Esteemed Clients, Bans and R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

[UncommonTruth]

This is where I meekly point out the sublte difference between Trolls and the more easily pulled off but less entertaining Obnoxious. :matte-motes-smile:

 

Edited- :smileysurprised: k nvm. nothing to point out now.

[Void Singer]

they are the same person Celes

[Carole Franizzi]

---

TriJin Bade wrote:

I couldn't have put it better myself. Thank you for posting that.

I was going to boycott the SL Forums and stay out of it, for that specific reason - the lack of respect to the machine that drives Second Life. No, not cash, but the RESIDENTS that show respect to others. Those are the people who are the Linden Lab's bread and butter. 

Anyway, this will probably be my last post in the forum, until the moderators and the Linden team get together and actually prove policy consistancy between them.

[cue darth vader exit music]

Exits stage left.

 

---

*head swivels round as the bearded hunk of a stranger passes through her thread*

You're very welcome...very....welcome....

I hope you re-consider posting. We need more dashing bearded hunks eloquent posters like you. However, the messy, inconsistent and unfair moderation is a huge deterrent to spending time creating posts in here, so I totally understand.

I do like your signature.

*sighs deeply*

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

Carole, may I suggest that you copy/paste your OP and last substantial post and make a new thread in the

Forum Feedback

forum as well. 

Fantastic job in summarising the essence and relating it in a simple way.

---

Will do. I wasn't 100% sure where to post this, actually, as it does indeed have a lot to do with forum feedback, though I eventually decided what was really at the root of the issue was the lack of respect for the flesh and blood people behind the avatars.

[Carole Franizzi]

WA: i totally agree with you, and if i had said the same thing, i would be more brutally blunt, less long winded with swear words thrown aroun.

CF: Yeah, but I’m a lady.

WA: some post are agonizingly long,

CF: I could compete for wall-of-texting in the Olympics.

WA: however, you original post was a rather nice plea to LL for respect of the existing members.

CF: Thank you.

WA: Unfortunately, you are talking to a corporation hell bent on profitss and see where that goes....( fanny mae?) because they are driven by profits, they will be less ans less likely to listen to " clients" after all they invented this so they know everything...................................................good luck anyways...........we can always all go to osgrid and start again.

CF: Yes, but the ironic thing is, a little more collaboration might be helpful in identifying how to make those profits. Decidedly more useful and direct than stabbing about blindly in the dark, which is what we’ve seen happen. All the last few great ideas don’t seem to have worked that well, or am I wrong? Has the Facebooking of SL and the lowering of the age to get in brought any concrete results? Has the population shot up since these initiatives? Fill me in someone, please.

PS Thanks for your post.

[Carole Franizzi]

No, I’d agree with your objection to my mis-use of the word “bully” – it’s inaccurate here. Let’s say…uhm…people with aggression issues? How’s that?

I’m sorry you feel I’m a bully have aggression issues. I genuinely and sincerely think I’m being polite most of the time, and, at worst a bit strident in expressing my views. I’ll certainly do a spot of honest introspection over the matter.

Regarding my friend…can I be honest? If he’d been banned for tormenting an ESLer I’d have sent him a PM saying “serves you right!”. I’m very direct to friends, too, you see, and I don’t usually mince my words. However, he wasn’t. He was banned for a couple of totally harmless jokey posts.

I don’t agree, however, that the person we’re discussing is a menace to the forums. His sense of humour may be sarcastic and caustic and when he over-does it, the mod does well to send him to the corner to cool. However, even at his worst, I have never seen him “seriously” attack anybody, unless attacked first. And even then, many, many more people beat him hands down on the sheer nastiness scale.

Having said all that, I ought to point out that the thread covers many issues which include banning for being unfairly accused of flooding the forums – not being abusive to other posters. I wouldn’t have posted in his defence had he been chucked out for that. That sort of behaviour is against the ToS.

I'd really appreciate it if we could stick on topic in this thread but would be more than happy to discuss aggressive behaviour in another. Feel free to open one and I promise I'll contribute.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Having said all that, I ought to point out that the thread covers many issues which include

banning for being unfairly accused of flooding the forums – not being abusive to other posters.

