Forum Advice

[Coffee Pancake]

More shorter new threads are more valuable to people looking for something specific than a handful of mega threads.

There should never be ONE THREAD TO RULE THEM ALL.

No one will read it, people will join and rehash stuff over and over because they didn't read back, others will simply move on.

[Quartz Mole]

28 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Did you get clarification on This^^^^?

Not yet, no.   I'm waiting to hear back from them.   When I have more information, I will certainly let you know.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Coffee Pancake said:

There should never be ONE THREAD TO RULE THEM ALL.

If there were, it would be...precious!

 

[Solar Legion]

2 hours ago, Quartz Mole said:

Not yet, no.   I'm waiting to hear back from them.   When I have more information, I will certainly let you know.

I'll keep my fingers crossed ... I've been holding off on posting, considering my form.

[Kimmi Zehetbauer]

14 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

I'll keep my fingers crossed ... I've been holding off on posting, considering my form.

I've been limiting mine.  I usually type what I want to say in NoteTab on my machine and debate if it's worthy to copy/pasting it to a thread. 70% of the time I toss it.

[Seicher Rae]

14 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

More shorter new threads are more valuable to people looking for something specific than a handful of mega threads.

There should never be ONE THREAD TO RULE THEM ALL.

No one will read it, people will join and rehash stuff over and over because they didn't read back, others will simply move on.

Agreed. 

People also rehash things because they don't know they are rehashing. The forum and its threads are dynamic things. People come, people go, people don't pay assiduous attention to every word ever spoken.

If the thread is a page or two long, I try to scan the remarks, if it is 6+ pages I probably won't if it is my first approach to the thread. I often will say "I haven't read the whole thing" and then just answer the OP like I'm the first person doing so. Pretty sure that often means I've said something someone else has covered. Oh well. If you note it and tell me "omg! Sarah said the same thing 20 pages ago you git! You're wasting our time with YOUR repeating of it..." Well, I'm sure I would be duly shamed into some kind of amazing response to that, showing my very real contrition. [sarcasm font alert]

This isn't a static place and not everyone spends hours going over the whole thing in intricate detail, thank god. I didn't realize this place was so (can I type it, can I huh? better play it safe) a*al retentive. Then again, I'm fairly clueless.

Edited August 9, 2022 by Seicher Rae
-y

[Arielle Popstar]

3 hours ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

We need to keep haters from harming others, but that does not mean we should hate them. So I partially agree.

Well there are laws to keep haters from harming others but if one is truly interested in seeing others drop anger, resentment and prejudice, it needs to be put in a context of how it helps the hater to let them go.

I'll first off mention that hate has a root of fear, not indifference. To hate something or someone is to fear them for the potential threat they pose to the hater's core instincts like Self and Social esteem, the sexual and security instincts. These are the primal instincts every living thing is borne with and when those are threatened, there is a tendency to react negatively to whatever is threatening them. It is of no value to order someone to drop the hate as one is then just adding to the threat of a basic instinct. Rather one needs to show how the hate, anger and prejudices are baseless and counterproductive as most negative emotions are.

Better to attract someone to change with honey rather than vinegar through showing the benefits of losing the hate for the hater. Now in my circles that is somewhat easy because for alcoholics, addicts and other obsessive type dysfunctions, anger, resentments, prejudices and fears are the number one cause of addictive behaviours. Without going through a process of discovering what they are and becoming willing to let them go, there is little hope that there will be a long term recovery from those obsessions and addictions. 

For those who don't suffer from any sort of external and visible dysfunction but still have a lot of anger and prejudices (repressed or externalized), there are still benefits to letting go of them as for one, those emotions trigge.. cause increased stress hormones caused by negative emotional triggers, leading to a slew of medical problems. And no, I am not interested in getting into a debate about the validity of that. The point is that until one can promote the potential benefits to a hater of why they should let go off their hate, one is only banging their head against the wall and suffering from the same problems as the hater themselves because it is only hating the hater and self serving in the end. The activist without empathy for the hater, has no testimony that they can promote the "no hate" lifestyle with and wind up just looking like a Pharisee when it is easily seen that the activist also suffers from their own hates and prejudices.

