Jump to content

Tolya Ugajin

Resident
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,752

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Tolya Ugajin

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Tolya Ugajin
    ETC the classroom to this classroom

    31 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

    Wait, what???

    Well today you're one of the "Forum Queens" apparently.  Sheesh, just accept it, you're one of the cool kids in this classroom of misfits.

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

    Sometimes you can't "ignore the mean kids." Bullies aren't necessarily the same as trolls: they don't wither away because you aren't paying attention. And the fact that you can't see the awful, mean, spiteful, or hateful things that someone is saying, doesn't mean that they aren't being said, or that one is not, at least in terms of one's standing in a community, being hurt by them.

    I've been waiting for you and looking forward to you showing up and weighing in!

    I taught my daughters to punch bullies in the mouth and take the suspension from school.  They never had an issue with a bully more than once.  And you CAN ignore them just fine in the Forum.

    4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

    I have to disagree with you, Tolya: it was significantly nastier then -- for a lot of people. For you, personally, it probably was not. But there were people literally hounded off these forums then. I don't count myself as a major victim, but I had my own personal life joked about and mocked here, and some of the details of my then in-world relationship talked about and mocked by forumite bullies on an external blog. Some of that wasn't here, but it was an extension of the culture then predominated. It was really much much nastier then.

    There is a reason and need for moderation. Many of us can remember how really hateful and nasty a place this forum could be when moderation was at a minimum. And there are people posting here now -- really valuable members of the community -- who avoided the place then, not because they were being personally attacked, but because the atmosphere here was so toxic that it was simply an emotionally unhealthy place to be.

    I disagree, and there is likely no way beyond anecdotes to prove one way or another.  Perhaps you feel it was more nasty because there were more people back then on the other side of any given debate, forcing you and others to confront more difference of opinion, than there usually is now, or, as I said, perhaps it is just that the subject matter is a lot more tame these days.  But, I'm sorry, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who cannot handle internet "bullies" and "trolls" when they are perfectly armed to combat it themselves.  Also, again, I do not perceive the moderation to be any greater today than it was then - other than the nanny algorithm telling us to watch our language.

    13 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

    That said . . .

    I am uncomfortable with the notion of a sort of forum "Neighbourhood Watch," which seems to be what Pam is suggesting? Or am I misreading her? It's a bit too much like organized vigilantism for my taste, and there is also the danger that this sort of collective response to posts deemed "harmful to the community" will stifle diversity, and produce a cliquish little bubble of like-minded people.

    I do think that is more or less what Pam is suggesting, but, I don't have an issue with it per se.  Exercising one's freedom of speech means being willing to suffer the consequences of your words, whether it be an insulting reply, or social ostracism, or banishment from the forums.  We come here, there are rules, and, just as we must be willing to suffer a speeding ticket if we break the speeding rules, we must be willing to suffer the silly "don't try and evade the naughty word censor" emails. I happen to find one (forum moderation) unnecessary and the other necessary only because morons who cannot handle high speeds kill innocent people.  And, no, nothing you day will make me believe that people are grievously harmed by meanies in the Forums.

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

    What did you discover about the forum clique?

    That it was a myth.  My alt (who to this day remains nameless and was immediately closed) was just as accepted as Tolya or anyone else, allowing for differences of familiarity and friendship, by the supposed "clique".  I'm not sure if Tolya was a purported member of said clique, but I know Scylla was.

    • Like 1

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

    It sounds like the forum was really bad back then. Maybe I just don't understand how bad it was. Were you around then, Tolya?

    I was - and Pam is mistaken if she believes it was unmoderated back then.  I also don't believe it was significantly more nasty than it is now.  For instance, my recent spat with Amina was easily as rough as anything that I saw back then, and let's not forget the fun back and forth about socialism.

    The only reason there seems to be less of that is because the majority of the forum threads today seem to be so innocuous (what are you listening to) or simple question and answer types, whereas years ago the subjects were far more broad.  That's probably just my impression, since I stick to GD and many of the flame wars then were on more adult topics, like Gor and BDSM, or were about subjects long since talked out, like how evil it was when I created an alt to test the "Forum clique" myth (and told people I had done so - my what a kerfuffle that was).  I do believe the number of regular contributors was higher, and the diversity of opinions was greater, than today, but, other than that (and the loss of Pep's grammar nazi routine) it seems about the same.

