Growing concerns in regards to the Jedi Council Forums

I have been feeling an increasingly growing nagging notion that these forums have become to be moderated over time, in an annoyingly anal fashion.

Without question, I agree that rules and regulations are necessary, and as a former Manager / Moderator, I certainly believe that Forum rules should be upheld by each and every user.

The trend that I have started to notice over time, are Moderators (not all, this is not an entire blanket statement), acting as thought police.

Sure, we need to stop people spamming the boards, but lately, I get in trouble if I post too many threads. I am not sure if other people have this issue. What if the threads are interesting, new topic not covered before, and generate discussion? Isn?t the entire purpose of a message board to generate discussion? Sometimes I get in trouble for upping my old threads, for example, in the JCC. The answer: I am not logged in on the boards 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. What if in my threads, people have replied, and I check back in on that thread the next day, and I want to respond back to them, what is wrong with that? again, isn?t that the whole point of discussion? people talking to one another? People define this as upping, but if I am adding meaningful discussion, I consider this normal message board activity.

What is also concerning is the Senate. This forum seems to be the forum most affected by the thought police. I am not sure if other people agree with me or not, but this is my feeling at the moment.

I am not trying to attack anyone personally, just trying to exhibit my current frustrations.

I think that Moderators should be reactive, not proactive. They should be invisible, and only make there presence known when rules are broken, NOT to guide or determine the content of discussion.

I also believe that we require a new restructuring of the rules, tailored to each individual forum. I believe it is absurd that one set of rules covers every single forum. Each forum is different, has a different audience and content.

I believe that every Star Wars specific forum, ie: discussion in regards to the films, should have the same rating as the films? PG. However, forums such as the Senate, which has a more serious, adult discussion and debate, shouldn?t be hindered by those same rules. Same as the Amphitheatre. What if you wanted to discuss films or books that have content of an R rating?

Just throwing these thoughts out there, wondering if anyone has been having the same feelings?

This is not meant to be a rant, just my observations, and alarmed as to where we are heading. Like the fate of the Old Republic, we could be destroyed from within, by too many rules and regulations. I think keep it simple, logical, and use common sense. That is what I tried to do as a Manager / Moderator.

 

This is not meant to be a rant, just my observations, and alarmed as to where we are heading. Like the fate of the Old Republic, we could be destroyed from within, by too many rules and regulations. I think keep it simple, logical, and use common sense. That is what I tried to do as a Manager / Moderator.

No, not at all, you never rant and rave. I will look into this further, but I am most assured that an Administrator rather then a low down FF member could help any. In some sense I do agree, yet, in another I am pulled the other direction, as some rules are nesscary to keep things clean. And in some places yes, things are too much Moderated. But we also must keep in mind how the other JC members may take these rulese in other forums. We may appreciate them, yet others may abuse them.

 

What is also concerning is the Senate. This forum seems to be the forum most affected by the thought police. I am not sure if other people agree with me or not, but this is my feeling at the moment.


Can you be more specific than this, and provide some examples?

The Senate is not like the JCC, and is not suitable for anything and everything. There has to be something cohesive that brings up a subject for debate in the first post, and clearly establishes some kind of view on it. Also, some subjects have been discussed in the past (sometimes recently), and new threads will often be redirected to existing discussions.

I think that Moderators should be reactive, not proactive. They should be invisible, and only make there presence known when rules are broken, NOT to guide or determine the content of discussion.

This seems odd for you to say. I recall you saying on more than one occasion that moderators should be proactive, although our views aren't set in stone, of course. I'm of the opinion that moderators should remain the background at times, and not be too overt, but at the same time, should participate in their forums as regular members do. I think guiding a discussion along can be good, particularly when you keep things from going off-topic.

I believe that every Star Wars specific forum, ie: discussion in regards to the films, should have the same rating as the films? PG. However, forums such as the Senate, which has a more serious, adult discussion and debate, shouldn?t be hindered by those same rules. Same as the Amphitheatre. What if you wanted to discuss films or books that have content of an R rating?


