Acronyms

If the line wasn't in such a ridiculous place, it'd be alot easier to accept it.

 

You: Thinks it is ridiculous.
Josh: Finds it acceptable and ridiculous that you find it ridiculous.

You: User on board he owns, free to come and go as you please.
Josh: Owner who pays all the bills and is the Rule Maker.

 

wow you are smrt

 

Hmm... let's see, we have: slash fic, abbreviations and canon wars.

Is it dead horse week in comms or something?

YubYub and TG- Protecting fangirls from hormonally gifted fanboys since 2002

 

That's what happens when we skip a MS update. The pent up anger and frustration needs to be diverted to another outlet.

 

But, Sape, you bear some responsibility for this, and so does Josh, by allowing it to continue.

We can't type acronyms or abbreviations that include the f-word. We can't post slash fanfic or links to slash fanfic.

Those are facts, and they appear to be unchanging. Those are the rules. A case has been made to change those rules, and the owner of the house said "no."

But there are still people in Comms making the same accusations and assertions, and belittling the beliefs and choices of the site's owner, and no one is doing anything abbout it. You let it continue, Sape. Josh lets it continue. Why don't you stop it? Why don't you simply decree that these issues are settled. They are settled. That doesn't mean they're settled to everyone's satisfaction, but they are unchanging. We've crossed the point at which the same few people complaining every few days about the same old issues becomes at best trolling, and at worst a burden to the JC and its members.

What could possibly be left to discuss? What other case can be made that has yet to be made? Any reasonable person can see that the discussion on the WT* issue or the slash issue is exhausted. So to whom should the site cater? Should it cater to those who defy facts and concepts of private ownership rights and continue to burden the Adminisitration, or should it cater to the reasonable people who understand these concepts and accept them as unwavering? Are you catering to the ones who won't accept any answer that they don't like, or do you cater to the people who are able to enjoy the JC even with these reasonable limits?

You need to decide, because allowing it to continue without end isn't doing any good for the JC.

AYBABTU?

 

Speaking of which, isn't it time for another now?

 

We let it continue simply because I suppose it's the purpose of Comms. But my position will still remain that it's not changing until I hear otherwise. See, if I locked the thread I'd be a lock Nazi.

And Saint, come on bud. I give you some sort of thought out response. In your past three posts you said things are ridiculous, stupid, and you give me the comment about being smart. You can argue a point quite well. I've seen it. Those posts don't help your cause.

 

Is it the purpose of Comms to be a place where a few users can disregard the wishes of the site's owner, repeatedly bring up the same issues and ask the same questions, and occupy moderators' time by asking questions to which they have already received an answer?

This is akin to someone starting a thread in the JCC asking a question, receiving an answer, and starting another thread asking the same question a dozen more times. At what point does that become wrong?

I thought the purpose of Comms was as a forum for users to post suggestions or ask questions about the JC. Once questions such as these have been definitively answered dozens and dozens of times, it becomes ridiculous to continue to allow it to happen. It is a failure of the Administration to effectively moderate the Communications forum, and it prevents the forum from being used as it should be.

AYBABTU?

 

AYBABTU, I can understand that point and I feel that I know the intentions of aforementioned users. In fact, I'm positive of their intentions. But I look at it from the perspective that maybe a new user or someone who has ventured into Comms for the first time and the whole thing may be new to them. Those are the one's I want to reach.

And despite the fact that it honestly is the same people again and again bringing up these points, I still want to practice what I preach and allow them the opportunity to discuss their concerns freely and openly. I want them to know that I will respond in kind with respect and responsibility. But that does not translate to rules being changed or from me reiterating the company line over and over.

 

Can we at least agree that it is lame and tiresome and irrelevant to the purpose of the JC, and the only legitimate reason to participate in such discussions at all is simply for sport?

AYBABTU?

 

You're right, Sape. I really should try not to post when I haven't slept in over 24 hours.

 

AYBABTU, I agree that it is a tired subject indeed, based on the sole reason that Josh made a rule, he's reiterated it a number of times, and we moderate those rules on the website he owns.

Saint, get some sleep. Don't stay up for 24 hours. If it weren't for work, I'd never get any sleep.

 

Can we at least agree that it is lame and tiresome and irrelevant to the purpose of the JC, and the only legitimate reason to participate in such discussions at all is simply for sport?

I agree. The slash debate is representative of a larger social issue, so I understand why people argue that. Canon wars, well, I don't really know why people argue that, but since they do it frequently in my forum I had to start caring.

This dead horse, though, seems trivial to me. Yes, it's an arbitrary rule that lets you post certain letters and not others. However, there's a reason why we shouldn't have profanity on this site, and a line has to be drawn somewhere between what's profane and what isn't. No matter where that line is drawn, it will be equally arbitrary.

