| Author |
Topic:
What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 11:43pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
The thing is that E_S, KK and Mr44 can be funny as hell when they want to - I think they just have to be careful of the degree of mocking sarcasm they put into their posts, for some sensitive Senate newbies may not take it well and will leave in a huff.
I certainly am not trying to categorise the Senate Mods as a bunch of fascist bully boys, I was simply illustrating a personal example for the purposes of the FG discussion.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
1/13/06 9:59am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
LostOnHoth posted:
The thing is that E_S, KK and Mr44 can be funny as hell when they want to - I think they just have to be careful of the degree of mocking sarcasm they put into their posts, for some sensitive Senate newbies may not take it well and will leave in a huff.
I certainly am not trying to categorise the Senate Mods as a bunch of fascist bully boys, I was simply illustrating a personal example for the purposes of the FG discussion.
If people can't handle mocking sarcasm, I doubt they'd have survived in the JCC. 
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
MariahJSkywalker
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Mar '05
|
Date Posted:
1/13/06 1:34pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
If people can't handle mocking sarcasm, I doubt they'd have survived in the JCC.
Ain't that the truth.
-----signature-----
many people here should be fixed, but that's another story.-KW Smut Peddlin' Squaw of the Knights of the 3SA/JCC Sarcasm Table R.I.P. Snowie 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/13/06 3:44pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
I couldn't moderate the Senate without having a sense of humour about things; like the thread I said needly to gently be put to rest <bang>. If nothing else it keeps bans down; I actually have banned very few people and have hated doing it each time. Well, not true; there was this one time I banned someone for baiting... 
One thing KW and I discussed, over e-cognac and e-cigars, was the possibility of instead of a re-direct; if a YJCC thread becomes to Senate-y, it gets locked and the users told if they wish to continue it, they may go to this thread int he Senate to discuss it. How's that sound?
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/13/06 3:59pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Hmm, I think I may have somewhat misunderstood. I'd be more in favor of moderator intervention before a lock, asking people to tone discussion down or face a lock and redirect. If people persist in discussing as they had been, off it goes. That doesnt mean toning down things like flaming or heated discussion, but rather the heaviness or tone of the discussion itself. If the thread is starting to resemble a classic Senate discussion, it's time to change or move.
That's how I understood it, at least.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"The Obama Car will be fueled by FISA amendments and emit civil liberties for exhaust." A-B
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/13/06 4:02pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Well I would say either way works, but certainly your take on it is probably vastly better than mine given yours acts when the ideas are salvagable. 
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
1/13/06 6:05pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
|
I'd endorse KW's suggestion.
-----signature-----
Yeah, mind power, Swede; mind power.
You can never have too much precision in your soup.
Exit, pursued by a bear
More Rockets = More Science
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
VoijaRisa
Registered:
Oct '02
|
Date Posted:
1/14/06 12:07am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
|
I still find the concept of a mod coming in and saying "Hey! You're thinking too hard!" a bit strange. To me, that completely defeats the purpose of allowing serious threads in the JCC. What good is a serious thread if you can't take it seriously?
-----signature-----
"They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance."
~Terry Pratchett
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
1/14/06 12:13am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
If the thread is starting to resemble a classic Senate discussion, it's time to change or move.
Exactly my sentiments as above.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
TheBoogieMan
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/16/06 1:55am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Something that concerns me, and I think it fits best in this thread.
If, for example, we *do* remove discussion on serious topics from the JCC, and move it all over to the Senate, where is it that I can come on the JC and post my thoughts on an issue without having to back them up? I know I don't speak for everyone, but I'd really like there still to be somewhere on the JC I can post a paragraph about the latest debate. A "fire and forget" mentality, perhaps. Now, I'm not saying that this inherently has to be in the JCC, but I am saying that this has to be on the JC.
Either the JCC is allowed to discuss serious topics, or the Senate has all serious topics but people are allowed to discuss them in a less-than-serious manner. That for me is the crux of the issue.
Perhaps a useful distinction is not JCC vs. Senate topics, but rather "discussion on serious topics" versus "serious discussion".
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/16/06 2:37am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Uh, noone's saying we outta take all the serious stuff outta the YJCC Dan...
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/16/06 5:25am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
KnightWriter posted:
I'd be more in favor of moderator intervention before a lock, asking people to tone discussion down or face a lock and redirect. If people persist in discussing as they had been, off it goes. That doesnt mean toning down things like flaming or heated discussion, but rather the heaviness or tone of the discussion itself.
VoijaRisa posted:
I still find the concept of a mod coming in and saying "Hey! You're thinking too hard!" a bit strange. To me, that completely defeats the purpose of allowing serious threads in the JCC. What good is a serious thread if you can't take it seriously?
Ender_Sai posted:
Uh, noone's saying we outta take all the serious stuff outta the YJCC Dan...
i have serious issues with the first quote, completely agree with the second, and find the third somewhat incongruent.
so... one is allowed to have heated, serious discussion in jcc but if it becomes too heavy then it gets closed? where is the line? what is serious and what is heavy? does heavy mean posting links? i firstly have huge issue with a mod telling a userbase how and what they should be posting (TOS excluded) but secondly, doesn't this get back to the whole point of the jcc userbase not necessarily EVER going to follow up this discusion, that they created themselves, in the Senate?
people want to discuss stuff with the people they know, the people they hang out with, who they like. it is as much to do with that than the actual discussion itself. as i've said before, there seems to be a growing emphasis on placing too much time and thinking towards the respective forums rather than the individuals who make up those forums, and that is not a good thing.
the brokeback mountain being banned in particular theatres in utah thread in the jcc is a fine example of intelligent, serious discussion within the jcc... how many mods here would consider closing it down because utah's political and religious ideals and freedom of speech and artistic integrity and a businessman being able to do what he likes and it not actually being about business but morality and et cetera... should all belong in the Senate? if you closed that thread, choosing just one random exampple, you would rob the jcc populace of a discussion that they obviously have the desire, and intelligence, to discuss.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/16/06 6:07am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
epic posted:
i have serious issues with the first quote, completely agree with the second, and find the third somewhat incongruent.
