Linden Clarification Please

[Scylla Rhiadra]

21 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Simple idea for evaluating AR for a post:

- Does poster have a small number of posts? Perhaps a warning.., unless they have several warnings..in which case a punishment.

- Does poster have a large number of Posts, and more “Likes” than posts? Perhaps an overreaction by AR poster or warning..the ratio of likes to posts indicates that they are mostly respected / harmless.

- Does poster have a large number of Posts, and less “Likes” than posts? Perhaps this indicates they need some guidance, warning/punishment..

Yeeeeeesh.

Might just as well permanently exile me to the cornfield now, and save time.

?

[Luna Bliss]

I'm starting to feel restricted at just the thought of being restricted. I better post this quick:

[Luna Bliss]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yeeeeeesh.

Might just as well permanently exile me to the cornfield now, and save time.

Ohhh Scylla...only 100 plus likes...you must be a verrry bad girl ;0

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Yeeeeeesh.

Might just as well permanently exile me to the cornfield now, and save time.

?

But but butt..the Children of the Corn will find you!

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm starting to feel restricted at just the thought of being restricted. I better post this quick:

I have several books about her. And mantras. And Guru was a disciple of hers. It’s complicated, but not.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I have several books about her. And mantras. And Guru was a disciple of hers. It’s complicated, but not.

Just think...in the morning this discussion could all be...…...forbidden.....:(

She's on my altar

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

But but butt..the Children of the Corn will find you!

With a score like mine, I'll be leading them!!!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Ohhh Scylla...only 100 plus likes...you must be a verrry bad girl ;0

I'm not bad. I'm just rezzed that way. 

 

[Garnet Psaltery]

I don't know who reported the Politics-heavy topic - it wasn't me, though I believe it was deserved.  The topic was meant to be a discussion on whether politics is an acceptable topic here but it diverted to people arguing their own convictions, in a way that wasn't constructive and didn't add any insights to the question being asked.  Will any lessons be learned?  I doubt it as egos are getting in the way of learning.

[Luna Bliss]

38 minutes ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

I don't know who reported the Politics-heavy topic - it wasn't me, though I believe it was deserved.  The topic was meant to be a discussion on whether politics is an acceptable topic here but it diverted to people arguing their own convictions, in a way that wasn't constructive and didn't add any insights to the question being asked.  Will any lessons be learned?  I doubt it as egos are getting in the way of learning.

Well, I see some of your points.
However, it seems most threads do derail despite the rule we have to stay on topic. I think derails are often fun...just to be able to free-associate with others. Too many restrictions can feel stifling.
But...I would want to make sure the OP got their answer first.

[Luna Bliss]

41 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm not bad. I'm just rezzed that way. 

Uh huh, I see you know that trick too...describing yourself in such a way

[Madelaine McMasters]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Might just as well permanently exile me to the cornfield now, and save time.

I love that place! Imagine it, a cornfield colonized by criminals.

G'day Mate!

[LittleMe Jewell]

43 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

However, it seems most threads do derail despite the rule we have to stay on topic. I think derails are often fun...just to be able to free-associate with others.

In general, I think most derails are harmless.  If the original topic has not been answered (if a question) or not met its normal end of discussion, then the derails are usually pretty short lived.

However, I am a firm believer that politics and religion are not good for discussions on forums unless the forum is specifically set up for it.  Those two topics just always seem to devolve into nasty spats rather than any sort of actual discussion or debate.  If there is one sure way to ensure that a thread is going to go downhill in a hot mess, just start posting political or religious views.

[Phil Deakins]

I don't see any need for clarification. Kirsten Linden was mistaken. She didn't know that the forum rules allow non-SL discussions in this sub-forum. Lindens are not perfect. They are only people and they don't know everything, although one would expect a forum moderator to know the rules concering the forum, especially when citing them.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Scylla Rhiadra]

3 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I love that place! Imagine it, a cornfield colonized by criminals.

