports job and litterly spent a month going in circles.

Or the pornographic griefing cubes that took over three weeks to get removed from G rated mainland.  If after three weeks of filing abuse reports on something like this it hasn't been fixed a Linden reading this Forum should be making sure something is done about it.

Thanks, Perrie. All points noted and will be brought up, by me  to those teams. Much of the discussion around particular policy questions is best handled on a case by case basis due to sensitivities, but maybe there are some other areas where we can better surface information around common and/or frequent questions. 

To you other points, I don't have a quick answer but I will continue having conversations internally to see if there are things that can help.

~Xiola

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Dillon Levenque wrote:

I'm glad you posted here.  I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center.

And speaking of Void, if I remember it correctly she never asked for nor expected an apology. A post she wrote was summarily deleted. It was a post that had to do with the Forum (though really the Answers Forum in particular) and suggested things that didn't sit well with some people at LL at the time. Her complaint was that when she attempted to communicate with the CS team to ask why the post was deleted she was rebuffed, completely. Not even a reply to say, "We're not going to tell you.".  She felt she was entitled to an answer and that her long and quite well documented history of being one of the most prolific helpers and explainers about SL should at least give her that privilege. When she didn't get a reply, she decided to leave. In effect, she was saying to the powers that be: "Fine. If you don't feel I'm contributing anything of value then I'll stop bothering to do so." It was a sure loss for the Forum, but she wasn't banned.

I happen to think she was exactly right. I think people who really go out of their way—for years, and on a daily basis—to post information and ideas for SL users new and seasoned, should be given a little extra status for that. Not everyone agrees with me, but that's nothing new. As to whether she wants to come back here, I don't know but I tend to doubt it. She seems to be pretty comfortable across the street.

Please though, could you pick some other avatar image? I just do NOT understand how so many people seem to gravitate to that angry female one. It must speak to some deep-seated being inside, waiting to be unleashed. ;-)

 

ETA a little more about Void

Edited once again because a paragraph was quoted and I saw I'd spelled 'privilege' wrong. Again.

Thank you, Dillon. I am not as familiar with Void's situation as it was some time ago, but I will look into it as I see that it is an important topic to those here.

For status, do you feel that the use of the badging system could be a way to give that status? 

And how is this new avatar? Xiola Linden - possibly just as angry looking, sans the fangs, and honestly not an angry person at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

It certainly helps.

Of twelve warnings that I still have notifications of in my inbox:

 

 
  • three quote the "offending" text and specify which of the Community Standards they are
    alleged
    to be in violation of;
  • seven quote the "offending" text but
    don't
    specify which of the Community Standards they are 
    alleged
    to be in violation of;
  • one specifies which of the Community Standards it is 
    alleged
    to be in violation of but
    doesn't
    quote the "offending" text;
  • one specifies which of the Community Standards it is 
    alleged
    to be in violation of but
    doesn't
    quote the "offending" text and doesn't even specify
    which thread
    it was removed from.

People are NOT mind readers.

Yes. Despite my own
amazing
psychic ability, I'm unable to do remote readings. I ain't Miss Cleo.

Edit: Spelling.

Hi Griffin,

This is helpful information and I will be reviewing these with the moderators as we look into ways to better communicate more consistently and clearly when a violation is issued. In fact, we will be chatting later this week to talk about much of the feedback around moderation and looking to where improvements can be made.

Thank you,

~Xiola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really a fan of the badging system, to be quite honest. In Void's case I would have expected her level of contribution here to kind of a known fact among the moderators, and that alone should have entitled her to an explanation. Maybe I'm being unrealistic.

Feedback in general is something that has been lacking; Void is just the extreme example of that.

I love the new badge image. You are much more attractive without the fangs ;-).

(Seriously, it's terrific that you're using your avatar image in your badge; it's amazing how much more personal that makes it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...