Then maybe you aren't actually trying to understand what the issues are. No one, not me, not Ender_Sai, not Mr44, and not the Senate regulars, has claimed that all serious discussion should be removed from the JCC and moved to the Senate. In fact, all of us have taken great pains to express that we are not trying to do that. If you want, I could go back to posting quotes from everyone I listed showing so.
I wish you would stop portraying it as if we were all lying about our position.
epic posted:
so... one is allowed to have Star Wars discussion in jcc but if it becomes too heavy then it gets closed? where is the line? what Star Wars and what is not? does Star Wars posting references? i firstly have huge issue with a mod telling a userbase how and what they should be posting (TOS excluded) but secondly, doesn't this get back to the whole point of the jcc userbase not necessarily EVER going to follow up this discusion, that they created themselves, in the movie forums?
people want to discuss stuff with the people they know, the people they hang out with, who they like. it is as much to do with that than the actual discussion itself. as i've said before, there seems to be a growing emphasis on placing too much time and thinking towards the respective forums rather than the individuals who make up those forums, and that is not a good thing.
Read the bold parts of what I quoted there for a moment. Applying the exact same principles that you have repeatedly expressed in your descriptions of the JCC userbase, why not let the JCC allow Star Wars discussion? After all, if people want to discuss it "with the people they know, the people they hang out with, who they like", why not?
Or, should any and all mentions of Star Wars be completely eliminated in JCC? If you mention Star Wars in a post, it should be edited, and if it starts a thread, it gets redirected to the movie forums. By your arguments, applied to another topic instead of serious discussions, Star Wars should be fair game in the JCC. By your descriptions of what I and others have been saying, all mentions of Star Wars should be absolutely removed from teh JCC.
By your reasoning, the JCC should be allowed to discuss any and all topics, simply because the users there aren't willing to go elsewhere to discuss stuff. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't agree with allowing pure Star Wars discussion in the JCC, but that you don't have a problem with references to Star Wars. Why do those principles change when it changes to different topics of disucssion? What makes someone in your opinion more likely to go to another forum to discuss Star Wars, but not for the "serious" discussions?
If a JCC thread turns into a discussion of Star Wars, what do you expect the moderators to do? Simply allow it, because it "evolved" into that discussion? Or should they redirect the thread (or even just the users involved) to the proper forum? What about if we change that topic from a movie-forums thread, to a Senate-style thread? Why does the answer change just because the topic of the thread moves from Star Wars to something with a more serious and political tone?
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/16/06 7:33am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
the comparison doesn't fly.
the Senate is an off-shoot board from the JCC whereas the JCC is an off-shoot from the Star Wars forums. Star Wars forums are, Social thread notwithstanding, about Star Wars. the JCC is not, and has never been, curtailed by any one particular topic... be it inane, serious, or anything inbetween. except religious threads, for a particular period.
epic posted:
so... one is allowed to have heated, serious discussion in jcc but if it becomes too heavy then it gets closed? where is the line? what is serious and what is heavy? does heavy mean posting links? i firstly have huge issue with a mod telling a userbase how and what they should be posting (TOS excluded) but secondly, doesn't this get back to the whole point of the jcc userbase not necessarily EVER going to follow up this discusion, that they created themselves, in the Senate?
that is what i originally posted, acknowledging that the jcc is allowed to have 'heated, serious discussion', which i accept that you, Mr44, whoever have agreed to... the more pertinent question, which you have avoided, involves the subjectivity in what turns a 'heated, serious' discussion, which we all say is allowed, into something too 'heavy', which possibly may not? also the actual plausibility of either a) telling users to dumben down their responses or b) locking a particular thread and re-directing them to another forum, whereby they are, supposively, meant to continue posting -- in what would appear to be exactly the same manner -- and, assuming that they do all actually follow the re-direct(which is extremely doubtful in my opinion) i have to question -- why bother? is this really in the interests of the members or in the interest of propping up a particular forum?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/17/06 12:48am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
But in a way, you're illustrating the issue for us.
Again, none of this was started because any of us want to remove all serious threads from the JCC, but to define and delineate the relationship of the forums.
Let's say someone created a thread in JCC titled:
"A detailed examination of the tactics of Oliver Hazard Perry during the battle of Lake Erie..."
The thread would probably go something like this:
1)I visited Lake Erie once.
2)You're a dork
3)He was cool.
4) O RLY?
5)I did a paper on him, but I don't remember
before sinking into JCC obilivion.
That's not automatically bad, good, or an indication of anything else in relation to the other forums, it's just the JCC.
Does the desire to "keep it within the community" mean that such a thread is appropriate for the JCC? No, it's pretty obvious that it is a definitive Senate thread, and should be directed there. Just like a thread titled "The Calculus Help Thread," even though it is serious, is better supported by the social nature of the JCC.
Ok. So those were easy examples, but they do illustrate each forum.
But what about threads that are less cut and dried? How are the 2 forums defined in relation to each other in those cases?
There are still "Senate threads," and there are "JCC threads," but is it desireable to make the Senate less serious, less essay-like, while making the JCC better able to support serious discussiom? What role would each forum have?
That's why we're here, to determine how we can support each other, and perhaps to dispel the myth that the Senate is nothing but 2,000 word essays, and the JCC is nothing but poop and owls.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
