*** CURRENTLY UNDER RECONSTRUCTION ***

"There is no amount of pretty in the world that can cover a venomous heart."

Ah, the irony! Rhonda Huntress said that, and she also said:

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/85/252954/3653.html (The quote in Rio's post, sixth post down.)

http://forums-archive.secondlife.com/327/85/252954/3828.html (Top post.)


Sunday, 13 March 2011

My Friend Cato . . .

. . . tells me that he/she (I can't remembe what gender he/she is claiming to be this week) was banned while on the forums hiatus which a flight from South Africa to New York enforces. The ban notice is shown below Cato's response, which I think needs no further comment from me, except that I am thinking very hard about my decision to stay out of the new forums. Perhaps Pep Resident should pop in and ask a few questions regarding the parallels between pre-WW2 Germany and the Lithium forums. Here goes on Cato's email:

Attention: Amanda Linden (since it is doubtless you who has instigated this)

Dear Amanda

Might I enquire exactly WHO it was I was supposed to be "harassing"? The post referred to is extremely civilised towards DQ, the person to whose post it is a response, and I shall be contacting her inworld to confirm that she did not feel harassed by my words.

If you are suggesting that I am guilty of "harassing" LL, then you are in the position of prosecuting someone for murder when they have been caught in possession of a stolen vehicle, ie, I may (or may not) have done something wrong, but it is certainly not that which I have been accused of and sentenced for.

My opinions in this post are fair comment on the state of the forums, relating to their recent history regarding the provision of an Off Topic subforum, the high-handed attitude of the institution of a "no appeal" culture and its likely effects, and the charge made in public by a valued contributor to the KnowledgeBase of experience of inappropriate favoritism towards someone who has apparently behaved extremely badly.

If, as seems obviously apparent, your disciplinary action is actually not associated with this particular post, which is actually relatively positive in attempting to work towards a civilised forums, but - as I suspect - a consequence of my public highlighting of your professional inadequacies regarding ludicrous statements made in respect of Facebook, and suggesting that nothing you say can be relied upon, then why aren't you brave enough to come out and say so, rather than hiding behind an anonymously imposed and unsubstantiated ban that will merely serve to embarrass you further when it becomes public knowledge?

I don't expect a response to this email, since that would make a liar out of your "no appeal" stance, but please be aware that I shall be taking the opportunity, when the ban expires, to express my opinions regarding the management of the forums, and that in the meantime I shall be communicating widely, both inworld and via external channels, the censorial attitude you have demonstrated and the vindictive and unsubstantiated disciplinary action you have taken.

Yours VERY sincerely

Cato


On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Linden Lab Moderators <lindenlabcommunitymoderator@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Cato Badger,

Thank you for participating in the Second Life community.  However, your account has reached the maximum violations allowed and is now banned for one week. Any account created to avoid this ban will also be banned.  

Copy of last violation: (harassment)

Thank you,

Linden Lab Moderation Team

7 comments:

  1. Well, I see you posted in the new "forums"...to speculate on my demise. LoL. I'm rather curious myself what my Ppppppththth to Genn Moderator will induce.

    I see nothing there worth fighting for, Pep. It is a ridiculous system, both the format (inc. kudos etc) and the no appeal "system" of jack booted moderation is just as stupidly ineffective as the last system of so-called moderation. Why the folks at Linden Research can't manage the simple task of Forum management has always been beyond me.

    The lousy moderation of the old Forum, where you'd get a post pulled for any old whim and never know what it was about and (if one was so inclined, prevent it from happening again)and the lack of the ability to appeal just made posting in that place a waste of time and the abuse wasn't stopped either! Lose-lose.

    This forum set up is in many ways more lame with all the little doodads and rigamarole and the moderation, though apparently different seems to be pathetically similar.

    Meh. Why bother?

    I know you think poking easy targets is fun, and yeah, I have to admit to sometimes partaking in the sport (recent posts) and to test the new system but really, it was just out of boredom. Mounting a major campaign to rescue the forums just seems like too much effort for too little cause. YMMV

    ReplyDelete
  2. I pretty much agree, to such an extent that I might break my silence and start a thread asking whether the forums are worth "rescuing" just to see how annoyed Amanda might get.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, I saw a Pep on the forum.
    FYI, I have put this on my blog as well, including links to twitter :).

    ReplyDelete
  4. DQ Darwin is a perennial annoyance and deserves to be slapped metaphorically for her simpering forums behaviour that involves sucking up to power and stepping on people she feels are "out of line" with her little power clique. Look on her profile, see what she's about -- you get what you pay for there.

    So perhaps Cato's instinct to Badger her is apt, but he's a nasty little piece of work himself.

    Honestly, all your forums-dwellers are a pack of junk-yard dogs and always have been, even if you are clever enough not to slather always.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey, Prok has deigned to post a comment here. Is that the equivalent of the royal seal of approval? Once again, however, as is common with what I have seen in her posts (although I can't say I have bothered to read many of them - they are like my wife's rants: boring, repetitive and self-centred) she has missed the point (several of them, in fact) completely.

    ReplyDelete
  6. O.o IP address in that screenshot is not masked. Might want to remove that link, just saying

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Argus, but it was the first thing I checked with Cato when this fiasco blew up, and she said that it was just one in an extended series of a disposable proxy addresses and when I tried to access it I got nothing but a blank screen. Reverse lookup doesn't get you very far either. I would recommend everyone use proxies when accessing LL 'net properties henceforth, which seems to be the consensus at SLU as well.

    ReplyDelete