The JC is meant to be family-friendly, and that goes for all forums. However, more adult/mature subjects may be discussed in the Senate or Amphitheatre if it is done responsibly, and for educational purposes. Both the Senate and Amphitheatre are more structured, guided forums by design and nature, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

I'm also going to look into this further, even though I don't hold any position of power.

Nice post, though, Gatherer.

 

I'm also going to look into this further, even though I don't hold any position of power.

I hear you there

 

I also believe that we require a new restructuring of the rules, tailored to each individual forum. I believe it is absurd that one set of rules covers every single forum. Each forum is different, has a different audience and content.

I think this is a great point, and something I've been thinking about to. And running into overmoderation myself recently, I can emphathize with your frustration.

 

The TOS is just the main set of rules. Most of the other forums have more specific rules that apply to that forum.

 

As YodaJeff said, many forums do have more individual rules and guidelines (with the Senate being a prime example).

 

Sure, we need to stop people spamming the boards, but lately, I get in trouble if I post too many threads.

Anyone will get in trouble for posting too many threads. Simply said, flooding a forum with your own threads is considered spam.

Sometimes I get in trouble for upping my old threads, for example, in the JCC

Well, Like I've told you, you can up 3 old threads. You cant start bringing up 5 threads. That is flooding the forum with your own threads.

You have plenty of time to discuss things. Why the need to post in all threads in one go? Why are you only interested in upping your own threads?

I think that Moderators should be reactive, not proactive

Well, I have been reactive. When I tell you to stop upping your threads, its because I'm reacting to your actions. It isnt like I see you log on and then tell you that you had better not up more than 3 threads.

I also believe that we require a new restructuring of the rules, tailored to each individual forum.

Each forum is already treated differently. The Senate is different to the JCC. The EU forums are different to the movie forums.

However, forums such as the Senate, which has a more serious, adult discussion and debate, shouldn?t be hindered by those same rules. Same as the Amphitheatre. What if you wanted to discuss films or books that have content of an R rating?

Well, this is Joshs decision. He wants family friendly boards. R rated is not family friendly.

 

"I have been feeling an increasingly growing nagging notion that these forums have become to be moderated over time, in an annoyingly anal fashion."

The solution is simple.

LEAVE.

Problem solved, please pay the receptionist.

 

Okay,

Aside from the rules aspect for the moment, here is another reason why I am angered by the thought police.

I started a thread in the Literature Forum called the Literature Forum Hall of Fame, to recognize the people that have made a fantastic contribution over the past 6 years... starting with 10 people, and adding one person per month.

Great, proactive way to recognize people for thier contribution to debate, discussion and community. This was locked without consultation... why? WHY? Because 'they' didn't think of it first? Because I dared not ask for 'permission'?

 

Gath, why not PM the mod that locked it?

 

"Great, proactive way to recognize people for thier contribution to debate, discussion and community. This was locked without consultation... why? WHY? Because 'they' didn't think of it first? Because I dared not ask for 'permission'?"

Or because, maybe, it had ZERO relevance to SW Lit? There's already a social thread in there, no need for two. The forum is meant for discussing literature, not aggrandizing posters.

EDIT: Har! Too slow, DP.

 

Great, proactive way to recognize people for thier contribution to debate, discussion and community. This was locked without consultation... why? WHY? Because 'they' didn't think of it first? Because I dared not ask for 'permission'?

It's not about the permission -- it's that the thread had absolutely no shred of relevance to anything discussing a literary topic. You'll notice, however, I said it might make a good thread in EU Community and be expanded to include anyone who's made a positive contribution to EU discussion on the JC. Hence "community" activity rather than "lit discussion" activity.

If you'd asked, I'd have said that in the first place. And if you'd sent me a PM instead of posting here, I'd have said that too.

