Grievances

I can understand the "beat down" method working on a board the size of the SC -- not taking a shot at the size of the board, but rather that the social diversity of a smaller board is different.

But allowing that to happen here would be more analogous to firing the police force and relying on vigilante justice, which in a community this size is infeasible -- especially since the definition of a crime varies greatly here from user to user. The SC has a much different user base that takes a very different approach to social relations than the typical users here.

 

Harassing someone is also against the law in the US. The "Court of Public Opinion" is designed to make a point out of people but why should this message board make that leap to actual government function?

BTW...I respect the fact that you have remained here and stuck to your guns. There's something to be said for that.

 

"Protects" us from human nature? Kind of like teaching people shame "protects" them from evil bad sex? Or drinking?

God forbid we admit to ourselves that we are animals. Society is here to enable us to live as a part of nature, not to protect us from it.

 

I have only one thing to say: Lord Bane couldn't be further from the mark when he calls the SC environment 'not constructive'. In boards where users are allowed to criticise swear and flame to a certain extent - SC and SA are two examples - the discussion that takes place is of a higher quality than the ones that happen here. The lax rules "weed out" the immature people in a warped 'darwinian' sort of way. Eventually, the people that are able to contribute in a funny, positive and mature manner are the ones that remain.

I'm not kidding myself, this situation will never happen at the JC as it would no longer be a 'family' board, blah blah, etc etc...

I just wanted to point out that creating a large amount of limiting rules eventually becomes deconstructive.

 

The more exclusive this place becomes, the less amount of people will be here. I totally agree with that.

As far as the Social Contract goes...the fact society exists is a testament to the WILLINGNESS of humans to release some of their animal passions to live in peace.

 

If the JC has grown too large for natural methods to work, then it should probably be smaller.

I wasn't around in 99 or whenever this "Golden Age" everyone talks about was. But I've certainly never ever heard anyone say that they think this place is more fun now with its 80,000 users than it was back then when people knew each other.

It's like the overpopulation problem we have on the whole planet. It's not good for anybody. And given time, nature will take care of it through disease, famine, war, or some combination, and then things will get better.

Or we could colonize other planets and let people live there. So either this board will split into other boards, or else it will grow so large and unhealthy that it hurts everybody.

I think that's what's happening now.

 

You raise some valid points. The amount of people we have here has spawned problems. Everyone brings something different to the table. That's tough for any group of leaders to deal with.

I wasn't here either for this Golden Age but my guess is that it was more tight-knit because everyone knew everyone else. This is probably why it's looked at so fondly.

 

Bono, I assume you're volunteering to be shot into space then?

OR is your arguement that other people should be made to leave so you can be happy?

Or are you expousing on principle and not really caring that it has no relivance to a board of the size and complexity of the JC?

 

As much as I agree with and support a number of grievances you guys have brought up, I cant support the notion of letting the members shame or harrass other members into changing their ways.

This sort of justice doesnt lead to a more fair and equitable society.

It leads to members grouping together to form cliques where they can stand up for each other when someone is harrassed by another group.

In the end, it becomes e-gang warfare. Groups fighting each other.

That isnt the way to a healthy JC.

 

re: Ternian.


''He was not being cooperative, supporting a person known to have hacked the JC and was hosting the pirated threads.''

-He was not hosting the pirated threads. HE had them on a members only ezboard. (10 members) The threads in question were also available on many geocities sites open to all.

''He refused to take them down or give any information whatsoever on darthpsychotic,''

-As I said, he did not host them for people to see - that was geocities and was set up by other people. Additionally he knows jack about darthpsychotic. Hell, you prolly know more the T after all your 'investigations'.

''save that he didn't have the specifics of how he was getting into the ModSquad. He was banned for this by Scott. ''

So, he was banned for NOT knowing how DP got in?
Does this mean that if I give T some hacking lessons when I'm in Australia he will be unbanned?

I understand that Scott is holding the decission here but would like the modsquad to be honest. Perhaps if there was an open and running admission that the modsquad wish to unban T Scott may rethink.

