Grievances

Ok, that comment was a bit much, even for me.

 

What am I? I'm sick of having to fight through smoke and mirror acts to make a point. And thats a rather childish retort from a moderator, isn't it? I note your lack of denial. Me... I can't misuse banning abilities. You on the other hand....

 

Indecent, that's enough. If you haven't noticed, even your supporters are more or less saying you've gone over the line.

You are acting precisely in the same manner that you are accusing SotS of acting, except that you are doing this right now.

These are the kinds of things that get good threads derailed, and leave people angry that they couldn't have a good discussion.

 

Nevermind, KW posted a better response.

 

Why shouldn't I be angry KW? People were banned today, grievance blatantly ignored. I'm calling SotS on a valid point. And acting in the same manner as SotS did? Sorry, I forgot this was a trenchcoat mafia sock... I forgot I was making light of the deaths of innocents.

EDIT: Can't take it? Where has it said that SotS. You guys can publically attack us and have. You can feel free to do your worst. Twisting words? More like arguing a point. But hey... i'm just spamming and trolling? or is there a new buzzword this week?

 

I would make a new thread for that discussion, but I think that might be overkill at the moment.

Agreed, KW. But in all honesty, you're only administrator who has responded to my grievances. I'm assuming you don't speak for the rest of the administration here though, and I've never heard anything from anyone else yet, regarding my posts today, or in the JC Reform thread from a couple of days ago, or any of my other protests in communications. I would like to know how others in the administration feel. There are probably discussions about these issues in Mod Squad, why not make them public?

 

Actually, there hasn't been anything happening in the Mod Squad quite yet on that front. However, there is some discussion (pretty new) in the Advisory Council, so things have gotten rolling there.

 

I'm sorry, B'Omarr, for ignoring your post. I was unfortunately sidetracked there, but I will now respond:

"So, SotS, since you're here, do you feel that personal tastes should dictate ones moderation?"

It's one thing to close a thread if it's about a movie you don't like. That's an abuse right there. It's another to make a judgment call when you see a thread that you think is in poor taste and goes against the rules.


"Do you feel that censoring more topics will improve and contribute to the 'JCC reform' or hinder it's creativity?"

I don't think we've censored anything new, nor do I think we will be censoring any topics that aren't already against the rules. The most recent complaint was about our banning of threads that are exclusively about bodily humor. Well, they have been getting closed since '99, maybe earlier. Because our policy on them precedes the JCC reform by several years, I don't think that will have any bearing on it.

 

What rule, specifically, to poop and fart jokes break?

 

"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, that otherwise violates any law, or that encourages conduct constituting a criminal offense."

Although take note that the policy, from my experience, has only applied to threads that are exclusively about either of these two functions (and other similarly "gross" bodily functions). Individual posts are fine, as long as they are not a) posted to derail a thread b) taking things too far by including swearing or gross (pun intended) exaggerations.

 

Main Entry: vul·gar
Pronunciation: 'v&l-g&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin vulgaris of the mob, vulgar, from volgus, vulgus mob, common people
Date: 14th century
1 a : generally used, applied, or accepted b : understood in or having the ordinary sense <they reject the vulgar conception of miracle -- W. R. Inge>
2 : VERNACULAR <the vulgar name of a plant>
3 a : of or relating to the common people : PLEBEIAN b : generally current : PUBLIC <the vulgar opinion of that time> c : of the usual, typical, or ordinary kind
4 a : lacking in cultivation, perception, or taste : COARSE b : morally crude, undeveloped, or unregenerate : GROSS c : ostentatious or excessive in expenditure or display : PRETENTIOUS
5 a : offensive in language : EARTHY b : lewdly or profanely indecent


This looks to be a subjective issue. Personally I don't think farts and poop are coarse or profane. Therefore, maybe you should define what you consider vulgar.

 

This looks to be a subjective issue.

Welcome to the World of the Moderator, where up is down and spam is genius! Much of moderating is subjective, deciding what is spam, what is flaming, versus just "heated", what is ban worthy in some cases, what needs to be locked. There can never be a rules and regs sheet that includes, spelled out for everyone, all the rules. It's not going to happen. It is impossible, just like a definition of spam that everyone is comfortable with is terribly hard.

