Grievances

Gundark, what are you talking about?

 

First of all, I think most of us are talking about restrictions on the Community forum, where things don't have to be intelligently debated, you've created other forums for that. It's for socializing and generally BSing with other members.

I think this is the main issue, and I'll repost it as so one really addressed it:

May I add, that I think when locking topics that do not violate the TOS, mods should err on the side of inclusion instead of locking things before members get a chance to see them. Too often I think, topics are locked that are classified by the "spam" catch all without giving members a chance to decide for themselves.

It also horribly biased that lesser known member have arguably legitimate threads closed, while posters like JM22 can post the most inane topic imaginable and have it left open.

Again, if not expressly forbidden, then let the membership decide. If it's spam or if it doesn't fit in with the sensibilities of the board it will diappear. Problem solved.

EDIT: oh yeah, Ol'val

 

"The simplest explanations, the ones that cut to the quick, are the best: "Spam" "Trolling" "Redundant" "Wrong Forum" and etc."

I think they want the detailed explanations so as to explain in what way something is spam. Just saying "this thread is spam" doesn't mean an awful lot sometimes, so a detailed explanation could go a long way.

"Not every mod needs to be in Communications...They should participate when they have something to positively contribute, not just to let you know they're here."

But some mods never post in Comms. I refuse to believe it's because they never have anything to contribute.

Amazing.

 

SharKidapostin'

The issue has moved on to this board being so uptight that the pucker factor is unbelievable. I bet you couldn't pound a toothpick up the rear end with a fifty pound sledge.

And I saw on post from Sarcasm that was over the line. The rest of them had the JC rolling in tears as is evidenced by the threads.

... and a Jenga

 

The Slackers present themselves for persecution by sometimes delving into the JC with spam topics and harrassing posts. If they softened their tone or perhaps stopped seeing the world as a vicious dog out to kill everyone so lets have our laughs while we can and damn who gets in the way, then perhaps there'd be better relations between the two groups.

No, if i really wanted to laugh i would goatse this forum to hell and back.

Your logic is flawed.

so lets have our laughs while we can and damn who gets in the way

Some people could say that about the mods here.


Also, demodex requests his usernotes.

 

Also, people posting in shorthand and acting like a 10 year old makes me want to smack them, make me a mod so I can ban them because personaly I do not like that.

 

But some mods never post in Comms. I refuse to believe it's because they never have anything to contribute.

It?s true that some moderators never post in Communications, but in some cases it?s true that they don?t have a lot to contribute to a policy debate. People like Julie or The Gatherer don?t really have a great need to visit Communications. They have to deal with spamming and borderline posts so infrequently that it never becomes an issue. If users have a grievance, they tend to just create a poll in their forum and let them decide ? for example, that?s a large part of why polls kept getting turned on and off in Literature for a while.

In other cases, they don?t want to post anything because all that they?d really be able to post is an ?I agree with the Administration on this issue? sort of thing. What they want to say has already been said, or they don?t agree with what the rest of the administration is saying. So when moderators feel that they cannot contribute anything positive, they try not to contribute anything at all. Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to post something and see someone twist around your words and remove all doubt.

 

In other cases, they don?t want to post anything because all that they?d really be able to post is an ?I agree with the Administration on this issue? sort of thing. What they want to say has already been said, or they don?t agree with what the rest of the administration is saying. So when moderators feel that they cannot contribute anything positive, they try not to contribute anything at all. Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to post something and see someone twist around your words and remove all doubt.

Exactly. I am new at this. I do not have the Comms knowledge and/or experience of other mods. Much of what I would've said has been said. Or I'm not sure how to get out what I want to say in such a high-energy area.

~*~Bria

 

The one's that get banned broke the rules big time

Like me? I made a joke, sure it was in poor taste, but everyone seemed to understand that it was not directed towards or insulting anyone in particular except one mod who took it personally, and he prompty banned me with no warning or anything.



I also agree with phill, in that the biggest problem with the loose definition of spam is in the community forum. I can understand being strict in the prequel forums. But how come if Whimper wants to make a thread in Community about being able to touch his eyeball it was called spam and locked, especially when it was the first thread he had made in ages, and other members were having fun contributing?

 

When a thread about lightbulbs isnt spam..

 

Wise man once say:

Life not fair. Life not perfect. Do best you can.

You all are wonderful!

 

Now that is comedy.

 

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. -- From DarthSapient

I think this exhibits quite a lot of the problem that I think a lot of us have with the administration. Communications is supposed to be a platform for change, to hash out differences, and make things better for all. It just so happens that at the moment, we think some mods are not doing a very good job, so we post about it here in an effort to try to get things worked out. That is what this is for.