    As far as I can tell, the only difference in moderation is the use of algorithms to *** out words.

    • Thanks 1

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Pamela Galli said:

    And I recalled what the pre moderated forum was like.

    I spent years on Usenet in unmoderated forums. Never again.

    i can’t believe anyone thinks relying on forum members to moderate themselves would improve what we now have. But no skin off my personal nose. 

    It is a cute nose :)

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    Just now, Pamela Galli said:

     

    I just gave you my idea for improving moderation.  Get rid of it.  Require adults to follow the advice they got as children - ignore the mean kids.  LL could reallocate their obviously scarce resources to something more important and useful then.

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Pamela Galli said:

    Well seriously Solar, how would you deal with moderation to make it more consistent? Do you have some algorithm or something else that would obviate fallible human judgment?  
     

    I mentioned Forum Feedback because that’s where it has been discussed before. 

    Myself, I'd deal with moderation by informing people they have the ability to ignore people or mute them and not have moderators.  That would indeed be more consistent than deciding some terms for male genitalia are permissible but others not, as is currently the case.

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    12 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

    IF IT IS SPEECH—IS THE GOVERNMENT CENSORING OR PUNISHING IT?

    The First Amendment only protects your speech from government censorship. It applies to federal, state, and local government actors. This is a broad category that includes not only lawmakers and elected officials, but also public schools and universities, courts, and police officers.  It does not include private citizens, businesses, and organizations. This means that:

    • A private school can suspend students for criticizing a school policy;
    • A private business can fire an employee for expressing political views on the job; and
    • A private media company can refuse to publish or broadcast opinions it disagrees with

    Not sure what the point of this is?  Anyone with a passing familiarity with the First Amendment (which, BTW, only applies to the US) understands this.

    Despite the fact that the First Amendment only applies to the government (in the US) it's not a bad thing to aspire to even outside those limitations.  If Farcebook or LL or whatever choose to censor content on their platforms, the fact that the First Amendment does not apply does not make their action any less ignoble.  It simply makes them legal.  Similarly, they, or the government, may simple seize your land (virtual or real) - on a whim, as it turns out (although at least the government is required to compensate you, at whatever they deem "fair").  Being able to do something does not make it a good thing to do.

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Pamela Galli said:

    No, “that which you disagree with” is not flaming. From the CG:

    • No Flaming: "Flames" are hostile or disruptive posts, or messages intended to incite an angry response. Spirited discussion and constructive disagreement are welcome, but name-calling and airing of grievances are not appropriate in our discussion areas. We will also not tolerate any post that encourages others to violate any policy of Linden Lab.

    That is filled with subjective words which, by definition, means it is indeed "that which you disagree with.  To whit:

    1. Hostile: Who determines if it is hostile?  Surely I've said things on many occasions some thought were hostile.  You're far more polite than I, but surely some could have perceived hostility on one of two of your posts over the years.
    2. Distruptive: Who determines if it is disruptive?
    3. Intended: Who determines intent?  I seldom intend hostility, but to someone who perceives themselves and subject of hostility, their perception is likely all they care about when they click that button.
    4. Encourages: Who determines whom is being encouraged to do what and how, and who is is say whether it is indeed encouragement?

    It's not something to argue over.  The CG, TOS, are being set by an omnipotent (in terms of SL and this forum, anyway) dictator, however benign or malevolent.  I accept that, and so should everyone else - it's the price of playing the game, as it were.  If someone disagrees with what I, or anyone else, says, and finds it hostile or disruptive and disagrees with my intentions, then they are free to report it, and if some random anonymous minion of LL, who may be fair minded or may just be having a bad day, agrees, then what has been said will be censored, and, possibly, that person will be banned.  The chilling effect is minimal, but it is there, which is one of the dangers of censorship.

