Dresden Ceriano

Pamela Galli wrote: Wow, thats what I'm talkin bout -- not just talk, but action. It's been years since I've seen any action. ...Dres (Okay... I'll stop.)

Cathy Foil wrote: Like I have said before I don't want to restrict the ability to create in the new virtual world I just want to restrict the ability to sell to those who are premium members. But, this isn't the only thing you're suggesting. You're suggesting a fundamental shift to the way in which the market works. I mean, let's me see if I've got this straight... A creator decides to sell a full perm item to another creator, who would then be unable to sell anything they create with that item for less than what they paid for the original, because the original price would go to the original creator, instead of them... right? So, the only way they could make a profit, is by charging more than the original price. And not only that, but if they wanted to combine more than one thing which they bought full perm, in order to create an item, they'd have to charge more than the price they paid for each full perm item which they used while creating their single item... right? How long will it take until the price of their item becomes economically unfeasible? What you're suggesting would basically cut the knees out from under those creators who rely upon full perm items in order to make their creative visions come to fruition. Perhaps, that's precisely what you think should happen. But I happen to believe that the free market system which we've got now, with competition leading to lower prices, is beneficial to everyone involved. You act as if full perm creators are currently going broke or something... I contend that a good creator is still able to make a decent, not necessarily exorbitant, profit. It's only right that older products not sell as well as they once did before they'd saturated the market. The solution is simple... make newer, quality content which can start out selling well at higher prices, then, once their worth has gone down, make something new... rinse and repeat. It actually encourages creativity and goes a long way toward ensuring a steady stream of new content for us all to enjoy. Cathy Foil wrote: Creating content and selling content are two totally separate things. You go ask any successful creator/merchant if they'd be creating as much quality content as they do now, without the incentive of being able to make a bit of money for their effort, then tell me how unrelated are the two. ...Dres

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Missapplication of manpower is as old as the application of manpower. It's been years since I've had a manpower application that wasn't rejected. ...Dres

I should have been more specific. By platform/company, I meant company with a platform similar to SL with which to contend... not a huge social media or computer manufacturing company. Platforms such as Star Trek Online and World of Warcraft, which each have official forums... general discussion sub-forums and all. Many such platforms do. I can only assume that they do because it's actually beneficial to do so... perhaps you know better. ...Dres

What aggression? I'm not offended in the least. I was merely pointing out why your assertion that non-SL related material posted here is a violation of the guidelines was entirely mistaken, thereby obscuring the intent of your original post to this thread. Where's the aggression in that? ...Dres

Madelaine McMasters wrote: Even in its heyday, the forums represented a tiny sliver of the SL population, and that's why I question the value. If the value of the forums is 0.5%, then LL shouldn't apportion more than one person to it (presuming a staff of 200 at the moment). I'm guessing at numbers and vastly simplifying the calculus, but I'm simply trying to show another way of looking at this. I do not believe that we in the forums are representative of SL residents in general, and I do not believe I'm representative of forum residents in general. Every argument made about how moderation affects forums may be true (and I agree with much of what I've read here, including Cinn's comments) and of no consequence if the forums are the wrong way to serve SL. I've watched people trying to fix something that's clearly broken without questioning whether it would be worth anything if working correctly. If the profile feed was LL's attempt to address a fundamental shortcoming in the forum's ability to support networking out-world, why not improve that and remove GD, which is the most contentious of the forums because it's the most social? And as for dwindling, that applies to all of SL. I simply don't believe that having a forum is as little of value as you suggest. If that were the case, there wouldn't be such a vast number of platform/company based forums across the net. ...Dres

Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: The reporting system is not used properly, but instead of getting rid of it completely, maybe those who are caught abusing it should be given a time-out. Warning #1 We have found your use of the reporting button to be unwarranted. Please reread the ToS/CS before using it again. Warning #2 We feel you are unable to handle the content of a certain thread. For your own good we are giving you a 2 day time-out. Warning #3 Really? Maybe you should find a different community. We are worried about your mental and emotional health. We are sending you on a 1 month all-expenses paid vacation inworld. Have fun! Cinn I love your outlook, Cinn (as always). Nevertheless, I don't believe that handing down warnings for RIC abuse is the way to go. We want people to RIC actual violations without the fear of being reprimanded for doing so. Especially when all that's really needed is for the moderators to take action only on actual violations, rather than just reacting to an inappropriate RIC. This is why I'd like them to be held accountable for the actions they take. If it becomes apparent to them that a particular person is abusing the RIC button, they could simply PM them and tell them to cut it out or they'll be forced to simply ignore any future RIC they receive from that person. The fable about the boy who cried wolf comes to mind. I'd just like a bit of common sense injected into the process. And, since LL can't control the common sense of their users, the responsibility has to be placed upon the moderators to make use of it. If this is something they simply can't do, then they should be replaced with people who can. Cinnamon Mistwood wrote: I am feeling sappy and sentimental right now. *passes out awkwardly long hugs and inappropriate wet kisses to all* What?... no screen licking? ...Dres *passes some back to you*

