Fan Fiction Update - Week of April 11, 2005

For those of you just joining us, we've recently started posting updates of issues relevant to the fanfic community. For now, these updates will be posted once every two weeks; however, in the future, the frequency of these updates may increase or decrease based on need.

1) In response to the recent Fanfic Survey and Survey Follow Up, a focus group has been formed to discuss several issues that were brought up by members of the community. The focus group is currently hard at work, and our first two topics for discussion are Socialization and Moderator Activity.

We have made some significant headway in the discussion of Socialization as it pertains to threads within the Resource board. There may still be some fine points to iron out, but the essence of what we?ve agreed upon is as posted below:

The main issue wasn't socialization so much as excessive 'off-topic' chatter that was a cause for some concern. Please keep in mind the forums were created to allow fans a place to discuss the Star Wars movies and other elements of fandom, and through that discussion have the opportunity to get to know other Star Wars fans around the globe. There are many places on these boards open to discussions not limited solely to Star Wars but in the Fan Fiction forums topics should be focused on Star Wars and its relevant fan fiction elements.

a) Among the focus group members, there was a consensus that we didn't need more rules or less rules or even stricter rules so much as a better definition of the rules for off-topic conversation within the fanfic threads.

b) Secondly, there was also an issue of responsibility for maintaining threads and preventing them from being derailed. It was decided that thread hosts should bear primary responsibility for maintaining their threads. Only in the event that the thread host was unable to monitor his/her own thread would moderators need to step in. However, all users should also keep in mind that excessive chatter that derails a thread is unfair to others who are not part of the off-topic conversation, and each user has a responsibility to refrain from flooding a thread with off-topic conversations.


- Therefore, the rule is being rewritten as such:

Posted conversations within a thread that stray away from the thread?s theme into chat that is either purely personal in nature or strays off the thread's theme completely are considered off-topic and should not be allowed to overwhelm the thread, that is, the majority of a thread's posts must be relevant to the thread's theme. It is the responsibity of the person who begins a thread or hosts it to redirect the topic of discussion when necessary. If for some reason this is not possible (the host is not online for an extend period of time) and no other user has stepped forward to refocus discussion, a mod may take whatever action necessary to insure that the Fan Fiction boards stay focused on Star Wars. If you're in doubt, your friendly fanfic mods will be happy to help you figure out which conversations on your thread are pertinent and of interest to all, and which ones are likely to be perceived by your readers as off-topic, exclusive, and of interest only to the few involved.

-This rule applies equally to threads in the story forums as well as the Resource forum.

c) Lastly, anticipating the rise of many new threads in the wake of the release of ROTS, a new rule will be implemented regarding the creation of new socialization threads. All threads currently in existence will be allowed to continue; however, as of May 1, 2005, new socialization threads (e.g. ?Over 30 Writers?) can only be created in Resource with moderator permission. This rule does not extend to random users starting a thread to ask a specific question related to fanfic issues; rather, just to threads designed for long-term discussion. This new rule is to prevent flooding the boards with threads that do not center on Star Wars Fan Fiction.[/bl

 

Hey, nice job! Very organized. Thanks for getting all that together for us, LP.

 

Question about the socialization rules: Does the combination of thread host control and mods having to okay new long-term threads mean that if someone who wanted no socialization started a discussion thread but a significant group of users wanted a looser atmosphere in discussing that same topic, they would have no option but to stay silent since the old thread did not allow socializing and a new thread would be redundant? (just trying to understand)

 

The ultimate answer comes from the mods--I'm just responding as a random focus group member who happens to be online right now.

My response to your question would be no--the thread host isn't stuck with having to allow people to "move in" and change the focus or theme of their thread. Actually, thread hosts are the "first line of defense" against having their thread derailed, since only the thread host knows 100% for sure what the thread was intended for. If a few polite, "Hey guys, this thread is supposed to be about X" requests don't get you anywhere, you can turn to the mods and say, "Could you give this thread a nudge in the right direction? People in there aren't listening to me at the moment." Then one of the mods will come in with a "stay on topic" reminder.

I see this as pretty much a clarification of the way things usually work right now. Thread hosts provide links and friendly redirections to confused users all the time, since they're the people best qualified to do so. Only the person who started the Qui-Gon's Hairpiece Discussion Thread knows for sure if discussion of Qui-Gon's fake beard is acceptable or a derailing of the thread, so they're the primary experts on whether a conversational redirection is necessary when people start talking fake beards. If the thread host isn't around or can't direct the discussion just then, thread regulars can redirect confused users to a more relevant thread. ("This is not the thread you're looking for . . .") Mods only come in with unrequested "stay on topic" edits as a last resort, when the majority of posts in a thread have veered beyond anything that has to do with Star Wars and fanfic, and it doesn't look like the host or one of the regulars are going to steer it back on track any time soon.