[Seicher Rae]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

For those who don't suffer from any sort of external and visible dysfunction but still have a lot of anger and prejudices (repressed or externalized), there are still benefits to letting go of them as for one, those emotions trigge.. cause increased stress hormones caused by negative emotional triggers, leading to a slew of medical problems. 

I'm too tired to read a long post right now (not a comment on the content of this, I honestly don't know what it says! I get stupid when tired)... but I quickly scanned it and my eye fell on the strikeout text and I just cracked up. I didn't want to just  response to it because that would have looked like one of those lame scorn laughs.  Thank you for that, whether it was tongue-in-cheek or not. Also I'm not quite that sensitive! (Am I? Oh gawd, am I?...)  (goes to bed)

[Drayke Newall]

Who knows if this is on topic or off topic, but can someone confirm what the underlined and bolded line means in the new post about posting and participation guidelines means?

Quote

Not Allowed:
In addition to adhering to the Community Standards, please refrain from posting content discussing inflammatory content (Politics, Social Justice issues and Interpersonal disputes), Anything that doesn’t relate directly to Second Life/Linden Lab, Generic posts (like “Post a random animal picture!” versus an acceptable “Post your Second Life pets!”), etc. 

If I am reading this correctly then that means that threads such as "Totally Official, Approved, Cat Thread", "5 letters game", "Make Us Laugh!" etc are now not allowed and according to the rules should/are liable for locking?

If this isn't the case then why have such a line in the not allowed section specifically stating that all threads must now be solely related directly to Second Life/Linden Lab and not randomness/fun if such threads are allowed but others not?

Edited August 9, 2022 by Drayke Newall

[Solar Legion]

An exception for the threads in existence at the time was made. This was noted.

There should be no confusion.

[Ceka Cianci]

58 minutes ago, Drayke Newall said:

Who knows if this is on topic or off topic, but can someone confirm what the underlined and bolded line means in the new post about posting and participation guidelines means?

Quote

Not Allowed:
In addition to adhering to the Community Standards, please refrain from posting content discussing inflammatory content (Politics, Social Justice issues and Interpersonal disputes), Anything that doesn’t relate directly to Second Life/Linden Lab, Generic posts (like “Post a random animal picture!” versus an acceptable “Post your Second Life pets!”), etc. 

If I am reading this correctly then that means that threads such as "Totally Official, Approved, Cat Thread", "5 letters game", "Make Us Laugh!" etc are now not allowed and according to the rules should/are liable for locking?

If this isn't the case then why have such a line in the not allowed section specifically stating that all threads must now be solely related directly to Second Life/Linden Lab and not randomness/fun if such threads are allowed but others not?

 

ETA: Sorry, I quoted the wrong post, I meant to quote the first one and can't for the life of me figure out how to fix it.

ETA: Ok I think I have it sort of quoting the right one now..

Aaaaaanyways,

It has it listed in the Forum Participation Guidelines.

Here is the link for those Drayke.

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Forum_Participation_Guidelines

Here is the  piece that was updated.. It has a notation under that rule, I'll go ahead and bold it..

No Discussions Not Directly Related to Second Life: Please keep all threads relevant and directly related to Second Life and Linden Lab. Anything unrelated to Second Life is subject to moderation. This includes, but is not limited to, politics, social issues, current events, and Non-SL discussion posts (Examples such as tell me a joke, make me laugh, etc). If the thread could exist on a non-Second Life Forum, that is probably a good sign it doesn’t belong here.

Note: Posts made before 7/29/2022 will be left open unless policy violations cause them to be closed.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Ceka Cianci

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Drayke Newall said:

Typical Solar response, someone asks a genuine question and he responds condescendingly with even a laugh emoji implying the person that's asks the question is stupid.

Where does it say directly that threads will remain open in this post by Tommy Linden here where he has mentioned the rule?

 

No Discussions Not Directly Related to Second Life: Please keep all threads relevant and directly related to Second Life and Linden Lab. Anything unrelated to Second Life is subject to moderation. This includes, but is not limited to, politics, social issues, current events, and Non-SL discussion posts (Examples such as tell me a joke, make me laugh, etc). If the thread could exist on a non-Second Life Forum, that is probably a good sign it doesn’t belong here.

