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

Both Quixotic and Tunick have valid points, and I can understand both point of views, however, I'll have to go with Tunick on this one.

 

carmen-

I'm going to punt on that one, as I wasn't around then. I'll ask one of the others to respond.

 

That works!

 

Quixotic-Sith posted on 6/8/05 1:41pm

---

carmen-

I'm going to punt on that one, as I wasn't around then. I'll ask one of the others to respond.
[hr][/blockquote]





[color=red]I would love to see the other JCC mods who were around in March explain this.[/color]

 

I cannot explain the moderator's position on this but I can explain the process that the SSA went through to get approval.

We very politely asked for consideration through PMs and presented the YJCC moderators with our mission statement and goals, etc. We clearly were asking to be more than a social thread but to benefit the boards by assisting in the WNU, in pointing out trouble in threads, etc. We never demanded a thread.

Again, I cannot speak for the YJCC moderators but I believe that this was the reason the SSA was allowed a thread.

 

Dark_Lady_Jada posted on 6/8/05 2:04pm

---

I cannot explain the moderator's position on this but I can explain the process that the SSA went through to get approval.

We very politely asked for consideration through PMs and presented the YJCC moderators with our mission statement and goals, etc. We clearly were asking to be more than a social thread but to benefit the boards by assisting in the WNU, in pointing out trouble in threads, etc. We never demanded a thread.

Again, I cannot speak for the YJCC moderators but I believe that this was the reason the SSA was allowed a thread.
[hr][/blockquote]






[color=red]It shouldn't matter, it violates the policy that the JCC mods have in place, a policy that they're gushing over. If this action doesn't prove bias toward the Knights, then I don't know what does.[/color]

 

Tunick, can you give a synopsis of how the Sarcasm Knights benefit the boards by their existence? Better yet, could the leaders of the Sarcasm Knights do that? No, they can't. Because they are banned, some permanently.

 

Seriously, you need to learn how to wait for a response from a moderator before getting all bent out of shape. DLJ speaks for herself, not the mod squad.

 

carmenite42 posted on 6/8/05 2:18pm

---

Seriously, you need to learn how to wait for a response from a moderator before getting all bent out of shape. DLJ speaks for herself, not the mod squad.
[hr][/blockquote]






[color=red]I know. I'm not getting bent out of shape here.[/color]

 

You're making plenty of valid points here, Tunick. I understand you completly, but lets wait for a mod to "attempt" to explain this before it gets any farther.

 

Smuggler-of-Mos-Espa posted on 6/8/05 2:24pm

---

You're making plenty of valid points here, [b]Tunick[/b]. I understand you completly, but lets wait for a mod to "attempt" to explain this before it gets any farther. [face_happy]
[hr][/blockquote]





[color=red]I will.[face_grin] The explanation for this should be intresting.[/color]

 

Tunick, I actually WOULD like to see the SK have their own thread. Better to contain you all in one place. I know it was talked about at the end of Spamalot, why not take over the JCC Castle thread?

People in here have already suggested that there are two threads ripe for being taken over. There you have it. It was discussed by the Knights already.

Castle = Knights = end of beating dead horse

 

I can't understand why people are making a fuss about the Sarcasm Knights. I don't have it handy but I read a long post recently stating that the Knights are disbanded and that anyone that had something about the Knights in their sig were only looking for attention. I don't blame the mods for passing over the Knights, I would not want to give a bunch of serial trolls their own social thread either...

 

To my dim recollection (I wasn't that great on policies until about a year ago ) the wiating list was put into effect essentially because the summer of 02, jcc was filled with idiotic social threads full of "*jumps in poll*" type posts.

I could not tell you exactly when it was enacted, but it was way before any of the current jcc mods were jcc mods. The once a month rule was put into place at least since 8/20/04 which is when i could find the first documentation of a person requesting to be on the list. it was probably before that as well.

The shadow sith army is NOT a regular social thread. It is a social thread like Lightside and DarkLords who's MAIN PURPOSE is to help other users get to know jcc and the jc better.

Amos and i were approached about the idea, and both of us saw merit in allowing the thread, but being cautious, we asked for a full proposal, to ensure that we would eb gaining a program that could help our new users, and not just yet another cliquey social group cluttering up the forum. I especially thoguht this thread woudl be a good idea because in MY OPINION, the lightside and darklords threads aren't as big of a presence as they were when i was a newbie. i was in lightside for a few months, and it really helped me understand the rules and get to know the jc better. SSA is more of a program than a social thread.

And that is my reasons for approving the Shadow Sith Army thread. It should be noted too, that i have no personal relationships with anyone involed in this thread, so any accusations of bias for SSA group memebers over SKs is a little absurd.

Hope that's clear, if you need anything else clarified, let me know.

 

carmenite42 posted on 6/8/05 1:37pm

---

Here is my question.