G'day Mate!

Perhaps. I do like to associate with people who have strong convictions.

?

[Phil Deakins]

6 hours ago, Blush Bravin said:

Perhaps a new section, Off-Topic, for non SL related discussions.

GD is the off-SL-topic sub-forum, except that it's not for only off-SL-topics. It's general discussion about anything at all.

[Tarani Tempest]

24 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

GD is the off-SL-topic sub-forum, except that it's not for only off-SL-topics. It's general discussion about anything at all.

The name of the section is :

General Discussion Forum

 

Second Life discussions welcome here! Please follow the community guidelines.

.... Second Life discussions.  I looked at the community guidelines to see if there was a more clear description of that particular section, and I don't see much, so please correct me if I am wrong . Vague at best.

I think the OP has a valid request for more clarification about what is and is not allowed.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Tarani Tempest

[Phil Deakins]

Yes, it's a valid request, because the Linden who locked the thread stated that it infringed the forum guidelines, when it didn't infringe them at all. It's a bit silly specifically allowing something in the guidelines if a Linden comes along now and again saying that it's not allowed, but without changing it in the guidelines themselves.

It's certainly a valid request but, as long as the guidelines remain unchanged, I think clarification is unnecessary, because it was the Linden who simply made a mistake.

For evidence, see the 1st post in this thread.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 hours ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

I don't know who reported the Politics-heavy topic - it wasn't me, though I believe it was deserved.  The topic was meant to be a discussion on whether politics is an acceptable topic here but it diverted to people arguing their own convictions, in a way that wasn't constructive and didn't add any insights to the question being asked.  Will any lessons be learned?  I doubt it as egos are getting in the way of learning.

I understand where this view comes from, and I have a lot of sympathy with it. Like LittleMe Jewels' observation that religion and politics "just always seem to devolve into nasty spats rather than any sort of actual discussion or debate," it's sensible, based on observation, and founded on a wholly laudable principle of trying to maintain civility and peace.

That said . . . I can't say that I like the idea of preemptively banning certain kinds of discourse under the assumption, however well-tested, that it will necessarily devolve into nastiness. I didn't, for instance, think that the locked thread under discussion here was particularly nasty. The openly partisan bits of it were, for sure, predictable, dull, and unedifying. But nasty? Perhaps i have a thick skin, or have been inured to belligerent political discussions by other venues I'm on (and the old forums, which were much, MUCH harsher), but I didn't see anything there that warranted a shut down. I absolutely agree that bullying and outright trolling need to be controlled, but I saw neither of those, nor do I think they are necessary components of such discussions.

Are posts that bellow one mindless political screed or another boring and even unpleasant? Sure, but I'm reminded of the oft-repeated refrain I've heard from people here and in-world about the offensive and objectionable parts of SL: if you don't like it, don't go there. Or don't read it: the same principle surely applies?

I think it's dangerous to merely assume that discussions about religion and politics are going to be sh*tstorms. And I worry that a "ban" can be applied so broadly that all we will have left here WILL be threads about how awful (or wonderful) mesh is, or how to use Omega appliers. (Not that there is anything wrong with those.)   

[Scylla Rhiadra]

(It occurs to me that, at least by the standards of the forums as I remember them, we've achieved two no-nos here: questioning moderation, and essentially continuing the discussion (in some measure, anyway) that was in the locked-down thread. I apologize to Pamela if that's the case, and it leads to this being shut down without the clarification that she seeks.)

[Phil Deakins]

Publicly questioning moderation was always a no-no in the SL forums. It's not particularly uncommon in forums, and I think it's in the guidelines, but it's a bad rule for this forum, imo, because much of this forum's population comprises paying customers.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Phorumities]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I understand where this view comes from, and I have a lot of sympathy with it. Like LittleMe Jewels' observation that religion and politics "just always seem to devolve into nasty spats rather than any sort of actual discussion or debate," it's sensible, based on observation, and founded on a wholly laudable principle of trying to maintain civility and peace.

