Arkady Arkright

I've just TP'd into 'smith' via the map, and you do end up underwater at '128,128,3' - but you should be able to see the seabed underneath your feet.

Suspiria Finucane wrote: Either Amanda Linden is right, and forum activities can not lead to an in-world ban, or the Standards are right, and forum behaviour can lead to a ban in the Second Life virtual world. Which is the case, please ? Quote from today's meeting. [2011/03/10 13:51] Amanda Linden: no appeals. 3 warnings and it's a one week ban. [2011/03/10 13:51] Amanda Linden: and it's only for community platform, not for SL Thanks Suspiria, I'll regard that answer as being from the horse's mouth (not that I'm calling either you or Amanda a horse, btw :smileytongue:) Cato & Monti - yes, I'm well aware that LL can do whatever it likes to whoever it likes whenever it likes, I just wanted to clarify the official position.

I request clarification of an inconsistency in Linden Lab statements concerning in-world bans for forum misbehaviour. In the recent Blog thread "Improving our Lines of Communication with the Community" I posted the following :- by Honored Resident Arkady Arkright on 02-10-2011 12:54 PM While reading the different comments to this post I found many opinions that I share. To name the two most important ones: 1. New guidlines for posting means LL threatens residents who don't follow the "party line" to get banned in SL. The failure to respond to the many times this point has been raised in this blog speaks volumes about the real intention of these changes ... I don't mean to sound flip, but what exactly is it that has changed between the old guidelines and the new guidelines to make you think there is now a codified policy to threaten residents who don't follow the party line? Because I'm not seeing anything different to allow you to make that case. That's leaving aside the possibility of an uncodified policy, of course. I'll go for uncodified, as suggested by observation :- The emphasis placed on the new Community Guidelines in the OP, with it's insistence that LL can ban anyone 'without warning or explanation'. The fact that 'airing grievances' is now a bannable offence, what exactly is a 'grievance' ? The fact that you can be banned for complaining about someone being banned. The fact that it would appear to be happening already - see thread http://blogs.secondlife.com/thread/59372?start=0&tstart=0 - needless to say this thread has already been censored out of existence - but it referred to an in-world suspension that a resident received as a result of an unspecified Forums post back in September. That topic itself may violate Forums guidelines. The post that lead to the suspension was apparently criticizing the previous Support outsourcing company. The last straw for me was seeing a linden threaten to remove someone's Jira privileges the other day, simply for disagreeing with him about what constitutes a viewer problem. It's a sad day, but I'm afraid I trust neither their motives or their actions any more - and this "we'll improve communications by removing feedback mechanisms and restricting what you are allowed to say even more than before" does nothing to rekindle that trust. Amanda Linden Replied :- by Community Manager Amanda Linden on 02-10-2011 01:04 PM WolfBaginski/Master/Han/Setekh/Arkady/Mike and others that had questions about bans - As the Community Participation Guidelines say, we moderate at our discretion. This policy only applies to the community platform (not inworld) and other communication channels outlined specifically in the policy. However, you will receive warnings before a ban from the Community Platform is in place. A community platform ban may be for a day, week, month, or longer--depending on how many offenses have been committed. I will share more details regarding our moderation procedure when the new platform is launched next month. Hope this answers your question. (my bold) However the "Community Standards - Policies and Policing" says :- Global Standards, Local Ratings All areas of Second Life, including the www.secondlife.com website and the Second Life Forums, adhere to the same Community Standards. Regions within Second Life are noted as Safe or Unsafe and should be designated by the SL account holder as either "Adult," "Moderate" or "General." Resident behavior within each region must conform to the respective local rating. Warning, Suspension, Banishment Second Life is a complex society, and it can take some time for new Residents to gain a full understanding of local customs and mores. Generally, violations of the Community Standards will first result in a Warning, followed by Suspension and eventual Banishment from Second Life. In-World Representatives, called Liaisons, may occasionally address disciplinary problems with a temporary removal from Second Life. (my bold again) Either Amanda Linden is right, and forum activities can not lead to an in-world ban, or the Standards are right, and forum behaviour can lead to a ban in the Second Life virtual world. Which is the case, please ?

