[JCC Social threads/groups policy] A 6 month wait for a 1 month thread? This needs to end NOW

I am referring to the ridiculous rule for social groups/threads in the JCC that is in place right now. If you check the sticky thread atop the JCC, you'll notice a list of users who are waiting for their turn to start a one month social thread. A close look at their request date to be in line to when they can have the social thread & you'll see that 6 months seems to be the average waiting time span. That means if any of you wants a JCC social thread, you would have to wait until December to get it! Anybody else think that's wayyyyy to long of a wait to have a social thread when the user wants it now? Many threads posted in the JCC are social in nature and to stifle the creation of social groups is a very stupid thing to do. Here is the offical line I always see from the Mod Squad (paraphrased of course): If the policy were to be lifted, there would simply be too much spam to deal with. Well, my question to the Mod Squad is this: how is that different from spam in any other JCC thread? What are you guys afraid of if the policy were to be lifted? This policy is my only gripe I have with the JC today; my gripes of the past (some of you may remember) were titles & colors for mods. It irrates the bloody hell out of me that social groups who had threads before this damn policy was made are allowed to keep them, while the rest of us have to wait 6 months, only to get a thread for a lousy month. How can it possibly be fair for those users who post in the Awesome Council, the Gold Age Cafe & the Blue Yoda society (just to name a few) to have their fun, while others get the hose? I can see this argument against already coming: "DT, users can always join those social groups ya know!" My point to refute that: Those social groups may not appeal to every user, they're gonna want to create or join a new social group that they're intrested in. I hope that this policy can be lifted soon, because it the more you think about, the more you realize that the policy is utter **** ****.

 

Here is the offical line I always see from the Mod Squad (paraphrased of course): If the policy were to be lifted, there would simply be too much spam to deal with. Well, my question to the Mod Squad is this: how is that different from spam in any other JCC thread?

I've never given that as a reason, nor can I remember seeing anyone else say that. What we've said is that if there were no waiting list at all and people could just make social threads at will we'd be flooded with social threads and it would choke off the day-to-day threads in the forum.

Also, we've explained many times now why we're not adding permanent social threads at this time: there were far too many of them flooding the forum when the social thread restrictions were put in place(a long while ago), and new permanent social threads are not being added since then. We've been going with rotating social threads since that time(first it was until the social thread got to 5,000 posts, now it's every month). You may not like that social groups like the Awesome Council, DLs, BYS, etc. have their own permanent threads, but they were grandfathered into the new system because they were already here when then new system was put in place.


To address the time it takes to get your social thread, what if instead of having one social thread per month, we had two social threads a month? That would cut down the wait to get your thread, and give users a choice of social thread to post in if they didn't like one that had been created. Thoughts?

 

What would your solution be?

There are plenty of existing social threads to suit every single taste - the Dark side, the Light side, mature posters, noob posters, poop lover posters, posters who want to help other posters (etc etc etc). As explained 100 times before, the social groups that existed prior to the creation of the one month rule were grandfathered in - it would be grossly unfair to lock the social thread of a group established for almost 5 years.

The 1 month rule was brought it to create a fair system where everyone had an equal chance to have their own personalised social thread. So far we're received far more positive feedback than negative - the only obvious problem is the waiting time between being added to the list, and getting your chance to create a thread. What does it really matter if you have to wait?

One of the most positive things to come of this is the cross-forum interaction. For example the Crimson Jedi social thread linked up a few JC forums and stimulated interested in different forums, increasing interaction and promoting the formation of new friendships. Had it not been for the fair one month rule then this thread would never have been created, nor got the attention it deserved.

Allow everyone to have their own thread at all times isn't a feasible option. The JCC has to have *some* level of organisation, and a the line has to be drawn somewhere. You could argue a need for every single NBA team to have their own dedicated JCC thread during the season - that would lead to 30 threads (iirc) on basketball alone, pushing everything else off the front page.

Similarly you could argue that there should be no limit on the number of games threads. But with unlimited games there wouldn't be enough participants to go around, meaning some games would suffer from a lack of interest, ruining the chances of the genuinely good ideas. Having a limited number of games focuses the attention of the JCC users making for a far more exciting contest.

