Concerning Moderator Edits.

Woah. No need for personal attacks, mods. tSW is doing absolutely nothing wrong here. She isn't starting a crusade, and she certainly isn't becoming anyone's "personal advocate". I realize that mods and ex-mods tend to stay in formation. When one opinion is said, the others tend to follow along with that. Understandable, but there certainly isn't anything wrong with listening to the member's personal opinions. It's okay to stand your ground, that's encouraged, but when changes need to be made or at open-mindedly discussed, the MS should open-mindedly go into the discussion. Hell, I've made plenty of my own threads and jumped into plenty of discussions where the mods were simply so brain dead, they wouldn't consider (and sometimes much less read) the opposing side of the story. tSW isn't attacking your "leadership", and she certainly isn't a threat to you. She's a good member who's simply holding on a good discussion. Embrace that. You won't get many users like that. I realize many of you know the site quite well. Respectable and well acknowledged, however, that doesen't automatically make the community's view obsolete.

A mod on this site years ago once said "I'm no one special, I'm just a member who has decided to help the site to a further degree." You're respectable for volunteering, ladies and gentlemen, don't ruin the outside splendor.

 

I realize that mods and ex-mods tend to stay in formation. When one opinion is said, the others tend to follow along with that

So is that why former moderators have often clashed with the current administration (throughout the JC's history)? If there's a problem with a moderator or the administration, former moderators don't often have any trouble pointing it out.

 

Were former moderators as closely aligned as the current squad - before, during, and after their stints?


More on-topic: I've just found from seeing my usernotes about an edit on one of my posts that I didn't know had been edited, for saying "Jesus". I can't PM the mod, as the thread's been deleted and I don't know who did the edit. Is there any way I can clear this up?

 

Just my two cents, but if it's an edit that was done a while back (March from the looks of things) and the thread is deleted there's probably not much to talk about.

 

I was just wondering how I broke TOS by saying Jesus. It's not worth starting a thread over, but I can't find out the usual way, and it raises the issue of what to do in such circumstances.
It did make it into my notes, and malkie said before:

I wasn't contacted.

 

Woah. No need for personal attacks, mods. tSW is doing absolutely nothing wrong here.

I'm sorry. I'm not seeing any personal attacks to either Scarlett, or Hawk. The only thing that could be described as an insult is the term "thought police". I'd just ask that we keep things in perspective, here. Unless I missed something, then, by all means point out the personal attack(s).

 

I was just wondering how I broke TOS by saying Jesus.

You're not allowed to say Jesus unless you're actually mentioning him.

 

Well it depends on the context, but generally speaking if it's said in a way that could be taken as improper use or as an exclamation it should be edited. Not knowing the actual context of the original post I can't vouch for the action taken in this case, though I'm sure that it would not have been edited unless used improperly.

Hope that helps!


EDIT: Basically what that quote says, yes.

 

Seriously?

 

Oh my God!


It's Jesus, lol is OK though, right?

 

Yup!

 

Two parter: 1) What was the context in which it was used, and 2) can you link to it?

 

Um. Jesus is a common name in Spain and South America.

 

True, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the concept of improper usage though.

 

Do all religions have the same protection of religious figures on this site?

 

We're talking about the allowed use of certain words, which can be determined though the acceptable/unacceptable word lists.

 

Do you have a link?

 

I thought you might ask - there is a good (and current as far as I know) list in this JCC thread.

Hope that helps!

 

I remember that thread.

I don't see Jesus listed.

 

Hmm, it seems as though it's not as current as I thought. Let me dig up the list from MS real quick.


EDIT:


Allowable:

Hell
Damn
Douche (when not being used as an insult)
Crap
Ass / Arse and derivatives (when not being used as an insult at a person)
Bitch (true dictionary definition and verb useage)
Bastard (dictionary definition and some verb useage)
Penis / Vagina / any proper term for genetalia (only in a sheer biological sense and discussion)

Not Allowed:

Pr**k (except when used as a proper noun or a verb)
Wan**r / W**k / Wa**ing
To**er
**** / ****ing / ****ed (and any term / acronym that implies it)
***t
Tw*t
Retarded (when directed at someone of something - demeaning)
Ni**er / Ch**k / G**k / ***n / Cr**ker (any racial slur)
Gay / G**y / H*mo / D*ke (used in derogitory fashion)
F*g / ***got (when used in a derogatory fashion)
**** / ****e (also POS for 'piece of ****')
***k
Pu**y (when referring to anything other than in the feline sense)
B**ch (referencing a person) (also Bee-y**ch, or Bi-o**h, or B**chslap)
Son of a B**ch (or it's acronym)
B***ard (when used as an insult to any person)
Sl*t / Wh*re / Ho
As**ole / Ar**hole
God d**n / Godd**nit
Jesus Christ (when not referring to Jesus himself)

 

Oh my eyes, my eyes.

Kidding.

Thanks.

So is there a thread where we can put our requests for certain words not to be used with a rational, logical explanation?

I have this thing about certain words I see used all the time that just really get under my skin.

It will give you guys something to discuss other than problem users.

Edit: so people shouldn't really be using the phrase "Attention Whore" right?

Please don't ban me for asking that question.

 

"THAT SUCKS!!!111one"
Did he say that? Why use netspeak in Comms?

I did that because it was a general example that characterized senseless bashing of the prequels. As I said, I have no problem with someone who maturely explains why they don't like something about the prequels. However, when someone says (as in this specific case) "It comes across as a REAL alien planet unlike the plastic, CGI crappiness of the PT," there is a problem.

If the user had said "It comes across as a REAL alien planet, which is something that I didn't feel was captured as well in the prequels as in the originals because of the technology used to create the scenes," it would have been fine (most likely - I don't know the exact thread that said comment was posted in).

See the difference?

 

So although the word "crap" is allowed, when referring to the PT it is not.

Wow.

Edit: I mean Wow. Hey - it comes to close to Orwellian tones here.

 

Context is everything - specific questions related to usage of words in certain forums should be directed to the manager of that area.

Nope - that would be the type of thing you'd probably want to PM and admin about.

 

Context

The anti-PT comments were not necessary, especially in that post and that thread. It has nothing to do with the word "crap" and everything to do with the fact that he called the prequels "crappy" with no real reason other than to get a bash in.