Clarification on what is "appropriate" material for the JC forums

How do the mods determine what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" on the forums?

The Terms of Service gives us some basic rules of conduct:

User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense.

However, I'm not sure that these rules are enforced strictly as written. For example, there is plenty of sexually oriented material, but much of it is considered appropriate within a serious discussion or debate. Could we get some clarification from the mods as to what counts as appropriate in this regard? I am not asking for you to give an official interpretation of the rules so we can find loopholes; rather, I would like to see some guidelines users can follow to keep themselves from crossing the line.

I'd also like to be able to discuss some of the other terms in the rules of conduct that are vaguely defined. For example, in a heated debate, where do you draw the line between a strong rebuttal and an "abusive" post? What counts as "hateful"?

Instead of users having to PM a mod when they have a question about appropriate content, I would like to have this thread open to users to ask questions about how the rules are applied to certain scenarios, and for the mods to provide basic guidelines that everyone will be able to see and follow.

(Please note: users should not use this thread to question the appropriateness of a specific post or to complain about a specific user. Those questions should still be submitted to a mod via PM.)


I'd like to start the thread off with this question to the moderators: what are some basic guidelines for references to sex? What's allowed and what's not?

 

Fortunately or unfortunately, it?s all in the eye of the beholder. The general level that is aimed for is to keep things to the same level as the Star Wars films and expanded universe, no further. So, you make jokes about sex, provided they?re not too dirty. You can be harsh in your rebuttal, provided you attack the ideas and not the person. But it?s all subjective.

If those I cite would forgive me for using them as examples , what farraday considers too abrasive and what anakin_girl considers too abrasive are pretty far apart. Neither of them is necessarily right or wrong about what they consider to be acceptable, and as moderators, we try to find a middle ground. A question to ask is, ?Did that concept need to be expressed that way? How easy would it have been to express it in a different way??

Regarding sex, the question I ask is, ?what would my grandmother think if she walked into the room and saw what I was looking at?? On the one hand, she?s a fairly liberal woman, who supports the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, and has absolutely no problem with pre-marital sex. On the other hand, she is my grandmother, and tends to take exception to the cruder sexual jokes (French Foreign Legion + Camel jokes don?t impress her much), pornography outside of controlled circumstances, etc. When that question fails to give me a straight answer, I ask myself, ?what would my grandmother think if my cousins (ranging from 4 to 11 years old) were to see this?? Between those two questions, I can usually come to an answer.

Of course, it?s still subjective.

 

User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar,...


So if I start a post that says "The majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush" or "Iraq has weapons mass destruction" or "The U.S. economy is doing great and has never had so many new jobs created!" I could be banned?

 

yes.

 

Baiting could also get you banned, right?

 

So if I start a post that says "The majority of Americans voted for George W. Bush" or "Iraq has weapons mass destruction" or "The U.S. economy is doing great and has never had so many new jobs created!" I could be banned?

Depends. If you think that that's true, you're almost certainly not going to be banned. If you're making up facts and figures to support and argument, you might be banned. If you make up spoilers and try to pass them off as legitimate, you might be banned. However, we?re not going to ban you for saying ?George W. Bush is one of the greatest presidents the US ever had.? That?s a matter of opinion, and you are not posting anything untrue by posting your opinion (though your opinion could potentially violate other parts of the TOS).

And yes, baiting can definitely get you banned. To continue with the American politics theme, if you go into a thread about the Democratic presidential candidate nomination race and say ?It doesn?t matter who the Democrats nominate ? Bush is better than all of them put together,? you might be warned for baiting, or banned if such behavior is a common thing for you to do.

 

> User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar,...

That clause can be invoked if a moderator needs grounds to close at thread or whatever, but it doesn't have to be invoked at every instance of someone making stuff up, or writing a parody etc.

 

theres a good chance if you went to the YJCC and picked a random thread...you will find at least one those in it

 

So even in the case of a blatant lie, the thread may stay open if the mods deem so? And I am serious in asking this. I do not understand the limits of theis clause of the TOS. When is the line drawn when people post false information?

 

When it's defamatory.

 

So even in the case of a blatant lie, the thread may stay open if the mods deem so?

If a lie is so blatantly outrageous that it's clear no one is expected to believe it, then it would be considered sarcasm or parody, I should think.

 

I ask myself, ?what would my grandmother think if my cousins (ranging from 4 to 11 years old) were to see this??

Why that question? If users that old aren't supposed to be here in the first place, why should they be catered to?

If you make up spoilers and try to pass them off as legitimate, you might be banned.

I always viewed that as the reason for the "knowingly false" clause. If you profile hop, you'll find blatant lies in every other bio. Same in the JCC. Threads are full of all sorts of lies. But it's all in fun.

Amazing.

 

It all boils down to common sense and good judgement on any given situation people. It seems most, if not all of the mods have this trait.

 

It all boils down to common sense and good judgement on any given situation people. It seems most, if not all of the mods have this trait.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! Oh that cracks me up....

Ok, I agree with that statement with the mods in this era of the JC usually. But really being a mod does not equal common sense. They are human....as human as the rest of us I suppose.