I wouldn’t have posted in his defence had he been chucked out for that. That sort of behaviour is against the ToS.

---

A number of permabans seem to have been handed out during the protest against Celestiall's permaban.  Hers is not the only one deserving of review.  A permaban is a death sentence; it should be reserved for the most egregious, abusive behaviors.  A mistake was made with Celestiall's ban -- isn't it reasonable to assume that on review, other mistakes might be discovered?  Isn't it worth another look?

 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Having said all that, I ought to point out that the thread covers many issues which include

banning for being unfairly accused of flooding the forums – not being abusive to other posters.

I wouldn’t have posted in his defence had he been chucked out for that. That sort of behaviour is against the ToS.

---

A number of permabans seem to have been handed out during the protest against Celestiall's permaban.  Hers is not the only one deserving of review.  A permaban is a death sentence; it should be reserved for the most egregious, abusive behaviors.  A mistake was made with Celestiall's ban -- isn't it reasonable to assume that on review, other mistakes might be discovered?  Isn't it worth another look?

 

---

Totally agree. That one bad mistake was made is what makes me concerned. I woudn't dream of challenging the mods' decisions regarding actual infractions. They made a mistake over Celestiall and were decent enough to sort it out, but I witnessed another "case" with my own eyes - Pep's. Others - Storm and Derek - appear to have been booted for objecting to the commercialisation of the forums. Perfectly reasonable objection to make and, even if it hadn't been "reasonable", no customers should be forcibly silenced simply because they won't chant the "everything is wunnerful" slogan.

Yes, absolutely - a review is only fair and I for one would appreciate a more balanced and consistent treatment of all SLers now and in the future. The expectation that we only post free publicity for SL is the unreasonable demand.

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

......... no customers should be forcibly silenced simply because they won't chant the "everything is wunnerful" slogan.

 

---

Copied from what I wrote in another thread:

______________________________________________________

Knowl Paine wrote:

 

 

I would like to see a people's person as a CM.

 ______________________________________________________

 

This was actually my one biggest thought or impression at that meeting.

Second life is very unique in many ways and can't be compared to other businesses that run forums.  While it is true that there are people who are here strictly for business purposes, they sell products and or services to the Residents of Second Life, Second Life itself is not a business tool like for instance Microsoft Excell.  It is a Social Platform.  That is what makes it thrive.  The social interactions of the Residents.

Yes it can be used for business purposes, for instance business meetings, or for educational purposes, etc, but still at its heart it is a social platform.

One of the unique things about Second Life as a business is that Linden Lab has customers who actually care about them as a business.  It's crazy, but it's true.  We do want to see Second Life thrive and grow.

Which brings us back to these Forums.  Linden Lab could make this Forum strictly for technical discussion.  Remove anything related to the social aspect of Second Life.  But then it would be removing the very thing that makes Second Life thrive.  These Forums would be very dry.

However, regardless of that, it would still need moderation.  And that moderation needs to begin with appreciation for those who contribute endless hours to helping other Residents without remuneration.  It has to begin with appreciation for what we do to help their customers. 

I don't know how many tens of thousands of dollars Linden Lab spends on support.  Sometimes to hear people speak you would think not many.  How many times have we had people come here after getting no support from Support to find their answers?    How much would concurrency on the grid drop if they weren't able to find their answers like they do here?  How many would say it's not worth the effort?  How much is our contribution worth financially to Linden Lab.  It has to be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over all these years.

So moderation of these Forums needs to begin from the vantage point of appreciation for the residents.  And that does require a people person.

[Carole Franizzi]

---

UncommonTruth wrote:

This is where I meekly point out the sublte difference between

Trolls

and the more easily pulled off but less entertaining

Obnoxious

. :matte-motes-smile:

 

Edited- :smileysurprised: k nvm. nothing to point out now.

---

No, it's good to be reminded that obnoxious is in a category of its own.

[Venus Petrov]

One of the early warnings in the CTUG yesterday was when Viale Linden appeared and immediately stated that the meeting would be short due to lack of a speaker.  To me, this was as if he said 'We have no need to hear what you wish to address on the agenda.  My agenda is what matters.'