    If any speech is prohibited, regardless of intentions, then speech is not in fact free.  I'm rather an absolutist about that  But, in this case, all one risks losing by bucking authority is a distraction from RL.

    • Like 2

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Pussycat Catnap said:

    Requesting people follow basic rules of conduct and civility is not the same thing as censorship.

    You can express disagreement by, stating your stance as I have done just now - or blasting a whole cesspool of vulgarity and paranoid accusations... In both cases you can get your opinion out there.

     

    Requesting people follow "rules of conduct and civility" is not.  Reporting that which you disagree with because it is "flaming", etc. so THEY can censor you is indeed censorship.  As far as vulgarity goes, it is automatically censored.

    Monitoring the Forums

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted · Edited by Tolya Ugajin

    Sorry, I see little benefit to engaging in censorship amongst adults.  One person's flame is another's valid point.  Short of doxxing, we're all adults and should be able to click the little X and/or mute someone if we don't want to deal with them, without us needing to act as unpaid moderators.

    My unpopular opinion for the day ;)

    "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk, and hazard."

    • Like 1

    How often do you read this forum and why?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    3 hours ago, rasterscan said:

    Seconded. Um ... are you still getting some enjoyment out of SL actual, when you login there ? I have noticed when inworld, while there is a huge interest in mesh avvies and all the new bells and whistles, there is still a lot of long time players who are more than happy in their old old skins, which I think is great as well.

    Tolya still has his old skin - I refuse to pay the outlandish amounts needed for a top of the line mesh avatar.  In the immortal words of Lance Henriksen, "If I can't be top of the line, I'd rather be nothing".

    • Like 2

    I’m curious how many of you posting here are actually still active in SL?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    5 hours ago, Prokofy Neva said:

    Nothing "morally superior" about investigating the vicious blow-hards on the forums and finding their super-sad stores. No, they are not getting rich off old pose-balls. I have absolutely no qualms about checking out people who have harassed and harangued me and others for years with all kinds of know-it-all arrogance on topics from traffic to building to lag. Nope, none at all. 

    It would be hard to believe that somebody would have a modern, productive wealthy alt making bank from their store and also an old has-been alt or main with a pathetic store. But of course, people will contort themselves into any kind of pretzel to make arguments in support of the forums queens.

    LOL you're so funny, Prok.  By "morally superior" I meant your tone, obviously, but you turn around and say there is nothing morally superior about...something that has been labelled as "stalkerish".  To argue against me (what,  2 weeks later) you move your position to be closer to Scylla's.  Congrats!

    You're free to find whatever you want to be "hard to believe", but if you think I would twist myself into pretzels to support anyone on this forum, you don't pay much attention.  At least with this post you've shown you do what you do out of spite because the "forum queens" hurt your little feelings.  I dub thee the Forum Snowflake.

    Since "Prokofy Neva" doesn't show up in search, would you mind sending a link to your store?  I'd love to see this palace of commerce that is so superior to everyone else.

    • Thanks 1

    Best places to play Poker or similar card games?

    in General Discussion Forum

    Posted

    37 minutes ago, Gopi Passiflora said:

    I've been looking for some places to play Texas Hold 'Em Poker, but they seem to be fairly empty. I'm looking for a place where I don't need to bet real money.

    I've tried playing poker in SL for years, bought just about every table out there.  Not sure why, but they always seem to stop working after a while.  Most of them have pretty clunky operation, too.  Your best bet is probably to get together a group of friends and play with them, just like in RL.  To make it more "real" have everyone get the same snacks and beer for during the game.  If you get 4-6 people who like to play with the same normal online times, it can be a very fun weekly event.

    Lindal makes a good point, you can't actually gamble, and none of the tables you'll find are set up to actually facilitate the gambling of $L, because idiots in RL pass laws to control your morality, and poker is ebul and the work of the debul.  I've never looked into it, but I would assume the host offering a prize for the winner, with the players not having to contribute (ie. wager) anything to play would be OK, because then it is not gambling, which by definition requires the player to be risking something.  Then at least you get a little thrill out of winning.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
×
×
  • Create New...