Forum too strict

[kevn]

I would like to continue participating in this forum, but it seems it is much more strict than LL. If I feel the need to contact the government I will post here.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="kevn":hsz9aawj]I would like to continue participating in this forum, but it seems it is much more strict than LL. [/quote:hsz9aawj]

That's because it is.

[Rubaiyat]

well, how can we open it up?

I am curious about what either of you find restrictive, and what you think could be done to make it less so.

Please be specific as I want to understand the issue, and possibly be part of a solution.

rs

[Aliasi Stonebender]

Oh, I didn't say I disliked it.

Just that the entire point of the new forum was to be "more restrictive" insofar as civil discourse and a moderation system with teeth are here.

[kevn]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2l51cmld]Oh, I didn't say I disliked it.

Just that the entire point of the new forum was to be "more restrictive" insofar as civil discourse and a moderation system with teeth are here.[/quote:2l51cmld]I was under the impression the purpose of this forum was to take control of it from the rouge ex-member.

But after seeing a thread closed I see this is a forum worse that the one under the control of Kendra. I have not had a thread locked for such a weak reason by Kendra, in fact I thought she was very slow to lock threads.

If this forum is going to be so strict as to close threads so quickly, where absolustely no griefiing was going on, I see no use for it other than a wonk forum.

Therefore I'll accept it as a wonk forum and will post to it only when communicating with wonks.

To discuss ideas with non-wonks I'll go to LL's forums, where threads stay open unless there is griefing going on.

Thanks for letting me know the true purpose of this forum.

[Diderot Mirabeau]

The following is an excerpt from "Basic Forum Policies and Etiquette", which is a part of the SL Forum Guidelines. A document that again forms part of the basis of the Neualtenburg Forum Moderation Guidelines:

"Private discussions – the forums are a public area for the Second Life community’s use. Individuals who have a dispute with each other have other channels of communication to discuss their differences or communicate – private messaging, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life. Also, threads that are addressed to a single individual or group are inappropriate on the forums, this includes slander or "naming names" in a posts title, starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc."

The thread was closed in accordance with the overall guideline given by article 5.5 in the forum moderation guidelines that specifically says:

"5.5: A moderator may proactively decide to lock a thread if it has drifted from its original topic, contains posts that are bordering on being in violation with this document or are in other ways deemed to be detrimental to the purpose of the forums. The moderator will post a message in the thread giving justification for locking the thread. "

It is important to notice that locking a thread is a preventive measure employed by a moderator for the general sanity and quality of the level of debate in the forum. In locking a thread no judgment is passed and no sanction is imposed upon any of the posters contributing to the thread.

Your latest post gives me the impression you think that these forums are some kind of personal project that were designed as a protest against the moderation practice of a single individual and that this forum would be moderated by a more or less random collective of people wanting to exercise a judgement contrary to that of the individual in question.

That is entirely misunderstood. This forum is moderated by the chairs of the Scientific Council of Neualtenburg - a branch which has the constitutional mandate to perform the service roll (sic) of moderating the forums.

We have established forum moderation guidelines, which are very clear, accessible and can be understood by anyone. The forums are moderated according to these guidelines and not according to the erratic whim of individual personalities. We have furthermore set up an appeal process through which citizens can have decisions affecting them reviewed to ensure that moderation practice is being developed at a collective level.

I'd like to add that posts containing statements where the author calls his fellow posters names such as "wonks" are not considered contributive to a healthy and constructive climate of debating.

In conclusion I'd like to say that I've proposed to the SC that we set up an unmoderated discussion forum as part of our overall forum structure - not unlike the sandbox from the SL forums.

[Ulrika Zugzwang]

[quote="kevn":22gghi98]If this forum is going to be so strict as to close threads so quickly, where absolustely no griefiing was going on, I see no use for it other than a wonk forum.[/quote:22gghi98]
[img:22gghi98]http://www.ulrikasheim.org/images/forum/nelson.gif[/img:22gghi98]

Your citizens have perceived the true reason you created this forum. Haw haw!

~Ulrika~

[Rubaiyat]

Please do not post copyrighted images to the forum...

Are the moderators able to remove the image without removing the subtle wit?

Kevn, I was not around for the flame wars of the past, but I am a firm believer in freedom of expresssion and speech. Perhaps we could create some form of compromise where another "less moderated" forum could be open.

I don't know how that strikes anyone, it is nice if the main forums stay on topic, but would like to have one that is social and more driftable...

rs

[Ulrika Zugzwang]

This city has become cold, humorless, and sarcastic in it's enfeebled post-putsch authoritarian state. Why don't you lighten up?

~Ulrika~

[kevn]

[quote="Diderot Mirabeau":28sr779a]The following is an excerpt from "Basic Forum Policies and Etiquette", which is a part of the SL Forum Guidelines. A document that again forms part of the basis of the Neualtenburg Forum Moderation Guidelines:

"Private discussions – the forums are a public area for the Second Life community’s use. Individuals who have a dispute with each other have other channels of communication to discuss their differences or communicate – private messaging, IM within Second Life, or chatting within Second Life. Also, threads that are addressed to a single individual or group are inappropriate on the forums, this includes slander or "naming names" in a posts title, starting polls about a particular resident or group, etc."

The thread was closed in accordance with the overall guideline given by article 5.5 in the forum moderation guidelines that specifically says:

"5.5: A moderator may proactively decide to lock a thread if it has drifted from its original topic, contains posts that are bordering on being in violation with this document or are in other ways deemed to be detrimental to the purpose of the forums. The moderator will post a message in the thread giving justification for locking the thread. "

It is important to notice that locking a thread is a preventive measure employed by a moderator for the general sanity and quality of the level of debate in the forum. In locking a thread no judgment is passed and no sanction is imposed upon any of the posters contributing to the thread.

Your latest post gives me the impression you think that these forums are some kind of personal project that were designed as a protest against the moderation practice of a single individual and that this forum would be moderated by a more or less random collective of people wanting to exercise a judgement contrary to that of the individual in question.

That is entirely misunderstood. This forum is moderated by the chairs of the Scientific Council of Neualtenburg - a branch which has the constitutional mandate to perform the service roll (sic) of moderating the forums.

We have established forum moderation guidelines, which are very clear, accessible and can be understood by anyone. The forums are moderated according to these guidelines and not according to the erratic whim of individual personalities. We have furthermore set up an appeal process through which citizens can have decisions affecting them reviewed to ensure that moderation practice is being developed at a collective level.

I'd like to add that posts containing statements where the author calls his fellow posters names such as "wonks" are not considered contributive to a healthy and constructive climate of debating.

In conclusion I'd like to say that I've proposed to the SC that we set up an unmoderated discussion forum as part of our overall forum structure - not unlike the sandbox from the SL forums.[/quote:28sr779a]The term wonk wasn't meant as an insult.

wonk ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wngk)
n. Slang
A student who studies excessively; a grind.
One who studies an issue or a topic thoroughly or excessively: “leading a talkathon of policy wonks in a methodical effort to build consensus for his programsâ€

[Rubaiyat]

and not only when it is serving your ends. stop being a hypocrite.

rs