Note: Posts made before 7/29/2022 will be left open unless policy violations cause them to be closed.

[Rowan Amore]

15 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

ETA: Sorry, I quoted the wrong post, I meant to quote the first one and can't for the life of me figure out how to fix it.

ETA: Ok I think I have it sort of quoting the right one now..

Aaaaaanyways,

It has it listed in the Forum Participation Guidelines.

Here is the link for those Drayke.

https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Linden_Lab_Official:Forum_Participation_Guidelines

Here is the  piece that was updated.. It has a notation under that rule, I'll go ahead and bold it..

No Discussions Not Directly Related to Second Life: Please keep all threads relevant and directly related to Second Life and Linden Lab. Anything unrelated to Second Life is subject to moderation. This includes, but is not limited to, politics, social issues, current events, and Non-SL discussion posts (Examples such as tell me a joke, make me laugh, etc). If the thread could exist on a non-Second Life Forum, that is probably a good sign it doesn’t belong here.

Note: Posts made before 7/29/2022 will be left open unless policy violations cause them to be closed.

 

 

Dang, I had it written and forgot to hit Submit.  Sorry for the duplicate info.

[Jaylinbridges]

LL is overlooking a simple and more profitable solution to these long threads that repeat over and over and over and have the nerve to drift into RL.

Charge one L$ per syllable to all posters (except moderators of course).  Deduct this from your account only after the edit period has expired because your first thoughts were the true ones. Premium Plus members would get a 50% discount, and one syllable words would be free!  Basic members are read only.  A win-win for LL and the rest of us.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 minutes ago, Jaylinbridges said:

LL is overlooking a simple and more profitable solution to these long threads that repeat over and over and over and have the nerve to drift into RL.

Charge one L$ per syllable to all posters (except moderators of course).  Deduct this from your account only after the edit period has expired because your first thoughts were the true ones. Premium Plus members would get a 50% discount, and one syllable words would be free!  Basic members are read only.  A win-win for LL and the rest of us.

There are a few people I'd like to pay not to post. Can we include that in the plan too?

😏

Edited August 9, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra
Added emoji on the offchance anyone thinks I'm serious. I am not. Of course. Except you. Yes, you. I'd pay to stop you from posting.

[Silent Mistwalker]

10 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

There are a few people I'd like to pay not to post. Can we include that in the plan too?

😏

How much cash you got? 😡

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

15 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

20 hours ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

We need to keep haters from harming others, but that does not mean we should hate them. So I partially agree.

Well there are laws to keep haters from harming others but if one is truly interested in seeing others drop anger, resentment and prejudice, it needs to be put in a context of how it helps the hater to let them go.

I'll first off mention that hate has a root of fear, not indifference. To hate something or someone is to fear them for the potential threat they pose to the hater's core instincts like Self and Social esteem, the sexual and security instincts. These are the primal instincts every living thing is borne with and when those are threatened, there is a tendency to react negatively to whatever is threatening them. It is of no value to order someone to drop the hate as one is then just adding to the threat of a basic instinct. Rather one needs to show how the hate, anger and prejudices are baseless and counterproductive as most negative emotions are.

Better to attract someone to change with honey rather than vinegar through showing the benefits of losing the hate for the hater. Now in my circles that is somewhat easy because for alcoholics, addicts and other obsessive type dysfunctions, anger, resentments, prejudices and fears are the number one cause of addictive behaviours. Without going through a process of discovering what they are and becoming willing to let them go, there is little hope that there will be a long term recovery from those obsessions and addictions. 

For those who don't suffer from any sort of external and visible dysfunction but still have a lot of anger and prejudices (repressed or externalized), there are still benefits to letting go of them as for one, those emotions trigge.. cause increased stress hormones caused by negative emotional triggers, leading to a slew of medical problems. And no, I am not interested in getting into a debate about the validity of that. The point is that until one can promote the potential benefits to a hater of why they should let go off their hate, one is only banging their head against the wall and suffering from the same problems as the hater themselves because it is only hating the hater and self serving in the end. The activist without empathy for the hater, has no testimony that they can promote the "no hate" lifestyle with and wind up just looking like a Pharisee when it is easily seen that the activist also suffers from their own hates and prejudices.