The next warning was his statement 'can one person go at a time or I need to go.'  Again, it seems as if our voices are unimportant.

I do not think this was the message that was intended....or, was it?

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Pamela Galli wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

 

Having said all that, I ought to point out that the thread covers many issues which include

banning for being unfairly accused of flooding the forums – not being abusive to other posters.

I wouldn’t have posted in his defence had he been chucked out for that. That sort of behaviour is against the ToS.

---

A number of permabans seem to have been handed out during the protest against Celestiall's permaban.  Hers is not the only one deserving of review.  A permaban is a death sentence; it should be reserved for the most egregious, abusive behaviors.  A mistake was made with Celestiall's ban -- isn't it reasonable to assume that on review, other mistakes might be discovered?  Isn't it worth another look?

 

---

Totally agree. That one bad mistake was made is what makes me concerned. I woudn't dream of challenging the mods' decisions regarding actual infractions. They made a mistake over Celestiall and were decent enough to sort it out, but I witnessed another "case" with my own eyes - Pep's. Others - Storm and Derek - appear to have been booted for objecting to the commercialisation of the forums. Perfectly reasonable objection to make and, even if it hadn't been "reasonable", no customers should be forcibly silenced simply because they won't chant the "everything is wunnerful" slogan.

Yes, absolutely - a review is only fair and I for one would appreciate a more balanced and consistent treatment of all SLers now and in the future. The expectation that we only post free publicity for SL is the unreasonable demand.

---

Here, you touch on something that is of huge concern to me... there is no recourse.  If you're banned from SL itself, you, at least, have a course of action (where have I hear that before?) that you can take to have that ban reviewed.  There is no such thing where the forums are concerned, as far as I know.  I never did get an answer when I posed that question.  What's written in the Standards is it... the moderation team has the last word.

Celestiall was reinstated because people rallied around her, but what of the people that are unfairly banned that may not garner that same level of support?  Why should they be left without the option to have their ban looked into by a greater authority, as hers was?

I would speak of the warnings I received, for reasons I found dubious at best, but I'm afraid that may earn me another, so I shall refrain.  While I understand that people discussing their individual disciplinary actions in the open forum could quickly turn into a circus, there has to be some sort of accountability of the moderator's decisions.  And, unfortunately, there's no where to turn, no one to go to and no way to ensure that they might not have gotten it wrong, in certain instances.

...Dres

[Sy Beck]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

in part

---

....They made a mistake over Celestiall and were decent enough to sort it out, but I witnessed another "case" with my own eyes - Pep's. Others - Storm and Derek - appear to have been booted for objecting to the commercialisation of the forums......

---

 

From what I've garnered and witnessed all 4 of these people have bizarrely been found guilty for pointing out that LL were breaking their own forum guidelines.  I'm not writing to discuss moderation decisions, but more to discuss forum policy in the round and I use past examples as that, examples.

Each one of the four has their own unique style of writing from pointed outrage to pointed parody to get their point across and therefore each may engender different responses to their criticisms.  The point is though, if each one broadly committed the same alleged breach then why are there widely differing penalties ranging from permabans to week bans and in other unmentioned cases mere warnings and/or post deletions?  As far as I know there are no 1st degree, 2nd degree or 3rd degree breaches of the guidelines, its guilty or not and an explanation of the breach notified to you.

There was though an understanding that you were allowed 3 strikes then out, though in Celestiall's case and from what I understand of Pep's, this was for some reason bypassed and permabans issued.  Fortunately, Celestiall's was overturned though Pep's remains outstanding, which further exacerbates the present situation whereby nobody can be sure what the rules are anymore, nobody knows who's excepted from any rules, nobody can be sure what the penalties are anymore and nobody can be sure that they will be treated equally anymore.