The comms forum is designed to be used to our advantage. That is what it is here for. For us to give feedback, complaign, whine, congratulate, etc. It is for communication between us and you, the mods. Therefore it is also to your advantage to take us seriously.

And if you think everyone who has bothered to post in here voicing their disagreement with the administration and their actions is just doing it for their jollies, anonymously behind the keyboard, then you seriously have another thing coming. Maybe some are being antagonistic just for kicks, but that is a blatant generalization. I know the vast majority actually care about this place and what goes on here.

As for all of you just wanting everyone to have fun, that is only true in one sense. You want everyone to have fun doing what you consider fun. Frankly, there is a lot of stuff that can (and sometimes does) go on here that is not against the TOS in any way, is fun for some, and not for others, and is still locked because someone doesn't like it.

Just because someone doesn't find any particular value in a thread or post that doesn't violate the TOS doesn't mean it needs to be closed as spam. And a lot of stuff is, that people can and do enjoy. You need to lighten up a little, let the community be heard a little more, post more reasons behind any locking, with detailed descriptions of the problem, and let people respond to it. All ties should go to the poster, not the mods.

One other thing about mods not contributing. Even if they don't have to deal with certain issues frequently doesn't mean they are stupid and can't think for themselves regarding those issues. Just because something doesn't personally concern you isn't a good reason to avoid discussions or arguments. Often times that is when they are best suited to taking part. They can see both sides, and aren't biased at all. They can mediate and negotiate, point out failures on both sides, and help seek a resolution.

Also, I believe that there should not be any particular mod assigned to the comms forum. All mods should share the responsibility for it, since the issues brought up here cover all boards, all users, and the entire administration. It shouldn't be just one or two mods' territory. All should participate.

 

What Bria wrote is equally true for me (if not more so, since she has two more weeks of modding under her belt than I do). I lurked here as a reg for a long time, and I had to come to Comms to find the *problems* you insist are inherent to these boards.

All I can say is, "Listen to Confucius."

 

One other thing I forgot. Why are people banned if they leak stuff from the mod squad? I realize that you may not want them to, but it doesn't say anything about it at all in the TOS, and nothing that can really even insuate a TOS violation. If they have the info, it should be fair game to post, or at least they should not be banned for it.

 

I think the biggest problem is that the more rules there are to enforce, the more problems you'll have. Sure, sometimes people make stupid topics. But what's the big deal? There are 2 possibilities: nobody will post in them, and they'll eventually disappear, or else people will post in them and then what's the problem?

This whole JCC Reform thing seems quite ridiculous to me. Why are you making more rules? It's just going to get easier and easier for people to get in "trouble."

 

If they have the info, it should be fair game to post

Not at all. Nobody but people who have authorization to have it should have info from it, and no one (be they an admin or otherwise) should be posting things from the Mod Squad on the boards. I don't believe we're exactly and strictly limited to what the TOS says, because it cannot have every possible situation and issue outlined in it.

Why are you making more rules

Because a lot of people asked for them in a thread that specifically asked people what they wanted to change in the JCC.

 

Well then can you explain Ternian's banning? Banning someone for something that happened on another website is INSANE.

 

Ternian's banning was explained. I know I talked about it. Check the last page.

 

Quix and Bria, most of us in JC Comms are really nice, caring people. Keep in mind what I said earlier. It doesn't matter if you're not really familiar with this particular forum or if other Mods have said what you would say. The idea is to be seen and give your opinion, whatever that opinion may be.

 

I saw the Ternian explanation on the last page. The forced internal consistency inherent in that kind of logic will eventually make my brain explode.

 

What is listed in the TOS aren't considered the only reasons that a mod can ban someone. Further in the TOS, it says they can ban anyone at any time for any reason. The whole "it's a privilege, not a right" deal.

I'm sure everyone (EDIT: including the mods) agrees they shouldn't be banning people at random, but the TOS gives them the ability to.

 

Ternian was banned for not telling the owners of the site what he knew about the continued theft of private information.

Scott handled it personally.

I like Ternian...I had lunch/beers with him last Saturday...but you guys don't seem to understand that the administration of these boards has no say in his ban. It's entirely at Scott's discretion. We can recommend until the cows come home but Scott is adamant, as is his right.


Edit: Are we banning people randomly, Gay-Len? When was the last time someone was banned for absolutely no reason at all...subjective ruling or otherwise? Let's be honest here.

 

He was not being cooperative, supporting a person known to have hacked the JC and was hosting the pirated threads. He refused to take them down or give any information whatsoever on darthpsychotic, save that he didn't have the specifics of how he was getting into the ModSquad. He was banned for this by Scott.

 

"The idea is to be seen and give your opinion, whatever that opinion may be."

Even if it's just to say you agree with the administration. Something as simple as that at least lets us know you're here.

Amazing.