If I had been a French citizen near the beaches of Normandy when all those activists in boats came to save me I would care not if they were in a bad mood. They could have egos the size of the Eiffel tower with hatred stretching up to the heavens and that would be fine by me. Just see what's right, and do what's right. No need to be an angel to do good in the world.

Democracy requires vision, not angels. I have faith that eventually those on the forum who oppose Democracy will be sanctioned and fade away.

[Arielle Popstar]

16 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

 I have faith that eventually those on the forum who oppose Democracy will be sanctioned and fade away.

When they are sanctioned then it  is no longer a democracy.

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

17 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

35 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

 I have faith that eventually those on the forum who oppose Democracy will be sanctioned and fade away.

When they are sanctioned then it  is no longer a democracy.

By being sanctioned on this forum I don't mean they should necessarily be removed or banned; I mean they should be told they are wrong, and this would be the penalty. Eventually I hope they would fade away by frequent confrontations, as their beliefs and actions cause much harm to others.

Some who espouse hate and are anti-democratic actually believe such sanctions would take away their freedom.
But as Lincoln said when a senator espoused slavery and claimed its removal meant his freedom was being taken away:

  "You cannot have the right, to do what is wrong"

Of course eventually they were forced to do what is right via the Civil War. Sadly that is sometimes needed.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

When they are sanctioned then it  is no longer a democracy.

That is neither technically nor in a practical sense quite correct.

There's no question that free expression is a foundational cornerstone of democracy, but "free speech" does NOT = "democracy," which literally just means "rule by the people."

Where "the people" do not, in a broad and general sense, have free speech, then democracy is endangered because free flow of ideas and information is stopped up, which makes it much more difficult for "the people" (whoever "they" are) to make intelligent decisions.

But to assume from this that free speech must of necessity be an absolute principle, and that anything can and should be permitted, is a leap. One of the most important foundational documents of Western (and particularly anglosphere) notions of free speech is Milton's Areopagitica (1642): he argues that the best way for truth to come out is to display falsehood publicly, in printed debate. But even he makes an exception for "Papist" and other "superstitious" books (for largely historical reasons, as well as ideological ones). I'll point you again to Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance," which I've already cited somewhere, and which argues that tolerating those who preach intolerance is dangerous.

In the context of these forums, it can be argued that completely unfettered license to say whatever you want can (and, historically, has) produced a toxic environment that mostly enables trolls and, in the process, drives away those who might oppose them and their falsehoods. In other words, tolerating anything here makes it an intolerable and intolerant environment that actually shuts down reasoned and intelligent discussion. How conducive to "democracy" do you think 4Chan and 8Chan are?

None of that, really, appears to be LL's motivation for new rules, to be honest. But it is true that a democracy is best served, not by absolute tolerance or strict censorship, but by nurturing a space where it is both possible to articulate unpopular ideas, and possible to respond to those without being swarmed by toxicity and hate.

Creating an environment where reasoned discussion can happen is more important than an absolutist approach to free expression.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 minutes ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

By being sanctioned on this forum I don't mean they should necessarily be removed or banned; I mean they should be told they are wrong, and this would be the penalty.

Very much this.

And if there is a problem with the new rules here, it is precisely that our ability to respond, to reveal falsehood through discussion -- whether you are on the Left, Right, or Centre -- has been removed. The result is that all we are apparently left with as an alternative is censorship or a form of carceral punishment through suspensions and bans.

[blissfulbreeze]

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

That is neither technically nor in a practical sense quite correct.

There's no question that free expression is a foundational cornerstone of democracy, but "free speech" does NOT = "democracy," which literally just means "rule by the people."

Where "the people" do not, in a broad and general sense, have free speech, then democracy is endangered because free flow of ideas and information is stopped up, which makes it much more difficult for "the people" (whoever "they" are) to make intelligent decisions.