Christhiana wrote: While that may have been the case once, now it states General Discussion Forum Second Life discussions welcome here! Please follow the community guidelines. Notice it doesn't state that only Second Life discussions are welcome here? That's because they are. Nowhere in the guidelines does it state that they are not. Christhiana wrote: It annoys me (only a little to be honest) because I come here to read and post about SL because this is the official SL forum. I don't want to click through posts that have nothing to do with SL. There are literally thousands of forums on the internet appropriate for these topics, why not post it overthere? Not everyone is as strictly an immersionist as it seems are you. Christhiana wrote: It was more about pointing out the hypocrite reaction the TS got on posting in the wrong section. You failed. ...Dres

Venus Petrov wrote: Christhiana wrote: And yet you have no problem with a thread that has nothing to do with SL like this: Imagine this. . . 10 minutes of bliss You even posted a reply into that thread "/me presses the Report Appropriate Content button.". You find that appropriate content for an SL forum? Those are the threads that really annoy me. I come here to read and post about SL, not to view music videos (plenty of forums for that). Historically, if there is any history to this version of the forum, the GD Forum was open to topics unrelated to SL. It was the only forum open to such topics. Why would you read threads that 'really annoy' you? /me ponders I would contend that, not only is the GD forum open to such subject matter, such subject matter is one of the very reasons for it's existence. ...Dres

Christhiana wrote: The title doesn't reveal that it has nothing to do with SL so I won't notice until I view it.... OMG! how dare anyone force you to click a link and scan a thread's content before deciding to peruse it any further? ...Dres

Christhiana wrote: And yet you have no problem with a thread that has nothing to do with SL like this: Imagine this. . . 10 minutes of bliss You even posted a reply into that thread "/me presses the Report Appropriate Content button.". You find that appropriate content for an SL forum? Those are the threads that really annoy me. I come here to read and post about SL, not to view music videos (plenty of forums for that). Then don't view them. ...Dres

Celestiall Nightfire wrote: Xiola Linden wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: Xiola Linden wrote: if you feel that a mistake or misunderstanding was made, the best route is to contact support so it can be reviewed. How? Via the support portal here: http://community.secondlife.com/t5/English-Knowledge-Base/How-to-contact-customer-support/ta-p/739385 Xiola, I know you're trying to help. But, the support portal not only doesn't have a software path for forum help, but, the support staff aren't able to help for issues here. I know, as I've tried it! We often try to send forum private messages to the moderation team, but if one's banned from here, we can't even do that. The last time I got banned, I originally couldn't find the email that was supposed to be sent to be telling me why. So, I chatted with Live Chat support and they suggested that I file a ticket. They told me specifically which category to file it under, but I forget which one they suggested. What I'm saying is, it can be done. Unfortunately, I've no idea if they could have actually assisted me with my issue (which was specifically that I hadn't received the email and didn't know why I was banned), because right after I filed the ticket, I went back and looked, only to find that my email client had sorted it into a folder which I hadn't expected... so, since I did get it, I immediately closed the ticket myself. I've never tried contesting a banning through the support system, so I've no idea if the process would be as futile as you suggest... but it wouldn't surprise me if it was. ...Dres

Perrie Juran wrote: irihapeti wrote: Xiola, <snip> about LL communication via blogs and forum mechanics Is a (flow) disconnect between the blogs and the conversation. Like a blog post is made and comments on it are locked. There is usually a link to a forum thread in the blog post where the convo is thats the flow disconnect Or the other thing that happens is several people will see a Blog post and start separate threads about it. That can cause even more confusion. I suppose the most convenient way to handle it would be to allow comments on the blog, as irihapeti has suggested. Nevertheless, I see no reason why they couldn't post to the blog and, within that very post, link to an official thread in the forum where they've included a complete copy of original the blog post in the OP for reference. At least that way there'd be one official place to have the discussion and not just random threads started by random people (we'll probably get those anyway... but at least that way we could point those who start related threads to the official one). It may not be the perfect solution, but it's better than not allowing comments on blog post and not supplying an official thread to communicate with users about that post. Of course, this depends entirely upon LL's willingness to even communicate with their users about their post. I don't really care which way they do it, just that they do it more often. ...Dres