Somebody from LL needs to step in and clarify the situation.  As Pam has suggested, at the very least a review of those bans issued over this fiasco would be welcomed.  My own opinion is that they should be wiped from the record.  The only message it sends to me is if that you see a breaking of the rules and report it or point it out then you run the risk of a permaban yourself.  I'll freely admit that these fora are LL's to do with as they wish, but out in the real world if you saw a figure of authority breaking the rules and you reported it the last thing you would expect is for yourself to be thrown in the cooler or exiled.

So LL:

1) are the guidelines correct as currently published?

2) why are LL and selected creators allowed to break those guidelines?

3) is it a breach of the guidelines to report/post a breach of those or any guidelines?

4) if it is a breach then please explain why and why penalties were so inconsistently applied?

5) if it's not a breach why were any penalties applied?

6) will you review/rescind any bans imposed arising from this matter?

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

One of the early warnings in the CTUG yesterday was when Viale Linden appeared and immediately stated that the meeting would be short due to lack of a speaker.  To me, this was as if he said 'We have no need to hear what you wish to address on the agenda.  My agenda is what matters.'

The next warning was his statement 'can one person go at a time or I need to go.'  Again, it seems as if our voices are unimportant.

I do not think this was the message that was intended....or, was it?

---

The "or I need to go" part was what I found most telling.  I found that simple statement to be most insulting to those of us who cared enough to be there in the first place.

...Dres

[Carole Franizzi]

Right, let's break it down. The "forum" area....how could it best be used...what's its function?

Socialising and Community-building, LL-client feedback and interaction. That's one thing. Has to be fairly moderated, transparent, with space for brutal honesty when required. Let's call this the Social Forum. It should be hidden from the public eye to avoid hiccups and messes being broadcasted to the winds whlst the open dialogue permits LL to get constant feedback, information and suggestions regarding how to better the product. LL could even ask for ideas, suggestions to issues. Tap into the immense and very willing resource bank they have but appear not to make full use of.

Showcasing and publicity Open to the world, a place for SLers to showcase places, products, activities, events, divided by categories - music, arts, all the RP categories, charity work, educatoin, RL business and adult. Yep. You heard right. The Adult is a principle selling point. It has to be present, but in the most tasteful of ways - i.e. chock-a-block with only indirect referencs to activities and products, taking every opportunity to make clear that its for age-verified only, Adult entertainment is publicised carefully in the real world - why shouldn't it be here? Sex is the number one seller. Always has been and always will be. This forum would have to be heavily moderated to ensure that the potential new customers only get the rosiest of pictures, so you'd probably have to implement a filter (resident mod board?)and only approved posts get through. This would mean the merchants, etc, would have to dedicate time and emergy to creating top-notch threads and posts and should be encouraged to use images and video (not for adult activities though...they'd have to invent tasteful artshots which are totally PG but enticing - it can be done, folks - condoms, tampons, films with a high sexual content, boob augmentation are all publicised freely, but carefully in the real world), well-written posts and absolutely no complaints, rants, trolls. Free to use, it would be free publicity for both LL and the merchants to encourage new clients to sign up for SL. Let's call this the Showcase forum.

Customer services forum - techy problems...could be public or private....not sure...which is best? To show people get support ot to hide the fact they need support? Have to think about his one...

Three functions, three separate forums. Each run according to the objective of that space.

And overseeing it all? Someone who understands and loves SL and who, above all, is a people person.

Thank you for your post, Perrie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

One of the early warnings in the CTUG yesterday was when Viale Linden appeared and immediately stated that the meeting would be short due to lack of a speaker.  To me, this was as if he said 'We have no need to hear what you wish to address on the agenda.  My agenda is what matters.'

The next warning was his statement

'can one person go at a time or I need to go

.'  Again, it seems as if our voices are unimportant.

I do not think this was the message that was intended....or, was it?

---

I read that part and the thought which immediately crossed my mind was that perhaps this person is totally inexperienced in chat-type communications and is not aware that, not being able to see hands raised, asking permission to speak, there is no possible way for a group of chatters to take turns intervening......

 

 

 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Sy Beck wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

in part

---

....They made a mistake over Celestiall and were decent enough to sort it out, but I witnessed another "case" with my own eyes - Pep's. Others - Storm and Derek - appear to have been booted for objecting to the commercialisation of the forums......