EDIT: //shakes fist at Jeffro... "Shake harder, son!"

 

...annoyingly anal fashion

I am concerned about this as well

 

Gath, why not PM the mod that locked it?

I would have to agree, perhaps find the Moderator that locked it and ask them why they locked it. For all you may know, someone may already have that thread. Or perhaps in the past it didn't seem to work.

 

Or perhaps dp4m, a Lit mod, just gave a good reason why it was locked.

 

Or perhaps dp4m, a Lit mod, just gave a good reason why it was locked.

Especially since I'm the one who locked it...

 

I think it is relevant to the Literature Forum, and NOT the EUC, because not all people post in both forums. The topic was specific to the Literature Forum, not the EUC.

 

I can see both DPs point and Gaths point in concern to the Hall of fame thread. It really did not have much relevance to the Literature aspect, but it was based in general for all of the EU. However, Gath is correct in that not everyone goes to both boards. I hardly ever visit EUC, and the Lit. forum is probably the best place to get the more active members of the EU in participating in that thread.

I don't see the point in disallowing someone to bring up old threads in which they wish to participate in. I don't see how it is spamming, if one wants to continue to talk in a thread that is considered old. I also don't think it's right to restrict the amount of relavent topics that a user can create in a 24 hour time frame. Just because a user creates 5 threads does not mean that the threads are spam.

As for the rest, I don't really know. I only mainly post in Lit. A&A, Lit. Review and the OT boards. I have not noticed a lot of what Gath is bringing up, but then again, I'm not a regular in the other forums.

 

I only lock brought up old threads in a board usually because a) it has NO possible relevance anymore or b) the conversation essentially ended and someone just "upped" it for no reason...

 

also believe that we require a new restructuring of the rules, tailored to each individual forum. I believe it is absurd that one set of rules covers every single forum. Each forum is different, has a different audience and content.

This would create more problems than it is worth. People in forum A would complain about how people in forum B can discuss alcohol and other type issues and ask why they can't. The rules have to remain constant throughout the forums or they will become too difficult to moderate. And besides, the TOS is what it is because that is the way the owners of this site want it.

 

Sure, we need to stop people spamming the boards, but lately, I get in trouble if I post too many threads. I am not sure if other people have this issue. What if the threads are interesting, new topic not covered before, and generate discussion?

I'm -not- speaking for the mods, but my view on this. You were starting numerous threads which were -not- interesting, you started threads saying "Are you vexatious?" and "Why is George Bush so fallacious?" or something when the words did -not- exist. They were -not- interesting and unless you consider "what the hell are you talking about?" as discussion, they were not generating discussion, either. And if this issue is to address the thread in Lit., that's only ONE thread, not 'numerous' threads as addressed in your original message.

 

Anyone will get in trouble for posting too many threads. Simply said, flooding a forum with your own threads is considered spam.

this i agree with.

You cant start bringing up 5 threads. That is flooding the forum with your own threads.

however, this i do not. if by 'flooding' you mean 'multiple threads with the same author being on the first page', then yes, upping old threads and starting multiple new threads in a short amount of time can both be seen as 'flooding'. however, you really can't equate the two, because when upping threads you aren't introducing new ones into the forum and thus creating more 'clutter'. the threads being 'upped' already exist, so the problem (which i think is ridiculous) is then multiple threads by the same author being on the first page. is there really something wrong with that? to me it's awfully trivial, petty, anal, and even somewhat absurd to say that someone can't post (assuming they aren't 'upping' for the sake of 'upping') in multiple threads by the same author in a short amount of time because you will then have to use the scroll bar a little more to get past those threads. if a person wants to 'up' multiple threads of theirs in a short amount of time, by adding something of substance to the conversation (as opposed to 'upping' for the sake of 'upping' only), i fail to see what is so wrong with that. in fact, i think it's completely ridiculous to tell someone they can't do it.