I truely wish there were a standard held by all mods on what is allowed and what is not. For example, theres a thread in the JCC called, "Chocolate Milk = A Sublime Elixir of The Gods" if a mod thought that was false they could lock and ban the person for it?

 

womberty...
"How do the mods determine what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" on the forums?"

Life experiences that each moderator brings to the table. Which of course will tend to be different between each moderator.

"However, I'm not sure that these rules are enforced strictly as written."

They are for the most part enforced as much as they need to be. Being the internet, and specifically a l337 internet message board site with l337 users for that matter, we already have a general outlook skewed towards "more discussion > less discussion."


"I would like to see some guidelines users can follow to keep themselves from crossing the line."

If you always follow the TOS, then you will never cross the line. If you never post anything of a sexual nature, then you will never cross the sexual-nature line. If you never post anything harrassing, then you will never cross the harrassment line.

"I'd also like to be able to discuss some of the other terms in the rules of conduct that are vaguely defined. For example, in a heated debate, where do you draw the line between a strong rebuttal and an "abusive" post? What counts as "hateful"?"

The TOS offers no safe harbor behind the shield of "heated debate." The Rules of Conduct cover light-hearted fun just as much as they cover "heated debate." A strong rebuttal becomes an "abusive" post when it rebuts by hurting or injuring another user or assails them with contemptous or insulting words. Anything is "hateful" when it is showing hatred or malevolence.

"I'd like to start the thread off with this question to the moderators: what are some basic guidelines for references to sex? What's allowed and what's not?"

For use of this site, you agree to not make sexually oriented posts, as they are not allowed:

"User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory... sexually oriented..."

If you make sexually oriented posts, then you may find yourself in trouble. If you never make any sexually oriented posts, then you will be alright on that issue.

 

Ok, I agree with that statement with the mods in this era of the JC usually. But really being a mod does not equal common sense. They are human....as human as the rest of us I suppose.

We really have you fooled, don't we? You'd never guess what planet we're really from.

As for what is appropriate, I've always used a fairly simple test. First, I look at what the rules/TOS say. Next, I look at the principles that those rules are based on. Ultimately, it is those principles that we are supposed to uphold as moderators, not some legalistic and loophole-filled rule.

A good example of that comes in the Senate. Several months ago, there was a thread on racist terms entitled "The N-Word". Within that thread, several users actually used several different racial slurs. As a moderator (and with the support of the entire MS), I allowed it, even though a strict interpretation of what the rules say would have shut it down. Why? Because while it might violate the letter of the rules, it did not violate the intent of them.

That is the key. Before you post something that might be considered questionable, don't ask "would the rules allow this", or try to come up with some justification for why it doesn't violate the rules. Instead, ask whether it is in keeping with the intent of the rules. Does it further the goals and intent of this site? If not, don't post it.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If you always follow the TOS, then you will never cross the line. If you never post anything of a sexual nature, then you will never cross the sexual-nature line. If you never post anything harrassing, then you will never cross the harrassment line.

I always follow the TOS. Except for that thing that isn't in the TOS about posting links to sites that have in some way could be hacked material.

 

Except for that thing that isn't in the TOS about posting links to sites that have in some way could be hacked material.

Linking to hacked material is a means of encouraging a criminal offense. Unauthorized access to a computer is a crime, and linking to that material encourages it to continue. Additionally, when the hacked material comes from a private forum, it is invasive of privacy.

Both of those are against the TOS.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Mitt...
"I always follow the TOS. Except for that thing that isn't in the TOS about posting links to sites that have in some way could be hacked material."

Sorry, but if you're posting links to sites that have hacked material, then you're not always following the TOS given that the TOS does not allow:

"invasive of a person's privacy"

Furthermore, womberty was inquiring about the Rules of Conduct.

The Terms of Service allow for the fact that the:"User acknowledges and agrees that the use of the Jedi Council Forums is a privilege, not a right, and that the administration of the Jedi Council has the right, at its sole discretion, to revoke this privilege at any time without notice should the administration deem it necessary."

So, even in some cases, entirely following everything that the Rules of Conduct spell out might not be enough to get you off the hook for posting something inappropriate, but not necessarily covered by the Rules of Conduct.

 

I think it's rather poor to leave so much grey area when it comes to the rules around here. I find that Moderators often use the term "best judgement" as an excuse to ban people that don't violate the TOS.

KK, I wonder how each individual user is supposed to determine what you think the intent of the rules are? You couldn't be any more ambiguous in your definition. Users have nothing to go by but the established rules that they are presented with and their own common sense. What you may deem outside of the scope of the TOS's intent may be completely different from what another Mod, or more importantly in this case, a user does.

It's actually a little humorous.

I was banned recently for what was labled "borderline" trolling and spamming. What on Earth does that mean? I almost spammed and trolled? Of course, it became more clear when I was notified that the Moderator had a problem with my "attitude" as of late, because that really clarifies what I was banned for.