That said . . . I can't say that I like the idea of preemptively banning certain kinds of discourse under the assumption, however well-tested, that it will necessarily devolve into nastiness. I didn't, for instance, think that the locked thread under discussion here was particularly nasty. The openly partisan bits of it were, for sure, predictable, dull, and unedifying. But nasty? Perhaps i have a thick skin, or have been inured to belligerent political discussions by other venues I'm on (and the old forums, which were much, MUCH harsher), but I didn't see anything there that warranted a shut down. I absolutely agree that bullying and outright trolling need to be controlled, but I saw neither of those, nor do I think they are necessary components of such discussions.

Are posts that bellow one mindless political screed or another boring and even unpleasant? Sure, but I'm reminded of the oft-repeated refrain I've heard from people here and in-world about the offensive and objectionable parts of SL: if you don't like it, don't go there. Or don't read it: the same principle surely applies?

I think it's dangerous to merely assume that discussions about religion and politics are going to be sh*tstorms. And I worry that a "ban" can be applied so broadly that all we will have left here WILL be threads about how awful (or wonderful) mesh is, or how to use Omega appliers. (Not that there is anything wrong with those.)   

Any time a person posts from a right wing viewpoint, it is denounced by a vocal minority of members AND some mods as trolling.

Until that mindset is corrected, political posts in here are pointless and ban bait.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2018 by Phorumities
changed words

[Phorumities]

6 hours ago, Garnet Psaltery said:

I don't know who reported the Politics-heavy topic - it wasn't me, though I believe it was deserved.  The topic was meant to be a discussion on whether politics is an acceptable topic here but it diverted to people arguing their own convictions, in a way that wasn't constructive and didn't add any insights to the question being asked.  Will any lessons be learned?  I doubt it as egos are getting in the way of learning.

For the record I didn't report it either, but it's always amusing to walk away from a thread where the wolves are circling, half a dozen posts are unanswered, and you come back the next day and lo and behold, the thread is locked.

Because  I know from experience, continuing to reply WILL increase the risk of a ban for me for... yes trolling, for simply responding to posts attacking me.

So, to play it safe,  I should just post about Second Life topics and ignore the posts where lefties are wailing about the end of the world under President Trump.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Phorumities
added a line

[Phil Deakins]

I find this whole thing to be very disheartening. I hadn't been reading the locked thread, although I'd seen first few posts. It was of no interest to me so I didn't continue reading it. To find out why it was locked, I just had a look at the posts on page 4 - the last page of forum users' posts - and, judging by that, there were no rules/guidelines infringements. No flaming, insulting or anything along those lines that I could see. Admitedly I do have a few people on ignore, so I don't see everything that's posted, but I don't think the thread had devolved into nastiness of any find.

It's not the fact that a moderator locked it that disheartens me. She just made a mistake because she didn't know the guidelines, that's all. It's what caused it to be locked that's disheartening. I can only believe that one or more users reported the thread. Instead of skipping the thread because it doesn't interest them, like sensible people do, some interfering busybodies prefer to stir things up, including by reporting stuff just because they dislike it. There are such people here in the forum. We see what they do quite often. It's disheartening that such interfering busybodies flourish here, causing this sort of nonsense.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Phil Deakins

[Pamela Galli]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

(It occurs to me that, at least by the standards of the forums as I remember them, we've achieved two no-nos here: questioning moderation, and essentially continuing the discussion (in some measure, anyway) that was in the locked-down thread. I apologize to Pamela if that's the case, and it leads to this being shut down without the clarification that she seeks.)

I did not question moderation. If LL wants to shut a thread down, it’s fine with me. But as someone else pointed out, GD right now is full of off topic threads: are they all going to be locked? How are we supposed to know what we can post when the guidelines don’t say what a Linden says?