Your grievences - we read them and do our best to give answers to them. But we are under no obligation to please you with our answers. We are not to be held responsible for the amount of fun you have here or how good a community you have. That is your responsibility. We do censor some things; the site owners usually hand down those edicts. It is a family board, and just because your family went to see Debbie Does Dallas, that's no reason to post pornography, bad language, or other such things.

Use common sense.

 

This looks to be a subjective issue.

Phill, you hit the nail on the head. Reading through this thread and the previous one, the bottom line is that what you consider funny may just be offensive and vulgar to others. With over 80,000 registered users, there are bound to be conflicts of what others like and others dislike.

There have been many times I haven't agreed with a moderator on their choice of closing a thread or someone they've banned. Oh well. They make the call, I don't. You can't please everyone. As is very evident by the drama today.

 

My working definition of vulgar: if the average person would be embarrassed doing it in public while their mother was watching, then it?s vulgar. It might be fun as hell, but it?s vulgar.

 

I understand the problems subjectivity carries with it, but certain things don't have to be subjective. You don't want poop, fine put "no bodily functions" in the TOS. Not so hard. But if you want to be vague expect your judgment to be called into question.

And as for:

It is a family board, and just because your family went to see Debbie Does Dallas, that's no reason to post pornography, bad language, or other such things.

I see no reason for you to impugne my family because you're angry people are asking you for explanations to your vague rules.

 

And the sad part is, there are only a few people in comparison to the thousands registered here that even have these sort of complaints. They want to push the envelope, get a new ratings system (that was me a year ago) and change the JC to fit their perception of humor, their age bracket - to be a reflection of their train of thought, not the site owners. Then these drama ridden threads pop up here and sometimes in the JCC, you get people agitated and they stop having such an idyllic, fun time.

Folks, don't ruin it for everyone else by wanting things your way. You may think it's the right way and the ModSquad preaches in the wrong, but sometimes, there are decisions that we all have to make that put a sour taste in our mouths, that we disagree with. There are utilitarian decisions out there to be made, for the good of the general populace, not a vocal minority. We in the ModSquad have to make those sort of decisions regardless of what you think.

Do you believe we're all a hive mind thinking alike? No, we argue with each other and get angry and throw tantrums at times. We disagree with each other and in the end, we must make the decision that is not best for us, but for the boards. I do not care if you think I am lying. That is your problem. I know that what I've done in the past and present on this board has been, on the whole, for the general good. I know other moderators join me in that sentiment.



EDIT: I am not saying anything about your family. The hypothetical situation is a key thing to learn to use when debating something.

 

I'm quite familiar with the hypothetical, however, when you quote my post, and then use the word you in your post, I assume I'm being addressed. Someone, and somebody's family would have worked nicely.

Make a note in your debate book.

 

Oh gosh.

If you don't like the current administration, JUST LEAVE! Make your own board with your OWN rules. It's as simple as that.






...and a Jango

 

That's quite a stretch to claim poop and fart jokes are vulgar, SotS. What do you think this is, Victorian England?

Guess what? There's fart jokes in Star Wars. There's alcohol in Star Wars. There's sex in Star Wars. Time to take the training wheels off and let the kids pedal for themselves.

 

[edit: flame unnecessary]

There are many members with legitimate gripes about the administration. On the flip side, there's plenty that aren't even worth looking into for a second.

But when a member feels unhappy with the administration, he or she should simply leave? Ridiculous. I wonder what happened with trying to improve the relationship between the administration and the regular users.

I guess some of us are just content with kissing butt and preserving the status quo.

 

1st, some people wont ever be happy with those in charge, because they're in charge.

 

I don't think that's the case here. We're not happy with the people in charge because of the way they take charge.

 

"Guess what? There's fart jokes in Star Wars."

And do you remember what the reaction to that was when TPM came out?

 

We're not happy with the people in charge because of the way they take charge.

The policy of the JC Administration is working positively for tens of thousands of posters. What do you think we are doing wrong? Keeping the "PG" rating that is actually more like a PG-13 rating? Not supporting bathroom humor?

How are we "taking charge" in the wrong way?

 

"And do you remember what the reaction to that was when TPM came out?"

Irrelevant.



"The policy of the JC Administration is working positively for tens of thousands of posters."

I feel that assessment is sorely underinformed and quite possibly mistaken.

"How are we "taking charge" in the wrong way?"

If you ask me, it's the lack of consistency and accountability. It's the pragmatism over idealism mentality.

Anyone else care to have a go? We are here to post grievances, after all.