But to assume from this that free speech must of necessity be an absolute principle, and that anything can and should be permitted, is a leap. One of the most important foundational documents of Western (and particularly anglosphere) notions of free speech is Milton's Areopagitica (1642): he argues that the best way for truth to come out is to display falsehood publicly, in printed debate. But even he makes an exception for "Papist" and other "superstitious" books (for largely historical reasons, as well as ideological ones). I'll point you again to Karl Popper's "Paradox of Tolerance," which I've already cited somewhere, and which argues that tolerating those who preach intolerance is dangerous.

In the context of these forums, it can be argued that completely unfettered license to say whatever you want can (and, historically, has) produced a toxic environment that mostly enables trolls and, in the process, drives away those who might oppose them and their falsehoods. In other words, tolerating anything here makes it an intolerable and intolerant environment that actually shuts down reasoned and intelligent discussion. How conducive to "democracy" do you think 4Chan and 8Chan are?

None of that, really, appears to be LL's motivation for new rules, to be honest. But it is true that a democracy is best served, not by absolute tolerance or strict censorship, but by nurturing a space where it is both possible to articulate unpopular ideas, and possible to respond to those without being swarmed by toxicity and hate.

Creating an environment where reasoned discussion can happen is more important than an absolutist approach to free expression.

Reasonable discussion... keywords! 

You guys have failed so many times trying to have reasonable discussions. How many chances do you want? Why does LL have to waste labor time and money so that some can have a soapbox?

You guys discuss so much and it becomes a vicious circle solving nothing.

Start your own talk shows on your own site. This is not the place. There are no multiple choice options. It's not allowed. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by blissfulbreeze
Spelling

[Solar Legion]

Oh dear, seems it is time for a restatement of reality:

This is a forum, run by a company - Linden Lab. There is no democracy whatsoever, they call the shots and have all and final say on matters.

You can petition for a change in the way it is run, if you so desire. They are free to hand wave it away.

Your only realistic choices are to hope it changes in your favor, deal with it as is or to go elsewhere.

That's it.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, blissfulbreeze said:

Why does LL have to waste labor time and money so that some can have a soapbox?

They don't. And have clearly decided that they don't want to.

And they are entirely within their rights to go this route: the forums, after all, are not a democracy, in any sense of that word.

However, that choice has implications and effects, especially given that the new strictures have been extended to include not merely "political" and "social justice" issues, but anything that is non-SL related. The latter suggests that LL's concerns are less with the supposed absence of "reasoned discussion," and more to do with 1) the expense of moderating the forums, and 2) the uses to which this communication tool can be put.

In terms of the politics, I'll just say (again) that it is frequently encoded in discussions that are not overtly "political." Assumptions about our virtual "rights," about how SL manages in-world ARs and land ownership, even about our preferences in terms of mesh body types -- all of these can, and quite frequently do, embed political assumptions within them. And we are no longer in a position to draw those out and interrogate them.

Which is . . . LL's right. But, as I say, it has impacts.

[Seicher Rae]

2 minutes ago, Solar Legion said:

Oh dear, seems it is time for a restatement of reality:

This is a forum, run by a company - Linden Lab. There is no democracy whatsoever, they call the shots and have all and final say on matters.

You can petition for a change in the way it is run, if you so desire. They are free to hand wave it away.

Your only realistic choices are to hope it changes in your favor, deal with it as is or to go elsewhere.

That's it.

Kind of am in agreement on this one. I do not understand the recent political turn of this thread. Democracy? Freedom of speech? This is about SL. You know, where pretty much everyone who is in this discussion would tell a noob who was complaining about being tossed off a privately own sim because they were wearing the wrong outfit that: He who owns the sim sets the rules, fair or not. You don't like it? Go elsewhere.  Pretty sure that, in some variation, has been typed by anyone who has been posting in the Forum for a few years.

Well, this is a privately owned Forum and they get to set the rules. We can vote with our feet. I've already watched in the last 24 hours as topics are just kind of drying up in the GDF. I will be the stereotypical old person and shake my cane and declare, "I remember when topics and posts, from a LOT of posters, turned around so fast you could not keep up if you treated it like a full-time job." Good grief, I've been reduced to playing word games.  So, voting with my feet is a viable option.

I can and have griped and moaned about the changes, but the reality is: Your only realistic choices are to hope it changes in your favor, deal with it as is or to go elsewhere.