Moderation Enforced

[Vanderlust]

This isn't a punishment, it's a security feature. It should be virtually transparent to the end user, except as a delay between them posting and their post appearing, in a few specific threads.

Even if it doesn't end up affecting users, it has the potential to. Mods have lives, they can't be here 24/7. I just don't think something this drastic was necessary at all for a problem that really isn't that common. And, if it is a chronic problem over a long period of time like your list of names suggests, it would be so much easier to just continue banning the weekly showoff troll while finding a better answer. IMO you jumped the gun.

There are plenty of forums on the web that are larger than this and naturally run into similar problems. I've never seen a forum resort to pre-filtering anything and be successful. The most successful ones step up their normal moderating and make it harder for trolls / offenders to continually break rules by making it not worth their time. As it stands, accounts that are breaking rules are around for weeks and there are no restrictions placed on new accounts, so it's still easy for them to do what they want.

Anyways i'm done. I don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but that's my input so ignore it or use it, w/e.

[Bomber]

Just came back from disconnections and dinner.
But i'm not going to continue arguing with you, it honestly is a waste of time arguing with people.

[Sarah]

Just posting to say I'm done posting.

Final word.





Anyway, Locked and whoever else, you're getting upset over nothing. So what if your posts don't appear the second you post them? Unless you're posting something that you know will get rejected this shouldn't really be an issue. Unless, of course, your hobby is to sit there refreshing that one thread waiting for responses and this is ruining it. Then you should definitely be mad.

[Sardines]

What an awful thread.

[lorx]

That is a wonderful contribution Sardines.

I am not creating a system so the people who want to opt in to that can and the people who don't won't. We already skirt the cumbersome customization border too frequently.

For the system to be as transparent and not bothersome as possible, I'd opt just remove the PM altogether, no customization option. There should be no need for the system to throw PM's saying "YOUR POST IS UP YEAH!" because the person already knows the content of that post, and should be expecting it to go through anyway. Any problem posts will get PMs (or however infractions are handed out here from the moderation team), so the need for any autoPM system for post approval/denial seems redundant to me.

This is all based on how I think the system works, never used vbulliten's admin tools before so I could be way off here.

[Chaz]

What an awful thread.

hilariously awful.

[IllegallySane]

This thread is just overall terrible. I lost a bit of faith in Southperry, if not at the expense of some horrible entertainment.

If everyone were judged before they got to speak then the world would be a better place.

Because prejudice works so well. A real low point in this thread.

[KhainiWest]

Because prejudice works so well. A real low point in this thread.

Explain how that response show's prejudice?

[Sardines]

Explain how that response show's prejudice?

You're better than this. Just make your point, don't use low level bait.

Because prejudice works so well. A real low point in this thread.

If she stated that at face value and was applying that to real life, then she probably meant something along the lines that some opinions should be formed on a person based on how they act or dress in public. There is a difference between looking at things with a discriminating eye and being outright prejudiced.

[Eos]

Explain how that response show's prejudice?

Because prejudice is the act of judging prior to action and she advocated judging before speaking, though really it's a stretch because his interpretation is only valid if you take her statement word for word literal, rather than as an admonishment that people should show consideration before they post.

[ImagineAll]

Because prejudice is the act of judging prior to action and she advocated judging before speaking, though really it's a stretch because his interpretation is only valid if you take her statement word for word literal, rather than as an admonishment that people should show consideration before they post.

Except that wasn't what was said, and contextually doesn't fit. I thought one of Southperry's big guidelines was to take things at face value for the sheer fact that ambiguity often leads to fall back retorts such as this?

[Eos]

Except that wasn't what was said, and contextually doesn't fit. I thought one of Southperry's big guidelines was to take things at face value for the sheer fact that ambiguity often leads to fall back retorts such as this?

And what context are you pulling out of what orifice there?
If you're having to claim context, out of her having said nothing but that one line, to substantiate your interpretation, you're not taking it at face value, are you?

[Dystopiq]

If your posts don't violate the rules, how does this hurt you? How is it detrimental? How is it hurtful? Can anyone answer these questions without resorting to peaching or giving the old "I don't like it" excuse? And once you do give your reason, explain it. "I simply don't agree with it" doesn't cut it.

[Sardines]

If you guys really have an issue with what Sarah typed, then you could just ask her what she meant by it (@ImagineAll, IllegallySane). Making an interpretation of the comment is already one flaw, arguing about it doesn't do any better, especially when we're arguing about something that isn't exactly relevant to the main topic.

I'm not really sure why adding a new approval mechanic to three threads in SL has raised such a stir. People are taking the change way too personally.

Cringe worthy are the comparisons people are making to basilmarket and Sleepywood (@lorx). basilmarket I suppose is only justifiable if they still have the same mechanic in which pictures are uploaded in one place on the site and that requires moderator approval. However, this doesn't correlate as SP is restricting three threads. Thereby being a parts to whole fallacy. If you really want to get your picture out urgently because it is THAT important, then there are plenty of other places you could do it. Not that you should, but it remains a possibility.

The other analogy that I saw being made was that this site is becoming Sleepywood. This is laughable. Eos explained in SPchat that he decided to share this because he wanted people aware of the decision. He wanted to be as transparent as possible. One of the major problems that I had with SW was the fact that power was being used without transparency. I was told by friends that I "disappeared" on the site a couple of times when I raised a fuss over Truth's moderation on SW. I was not informed or told of this by anyone on staff.

From what I know, Eos had only good intentions in making this thread and making this known to the site. If you disagree with his decision, then that is understandable. However, there is no need to make illogical site comparisons just because you are upset by the decision.

[Sarah]

You're better than this. Just make your point, don't use low level bait.



If she stated that at face value and was applying that to real life, then she probably meant something along the lines that some opinions should be formed on a person based on how they act or dress in public. There is a difference between looking at things with a discriminating eye and being outright prejudiced.

I meant that if everyone were forced to think before they speak / post then there would infinitely less misunderstanding / general stupidity / issues in general.

[Sardines]

I meant that if everyone were forced to think before they speak / post then there would infinitely less misunderstanding / general stupidity.

Oh ok. :)

[KhainiWest]

Oh ok. :)

Upon originally reading sarah's quoted post I saw "Think before you speak", so I was confused of how that is seen as prejudice. Rereading it I see where the interpretation came from.

My mistake

[Greg]

if you pay me to moderate and accept posts i'll help you with your endeavor.

your plan will fail if you do not choose to do this

[Sardines]

if you pay me to moderate and accept posts i'll help you with your endeavor.

your plan will fail if you do not choose to do this

You're too old for a moderator position.

[lorx]

Cringe worthy are the comparisons people are making to basilmarket and Sleepywood (@lorx).

Wait... I mentioned other MS forums? All I remember is making two posts that amount to:
1. "I sure hope this doesn't last too long"
2. "The confirmation PM seems redundant to me"

Unless like, I forgot one. But I'm pretty sure that's it.