Grievances

am I back in the serial troll catagory or just 'mild annoyance' catagory?

 

By the way, we're into the 300's here in terms of posts to this thread and I would like to know what exactly we're trying to address in terms of grievances.

 

We have posted lists and kadue offered his point of view, it was nice.


how about more then 2 admins do it

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here...

We have Sarcasm telling Mastage that he doesn't give a give a crap that he's feeling depressed, despite the fact that depression is a serious problem that can lead to more serious mental problems.

And then we have Sarcasm telling the community that everyone who uses a manual sig is devoid of intelligence. A sweeping generalization I might add, which is all the more interesting considering how many slackers are complaining that they are the innocent victims of rampant prejudice and negative generalizations.

It clearly states this in the TOS:

'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,....'

Clearly making light of a potentially serious mental illness such as depression is both abusive and harassing. And making a broad generalization that everyone that uses a manual sig is unintelligent is clearly both abusive and harassing as well. The ban on Sarcasm is more than justified.

This is how I see it. When I was a prolific poster here I posted here because I could always rely on intelligent Star Wars debate in a friendly atmosphere. Sarcastic remarks and ad hominem attacks only make good, intelligent debate more difficult. I for one support this low tolerance on flaming and rude remarks. And I think the silent majority of posters here prefer a more friendly atmosphere to rudeness and insensitivity.

 

We have posted lists and kadue offered his point of view, it was nice.
how about more then 2 admins do it

Do what?

 

The only "records" we have of people are their user notes, Mod Squad threads, and moderators' memories. If any of you want to know what's in your own usernotes, PM me and I'll share them with you. I may even give you the content of any Mod Squad threads about you if you really want them. However, we pretty much only start threads about users if they break the rules or come close to breaking rules (in which case advice is requested). Unlike other groups, we have never kept "blacklists" of people we dislike personally either in Mod Squad or in people's user notes. I can't see in all the mods' minds, though, so I can't promise there aren't any mental blacklists.

"Extended User Notes" was the "cover" name given to the Fake Mod Squad HQ while we filled it with nonsense, jokes, and lies. It was then renamed "Mod Squad HQ" and unveiled on April Fool's Day. Would that be the "extended user notes" you're referring to, guns?

 

Posted our point of views, KW.

I'm more than willing to do that. I will check in on this thread more and offer my viewpoints on points that are brought up. My weekend was busy, which is why I wasn't able to quite keep up by checking back in until this morning.

~*~Bria

 

The Slackers come and they give a "dose of reality" as they see it. It's all shades of grey. The rules we're enforcing here a broad and general rules that try and keep things respectful between people. If the Slackers had their rule system in place, the JC would go down the tubes as a place to hold positive discussion without the idea that some jackass could come in a flame the hell out of you for having an odd sig or icon or for mispelling a word. That's a distorted view of reality if that's what they're trying to get us to dose over here.

The Slackers aren't the bullies of the JC, but they sure can be Drama Monkeys with the best of them and I don't exclude other spin-off sites or homegrown Idiots with Opinions.

"because some people are more realistic and a little more outgoing and all around more fun they are 'bad'."

There are plenty of outgoing people here that have fun that don't resort to **** humor, that have the ability to have fun without it being at someone else's expense, that don't try to act like the big guns of the internet message board circle. Those people, with slightly more positive outlooks, have on the whole more respect for their fellow poster. That is something that seems to fall by the wayside when the Slackers start their tirades.

Oh excuse me. "Grievances."

---

[i]"Why then are topics locked?"[/i]

Topics are locked for, as Let_It_Roll/Dark Helmet later said, being improper. They are also locked if they are redundant, in the wrong forum or if they have outlived their usefulness. Spam threads are locked, though I would not group them in with the improper crowd. I think of the improper threads as those for trolling, harrassing or just posting material explicitly against the TOS. Distastful threads can also be locked. Why? Vulgarity is against the TOS and sometimes the field of distaste crosses that of vulgarity, resulting in a lock. This happens more often than not.

