Forum Penalities

[Phil Deakins]

I did say something similar to that - specifically "I don't think that specific penalties would necessarily be a good idea". It's not a cast iron view though.

What I do think is a really great idea is us knowing that posts past a certain age won't be penalised by suspensions, but will be deleted instead. That would be a rule that the moderators could adopt, and I'd welcome us knowing it. Another rule that the mods could adopt, whether we are told or not, is that SL suspensions won't be added to forum suspensions, except in extreme cases.

 

[Love Zhaoying]

So..you don’t recommend specific penalties. Another person (or two) disagreed with us even knowing the penalties, because then users could abuse that system. You do seem to support specific “Rules”.

We’re not splitting hairs for once, there’s a difference! (No sarcasm intended.)

[Phil Deakins]

I haven't given specific penalties it any serious thought, so I neither recommend them nor am against them. My first thought is that it would be difficult to formulate penalties for specific actions, such as how bad an insult has to be to merit n number of warning points.

Right now, I'm all about not coupling SL suspensions to forum suspensions, except in extreme cases.

[Love Zhaoying]

I’m with you, who knows if our next ban will include SL!?

[Solar Legion]

Considering the overall tone of some posters what happened to the one mentioned by name here is not surprising in the least though I do agree that the in world suspension is a bit much when you consider the rather small chance that said poster behaves in a similar manner while logged in.

There are some who post here that maintain the exact same manner while in world as they do here or on their private sites and frankly those types need a bit more than a slap on the wrist or a finger waggling.

Phil in your particular case you need to learn when to walk away - going back and forth with someone as you have described doing achieves nothing whatsoever. State your side/case and be done with it.

Callum, there are times when a potentially actionable post or comment goes unnoticed by either moderation or the user base. Some action ought to be taken on such time bombs.

I've been on the receiving end of improper moderation in the Lithium version of the forum and so long as bans from here do not automatically result in a ban in world ... Meh. There are other forums out there relating to Second Life, some with much lighter moderation (and certainly not for the thinner skinned types).

[Phil Deakins]

@Solar Legion

It's not at all surprising that the said poster would get suspensions from the forum, but nothing of what I've seen of her posts meritted a suspension from SL.

 

2 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

Phil in your particular case you need to learn when to walk away - going back and forth with someone as you have described doing achieves nothing whatsoever. State your side/case and be done with it.

That's not the point, Solar. There is nothing in any rules or guidelines against "going back and forth with someone". It gets boring for others, of course, but, as long as it doesn't turn into insults, flames, etc., it's not an infringement, and does not merit even a suspension from the forum, let alone a suspension from SL. At most, it merits a message saying, "Let it go will ya?" So that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which, in my very firm opinion, is very important to the forum.

There is no love lost between BilliJo and me, and my preference is that she doesn't come back to the forum, but the practise of coupling forum suspensions with SL suspensions is very bad indeed, imho, and that's why this thread was started.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Solar Legion]

4 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

@Solar Legion

It's not at all surprising that the said poster would get suspensions from the forum, but nothing of what I've seen of her posts meritted a suspension from SL.

 

That's not the point, Solar. There is nothing in any rules or guidelines against "going back and forth with someone". It gets boring for others, of course, but, as long as it doesn't turn into insults, flames, etc., it's not an infringement, and does not merit even a suspension from the forum, let alone a suspension from SL. At most, it merits a message saying, "Let it go will ya?" So that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which, in my very firm opinion, is very important to the forum.

There is no love lost between BilliJo and me, and I prefer that she doesn't come back to the forum, but the practise of coupling forum suspensions with SL suspensions is very bad indeed, imvho, and that's why this thread was started.

Going back and forth as you have done on occasion quickly becomes Off Topic and as we have seen, the moderators do not much enjoy threads going too far Off Topic. And that is at a minimum.

Either way, we're in agreement concerning coupling rather basic infractions with an in world ban.

[Fionalein]

I will regret this, but...

Why do you folks asume people will behave different inworld and on the forums? And why should LL keep them - and even Sansar - apart? It is the same user consuming several of LL's services after all.