This is really what happens 99% of the time anyway, so don't panic about weird new rules going into effect that will get you in trouble before you know it.

So basically:

"Fine tuning" a thread's focus is primarily the job of the thread host, but thread regulars can do it if it's not possible/convenient for the host to do that right then. ("Oh, you want the Qui-Gon's Fake Beard Discussion thread. Here we talk about his fake hair. Here's a link.") Mods are not going to come in and make "stay on topic" edits based on really narrow distinctions like that.

Maintaining the overall "Star Wars and fanfic" theme of the FanFic Forums is primarily the job of the mods, but other people can certainly help out too. (Regular users are probably better off providing redirections to simply-confused users rather than "derailing-on-purpose" users, though.) Examples of things that might erode the forums' basic theme if allowed to continue are: debates about politics (belong in the Senate); complaints about the workings of the boards (belong in Comms); and discussions about hot girls at Target (belong in YJCC). If the majority of posts in a thread start revolving around topics that have nothing to do with Star Wars or fanfic, a mod might make an uninvited "stay on topic" edit.

The goal of clarifying these rules was to make sure that thread hosts and regulars had the primary say about what belonged in their threads, so long as the content largely stayed within the themes of Star Wars and fanfic. (Qui-Gon's hair, beard, eyebrows, and eyelashes--real or fake--all = okay. Hot girls at Target = move the conversation to YJCC.)

Mods & other FG members--if any of that is off, please let me/everyone else know.

Edit: The only thing the mods have to okay are social threads started after May 1. LP's example of a social thread was "The Over 30 Writers' Club." I think there's a list of such threads under the heading, "Let's Get Conversational" in the forum index at the top of the page. For lack of a highly specific definition of "social thread" (which I don't think we have right now), I'd look at the index examples and figure that social threads are threads "like that."

 

Not quite what I asked... the focus of my question was on what would happen if there was a group of users who wanted to joke around slightly off-topic while discussing a topic while the original poster (thread host) of a thread on that Star Wars related topic desired NO socialization. What would happen in this case?

 

Oh, you mean if there was a thread on a topic, but it didn't suit eveybody's needs because different people wanted it run in very different ways? We talked about that, but I don't know that we came to a definitive consensus on it. I think the feeling was that this doesn't happen very often, so why fret about it? For what it's worth, the "one thread, two thread-style preferences" situation has happened before, and the judgment call at the time was that a new thread could be started at the mods' discretion. (I think the new thread was supposed to be at least *somewhat* different, in order to avoid 100% redundancy.) Creating separate threads to acommodate different discussion styles is kind of an extreme solution, and speaking personally, I'd rather see people try to work it out between themselves first. However, "thread splits" of this kind have happened in the past. Before the topic got dropped in the FG, I think people were pretty much leaning toward "mods' discretion."

 

What Ophelia has said is our current stance on it, so far as we've discussed it. You'll have to petition the mods to start a new thread if the current one, you feel, doesn't suit your needs. And "'Cause we want it" won't be enough, you'll need to thoroughly explain why. We don't want a flood of new threads as ROTS approaches; things are going to be interesting as it is.


Dana

 

LP: First off, just to be clear. I address you as if you were the voice of the fanfic mods. (The royal we I suppose ) I understand that you are just the front chosen by the moderator group, and are thereby simply stating a group's mindset and not your own personal thoughts on the matter. Therefore I intend these comments for the entire moderating staff and not you personally.

The main issue wasn't socialization so much as excessive 'off-topic' chatter that was a cause for some concern. Please keep in mind the forums were created to allow fans a place to discuss the Star Wars movies and other elements of fandom, and through that discussion have the opportunity to get to know other Star Wars fans around the globe. There are many places on these boards open to discussions not limited solely to Star Wars but in the Fan Fiction forums topics should be focused on Star Wars and its relevant fan fiction elements.

I?m glad we?re seeing some outflow of information from the focus groups. I am concerned, and I think others are too, that the limited nature of your report leaves the rest of the users with a sort of ?behind closed doors? feeling. Not that I don?t think you (the mods and the focus group) didn?t talk the issue out to its fullest, but typically a focus group will choose one or more persons to provide a comprehensive follow-up report on the discussion. Thereby ensuring that the focus group did cover all the bases.

That leads me to some questions?