It also helps if they discuss the actual issue in a civil and constructive way rather than competing to see who can come up with the most insidious interpretation of our motives, Could I just point out that a motive having an insidious interpretation does not necessarily prove that it's an incorrect interpretation...

WolfBaginski/Master/Han/Setekh/Arkady/Mike and others that had questions about bans - As the Community Participation Guidelines say, we moderate at our discretion. This policy only applies to the community platform (not inworld) and other communication channels outlined specifically in the policy. However, you will receive warnings before a ban from the Community Platform is in place. A community platform ban may be for a day, week, month, or longer--depending on how many offenses have been committed. I will share more details regarding our moderation procedure when the new platform is launched next month. Hope this answers your question. Arkady--Sure--you can point the discussions that are not appropriate to host on an SL forum to SLU. I’m cool with that. And for those that are worried about expressing opinions on the Blogs/Forums, please do! We want to host a lively dialogue filled with meaty, thoughtful discussions. We welcome dissenting opinions! The guidelines are in place so that we can all maintain a constructive dialogue on the issues that we all most care about. You might notice that I have left in place nearly every comment on this blog--both positive and negative--and only removed one that devolved into name calling--clearly in violation of our Community Participation Guidelines. Regardless of how you feel about a particular issue, product feature, or policy, it’s important that we communicate with respect and courtesy. . Thank you for that Amanda, I feel a little more optimistic now - but I'll reserve judgement until I see what actually happens in practise, if you don't mind...

While reading the different comments to this post I found many opinions that I share. To name the two most important ones: New guidlines for posting means LL threatens residents who don't follow the "party line" to get banned in SL. The failure to respond to the many times this point has been raised in this blog speaks volumes about the real intention of these changes ... I don't mean to sound flip, but what exactly is it that has changed between the old guidelines and the new guidelines to make you think there is now a codified policy to threaten residents who don't follow the party line? Because I'm not seeing anything different to allow you to make that case. That's leaving aside the possibility of an uncodified policy, of course. I'll go for uncodified, as suggested by observation :- The emphasis placed on the new Community Guidelines in the OP, with it's insistence that LL can ban anyone 'without warning or explanation'. The fact that 'airing grievances' is now a bannable offence, what exactly is a 'grievance' ? The fact that you can be banned for complaining about someone being banned. The fact that it would appear to be happening already - see thread http://blogs.secondlife.com/thread/59372?start=0&tstart=0 - needless to say this thread has already been censored out of existence - but it referred to an in-world suspension that a resident received as a result of an unspecified Forums post back in September. That topic itself may violate Forums guidelines. The post that lead to the suspension was apparently criticizing the previous Support outsourcing company. The last straw for me was seeing a linden threaten to remove someone's Jira privileges the other day, simply for disagreeing with him about what constitutes a viewer problem. It's a sad day, but I'm afraid I trust neither their motives or their actions any more - and this "we'll improve communications by removing feedback mechanisms and restricting what you are allowed to say even more than before" does nothing to rekindle that trust.

While reading the different comments to this post I found many opinions that I share. To name the two most important ones: New guidlines for posting means LL threatens residents who don't follow the "party line" to get banned in SL.The failure to respond to the many times this point has been raised in this blog speaks volumes about the real intention of these changes ...

I want to know if forum and blog posts that are critical of Linden Lab and Linden Lab policies are now going to begin to earn in-world bans. Can we have an answer to this please Amanda ? Just how freely can we speak without putting our personal investments in SL at risk ?

I have a doubt about the new Community Participation Guidelines Spamming, Solicitation and Advertising: ...Do not reference other websites offering any product or service. What is the exact sense of "Do not reference other websites offering any product or service"? Can I reference websites (forums, blogs, web pages...) with some commercial goals but also with tutorials, help threads, forums...? Can I reference SLU as an alternative when your forum moderators are once again censoring valid discussions for no good reason ?