[JCC] "This thread belongs in the Senate"

Let me just say, as of late, I have been noticing more and more people coming in with the tagline, "This thread belongs in the Senate", for any thread that is even slightly political in nature. Personally, I find this highly annoying. I also was under the assumption that the Senate does not have a monopoly on all political issues, but is simply there to provide a more serious atmosphere for discussion which is under the discretion of the author's desire. For instance, this thread was locked by nashira. Honestly, I can see her method of thinking but think it is completely wrong in this case.

If you were to lock every thread in YJCC that could possibly get "out of line", then the entire forum would be reduced to useless drivel. Now, as much as I enjoy the drivel, I have no desire for YJCC to become that. I see no reason why you cannot allow serious discussions in the JCC. The thread in question wasn't even that far-reaching into the area of "serious, oh-my-god-its-going-to-get-out-of-hand discussion". And the way it was going when it was locked was just fine.

Clarification on policy would be appreciated, thanks.

 

With all the boards, I think the Mods are just trying to keep everything where it's supposed to be. So with all the organizing and redirecting, it is hard to get it all right all the time. I'm not sure of the exact policy for the YJCC, but light hearted topics are viewed as non-poilitcal most of the time...that is why there is a Senate.

 

I've been getting a bit concerned about that as well. The last time this was an issue was in the latter part of 2002. In that instance, things were gradually opened up in the JCC and more political/intellectual discussion took place.

However, members have to hold up their end of the bargain if it's to be fully allowed, because I see more rude behavior, negative generalizing and downright foolishness than was present the last time around. This leads to problems in threads, which leads to more threads being closed on the basis of behavior, which leads to more threads being preemptively locked with the tag of "This belongs in the Senate".

with all the organizing and redirecting, it is hard to get it all right all the time. I'm not sure of the exact policy for the YJCC, but light hearted topics are viewed as non-poilitcal most of the time...that is why there is a Senate.

Except that originally, and again until recently, the JCC wasn't only for light-hearted discussion. There was also political and other serious conversation allowed. The nature of the discussion of such subjects differs between the JCC and the Senate. Last year's Iraq war and accompanying threads in the two forums might best illustrate the differences.

 

Right, each forum has its purpose and meaning. People just get a little confused sometimes on the differences of discussion. Perhaps a clarification is needed if it continues.

 

With all the boards, I think the Mods are just trying to keep everything where it's supposed to be. So with all the organizing and redirecting, it is hard to get it all right all the time. I'm not sure of the exact policy for the YJCC, but light hearted topics are viewed as non-poilitcal most of the time...that is why there is a Senate

Its not "supposed" to be in the Senate at all. The Senate was never intended to replace discussion of the JCC, just to provide a more serious atmosphere where some may be able to have a college classroom-like discussion. The YJCC is most definitely supposed to allow politically related topics, and I have not heard any policy that states otherwise.

I lurk in the Senate as much as I do in YJCC, and, quite frankly, I really don't want some YJCC people posting in topics in the Senate. And vice-versa.

Right, each forum has its purpose and meaning. People just get a little confused sometimes on the differences of discussion. Perhaps a clarification is needed if it continues.

But if the moderators don't understand that distinction, then there is a problem.

Good points, KW. I think that some people in the YJCC do need to understand how to behve in such threads. Myself included, though I have calmed a bit down as of late.

 

To me the Senate was always the place to take discussion that required a mature attitude to discuss correctly, ie abortion, religion, smoking the kind, or homosexuality. The merits of both sides of these arguments needed to be handled in a very sensitive way and therefore required a different playing field.

I too have noticed that way to often in the JCC we are seeing ANYTHING even close to those subjects being banished away. I am not sure that's the best policy but then again with Dags back and a more experienced modding staff things might change.

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure Dags agrees with me on this point. Though he would tear out his tongue before he admitted it.

 

So where does serious non-SW discussion belong? In the YJCC or in the Senate or both? But according to my knowledge, the Senate's purpose is for serious discussion, so if you're allowing and participating in multiple serious discussions on the YJCC, doesn't that steal purpose from the Senate? Then if so, why keep the Senate?

This whole subject seems to center on Purpose.

[image=http://www.icypath.com/blog/img/agent_smith.jpg]

 

The problem Jace is that ANYTHING political or what not, even if it's done as a goof is autmoatically regulated to the Senate, often times becaue of "where the topic could go."

 

But if the moderators don't understand that distinction, then there is a problem.

I think that some people in the YJCC do need to understand how to behve in such threads. Myself included, though I have calmed a bit down as of late.

I didn't say I didn't agree with you. Like I said, perhaps some clarification is needed if this continues. I guess the way I see it is:

Star Wars Related:

Star Wars Community (Casual)
&
Star Wars Saga (Serious)

Non-Star Wars Related:

YJCC (Casual)
&
Senate (Serious)

 

So where does serious non-SW discussion belong? In the YJCC or in the Senate or both? But according to my knowledge, the Senate's purpose is for serious discussion, so if you're allowing and participating in multiple serious discussions on the YJCC, doesn't that steal purpose from the Senate? Then if so, why keep the Senate?