Pussycat Catnap wrote: Dillon Levenque wrote: I'm glad you posted here. I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center. Having had the job of moderating a forum as one of my professional duties before - I would NOT agree to this part. If such a reply were public it would only serve to create a public fiasco. If it were private, it would only end up being a complaint medium and would result in boosting the sense of denial among those moderated. There are forums all over the internet and such levels of entitlement are not the norm. It bogs down resources, leads to a sense of being 'under attack', not among the mods, but among those who develop a sense that they are unfairly moderated. Adults need to just learn to move on to the next topic, or rephrase their point in a manner less troubled. Its one thing to just move on if a place is toxic or full of harrasment, but another to do so because one is not given special vindication. I understand what your saying and honestly believe that some of your points do hold some validity. Or, at least, they would in a forum with a functional moderation process... this is not that forum. That being said, I don't believe that expecting a reply to a question is too much to ask, even if the answer isn't to my liking. Not even replying is simply disrespectful. You may call it entitlement, but as a paying customer, I expect to be treated with a modicum of respect... go figure. ...Dres

Dillon Levenque wrote: I'm glad you posted here. I agree with Pussycat's comment a couple posts back about giving people whose posts have been deleted the courtesy of being told just what about their post violated whatever CS or TOS rule. I'll even take it a step further and suggest the poster should be allowed one reply—a sort of unofficial appeal—to try to defend himself: point out that he was misread, or that that's not what it meant, or whatever, and that that reply should be actually looked at, evaluated, and answered (the answer being the decision re: the unofficial appeal and not subject to further debate at that level). Yes that means more work for the mods and I know this isn't exactly an LL revenue center. This is pretty much exactly what I suggested when Xiola asked. The fact that at least some people seem to believe it a worthy suggestion gives me hope that something might actually get done about it. ...Dres *crosses his fingers*

Pussycat Catnap wrote: The ONLY suggestion I've seen in this thread that I think might be good for moderation is a policy to attach to the notice sent to people, which section of the TOS they have violated. I think a lot of people presume they violated nothing and take on an assumption that it was wrongful. I do NOT pretend to believe that telling people what they violated will actually cause them to recognize it... but it seems like a good idea anyway. Sometimes warnings are actually given out wrongfully, but even if they're entirely justified, it would just help to let everyone know that it wasn't just some arbitrary reaction to a RIC and that the moderators are actually doing the job they're being paid to do. The fact that, at times, moderators already do this, shows that it's not outside of the realm of possibility for it to be done. It's just not done with any sort of consistency. I see no reason why, with a simple memo, LL couldn't require them to do it for every single disiplinary measure they execute. ...Dres P.S. Some people are still resentful of Void's treatment by the powers that be here and quite rightfully so. For you to suggest that either she or those who care about this forum and miss her being here are somehow suffering from entitlement issues is simply disgusting. Though I do agree that letting go of it and moving on might be the best, and most likely the only, thing to do at this point.

Perrie Juran wrote: Xiola Linden wrote: Hello all, This thread has been a very interesting read - and I wanted to touch on a few things as well as to ask some questions about what you feel would make the forums a more interesting place for all Second Life Residents. In regards to moderation - the moderators do their best in helping to uphold the ToS and Community Participation Guidelines, however if you feel that a mistake or misunderstanding was made, the best route is to contact support so it can be reviewed. One thing we'd like to do is start more threads that will allow feedback on announcements here in the forums, but it sounds like you may have some additional ideas about what you would like to see and what you think would make the forums more interesting. What other channels do you think may help contribute to the community here as well? We appreciate your constructive feedback! Well, to start you did do one thing very right here. You posted under your actually Linden name, not some impersonal enigmatic psuedo name like Linden Lab or Commerce Team Linden that we have no idea whom we are responding to. Sometimes things seem almost Kafkaesque, we don't know the charges against us as we are judged by unknown persons in a secret court. Those of us who post here regularly are fairly well versed in the Community Standards. And while I agree overall with them, they can be applied in a heavy handed way. As an example, if someone were to call me a 'blithering idiot' so be it! Let the people reading make up their own minds if I am or not. That stuff doesn't always need to be deleted! If the rhetoric is getting out of hand in a thread, a Mod should pop in and warn us to tone it down. Not knee jerk censorship pull the posts and send people to a corner for a week. There has been so much stuff we have discussed in the past I could write a book but it's late now for me. And I will echo this, Void Singer still needs apologised to. I know was a long time ago and I wouldn't expect you to do it with researching the facts. That has been a blight on this Forum ever since it happenned. All wonderful points, Perrie. I especially like the one about the Mods sometimes popping into threads and suggestion we tone it down. I believe that just that sort of little push would, in many instances, provide incentive enough for people to check themselves and scale back their rhetoric while in the midst of a potentially contentious debate. ...Dres P.S. I hear what you're saying about Void, but, as sad as it is, I believe that bird has flown.