What was the focus group?s discussion in relation to the fanfiction discussions a year or more back where it was agreed to loosen the ?socialization? rules in order to address the desire of fanfiction users to have separate socialization? It seems that while your new ?rule? is looser than the moderating tack in the past few months that it still disregards the older discussion. In fact it seems to have overturned the outcome of that (public) discussion, yet you have not come close to making the rest of us privy to the (secret) reasons why.

Among the focus group members, there was a consensus that we didn't need more rules or less rules or even stricter rules so much as a better definition of the rules for off-topic conversation within the fanfic threads.

My concern is that you (the mods) are confusing rules with guidelines. Rules are an authoritative, prescribed directive for conduct, especially regulations governing procedure or observed by the participants in an activity. Rules, by their very nature and definition, are hard and fast. What I think you mean to establish in this situation, though, is a guideline - a statement of policy or principle to channel the exercise of discretion in determining a course of action. Guidelines are general conditions to shape and constrain decisionmaking in circumstances when sharp lines cannot be drawn. Guidelines allow the decisionmaker to adapt to the situation.

So did you (the focus group), in the course of your discussion, determine that there is no hard and fast rule which you can apply to all situations, and instead try to formulate a socialization guideline?

Secondly, there was also an issue of responsibility for maintaining threads and preventing them from being derailed. It was decided that thread hosts should bear primary responsibility for maintaining their threads. Only in the event that the thread host was unable to monitor his/her own thread would moderators need to step in. However, all users should also keep in mind that excessive chatter that derails a thread is unfair to others who are not part of the off-topic conversation, and each user has a responsibility to refrain from flooding a thread with off-topic conversations.

In my estimation, isn?t this decision akin to the moderators ?punting the ball??

First off, how many of those socialization threads really have the host (or originator) still active in the thread? And yes, the users should be responsible for their actions and the course of a thread. But personally, I think that the

 

LP: thanks for the update!

TKL: While I agree with your statement completely, I think that the call for thorough explanation is a two-way street. One of the biggest complaints about the moderating was the lack of explanation by the moderators for their actions. ?Cause we want it? isn?t far off from ?because I?m a mod and I said so.? Wouldn?t you agree?

I don?t think it?s too much for the users to ask for equal return on such a requirement.

**from the undergrowth, yubs of agreement and a ripple of spontaneous applause are heard**

I'd (quietly, but emphatically ) agree...

Take the newly redefined socialization rules - I'm generally in favour of the necessarily vague definition of what constitutes an off-topic discussion, defined essentially by the individual situation; but there's also an implicit provision for unilateral modding in there, which means that a lot depends on the character of the Mods, and the 'checks and balances' imposed on the administration...

Wasn't that a part of the problem in the first place?

- The Imperial Ewok -

 

I'm generally in favour of the necessarily vague definition of what constitutes an off-topic discussion, defined essentially by the individual situation; but there's also an implicit provision for unilateral modding in there, which means that a lot depends on the character of the Mods, and the 'checks and balances' imposed on the administration...


When you come right down to it, there always has been and likely always will be a provision for unilateral modding. It's not because mods are chomping at the bit for a chance to run amok with e-power, but because we require the discretionary power to step in and take action for any unforeseen circumstance.


And I'm unsure about what you mean by 'checks and balances.'

 

TKL - Okay so here?s where I have issues. You don?t need the entire part in blue. The guideline is the first part; it states an easily understandable policy or principle for socialization. The rest is unnecessary and discernable by common sense and good judgment.

I may be wrong, but I believe the part you refer to is included in an effort to keep things clear. Not everyone uses common sense and/or good judgment. Sometimes you have to spell things out.

 

Herman: no-one's denying that the Mods should have the right to intervene rapidly in unforseen circumstances; but a rapid response based on a 'feel' for a situation is also, necessarily, a hasty response, one that hasn't been consciously thought-through as fully as it might...

But that's not the problem; I don't think anyone's seriously expecting anything else - we know that you're human, like we are ourselves...

The problem arises when, on the back of that sort of action, Mods then refuse to explain their reasoning clearly, or even - shock, horror! - feel unable to admit that they might have made a mistake...

Simply... why?!

*confused*

But I think this lies at the nub of a lot of the 'difficult' issues on the fanfic boards right now, and if can agree on that, we've taken our first step towards solving those problems...

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Thanks for the update (all you mods), and the clarification, Leona. (I have been lurking. )

 

Leona: I agree, polite explanations are within all users rights from the mods and we are working on this also.

Thanks!

*hugs politely*

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Leona: Thanks for giving us a little clearer idea of what was discussed.