 

KK, I wonder how each individual user is supposed to determine what you think the intent of the rules are? You couldn't be any more ambiguous in your definition. Users have nothing to go by but the established rules that they are presented with and their own common sense. What you may deem outside of the scope of the TOS's intent may be completely different from what another Mod, or more importantly in this case, a user does.

Let me respond by asking you what you think the purpose of the boards is? It is to provide a family-friendly environment to discuss Star Wars and related topics.

Stop and consider that for a moment. What does "family-friendly" mean? It's not simply whatever your family considers frinedly (if it were, using my father's family's standards the JC would be a warzone). It is a fairly common-sense baseline for what most people consider family-friendly. That means things like no profanity, and the limiting of serious topics to certain forums. It also means that people behave and not try to attack or bait other users.

When moderating, the key is to look at that purpose for the forums and compare the posts against that. If it promotes that purpose, then it is fine under the rules. If it does not, then it needs to be dealt with.

I was banned recently for what was labled "borderline" trolling and spamming. What on Earth does that mean? I almost spammed and trolled? Of course, it became more clear when I was notified that the Moderator had a problem with my "attitude" as of late, because that really clarifies what I was banned for.

"Borderline" means that you were consistently trying to push the limits of what is allowed. Again, that doesn't exactly further the purposes for the JC, as it actually encourages people to break the standards. As such, constantly pushing the limits is actionable even if you never cross the line of what is clearly against the TOS. It is an attempt to keep people from trying to break the rules or push the limits as a way of changing the rules.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The bottom line is, it really is up to each Mod.
I saw someone use the word "funk" in the YJCC yesterday and no one even scoffed.
However DA used the same word in here and he got banned.
Each Mod comes with different baggage, and there interpretation of the TOS is different also. It's just a good rule of thumb to get a feel for each forum before testing it's limits.
Some boards are strict, others loose.
I love the way Kimball runs the Senate, it's a little dry but very professional and serious debate exists there which is a rarity at the JC.
Now on the other hand I was board yesterday and went to the Denmark fanforce board and they were dropping the F bomb and no one even cared.

 

It depends upon the context. The word 'funk' by itself isn't a problem. The manner in which DA used it was. I agree with the decision made in Comms regarding that one. This thread is really difficult to answer. It really is easier to provide an idea of what is and is not appropriate material by providing specific examples. The TOS gives you the generalities and the mods are left to use precedence, subjectvity, objectivity, and common sense to the best of our abilities given the wide range of our backgrounds and beliefs. It's not an easy thing to do and we do get called on things a good deal. I consider that to be the checks and balance system.

 

Let me respond by asking you what you think the purpose of the boards is? It is to provide a family-friendly environment to discuss Star Wars and related topics.

I came to the boards because I like the films and found a "community" of posters who discussed everything from Star Wars to Star Jones. There are several ways that people can express themselves in perfect accordance with a "family-friendly" environment, ranging from complete seriousness to light-hearted humor.

"Borderline" means that you were consistently trying to push the limits of what is allowed. Again, that doesn't exactly further the purposes for the JC, as it actually encourages people to break the standards. As such, constantly pushing the limits is actionable even if you never cross the line of what is clearly against the TOS. It is an attempt to keep people from trying to break the rules or push the limits as a way of changing the rules.

How is operating within the parameters of every written mandate pushing the limits? Again, the problem here is ambiguity. It comical to say that a user can be banned because they almost broke one of the rules. I think much of the time a simple warning would be far more appropriate and would serve to let posters know where to draw this invisible, subjective line. Since none of you are willing to follow the concrete rules around here and each of you seems more than willing to apply your own individual (and often inconsistant) standards it would be very beneficial if "borderline" activity was followed up by some form of contact making it known that such behavior isn't going to be tolerated. After that, there really isn't an excuse for pressing beyond what has been clarified.

In my case, I was posting in a thread about George Bush in the YJCC forum. As I understood it, joking was well within the realm of proper behavior for that forum. I did nothing outside of the TOS, none of my post were edited (they still stand in their original form), and yet still I was banned 5 hours later for trolling and spamming. when I asked for a proper explanation I was told that my behavior as of late had contributed to the banning. Had a single mod edited any of my posts or taken 20 seconds to PM me about my behavior, perhaps I could have made a change in my posting habits, which coincidentally have never changed over the course of two years and over 5,000 posts.

In short, if you aren't going to clearly outline your rules around this joint, at least give someone fair warning if you happen to find their behavior to be close to the line. It's only courteous. Of course, the next time you get pulled over for going 54 in a 55, just remember...you were pushing the speed limit by almost going over it. Accept your fine and move on.

 

i don't like the words "knowingly false".

anything that a reasonably objective person could conclude was "knowingly false" to the poster is usually something that isn't serious, and harmless. when it's something that is "knowingly false" and used to shed a negative light on someone it's called libel and it is defamatory.

User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, ...

should be changed to

User agrees not to post material that is libelous or defamatory, ...

the words "knowingly false" creates too many problems and questions. there are more harmless "knowingly false" statements made around here than harmful ones. the words "libelous" and "defamatory" indicate things that are "knowingly false" in a negative way, whereas the words "knowingly false" are much more subjective.