---

 

From what I've garnered and witnessed all 4 of these people have bizarrely been found guilty for pointing out that LL were breaking their own forum guidelines.  I'm not writing to discuss moderation decisions, but more to discuss forum policy in the round and I use past examples as that, examples.

Each one of the four has their own unique style of writing from pointed outrage to pointed parody to get their point across and therefore each may engender different responses to their criticisms.  The point is though, if each one broadly committed the same alleged breach then why are there widely differing penalties ranging from permabans to week bans and in other unmentioned cases mere warnings and/or post deletions?  As far as I know there are no 1st degree, 2nd degree or 3rd degree breaches of the guidelines, its guilty or not and an explanation of the breach notified to you.

There was though an understanding that you were allowed 3 strikes then out, though in Celestiall's case and from what I understand of Pep's, this was for some reason bypassed and permabans issued.  Fortunately, Celestiall's was overturned though Pep's remains outstanding, which further exacerbates the present situation whereby nobody can be sure what the rules are anymore, nobody knows who's excepted from any rules, nobody can be sure what the penalties are anymore and nobody can be sure that they will be treated equally anymore.

Somebody from LL needs to step in and clarify the situation.  As Pam has suggested, at the very least a review of those bans issued over this fiasco would be welcomed.  My own opinion is that they should be wiped from the record.  The only message it sends to me is if that you see a breaking of the rules and report it or point it out then you run the risk of a permaban yourself.  I'll freely admit that these fora are LL's to do with as they wish, but out in the real world if you saw a figure of authority breaking the rules and you reported it the last thing you would expect is for yourself to be thrown in the cooler or exiled.

So LL:

1) are the guidelines correct as currently published?

2) why are LL and selected creators allowed to break those guidelines?

3) is it a breach of the guidelines to report/post a breach of those or any guidelines?

4) if it is a breach then please explain why and why penalties were so inconsistently applied?

5) if it's not a breach why were any penalties applied?

6) will you review/rescind any bans imposed arising from this matter?

---

Thank you, Sy, for such an excellent, clear and logical post. Your questions could not be more relevant. The answers are relevant to us all - now and in the future. As you say, since we have seen evidence of erratic and subjective moderation, we, the clients, need to be reassured that each one of us will not fall foul of unfair treatment at some point in the future.

To err is human, to admit to having boobed and sorting it out is dead kewl.

[Carole Franizzi]

Existing within any entity in which there is no recourse is distressing, to say the least. For many the forums are an extention of their SL lives, for us all they're the only space in which we have grid-wide communication and LL-client interaction. They also supply free customer services  That makes them of extreme importance for this little community. Akin to all your TV channels, all your newspapers, all your plumbers, electricians, technicians, emergency medical services rolled into one. Surely, for that reason alone, the forums and those who animate them are worthy of a little respect?

[Perrie Juran]

Through all the discussion that we had at the advent of Lithium on Forum Categories, this is perhaps the most logical breakdown I have seen.  There still remains a slight problem with the public and private aspects because we do want people to see all the full riches of SL.  But I do think your suggestion is very workable.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

One of the early warnings in the CTUG yesterday was when Viale Linden appeared and immediately stated that the meeting would be short due to lack of a speaker.  To me, this was as if he said 'We have no need to hear what you wish to address on the agenda.  My agenda is what matters.'

The next warning was his statement

'can one person go at a time or I need to go

.'  Again, it seems as if our voices are unimportant.

I do not think this was the message that was intended....or, was it?

---

I read that part and the thought which immediately crossed my mind was that perhaps this person is

totally inexperienced in chat-type communications

and is not aware that, not being able to see hands raised, asking permission to speak,

there is no possible way for a group of chatters to take turns intervening......

---

We tried, but all it did was give Vaile the ability to ignore what someone besides the person he called on said.  Which, especially when you've been typing something and are unfortunate enough to hit enter after he's called on someone, can be very frustrating.

...Dres

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

Through all the discussion that we had at the advent of Lithium on Forum Categories, this is perhaps the most logical breakdown I have seen.  There still remains a slight problem with the public and private aspects because we do want people to see all the full riches of SL.  But I do think your suggestion is very workable.