Xiola Linden wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Thank you for reading it and replying, Xiola. The one thing which I believe would make the greatest difference is simply requiring the moderators to state which section(s) of the ToS/CG a post was in violation when issuing their warnings. Then, we'd know that at least some thought was put into the process and wasn't simply a blind reaction to a RIC. Plus, requiring them to reply should someone object to their warning would be nice as well. I'm not suggesting that they get into some ridiculous back and forth with every person who questions them... just a simple acknowledgement that what they've said has been, at least, read and hopefully given a bit of consideration. And perhaps offer a bit of clarification if need be. ...Dres Hi Dres, Thank you for the response. All moderation related feedback will be shared with that team. by me, in addition to taking some of the ideas that you've mentioned and seeing what steps (if any) would make them feasible. The CG and ToS should be easy for someone to interpret and understand in the event that there are questions about a decision, but also before an event even occurs. There are many things to consider, and that is what I am hoping this thread will help with. Thanks again for your thoughts and time. ~Xiola I'm hoping it will help as well. It's not necessarily those who question a decision that need to actually be able to understand and interpret the ToS/CG. Rather, it's those who make those decisions who must have that ability and, also, be able to demonstrate that they've diligently applied it. Moderators simply must be held accountable for having the ability to explain the reasoning behind their decisions. Otherwise, it's not unreasonable to expect that people will simply assume there was no attempt to apply any sort of reason in order to reach them. If you expect us all too be held accountable for interpretting the ToS/CG and not expect us to want those in charge of policing them to be held to an even higher standard of accountablity on the matter, you're delusional. And I sincerely hope that isn't the case or nothing will ever improve around here. ...Dres

Thank you for reading it and replying, Xiola. The one thing which I believe would make the greatest difference is simply requiring the moderators to state which section(s) of the ToS/CG a post was in violation when issuing their warnings. Then, we'd know that at least some thought was put into the process and wasn't simply a blind reaction to a RIC. Plus, requiring them to reply should someone object to their warning would be nice as well. I'm not suggesting that they get into some ridiculous back and forth with every person who questions them... just a simple acknowledgement that what they've said has been, at least, read and hopefully given a bit of consideration. And perhaps offer a bit of clarification if need be. ...Dres

Perrie Juran wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: LlazarusLlong wrote: Ceka Cianci wrote: Omg what was that tough girls name that got banned?She was always calling her parents The Rents? hehehe She was a blast! Darlene maybe? Oo Last I heard she'd got a life. Yes,it was a perma ban.. She scammed a pervert into buying an Elevator Pass from her. The pervert didn't take kindly to that. The charge was "Impersonating a Linden." Daria Afterthought LOL!!! *shakes head* If I remember correctly, she did return on another account for a time, but that didn't last very long either. ...Dres

Ceka Cianci wrote: Omg what was that tough girls name that got banned?She was always calling her parents The Rents? hehehe She was a blast! Darlene maybe? Oo Oh, you're talking about Daria (link)... she was definitely a laugh riot. She wouldn't last a day here, even if the moderation was exceptional. ...Dres

Saraya Starr wrote: Going blonde... Lovely... but, are you having more fun? ...Dres

Ceka Cianci wrote: I always thought the version just before this version ,was the worst.. As far as there being fighting and stuff..that and what felt like bot moderation.. There used to be A lot of fights in that version.. Old RA on the other hand was pretty tame compared and had no moderation really..There was always someone around.. That has to be my favorite time i think..It was pretty strong community wise then i think.. I agree... the one before this was atrocious. A lot of that fighting moved over to the feeds once they were introduced and just got worse. I wasn't around for the old RA forum, so I've no point of reference as to the feeling of community there as compared to now or even in the last version... but, I do believe that even the last version, as bad as it was, had more of a sense of community than what we've got now. It was the fighting which fractured the community, but it was the moderation practices set in place by LL which pretty much finished it off. As far as I'm concerned, a sense of community is the very heart of a forum and LL is clearly uninterested in properly building up that sense. It's as if all they really want is a group of people willing hanging around waiting to answer the same questions over and over again, like an army of customer service robots who they don't have to pay. Of course, there's a number of hyper-emotional individuals who are perfectly happy with the status quo around here... because, who cares if people are driven away by the gross lack of substantive conversation here, as long as they don't get their little feelings hurt? Why should they care about nonsensical warnings, when, in their little minds, the right people are the ones who're receiving them? And, by right people, I mean the ones for whom they don't much care. I don't want moderation which is so lax as to virtually be nonexistent... I just want some consistency, a bit of common sense applied to the process and a measure of accountability involved. I don't think that's too much to ask for. ...Dres

Theresa Tennyson wrote: Dresden Ceriano wrote: Seriously, Theresa? I thought you were better than this. ...Dres Oh, I try... I try... but some days the temptation is just too great. It was just sitting there... Sad, indeed. ...Dres

Is it possible that LL has specifically sought out applicants for positions as moderators who's qualifications primarily consist of having minds which, when faced with the simplest of decisions, immediately go into underdrive? ...Dres