ZoeTick

LaskyaClaren wrote: Laurin Sorbet wrote: PS Hiya girl, I recognize you, too :-) That's because I'm 78.3% predictable (n = 1). How do you apply a two tailed test to a normal neko? (WARNING! Academic "jokes" are considered worse material by the LWL Mechanical Turds Turks and may be perceived as anti-socially elitist by mods pursuing an inclusiveness agenda.)

Disconnect your speakers. Use ear plugs. Sign up for a Cognitive Behavioural Therapy course which acclimates you to semi-loud noises. I have more suggestions, but you might be even more unreasonably scared of them than of loud dings.

I have never been particularly attached to my inventory. And I have electric heating so I am not worried about the coal thing.

Loke124 wrote: it dosn't look like they are planning to shut it down to me. Thank you for your belated, and minimally researched, but obviously expert opinion.

Pamela Galli wrote: Yes. How often do we come across such a well articulated and delightfully original voice in this forum? JUST THIS ONCE

What goes "HAHAHAHAHAHAHA" SPLATTTT!!!!! Someone laughing their head off.

LaskyaClaren wrote: While we present effective mechanisms for identifying and potentially weeding antisocial users out of a community, taking extreme action against small infractions can exacerbate antisocial behavior (e.g., unfairness can cause users to write worse). Though average classifier precision is relatively high (0.80), one in five users identified as antisocial are nonetheless misclassified. There seems to be a "perceived" or two missing from that. But I am not surprised; the standard of argument in the paper rarely rises above Meaningless Statistics for Social Scientists 101.

Laurin Sorbet wrote: no ones head fell off. That's how the forums became so boring!

Canoro Philipp wrote: we should be free to love anything we want, there should not be restrictions to love. I understand that unlike SL, most civilised nations have enacted laws against bestiality. I also understand that this is to protect the animals, not the supposed humans. How wrong can you get.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Another interesting aspect, btw, is the conclusion that severe or heavy-handed moderation may actually increase "bad" behaviour. Their conclusion is flawed. It equates further post deletions with "worse" behaviour, which is particularly indicative of moderator bias against individuals rather than their posts. Hence my PPS.

Of course, you should recognise that all of the above blogs are mouthpieces of the Linden Lab PR machine, being encouraged to write positive pieces by promises of advance notice of developments and other things that are actually unlikely to happen, or if they do, will fail in short order. See SL Go as a shining example, with SL V2 coming up on the rails. Or should that be off the rails?

Laurin Sorbet wrote: Yes, I was thinking the developers may have named it, 'Erratic.' I doubt if the developers were sufficiently literate to know what that word meant. And certainly not to spell it correctly. Not twice in succession anyway. PS Hi Laurin; yes, it's who you think it is, of course.

LaskyaClaren wrote: Laurin Sorbet wrote: Given the vagaries of the various incarnations of moderation in this forum, maybe the Lab already has a proprietary algorithm in place. If they do, it's one that has introduced a deliberate random element. I am afraid that you have fallen into the trap of using the word "random" as do most teenagers today, which is to describe behaviour which is entirely rational, but for which their limited cognitive capabilities is unable to fathom a rationale.

As you have apparenty reached the limit of your imagination, don't schedule any more events, just hold orgies.

OK, I lied. The study was biased, because it only looked at those who WERE banned, not distinguishing whether they SHOULD have been banned or not, nor investigating those who SHOULD have been banned but were not. The abstract suggested three activity indicators: 1. Concentration of efforts on a small number of threads 2. Posting irrelevantly 3. Successful at garnering responses from other users. Well, thank goodness I only satisfy the last of these, which is one that I would argue (particularly in a DISCUSSION forum) that would NOT indicate a troll, but would be the characteristic of a participant who engendered spirited exchanges of a range of viewpoints. The study suggests that trolls "write worse than other users over time" which suggests that the authors not only need to revisit Unclumsy English 101, but haven't identified any qualitative criteria regarding content, rather than activity. As far as their statement: "Our analysis also reveals distinct groups of users with different levels of antisocial behavior that can change over time." goes, I entered that into a content analyser and it registered a negative meaningfulness score. I also noted that the three principal authors of the paper had names which suggested strongly that they were ESLers. Go figure! PS Thank you Laskya for bringing this pile of steaming manure to our attention. I am delighted that it is the tax payers of North America who are paying for putative academics to waste their time. PPS Our friend Derek might be particularly unsurprised to note that the study observed those whose posts were deleted were more likely to have subsequent posts deleted. No attempt, however, is made to assess whether the deletions were justified.

I know exactly how this thread is going to end up . . . . . . so this will be my only contribution.

What sort of a world is it where you have to have a licence for a lower primate, but can be (ir)responsible for multiple higher primates unrestrictedly.

valerie Inshan wrote: Sometimes you can be fun. Most of the time you are just a pain. Your orthograph and thread obessions cannot be mistaken, you know? And i've known you for a long time... I am not obsessional, I just want to make the world a bit better place. And if people didn't keep making the same mistakes I wouldn't keep making the same observations.

Perrie Juran wrote: I thought it was "sine die." ??? It is. Forever.

bebejee wrote: I have noticed three four peole all soundng exactly the same are creating a fuss about where to post what, alts perhaps. I have noticed three or four hundred people (largely who are semi-literate and can't be bothered to proof their posts) sounding exactly the same are creating a fuss by posting simple questions they are too lazy to find the answers to with a minimal amount of effort, in the wrong places, alts perhaps. Or perhaps not.

Does anybody know exactly what the protocol is nowadays for forum discipline? I understand that it used to be that three warnings caused you to be banned for a week. Then three more got you a two week ban. Then three more meant a month's ban. Then three more could mean you were banned sine die from all LL's web properties. Is this still the case? Are people still receiving warnings? Or were these just Guidelines, which LL could operate or not at their whim? Maybe Xiola could let us know.

Are you sure you are not confusing it with a misspelled wildebeeste? Or have they all been killed? In which case, that would be the end of the gnus, and here's the weather.

Coby Foden wrote: Ebbe has said that in the Next Generation Platform the avatars will be 'radically improved'. :matte-motes-big-grin: Pretty cool, huh? :smileysurprised: :matte-motes-asleep-2: That's Nepal. Who could do with any help they could get at the moment.

It's a girl. You can tell by the hair, done up in a bun. And open-toed sandals? Ewww, no real man would wear them except on a beach.

iEatCookiess wrote: I have to constantly log back on and tell them "Sorry I crashed again." You could always log back on as an alt, then you wouldn't have to apologise.