You are argueing for unlimited social threads, suggesting that the crap ones would die - but still you'd be losing focus of the JCC users resulting in only 3 or 4 people posting in each thread, reducing interaction and the sense of community.

We've been here several times before, and the result has always been the same. The one month rule was created for several extremely solid reasons, and those reasons still stand up today. I realise there is a waiting time to have your own personalised thread, but there is absolutely nothing stopping you contributing to the collection of established social threads, or the one month threads as they are created.

 

Why Amos that is the best idea I've ever heard!!! No idea why it is, but it is. Personally I'm on the waiting list, and by the look of things if every user before me gets a thread, It's going to be well over 13 months before I get my groups one month Social Thread. So I think maybe 2 a month would give people a choice, cycle us faster thru the list and maybe encourage more users to sign up for the process. Because right now the whole waiting list thing, is just not user friendly right now.

So lets take in considration the Amos and PK plan here and more to 2 threads a month, just to cycle thru them faster.

~PK~

 

So lets take in considration the Amos plan here and more to 2 threads a month, just to cycle thru them faster.

heh, that's what i mentioned in my PM to TUnick as a possibility

 

See it's funny cause it's what I suggested to Amos a couple nights ago on AIM. See we're all on the same page. Let's get everyone else there.

~PK~

 

I don't see why we couldn't have 2 threads a month - it's a pretty reasonable comprimise to half the waiting time

 

Really?

I think everyone could appericate that.

~PK~

 

I don't see it being a problem at all. Let me conference with the other JCC Mods (to see if we all agree)

 

Alright cool, just get back to us and let us know.

~PK~

 

Well, three of the five JCC mod apparently agree, so it looks hopefully, however, we need input from the other two before we can really state a change to policy.

 

Wow... this is the quickest policy change I've ever seen, 11 posts from 5 users and it's practically implemented. Good to see Comms really does work.

The biggest part about this policy that nags me isn't the waiting period, if someone's been waiting for six months then they really are serious about making a new thread. But why close new social threads after a month? I think that was the main part of Tunick's complaint. This makes it impossible for social threads to have real meaning or make a lasting impact, like longer-running ones from the past have. Why periodically check on open social threads and close them, say, if no one's posted (seriously) in 2 weeks, but let the thriving ones stay? At least give fledgling social threads a chance to aspire to the greats of the past. One month seems not only frustratingly short, but defeating of the purpose of a social thread, which is to have lengthy discussions and meet new people.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but whats the point of the list? I mean almost all of the threads in JCC are social threads. How does limiting social threads help the forum if almost everything is already social?

And I'm going to show my utter n00bness right now but thats cool. If user appreciation threads are not allowed then why is the Awesome Council allowed to exist?

 

If user appreciation threads are not allowed then why is the Awesome Council allowed to exist?

It's not a user appreciation thread. It's a social thread whose setup mirrors that of an old Advisory Council intro post.

 

Oh okay. See I showed off my n00bness. . . Thanks!

 

This is a Star Wars message board, not a Trekkie convention. Message Board, meaning, something you usually talk on. Socialize, if you will. I realize there are a lot of social threads, but I suggest you make a rule. Either cut out the waiting list crap, or have no social groups whatsoever. This is a problem that's being blown way out of proportion my the administration on this, in my opinion.

 

Just let me say that Amos and I discussed this 2 month deal a while back in PM's And he thought it was a good idea back then. I just wanted to shamelessly throw my 2 cents into this!

 

I miss the old days when social threads were not a particularly planned thing, but jsut grew out of other threads. See: Hot girl at Target, BYS, AC.

I really don;t care for 'THIS IS A CLUB!' as a social group origin.

 

Sigh, having 2 social threads a months won't solve anything. Users will still be only to have the thread for a lousy month, one month! Sure the waiting will be cut down, but for goodness sake, one month goes by too fast. Amos, why would it be problem to take care of a potential flood of social threads? If things were to get out of hand, how hard is it to lock them anyway?