 

It seemed to me that you held the issue very near and dear to your heart, and were speaking in absolutes. Then, I gave you and example(Radar) that didn't fit your definition, and you said that the letter A was never included(which showed me 1-You didn't know what radar stood for 2-You didn't know that sometimes acronyms are formed by letters other than the first).

ok, Mayor, i did not say it had to be the first and only the first letter exclusively. all i said was that acronyms are only when a word is formed from the first letters of each word. it is a necessary condition. any inclusion of the second, third, thirty-seventh, etc, letter is insignificant and not crucial to the point i was making. i did not specifically say that it could not include the first AND second letters. i figured you'd be smart enough to figure it out on your own and get the gist of what i was saying, but obviously you aren't. so, you quickly gathered your wits and went into Teh Avenger: Righter of Wrongs mode. //rolleyes (yeah, never seen that before.) i guess next time i'll have to completely spell it out to you and in such a way that even a third grader could understand. maybe you should try and infer what a person is saying and see the point rather than trying to be the weisenheimer.

You were emnbarrassed because you were yelling at other people without having a complete and thourough understanding of what you were talking about. I actually admit in the very beginning that I don't understand it completely and will look further into it...you, on the other hand, pass out information that is either incomplete or incorrect and become upset when that info is challenged.

hahahaha. work on it.

You owned yourself. Get off your high horse, and relax.

i'm still trying to figure this one out. it sounds clever, but sadly, it makes no sense. if i owned myself then i guess i still won, right? *stares blankly*

anyhoo, i'm not gonna continue this with you. feel free to post some more inane blather about how i don't know what acronyms are, followed by some witty hard-edged retorts that many others (long before you ever came around) set the standard for.

 

Hey, you two. Get a classroom.

 

GO BACK TO YOUR GARDEN, OLD MAN.

maybe bobafetish and i should have a pretzel stick duel to settle this. or we could just drop it and move on to more exciting things (underwater basket weaving, for me)

 

"Are we not allowed to say Snafu?"

The "F" can also referred to "fouled"

"Is it dead horse week in comms or something?"



"Hey, you two. Get a classroom."

I'm in mine right now.

 

i would think there'd be a little more leniency with 'snafu' since it's not something that most people recognize as being profane.

 

Sapient said this earlier in the thread, just thought I should mention again as it seems necessary:

I find it perplexing that but a few simple rules have been established, it's made very clear where the line is, and the same people return on a fairly regular basis to Comms to challenge it rather than accepting it and posting in a manner deemed appropriate by the owner. So simple to understand.

Well said.

Josh

 

Erm, the problem is, there aren't just "I find it perplexing that but a few simple rules have been established"

Maybe there are only a couple that Griffen himself has established. I respect that. I respect and admire him for his decision on slash. I want you to know that Josh. However, I think the issue at hand is there are so *many* rules, people are sick of it. And they change all the time. What can and can't be posted in any given forum. What is and isn't considered spam. What's redundant. What subjects are banned.

WT* is just the icing on the cake, honestly. If that were the only rule, or if that and the slash rule were the only banned things, that would be fine with most people, it certainly would be fine with me.

But there are a bazillion rules, people break ythem without having a clue they're breaking a rule, they get banned without warning, and so forth. Basically,I am sick of the current regime here. It's not one issue, it's everything put together.

Nazi reference is inappropriate.

Except, of course, slash. Josh, if you relent on the slash rule, I am so leaving this joint.

 

I still understand what the...allure...of the F-word or its forms is. Why do you have to use it? Do I use it? Yes. Do I use it often? Sometimes. Do I take some sort of pride in this fact? No. Its something I do. And when I'm someplace where I'm not supposed to, I have no problem adjusting my language. Seriously? Why do you feel you should have some right to use the word? Why is it such a big deal that on a Star Wars meesage board, you can't say the F-word. Or you can't use WT*? Why does it even matter? In my time here, never have I felt that my ability to express myself has been hinderd. When I'm in aplace where I can drop f-bombs, I will, sometimes frequently. When I'm here, or in any other environment where its frowned upon, its no big deal to simply not use it.

Frankly, I think that shows more maturity. The ability to not use it, then arguing endlessly, over and over about your "right" to use it.

 

So, because it doesn't contain the EVIL F, we are allowed to use MILB (Mom I'd Like to Bone), right?

 

Profanity is the feeble attempt of a lazy mind to express itself forcefully.

YubYub and TG- Protecting fangirls from hormonally gifted fanboys since 2002

 

> , I think the issue at hand is there are so *many* rules, people are sick of it. And they change all the time. What can and can't be posted in any given forum. What is and isn't considered spam. What's redundant. What subjects are banned.... But there are a bazillion rules, people break ythem without having a clue they're breaking a rule, they get banned without warning, and so forth.

What utter nonsense. The rules are 99% pure and simple common sense and courtesy.

Anyone who breaks a rule because they genuinely did not realise they were doing wrong will very, very rarely be banned because of it.

The people who ARE banned for breaking fairly minor rules are those who know they're breaking rules and are seeing how far they can push things. When they find out, they complain, or rally their e-friends to complain on their behalf.

Personally, I do not know of any situations like you describe that have happened in the last year of the JC.

// shrug //