I mean, for a blatently Christian biased site it is not a very Christian attitude for him to hold.

 

tc: You should put all of that into an e-mail and send it directly to Scott.

The JC administrations' hands are totally tied on this matter.

 

DA. I have no intention of taking this to Scott. I've had enough of communication with Scott and Josh to last a lifetime and frankly would rather not take this up as some kind of lone crusade.

My point is that you guys should put out a formal statement to the effect that Ternian should, in your collective opinion, be unbanned. {If this is indeed the case}

This would clarify the issue and make any more talk of it here moot.

 

The JC is doing fine. It's a free society where people can join and leave as they see fit. We do the best we can. I don't think we abuse our powers and we try to be consistent. That being said, thousands upon thousands who regularly post also agree. The rest leave. This is how the world is.

 

Hey... I don't know if this is the right place to come for this, but I think so. Anyway, I was just banned, and I just tried to log in out of curiosity and apparently, the ban was lifted.

I'm hoping someone can answer some questions I have about the mods. I'm guessing the ban came from the AOTC forum. But I never received a warning. I never used inappropriate language, I may have joked around with some users, but nothing near the stuff I've seen in there. If the mod would've given me a reason for my ban. Be it a warning within the thread, which I did not get. Or an email, which I also did not get. I filled out the form to get my ban lifted, and never got a word back. Luckily I tried to see if I could log on just for the heck of it. I hope to hear from the mod, or any mod on this. Because it seems to me its just a case of a mod "flexing his JC muscle"... power trip perhaps? I hate using that phrase being that this is a SW forum, and just about as Star wars geeky as I'll let myself get.

I hope to hear from someone soon. An email, or a post in the thread I got banned in. I mean, I don't even know what post got me banned. So I'll have to check around.

Thanks alot.

 

According to your admin notes, the moderator who banned you in the AotC Forum stated an explicit warning to all participants in that thread not to flame. If you wish to know who banned you, PM me and I will give you that information so that you can take it up privately with them.

One thing the admins as a whole can improve upon is signing our names to the unban requests or sending a PM to the user why they were banned/unbanned.

 

Bono, it is with utmost respect, and appreciation for you as a fellow slacker that I say this. Make no mistake, it needs to be said. Everyone wishes they could say it. And I think only another slacker can get away with it. I shall be brief.


Die plz. Or at least shut up.


Thank you, have a nice day





EDIT: As I'm not quite ready to be banned again, just yet, anyone who is not Bono please disregard the above remarks. If you are not Bono, pretend that I said the JC-quality assured "Bono, I don't think your arguments are sound. Surely you are being an unconstructive trouble maker because you are an SC troll. Stop spam-bait-trolling, spam-trolling SC hooligan spammer. Oh yeah- and I feel abused. MODS!"

 

Additionally, could a mod please tell us who Bono is?

 

He is the sanctimonius ****** who heads one of the world's most over-rated bands.

 

The above post was spam. Please note that, although the users icon says "newbie", he/she is obviously old school (note the reg. date), and should know better.

MODS!


Anyways- to underail this, Bono's identity is just as important as his arguments are. Which is to say not at all.

 

You're on fire tonight, Whimps.

 

Oh, matron!

 

Stop it! This is an important thread, and I won't have it spammed and hijacked by the likes of you. What's the matter- don't you have an Ezboard to spam at, or is it down? Or are your terrorist (I mean "slacker") tactics not welcome there either? Let's keep this on topic, or else you know what will happen.

Back on track:

I don't think social Darwinism is the solution to any of the problems mentioned in this thread. I don't think this really is an issue of "human nature versus society" or any such nonsense. It's an internet message board, aimed at Star Wars fans of all ages. (5 - 10).

My constuctive criticism is that the mods here need only to be more transparent in their activities, to lessen the rift between them and the users.

 

I believe he is known to you as Michael.

 

Cheer up and get a sense of humour. You are coming across as a deranged fanboy, which is what I presume you possibly are.

 

And you need to initialise your sarcasm meter.