[i]"What seems to be lost on many is that a healthy satirical impulse(because that is what it really is, its not true venom, nor is it evil), is in fact positive.[/i]"

Perhaps I am missing something, but is toilet humor being compared favorably with true satire? If so, I would urge you to reconsider this idea. Toilet humor is base, often ill-conceived and not of much true comedic value. That sort of humor fits best with the mindless simpletons, those people who get immense enjoyment out of seeing men in spandex dance around a ring or "children of the sun" drive a hundred times around an elliptical track. Satire is a finer form of humor; it is refined. I do not think that is lost by trying to limit toilet humor. Perhaps that is where we differ.

[hr]
[i]"Add to this the continued lack of an unban for Ternian* and things aren't looking good in the run up to the new m[o]vie."[/i]

Things are looking great for the [b]JC[/b] heading into the new movie, and as for TF.n, I think it'll survive. Ternian's situation may be cut and dry to you, but that is not how the Administration sees it. Whether or not we agreed with his banning, we have to look at both sides: Scott's banning for his refusal to share any information as well as his hosting pirated threads [b]vs.[/b] Ternian's relative innocence in the pirating of the threads; it is agreed that he didn't know how the threads were hacked nor did he participate himself. The fact is, their is and was a stubborness on both sides and it's not like the man's a martyr for any great cause. He was banned for shielding a pathetic individual who proclaimed himself a political revolutionary for the JC, trying to help it even as he worked to instill more distrust in the Administration than was ever present before. Instead of working with the Administration for change, darthpsychotic spurned the productive route and became a selfish internet pirate.

[hr]

I'll attend to the grievances in a moment.

 

I've brought up my views time and again here, to the point where people are probably tired of hearing them. Or are you referring to something else, AA?

 

I wouldn't mind seeing my user notes as an example. Just to know what's on my permanent record. You can PM me or post it on the SC if you like.

 

You know what, I wouldn't even know where to begin to find this Slacker Council. I post in here and that's it. Why do certain folks want to be associated with a group who is known to cause trouble? Why not leave Communications alone, take it off your favorite boards, and just post about the movies? Why is that such a foreign concept? I'd rather be know for good Star Wars discussion than for stirring up trouble. If you drop it from your favorites and post about the films, you'll find that there really aren't all that many problems.

 

Sapient, the problems for Slackers extend beyond Communications. From what I understand, they do not like how restrictive the JC has become in their eyes, so they feel they cannot really be themselves or say what they want to, regardless of what forum it is.

That's just what I've gathered. I could be mistaken.

 

AA, you're not in the "Serial Troll" thread. It's reserved for people who blatantly violate the rules time and time again and have had multiple names banned like TFU, barry, darthpsychotic, Yoshi_Ralph_Elan, PizzaThaHut, YodaOfTheSith, Fluke_Groundwalker, and the like.

guns, PM sent.

 

To me, the JC has remained pretty much how it's always been. I've heard this from users who registered in 1998.

 

So there are "User Notes" and "Serial Troll" info notes?

Interesting.

Don't tell me DP has never "enlightened" you on them.

 

Why not leave Communications alone?

Because this is where the kids that need people to hold their hands while surfing come to cry and try and have more freedoms taken away.


KW pretty much hit it right on the head...


And DP is not a Guns fan CA. I banned him probably as many times at the SC as he's been banned here. Theres a cease fire right now.

 

To me, the JC has remained pretty much how it's always been. I've heard this from users who registered in 1998.

And this can vary from forum to forum depending on the moderator. Some will let you get away with a speeding ticket, some won't.

 

This is hardly an oppressive regime that silences first amendment rights. We try to control redundancy, spam, and abuses. Instead of rallying support for banned users with a spotty history or usernames that are meant to do nothing but rile people up, get out of here and post in another forum. You're contributing nothing positive. And do you really feel good at the end of the day knowing you gave some admins a headache? When certain trouble-makers post in here, I'll be honest with you when I say it goes in one ear and out the other.

 

You're really on the wrong track there Sapient. Maybe you need a break.

 

CA is a mod again? Ahh, that's a good thing.

edit:

'Because this is where the kids that need people to hold their hands while surfing come to cry and try and have more freedoms taken away.'

I'm sorry, but I've never had a problem expressing myself on this message board. Never once have my opinions on Star Wars ever been censored. Sure, there were times I wanted to really give somebody a piece of my mind, really tell somebody what I really think of them but that's a freedom that nobody's ever really had here. On things like that I censor myself so as to maintain the friendly atmosphere that I prefer to post in. I exercise the 'if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all' policy. Or at least I try to.