It appears that the Sarcasm Knights have been trying to get a thread going since before March of this year. However, in March another group was approved by the mods, while the knights were overlooked.

If that's true, and they have been trying since before the Shadow Sith Army, but were passed over in favor of the Shadow Sith Army, then I can totally understand their frustration.

Could a mod respond to that, and explain why one group was allowed, but the other wasn't?
[hr][/blockquote]

I can answer that.

The difference here, and the reason the SSA was approved is that they have a direction that is not intended to be social. ie the SSA is [i]not[/i] a social thread. It's designed to be a 'help' thread to introduce people to the JC and the JCC, and from what I can see it is also for people with emotional / social / economic etc problems. I believe the SSA has a 'staff' with a lot of different experiences that almost probably have a response to any everyday query or problem that might occur (JC, JCC or 'problem' related)

ok, there probably *is* an element of social chit-chat in that thread at quieter times, but overal it's set up to help people with problems.

I suppose it's almost an evolution of the advice thread that Connemara used to run.

To be perfectly 100% honest I personally did not approve of the SSA as I felt it would turn into a social thread putting us (the JCC Mods) in a tricky situation. However, it was approved by the others at the time (Kate, Tracy, Amos and zacparis iirc) and I'm happy to say I was wrong, and that this thread has worked extremely well.

Let me get one thing straight - the one month rule was set in place long before the Knights starting demanding their own thread. They have only started to demand their own thread since the approach of ROTS and the realisation that the 3SA GIL thread (their origin and rightful home) might end up locked.

 

Oh boy! The SSA isn't a social thread? Sure they help users, but it is still social in nature, a violation of this "precious" policy IMHO.

 

Oh boy! The SSA isn't a social thread? Sure they help users, but it is still social in nature

No, really it isn't, which is why it was given approval.

Why is it so important to win this?

um, what is there to 'win' ? I don't understand your point there. You are asking us to change an established rule, and we're saying 'no' based on the reasons that the rule was established for. The rule wasn't created to keep the Knights down, it was created long before they were on the scene. Furthermore it only appears to be the Knights that have a major issue with this. I don't really see anyone else argueing that the JCC would benefit from another social thread.

If the YJCC Mods were to be coerced into allowing us free reign of their forums, it would simply amplify what contention already exists and then we can spend the rest of our time on here griping about how "Malkie banned me... he's a ****" or whtever else would come of the conflict birthed by the push for a thread in one, particular forum.

Your sentence structure makes it difficult for me to understand your point. Are you suggesting that we should give you what you want because it will reduce the hate for me ? Are you suggesting that we should give in or you'll cause trouble ? Or are you suggesting if we give you what you want then you'll never cause any trouble ever again ?

Because that isn't what would happen - we bend a little, then you'll expect us to keep bending.

"Malkie banned me... he's a ****"

Yeah, I repeatedly force people at gun point to troll, post porn, post profanity etc etc . Tell me, if you fall over and hit the ground and it hurts, do you blame the ground and get angry with it?

 

Tunick, the MAIN PURPOSE of the SSA thread is not a social thread. that is the difference.

In jcc, to some degree, every thread is a "social thread" if you define that as a thread where users interact and have conversatons that might not be 100% on the exact topic.

 

droideka27 posted on 6/8/05 4:35pm

---

Tunick, the MAIN PURPOSE of the SSA thread is not a social thread. that is the difference.

In jcc, to some degree, every thread is a "social thread" if you define that as a thread where users interact and have conversatons that might not be 100% on the exact topic.
[hr][/blockquote]





[color=red]That shouldn't matter. This policy should apply to everybody, since you guys want to keep it.[/color]

 

gotcha - you were being rhetorical when you said Why is it so important to win this? or more accurately addressing the Knights rather than the JCC Mods


If the YJCC Mods were to be coerced into allowing us free reign of their forums, it would simply amplify what contention already exists

you are right - that makes more sense given a second reading

It's 1am. Forgive me.

 

i think mods should make exceptions to their rules... keeps them flexible.

The problem is when mods start acting biasedly, and making poor calls on what should get the exceptions.

Which i don't think is the case.

 

droideka27 posted on 6/8/05 4:52pm

---

i think mods should make exceptions to their rules... keeps them flexible.
[hr][/blockquote]

I agree and disagree. I don't think you should make any exceptions to any rules. I think if you are put in a situation where an excemption to the rule would benefit the JC, then the rule is flawed and needs to be modified or updated.

 

MyKe1138 posted on 6/8/05 4:47pm

---

Malk- inhale and then reread. Thanks.

I am on your side here.

We don't warrant a YJCC thread.
[hr][/blockquote]





[color=red]yiiiiiiiiipppppppppeeeeeeeeeeee![/color][face_plain]