---

 

That's very, very kind of you. It just seems pretty common sense to me. And though I've no idea of the costs/time/energy to impliment and run a three headed monster like that, I'm sure it wouldn't be impossible....especially if LL made full use of the countless and enthusiastic volunteers who have demonstarted time and time again that theyre willing to work for free in order to make SL work.

The full riches of SL have to be censored and filtered and prettied up. That's what publicity is all about. Sure, that means the Showcase Forum would be a "fake" - but who cares if it brings in new clients. New blood benefits every single one of us as it ensures the future of SL. The added bonus is that it might attract the potential RP crowd - who are among those who spend money in here.

The free-speech social forum would have to be loosely, but consistently moderated to ensure that all the feed-back kept flowing, however negative, because THAT is how you fix the broken stuff.

 

 

[Carole Franizzi]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

One of the early warnings in the CTUG yesterday was when Viale Linden appeared and immediately stated that the meeting would be short due to lack of a speaker.  To me, this was as if he said 'We have no need to hear what you wish to address on the agenda.  My agenda is what matters.'

The next warning was his statement

'can one person go at a time or I need to go

.'  Again, it seems as if our voices are unimportant.

I do not think this was the message that was intended....or, was it?

---

I read that part and the thought which immediately crossed my mind was that perhaps this person is

totally inexperienced in chat-type communications

and is not aware that, not being able to see hands raised, asking permission to speak,

there is no possible way for a group of chatters to take turns intervening......

---

We tried, but all it did was give Vaile the ability to ignore what someone besides the person he called on said.  Which, especially when you've been typing something and are unfortunate enough to hit enter after he's called on someone, can be very frustrating.

...Dres

---

 

I find this rather worrying. It sounds very much like he's never even chatted before in his life. Yikes.

[Venus Petrov]

At the very end, it was clearly apparent that he was not going to respond to either your or Storm's questions.

As many are posting to this thread, I would like to remind that there is a copy of Carole's OP in Forum Feedback.  As that is the place we have been told will be read for feedback, I suggest others may want to comment relevant feedback there as well.

[Caitlin Tobias]

---

Carole Franizzi wrote:

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

One of the early warnings in the CTUG yesterday was when Viale Linden appeared and immediately stated that the meeting would be short due to lack of a speaker.  To me, this was as if he said 'We have no need to hear what you wish to address on the agenda.  My agenda is what matters.'

The next warning was his statement

'can one person go at a time or I need to go

.'  Again, it seems as if our voices are unimportant.

I do not think this was the message that was intended....or, was it?

---

I read that part and the thought which immediately crossed my mind was that perhaps this person is

totally inexperienced in chat-type communications

and is not aware that, not being able to see hands raised, asking permission to speak,

there is no possible way for a group of chatters to take turns intervening......

 

 

 

---

I was there too and the ' or do I need to go' was a shocker. Really. As if your mother sends you to your room. The ultimate way to dismiss people and make clear you are not, in any way, open for discussion. As was painfully clear the rest of the meeting, till the bizarre end.

Yes, it requires some experience to lead a text-based chat meeting, but then again: is that our fault? Isn't it to be expected from a professional community-mananger for LL to either have that skill, get that skill or if there is no time for such at least make sure there is enough support and back-up(on the workplace) to make sure things go smooth?

Or a nice introduction with some explanation would have done it. We are no savages, we would have understood if it was explained in a normal way.

 

 

 

 

[Perrie Juran]

Also, in considering your suggestions, I posted the following on Rodviks SL feed where someone had already pointed this thread out to him:

https://my.secondlife.com/rodvik.linden

@Rodvik.  I was about to link this also. As you are probably aware from this there has been great turmoil recently in the Forums.  Today in post #65 Carol proposed a solution for the Forum lay out that I think could make the Forums the most profitable for Linden Lab & the most beneficial for all the residents and alleviate most of the problems and misunderstandings. Even if you have already looked at this thread, I'd like to highly recommend you look at this particular post.