Scylla Rhiadra

That would be me.

These totally work! And really are exactly the kind of thing that should be appearing in this thread! (Even if it ends up just being the two of us here . . .)

Perhaps. And it might have a subtle effect upon how the mods view the thread. But I can't imagine it being a conscious, or even very substantial, part of any decision to close one.

I like ghost stories. Do ghost stories!

Fair enough, but it's never occurred to me that people adding IBTL are actively seeking its closure. I tend to think, instead -- and maybe this isn't always a very attractive trait either -- that they are sort of signalling their forum "insider" status by showing that they recognize the kind of thread that will likely end up becoming a dumpster fire. And by "insider," I just mean that they are "knowing" and "wise" in the ways of the forum, and can recognize a freight train speeding towards disaster when they see it.

Awesome. And hardly creepy at all. I'm looking forward to my nightmares tonight.

Another important clarification. Multiple ARs doesn't imply concerted action. It may just mean that a lot of people are particularly offended or horrified by something that's been said. We don't need to conjure up conspiracy theories to explain why some things attract a lot of ARs.

I will, in general, sometimes thank a post from a mod that indicates that they've given it some thought. That includes posts that are "warnings" in a thread. I appreciate the fact that our mods DO actually read the threads, and they deserve acknowledgement of that.

Correlation does not etc. . . . I've said I think that mods will give special attention to a thread that is generating lots of ARs. That doesn't mean those ARs are calling for the closure of the thread. And it's still not a given that those expressing relief or thanks that a thread has been closed are necessarily doing the ARing. I think I've probably expressed gratitude for the closure of particularly awful threads, but not because I've ARed anything in them.

I think that's a stretch, Arielle. Agreement in principle? Well, obviously, yes. But an indication that they actively worked to have it closed? Not so much.

Well, yes and yes. I think, on the one hand, that "privilege" is only an "insult" if you are really over-sensitive to reminders of social inequity. I speak, of course, as someone very aware of her OWN privilege. And, at the same time, it's seldom if ever difficult to understand the logic behind something be removed -- even if, again, one disagrees. The point being that moderation is never merely "arbitrary": there are reasons for the actions that are taken, and usually those are pretty discernible.

This is an EXCELLENT point. To a very great degree, because of the important agency of ARs, we are ourselves collectively responsible for the tone of discourse here. Fewer ARs would likely mean that this was a more "permissible" forum, while more would mean a more tightly censored one. Both extremes have, of course, their drawbacks and their advantages. On the whole, though, this suggests to me that we, as a community, do a pretty good job of policing ourselves, and moderation does a creditable job of reflecting that. I see very few posts here that I think should, maybe, be nuked, and similarly few examples of things that are removed that I think shouldn't be. If we rethink moderation here as a sort of partnership between the community and the moderation, I'd argue we all do pretty well.

This is pretty awesome! And just pretty. VERY pretty.

Great photo! And what a really interesting place!! Thank you for including the SLURL! Time to engage in the Grand Tour, 18th century style!

One of the clues about the role of ARs here in moderation is the apparent inconsistency that we sometimes see. I've had posts removed, or been disciplined, for things that were not at all out of the norm here. An example is the case I gave above for my suspension: there are pages of search results for variations on "privileged white male" in these forums. They presumably were not ARed, while mine was. What that means, unfortunately, is that one can't rely on existing examples or practice to establish the standard for what is permissible here. You can say almost exactly what someone else has already said, and get disciplined for it, while the parallel instance is not. Nor is there (that I've ever seen) retroactive cleanup of things that have been deemed violations of forum rules -- which is understandable: that would be a Herculean task. Fortunately, the stakes aren't really very high here -- unless one gets an in-world suspension or ban, but that seems highly unlikely for anything that isn't really egregious.

Done.

So, it has been suggested that maybe we need a thread here for the posting of pics that don't neatly fit into the My Avatar picture threads, or some of the other categories here. Such pics might be more "figurative," abstract, surreal, or experimental. Or they might just be focused more upon composition, colour, or lighting than other representational aspects -- I don't think we need or want a tight definition of the things that might fit here. Rather, you decide if this thread is a good home for your picture! I'll start.

There are threads for landscape photography, storytelling, friends, and closeups, all still reasonably active there. There used to be one for B&W, I think. I don't think there's ever been an "artsy" thread, as such. Should there be? Would it be used? (I have photos I haven't posted here because they are *cough* "artsy," rather than avatar-centred.)

I suspect so as well, although that doesn't necessarily imply that they are always taking action on them, or that they only take action on them. It's pretty clear that the mods are fairly careful, these days, to use judgement in responding. I also suspect that they may act on posts that have not be ARed if their attention is drawn to a particular thread because of its theme, its popularity, or the sheer volume of ARs coming out of it. This is all speculative -- but it does mean, I think, that ARs are an important part of the mix, but not the decisive one. In general I agree with this, although I understand why they aren't. It would require much more work, and it would, additionally, give ammunition to the barrack room lawyers who would use specifics to argue against action. In most cases where I've been disciplined, warned, or a post removed, it's reasonably clear why -- even if I don't necessarily agree with it.

Thank you. I have a terrible time with B&W, which is odd because I almost always work with a restricted palette in my photos: I'm not a colourist. (Compare the glorious use of colour in @Gwin LeShelle's pic, above!) And there's a kind of very common way of doing B&W in SL photos -- a low key, high contrast, sharpened look -- that I'm trying to avoid, not because it's ineffective (it's very attractive, actually), but just because it gets used a lot. (I sometimes wonder if there is a filter out there everyone is using, or is it just a sort of genre thing? It's a bit Ansel Adams in effect.) Anyway, I've been struggling with B&W, and I'm taking a slightly different approach now. I need to do a lot more experimentation, I think, before I'm comfortable knowing why and how to use B&W. I want to use it for drama, and to be emotive. This pic is a step in that direction: I'm not unhappy with the result. PS. I'd love to hear from others how they use and see B&W, but perhaps not here.

I could make a couple of points here -- about the dangers of entrusting opaque, private companies with that kind of granular information about individuals, about data leaks, access by law, surveillance, and security agencies to that sort of information, and so forth. But what I want most to focus on are the larger social issues this raises. I'm actually not particularly concerned that Meta is going to do something nefarious to me, as an individual. But the power of Big Data is precisely that it is "big." And as such, it is an enormously powerful tool for reshaping the social, cultural, and political landscape. It can be, has been, and will continue to be used to manipulate votes, attitudes, belief systems, and other things of that ilk. We know that this has happened. Is happening. On Facebook, most especially, but on other platforms such as Instagram and Twitter as well. I'm not overly concerned about the advertisements that pop up on my screen: I'm mostly bright enough to ignore those. What concerns me, because it will impact me most, is how this data can be used to manipulate the culture in which I live. That's the scary, dystopian thing: not the possibility that my computerized clock radio is going to spill my personal secrets.

Messin' about and experimenting. I'm determined I am going to conquer the black and white portrait.

VERY sweet picture! I like the angle! It looks as though you're saying "Poor baby, let me kiss it all better." He doesn't look as though he's about to protest.

Didn't you just try to reassure us that we shouldn't be so paranoid? It's not working.

I said you'd be back. Caaaaaaalled it!