Allow everyone to have their own thread at all times isn't a feasible option. The JCC has to have *some* level of organisation, and a the line has to be drawn somewhere. You could argue a need for every single NBA team to have their own dedicated JCC thread during the season - that would lead to 30 threads (iirc) on basketball alone, pushing everything else off the front page.



Really, really bad example. There is always an offical NBA thread & nobody has a problem with that.



it would be grossly unfair to lock the social thread of a group established for almost 5 years.



And denying users their own social thread is fair? So what if the social groups had been up for 5 years? By the Mod Squad's reasoning that this policy "makes sense", shouldn't have it applied to every user?

 

If things were to get out of hand, how hard is it to lock them anyway?

Can you define "out of hand" please. ie can you tell us where *you* would draw the line. 2 new threads a day ? 10 new threads a day ? Tell us where you would draw the line so we can understand what you'd like.

Really, really bad example. There is always an offical NBA thread & nobody has a problem with that.

No, it's a perfect example, but you don't see that. Yes, there's always been a single NBA thread keeping things tidy and localised. That's all we're doing with the 1 month rule.

Tell me, what do you want to say in a social thread that isn't already covered ?

And denying users their own social thread is fair?

um, anyone is entitled to join the list - the system we run lets *everyone* get their own thread. Your point makes no sense.

So what if the social groups had been up for 5 years? By the Mod Squad's reasoning that this policy "makes sense", shouldn't have it applied to every user?

So they've contributed a huge a huge amount to the JCC, and the JC overall. Don't you think that locking *all* of the social threads would be drama free? I think most groups would be pissed if we locked their threads.

Point of the rule was to prevent a swamping of poorly thoughtout social threads and retain the well established groups.







You still haven't provided your solution to this problem.

 

As Ignant alluded to (and likewise for carmen in previous discussions), the best way to get a social group going is to have a thread where people talk about something for an extended period of time. Eventually, people get to know each other socially. Many of the best social threads started out that way, as opposed to the "JOIN HERE" method.

 

Sigh, having 2 social threads a months won't solve anything. Users will still be only to have the thread for a lousy month, one month! Sure the waiting will be cut down, but for goodness sake, one month goes by too fast. frustrated Amos, why would it be problem to take care of a potential flood of social threads? If things were to get out of hand, how hard is it to lock them anyway?


Tunick, this just isn't feasible. Everyone can't have a permanent thread. There are several hundred active regulars in the JCC. Yes, not everyone wants their own social thread, but still, if we allow an unlimited number of permanent social "chit-chat" type threads, the JCC will be flooded with them, and the day-to-day socialization threads(with a distinct topic) will die. This is not something that should happen. To answer your last question, where do you draw the line? How do you define "out of hand"? I think that definition would vary depending on who you asked. And then when the do get out of hand, do you lock all of the social threads? That doesn't seem fair to me. The system we have now is the best happy medium that was have, I think. We're still discussing going from 1 thread per month to 2(although it's looking in favor of 2/month), but taking off the waiting list completely is not a feasable option.

And denying users their own social thread is fair?

This doesn't seem to be the case to me. Every user has equal chance to make their own social thread for a month under the current system. Where are we denying users the chance to make their own thread there?


Edit: malkie beat me to it

 

I agree with Paul, Josh, and myself on this issue.

STOP TRYING TO GET A THREAD CALLED "THE SARCASM KNIGHTS" and create a thread that you can take over and make as your own.

 

malkie, you seem to be not getting my point in that users may get their own social thread under this system, but it only lasts one month.



You still haven't provided your solution to this problem.



Lock them like you would any other thread that was spam! Maybe you can have 1 or 2 users be mods in the JC whose sole purpose would be too look after spam social threads. I don't see any ofyou can possibly defend this **** **** policy, because before it was in place, things weren't that bad, the JCC mananged to go on. I think the Mod Squad is afraid that if the policy is lifted completely, that the Sarcasm Knights would get a legit thread and that's the 500 pound gorilla that has been mentioned yet.

 

Thinking outside the box is good now and then.