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

I will regret this, but...

Why do you folks asume people will behave different inworld and on the forums? And why should LL keep them - and even Sansar - apart? It is the same user consuming several of LL's services after all.

I’m very much a loner in-world. Not like here.

[Phil Deakins]

1 hour ago, Fionalein said:

I will regret this, but...

Why do you folks asume people will behave different inworld and on the forums? And why should LL keep them - and even Sansar - apart? It is the same user consuming several of LL's services after all.

I'm not one who thinks that people behave differently inworld.

I think you're missing the point. The point being that people don't behave in the forum in any way that isn't allowed everywhere inworld. So, if anyone gets a suspension from the forum for posting something, it doesn't mean that, if the words were said inworld, it would merit a suspension from SL.

Example: 2 people in the forum. One posts, "you are <whataver (without swearing or throwing insults)>, and the other posts, "no I'm not".

Please explain to me why that little dialogue would merit a suspension from SL. Is it against some SL rule or other? Of course it isn't.

So how about this. The same 2 people posting the same things 10 times in a row, in the same thread. And then picture it inworld - the same 2 people saying the same things 10 times in a row.

Is that against some SL rule or other? No it's not. It's not even against any forum rules (there is no forum rule against being boring ). Is it allowed inworld? Of course it is. So does the fact of posting it in the forum merit a suspension from SL? I say no. What do you say?

In case you agree with me, I can tell that that example is from reality, and it got suspensions from SL for both people. In forum posts, the first person told the other person that he is an active member of Bloodlines. The second person said that he isn't. And it went back and forth like that. If that dialogue was inworld, would it be worthy of a suspension from SL? Of course not, and yet both were suspended from SL - wrongly, imho. And that's the point of this thread. It's the coupling of SL suspensions with forum suspensions, when there is nothing in the forum posts that is against any SL rules.

I do understand your point about the forum and SL being LL properties. But you've seen the result of coupling suspensions. One person posted that she will abandon all her land and go down to Basic if the suspension isn't receded, just to avoid the possibility of being actually banned from SL and losing all her inventory, due to forum posts, when she doesn't post anything that's against SL rules. And another person (Callum) has posted that sort of thinking concerning himself. Some people have become fearful for their investment in SL because of it. Apart from that, it's just not right.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Solar Legion said:

Going back and forth as you have done on occasion quickly becomes Off Topic and as we have seen, the moderators do not much enjoy threads going too far Off Topic. And that is at a minimum.

Either way, we're in agreement concerning coupling rather basic infractions with an in world ban.

Yes, I'm good at that. I don't seem to have it in me to allow the last word to be wrong information about me. Sometimes I manage to let it go, but only after a relatively lengthy back and forth.

[Callum Meriman]

57 minutes ago, Fionalein said:

I will regret this, but...

Why do you folks asume people will behave different inworld and on the forums? And why should LL keep them - and even Sansar - apart? It is the same user consuming several of LL's services after all.

Could I have an argument with one of the talking-to-a-brick-wall trolls here? You betcha. Especially if it's in defense of persecuted SL-minority groups.

In world? No way, I am too busy making things. I also have better tools to keep those people away from me, including estate bans and security bots.

I want clarification on this, I don't like risking thousands of US dollars worth of regions on a forum ban, maybe because one day I take the bait from a troll.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Callum Meriman

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Fionalein said:

I will regret this, but...

Why do you folks asume people will behave different inworld and on the forums? And why should LL keep them - and even Sansar - apart? It is the same user consuming several of LL's services after all.

It's been my experience that people actually do behave better in-world than here, perhaps because the audience is smaller, we have faces there (even if virtual), and course corrections happen more quickly, so it's harder for momentum to build behind a misunderstanding. That's beside the point for me here though. I haven't followed the entire discussion, but the issues of importance to me are that someone might be punished for behavior that doesn't violate ToS, or that occurred prior to already punished behavior.

