MOD LACWAC - Management Statement on Harassment & Poor Behaviour

We'll figure it out in the next couple of weeks.

 

What exactly do you see as harassment?

Seriously all the memes and the like a damn near innocent to the things I've seen on the net

 

I'm surprised this post by the mods has recieved so many comments and questions.... Pretty self-expanatory for me. It seems they are just asking everyone to be considerate of others.

 

Garth Maul If we make a deal like last year, I think I'll automatically fail it. I don't plan on watching the majority of S5.

 

Esg - it's going to have to be a case-by-case basis. Clearly people are banned all the time for trolling, spam, baiting/flaming, etc, without being banned indefinitely. Usually that falls under people getting too heated in an argument and resorting to personal attacks or whatever and usually there would have to be some pattern of harassment. But not necessarily - we have had issues in the past where a user was harassing another user to the point where criminal charges were considered. Oldbies can probably think of a few scandals off the top of their heads.

If this was more of a adult, "no holds barred" forum, people would get away with much more. But it's not, and we think it's clear how we expect people to treat one another.

Come on, GGrievous. Let's make a pact to watch every single episode and give a review in each episode thread.

 

Except I barely see anything in relation to personal attacks curently

 

Garth Maul heh, but can I skip the episode where Ahsoka avoids 32423423542545325352342134 different death situations?

I don't think I could be bothered to wake up early to watch TCW on a Saturday morning. After working late night on Fridays, it'll be the last thing I would do. SW.com seems to be the only option for me.

 

I used to be a LACWAC regular before some of the current regulars were even members on the boards. I posted here from season 1 to about halfway through season 3 before losing interest. And I can safely say it never used to be the way it has been recently. The environment in these parts of the boards is much more hostile than it used to be, much more clique based. And over time, in those few instances I do come into LACWAC threads, I have noted that opinions get attacked in a much more harsh manner than they used to. That goes for both haters and gushers. It wasn't that long ago I was accused of mindlessly hating on TCW for theorising TCW season 5 might be the last one.

And while some people here may be shocked that LACWAC is the part of the boards to get this warning the fact that there were at least 3 threads started in comms on the temp boards that related to issues that arose in these parts of the forums, and not forgetting Garth's previous warning thread in the temp-LACWAC, should not be overlooked. It's pretty amazing given the vast majority of the other threads in temp-comms were related to board malfunctions rather than issues with members or board policy. I admit I haven't paid much attention to these parts of the boards post-move, but that alone should be a testament to how rowdy things have gotten here recently.

However all this being said I also recall the moderation used to be much tighter in these parts. People have gotten away with much more than I remember being able to. So I don't think more active moderation is going to harm anybody. If anything it should make conversation a little more pleasant again.

 

Didn't you make a thread in Comms condemning Garth during the Temp boards?

 

I just started posting here right when Nightsisters came out, and at first I was getting reprimands and warnings simply for going off-topic which I thought was weird because I've participated in plenty of online discussion forums and had never encountered such strict rules. Over time, though, I began to see the validity of such policies. Then when the temps came it seemed all the regular rules had gone out the window and it was very close to total anarchy. I think going back to the way things were before the move is a good idea.

 

I second Zando btw.

 

I checked the temp-board index, there wasn't a single thread started by Chewgumma in Communications. He only created an "Action hero" thread on the Temp-boards and that was in JCC.

 

I think he meant "heavily took part in".

 

And if thou remembereth correctly the thread in question was locked almost a month before Garth opened his warning thread in temp-LACWAC. When new evidence comes to light people can rethink their positions about a subject y'know.

 

And yet this subject is drawing upon past transgressions. Am I to assume that yours are to be ignored while ours are kept on a tab?

 

That doesn't even make any sense. All I have stated is an explanation as to probably why LACWAC is the focus of moderator attention at the moment. A changed opinion does not equate to the same thing.

 

Since it's not supposed to be talked about, is there a way to know if someone's banned or do we just have to guess?

 

It's a fair question. On the old boards, before the move to Xenforo, you could easily tell by clicking on a profile and getting a message saying a user was banned. Even if we don't discuss bans or banned users, it seems like people should be able to find out for themselves without talking about it.

 

A lack of a few individuals will make it clear who, eventually.

 

Each user is accountable for their behavior. Past, present and future. What you fail to account for is the amount of time spent in research and the subsequent deliberation of this subject.

Assume all you want, but everybody has a tab.

 

Let's all just go listen to the new Grizzly Bear

But yes, we try to keep track of issues. I don't have a clean sheet myself

 

So it's possible for one to be banned all of the sudden for something they did in the past on the whim of the mod who bans them?

 

Seems that way doesn't it? But I suppose if you suck up enough they turn their heads.

Just assuming

 

You know what happens when you assume something.

 

Yeah, I create a theory based off of prior experience and my own personal opinion of a person.