Simple fact is that if you feel the need to mock or flame others this isn't the place to do it.

 

I'm totally fresh. What gets me frustrated is blanket threads about admins sucking.

 

In this case I'd say it's less about the admins, then the rules you're required to enforce, and the continual constriction of what's in good taste being force fed to the population at large.

 

There are only a handful of people who can't seem to get it through their heads what constitutes rude behavior versus an intelligent rebuttal. All I've ever asked is that no matter which side of the issue you're on, post intelligently, respectfully, and use common sense. Thousands upon thousands understand this. The one's that get banned broke the rules big time. And the one's that get warned do so on a regular basis.

It's ashame when Communications is used as a platform to try and expose the admins as a restrictive group when all we really want is for everyone to have fun. It's just that certain members know how to ride the line and use Communications to their advantage while getting their jollies sitting anonymously behind their keyboard.

 

SharKidapostin'

That's not spam if you've been around.

 

1. Bannings without consulting anyone. Especially on matters of opinion.

As I said earlier, much of moderating is subjective. It is not clear cut and requires the moderator to make a judgment based on the TOS, past occurences, precedent, and yes, opinion in some cases. Banning is a sticky wicket. Some people ban for more than others. I banned for what PadmeBra would warn, for example. But I also moderated the Senate, where rules were stricter. If we had to consult another mod everytime we thought the need to ban someone, things would start to run rather slow around here and trolls would get more time to cause havoc and other people would think they're untouchable. No, mods need to make calls by themselves and ere on the side of caution, rather than be cautious to avoid an error.

2. Closing of threads that [are] called "spamming/trolling" just because the admin didn't get the joke. Not all threads are meant for them to understand.

Hm. That's an odd thing to say. Why are these mysterious threads not meant for mod understanding? It is a mod's job to do their best to understand what they are locking, editing or banning. Why are you trying to promote ignorance in the mods?

Between closing spam and trolling threads, locking trolling threads is easier. You can spot one a mile away. Spam takes a bit more to uncover sometimes, but if it's spam, we'll find out. Trying to hide it with an inside joke between you and your dog isn't going to help matters any.

3. Bannings, closings etc, based on the "Baiting and trolling" crap which basically means anything admin x doesn't like.

Bah. Baiting is a problem here and it is dealt with. Trolling is a problem here and it is also dealt with. Admin X might not like a thread, but that doesn't mean he's going to lock it. Look how long the forceboat parte thread lived after I found it and loathed it. Just because your thread is closed, and I say this to everyone, it doesn't mean Admin X who locked it hates it; it means it deserved a lock. 9 times out of 10, a locked thread deserves to be locked.

4. Detailed explanation for closing and locked of thread attached to the end of the thread.

Oftentimes attaching it at the beginning is more convenient for the mod, so that is how that's done. And giving mini essays everytime we lock a thread isn't going to make people less upset about it. They'll still pitch a fit; this time, they will have more words to argue against. The simplest explanations, the ones that cut to the quick, are the best: "Spam" "Trolling" "Redundant" "Wrong Forum" and etc.

Mod accountability. Mods screw up too, sometimes, and have bad days. They should be held to a higher level than posters for standards.

That's why I came back a few weeks ago, to make sure we police ourselves and not just the regular members. It's our duty to be examples of the rules we want to enforce. If we break them, we should be called on it.

Mod participation. They need to read, actively pay attention, and respond to our grievances, and those expressed by anyone. Not just post to say I am here, but actually be part of the solution.

Not every mod needs to be in Communications. We have some specialists, who you are meeting in this thread, who are more in touch with the problems of the forum and have experience dealing with them. Some mods are forum specific and there is no reason for them to forsake their dedicated forum to post "I agree with Mod X" everytime there's a post by someone with colors. They should participate when they have something to positively contribute, not just to let you know they're here.

Have the mod that sent you the unban request response, say who it is.

Like Kadue says, this is done, not all the time, but it is done. Some responses are [user ignored] or just "unbanned." We don't always need to add our names to those.

Make the unban response email a two communication.

It is, sort of. They respond in unban requests. They can also email us at whatever the JC admins' email is the