Punishing allowed behavior makes no sense. If the ToS needs modification, modify it, but adhere to it. In instances where behavior skates close to prohibition but doesn't clearly cross the line, issue a warning. And I'd suggest making that warning public, as Kristin Linden did hours ago by culling naughty posts (including one from me) from the "Change Two Words..." thread. Sure, we can imagine circumstances in which some long-ago behavior escapes detection and is worthy of severe punishment when it finally comes to light, regardless of any other punished behavior since then, but I suspect that doesn't happen often.

If the idea of punishment is to encourage changes in behavior, it's much more effective if you punish the behavior when it happens. And once the punishment is delivered, the slate should be wiped clean. If the behavior recurs, escalate the punishment, perhaps to termination.

Imagine if a change in the ToS were applied retroactively. If you keep the door open to future punishment for things that happened in the past, the Sword of Damocles replaces the incentive to change with the incentive to leave. "Forgive and forget" worked pretty well for the tens of thousands of years that we socialized before the elephantine memory of the Internet. I'm not eager to abandon that.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Madelaine McMasters

[Phil Deakins]

9 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

but the issues of importance to me are that someone might be punished for behavior that doesn't violate ToS

It's not a case of "might be punished". It happens. That's the whole point of this thread.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Tommy Linden]

 

Hey Guys,

You had to go and ask the tough question didn’t you Phil? Well, let me do my best to try and answer it, within reason of course as we can’t always disclose everything that you all may want to hear. So let me start by saying, we don’t want people to be afraid to post, and interact here on the forums.

We realize that there have been a lot of changes to the forums over the last few years, and we have been working hard to make them good changes. The Lindens that you have seen participating in various parts of the forum are really enjoying it, and we are hoping over time you will see more and more Linden’s come to join the fun. That being said though, the idea that the forums are separate from Second Life, is not at all true. They are a part of the Second Life service. This is covered in our community standards (https://www.lindenlab.com/legal/community-standards), where we say: “To help promote respect, peace, and an enjoyable experience for all users, this set of Community Standards applies to all products, services, and environments offered or hosted by Linden Lab, including but not limited to, its websites, servers, software, forums, and blogs (as further defined in the Terms of Service, the Service.”

This means that behavior anywhere within our Service could lead to some form of disciplinary action against an account. This has always been the case and is not something that changed. However, let me reassure you that an account suspension is usually not the first step (it does depend on the nature of the incident). The staff that moderates the forums do make attempts to correct and educate before actioning. Do they make mistakes sometimes? Sure, who doesn’t, but we work to correct those mistakes as well.

As for old posts, we are all on the same page there. There is no need to go and delete posts from the past for fear of them being used against you, but if your current behavior is bad, and continues to be bad, then bad things can happen.

Now go forth, and post, but only if they follow the Community Standards.

[mikka Luik]

1 hour ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

we socialized before the elephantine memory of the Internet. I'm not eager to abandon that.

We don't live there now.

[Callum Meriman]

3 minutes ago, Tommy Linden said:

As for old posts, we are all on the same page there. There is no need to go and delete posts from the past for fear of them being used against you, but if your current behavior is bad, and continues to be bad, then bad things can happen.

I don't want to argue it with you (you carry a scary ban hammer after all), so I will say just this. The Lab's actions in this case really don't seem to line up with these words. The person in question was noticeably gone for more than a month. Her current behaviour was not bad, it was non-existent.

So sorry, my fears are not allayed in the slightest. I don't want to risk many thousands of USD in my estate regions and many tens of thousands of USD in my inventory if Governance are going to opaquely come in on a whim and ban people in world for their old forum posts.

I'm not calmed by your words, in fact I am probably a little more scared now, because your words don't align with the Lab's actions.

 

 

[Tommy Linden]

2 minutes ago, Callum Meriman said:

I don't want to argue it with you (you carry a scary ban hammer after all), so I will say just this. The Lab's actions in this case really don't seem to line up with these words. The person in question was noticeably gone for more than a month. Her current behaviour was not bad, it was non-existent.