The Senate allows for serious discussion of a different nature than what goes in the JCC (no matter what the subject is).

It doesn't steal any purpose from the Senate to allow serious discussion in the JCC. As a moderator I coined the phrase "hit and run" posts for the JCC, because that's the kind of posting that goes on more often than not in serious discussions there. In the Senate, the posts are often more lengthy and the discussions go on for pages at a time like this.

 

Star Wars Related:

Star Wars Community (Casual)
&
Star Wars Saga (Serious)

Non-Star Wars Related:

YJCC (Casual)
&
Senate (Serious)

That's how I see it too.

 

So where does serious non-SW discussion belong? In the YJCC or in the Senate or both? But according to my knowledge, the Senate's purpose is for serious discussion, so if you're allowing and participating in multiple serious discussions on the YJCC, doesn't that steal purpose from the Senate? Then if so, why keep the Senate?

My thinking, and I could be wrong (though it is near impossible that I would be wrong, about anything) is that the Senate is more of a college classroom discussion, while the JCC is more of a discussion to be had in a coffeehouse, as an analogy. The difference being atmosphere. There have been multiple threads in both for some time, and you can see the difference if you read through them.

I believe the Senate certainly does have a purpose in that respect. Just ask the regulars there.

As a moderator I coined the phrase "hit and run" posts for the JCC, because that's the kind of posting that goes on more often than not in serious discussions there. In the Senate, the posts are often more lengthy and the discussions go on for pages at a time like this.

Bang. Exactly.

 

I coined the phrase "hit and run" posts for the JCC, because that's the kind of posting that goes on more often than not in serious discussions there. In the Senate, the posts are often more lengthy and the discussions go on for pages at a time like this.

This is a very good clarification on the two different boards, KW.

 

Then maybe mods need to inforce the JCC reasons more, cause casual/yest semi-serious threads cant usualy last casue people post nothing but drivel in them.

 

Then maybe mods need to inforce the JCC reasons more, cause casual/yest semi-serious threads cant usualy last casue people post nothing but drivel in them.

Then its an enforcement issue, which is what should be happening in most threads, regardless of the topic.

If its because the JCC mods really don't feel like monitoring the topic, then they should just say so, instead of rewriting policy.

 

I always thought the JCC could have more 'serious' topics discussed in it, but those discussions would be open to, for example, light hearted tangents and / or banter (and should such things occur, it wouldn't necessarily matter, or perturb anyone) - and that the Senate existed for serious discussion only that is to be kept serious, kept focused, and is not open to 'lowering the tone'. So maybe, topics in the two forums can overlap, but the potential paths (in terms of topic) and boundary fencing (in terms of tone) of those discussions would be different? A different atmosphere. One 'messy(er)', one 'tidy' - one 'casual', one 'strict'? However there are some topics (religion being one) that, should the discussion start to go off the rails, may offend people (and so need to be kept focused), so I think the Senate does require it's monopoly on those.

 

What I have seen in regards to what D.O.T. is talking about, is someone will start a thread about George Bush having bad taste in ties or John Kerry having false teeth.
A few goofs and barbs will go in then the thread will be shut down, and often deleted completely as I just tried to find one from last week, and the posters will be told it's a discussion of a political nature and really better belongs in the Senate.

I would like some clarification on this. As long as a topic is light hearted why not be in JCC?
Are there any topics that no matter what the tone have to be in the Senate?

 

I think KW provided a very clear clarification on how the Mods view the difference between the boards.

 

Are there any topics that no matter what the tone have to be in the Senate?

Religion.

I think KW provided a very clear clarification on how the Mods view the difference between the boards.

I'm not sure the administration still holds to that view, or is aware of it.

 

My thinking, and I could be wrong (though it is near impossible that I would be wrong, about anything) is that the Senate is more of a college classroom discussion, while the JCC is more of a discussion to be had in a coffeehouse, as an analogy.

I like that analogy, and the hit and run posting analogy. Generally speaking, I think that most threads that can be had in the Senate (most, not all; I'm not so sure that religious debates in the JCC would be so great) can also be had in the JCC without any trouble. There are going to be differences in the threads ? I?d expect more debate and fact posting in the Senate, more humour and opinion in the JCC ? but I think that they can be viable in both forums.

 

I went there and I read the topic. I found it interesting, but the title was little confusing according with the topic. Yes, the thread could be in the Senate, but I at the same time I am not so sure, because I do not know too much about the senate area.

 

However, the JCC mods should also keep the posters inline for that to be possible in JCC.

You cant have an actual discussion about something if, for example, someone keeps cracking poop jokes and dragging ot off topic.

 

the entire forum would be reduced to useless drivel.

I thought it already was ...

 

Are there any topics that no matter what the tone have to be in the Senate?

Religion.

I'm of the personal opinion that everything should be allowed in YJCC, but since I wasn't around when religious discussion became a problem I will most definitely concede that point. I would assume that KW knows better than I in that respect.