So sorry, my fears are not allayed in the slightest. I don't want to risk many thousands of USD in my estate regions and many tens of thousands of USD in my inventory if Governance are going to opaquely come in on a whim and ban people in world for their old forum posts.

I'm not calmed by your words, in fact I am probably a little more scared now, because your words don't align with the Lab's actions.

 

 

Without going in to too much detail, I would like to point you to the part of my post where I reference that some times, we make mistakes, but that we also work to correct those mistakes.

[Madelaine McMasters]

45 minutes ago, mikka Luik said:

We don't live there now.

Correct, and we're paying a price for it. I believe LL realizes that, as evidenced by Tommy's comments here.

Years ago, Celestiall Nightfire was banned from the forums for behavior that did not seem to violate ToS. Her direct, no-nonsense approach rubbed overly sensitive people the wrong way, and they made sure LL was aware of it via RIC. We rallied to her defense and LL ultimately agreed. It's not in LL's best interests to mismanage moderation, but they've got limited resources and it's easy to game the system via reporting. I suspect this is how BilliJo's old posts came to LL's attention, as I've been receiving a fair number of likes lately for things I posted years ago.

Here's a clause from the Community Standards...

Harassment - Harassment can take many forms. Communicating or behaving in a manner that is offensively coarse, intimidating, threatening, or causes annoyance or alarm is not allowed.

"Annoyance" is a pretty big trap for people to fall into. Most of the warnings I've got over the years were the result of me saying something that one individual did not like, yet did not seem to me to violate the ToS. There are days some of you annoy the hell out of me, through no fault of your own. For as much as I, or the rest of you, might take issue with LL's moderation of SL and the forums, it could be far, far worse.

I could be in charge.

[Madelaine McMasters]

I offer this evidence of my misbehavior as proof that LL doesn't hold grudges. Or, if you never see me again, that they do.

Here's my effort to give Tommy a #MeToo moment by grabbing his ass, way back in 2012...

Edited April 11, 2018 by Madelaine McMasters

[Love Zhaoying]

24 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Here's my effort to give Tommy a #MeToo moment by grabbing his ass, way back in 2012...

Grab*ss is against TOS?!

[Madelaine McMasters]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Grab*ss is against TOS?!

It's against the Community Standards if Tommy found it annoying.

So far I'm still here.

Draw your own conclusion.

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Tommy Linden said:

the idea that the forums are separate from Second Life, is not at all true.

Thank you for your post, SuperTom.

It was already accepted here that LL owns both systems, and that they are also linked in that the one system (the forum) is specifically for the other (SL), so there's no dispute there, Tommy. (You know when I call you Tommy and not SuperTom that I'm being deadly serious ).  But the point is that they  are seperate systems, to the extent that they have seperate rules. Some rules apply to both systems, of course, but some do not, and those are the problem. People are sometimes suspended from one system because of a minor violation in the other, when, in the other, it would not be a violation at all. It just doesn't make any sense. And it's especially not the way to treat paying customers.

I appreciate that you can't tell us whether or not any conclusions have been arrived at that might affect they way that suspensions are handed out in the future, but I do hope that what has appeared to be auto-suspension-coupling will be consigned to history, except, of course, for serious voilations.

 

[Phil Deakins]

2 hours ago, Callum Meriman said:

I don't want to argue it with you (you carry a scary ban hammer after all), so I will say just this. The Lab's actions in this case really don't seem to line up with these words. The person in question was noticeably gone for more than a month. Her current behaviour was not bad, it was non-existent.

I think what SuperTom was saying is that (long) past posts won't hurt any more, and not that current behaviour will cause past posts to come into it, perhaps unless things are really bad. That's my guess, anyway. I don't know, but another guess is that BilliJo's SL suspension has been lifted. It would be interesting to know though.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[LittleMe Jewell]

52 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

 I don't know, but another guess is that BilliJo's SL suspension has been lifted. It would be interesting to know though.

Her suspension was lifted, but she is still staying away from the forums because she truly does not want to get engaged with anyone again and endanger her inworld access.