[JCC] "This thread belongs in the Senate"

I don't think any of us were around when religious threads became too much of a problem.

In short, religious threads in the JCC are 99% certain of running into flammable content and behavior. I've seen it happen in various short-lived threads and off-topic tangents time and again.

 

There is one equation that was always a constant on the JCC:

Religion + JCC = flame war


Be happy that none of you were around for any of it. I think that once it was only a couple of weeks of seeing whether they could be handled before we banned it again.

 

In short, religious threads in the JCC are 99% certain of running into flammable content and behavior.

Is that a hard number? I'd like to see data for that...

 

Religion flame wars were awesome back in the 20th century

 

Let me rephrase it: In my time as an active member, I've never seen a stable discussion involving religion.

 

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

I'm sure administration holds a very respectable view on the difference...but perhaps a clarification is in order to ensure that a difference is clearly identified.

 

I'm sure administration holds a very respectable view on the difference...but perhaps a clarification is in order to ensure that a difference is clearly identified.

Obi no offense, but do you have a real opinion on this or are you just here as part of some Light side Padawan thing.
I mean you keep stating the obvious, I am trying to understand what side of this you are on but I can't seem to find any specific point your making?

 

the entire forum would be reduced to useless drivel.

I thought it already was ...

Raven,
So users can insult the entire JC and you don't give so much as a warning, but if other users say what you deem a sweeping insult of 3SA you publically threaten to ban them?

I mean this is all in the same day even and to a "T" the same thing?

 

DarthBane,

No I am not here for some LightSide thing thank you. I am here to state my opinion...I thought I made it clear. I agree the Senate is for serious discussion otherwise not acceptable in the YJCC, the YJCC is more of a light hearted forum. I've made my point with the original poster that there should be some sort of clarification within the two boards and posted my agreement to a couple of different posts. How is my opinion not stated?

 

I think, DB420, that the issue is just a tiny bit more complex than that, and also doesn't particularly belong in this thread.

 

Your probably right KW, but this kind of glaring double standard is ridiculous. But then again it's not like anyone will listen anyways.
As matter of fact I don't even know why I am trying now so screw it.

 

So users can insult the entire JC and you don't give so much as a warning, but if other users say what you deem a sweeping insult of 3SA you publically threaten to ban them?

I mean this is all in the same day even and to a "T" the same thing?


1) I didn?t see that comment. I mostly just scanned through the first dozen posts.

2) There is a bit of a difference there. In the case of the comment on 3SA, it was referring directly to the people of the forum, whereas the comment regarding JCC was with regards to the post quality. The 3SA comment said people are idiots ( < IQ 12 definitely counts as idiot), while the JCC comment said that the posts were useless. Intelligent people can make dumb and worthless posts ? while the comment was hardly complementary, it says nothing directly about the people making the posts.

 

So users can insult the entire JC and you don't give so much as a warning

I didn't insult anyone, I just said I thought it was drivel. I could be wrong, though.

 

Does anybody knows if the user asked why the thread was locked. I am just curious, because sometimes users wants to learn why they did wrong about their threads. Some others never ask why.

 

Well, I asked why it was locked, though i realize that is not the same thing. However, the response I got from nashira was, quite honestly, lacking in substance.

 

To me the Senate was always the place to take discussion that required a mature attitude to discuss correctly...

And I think this is the key, as this pressumption is built into the rules for Senate posting.

KW's "hit and run" analogy is also true, but then you have to acknowledge the limitations of both.

You see, I've actually seen people post a reply in YJCC that says

"I'd never post this in the Senate, because then I'd have to prove it.."

or

"The standards in the Senate scare me."

And I'm sure others have seen the same type of posts.

Now, I'm not claiming that one standard is better or worse than the other, they are simply different.

However, there lies the danger when real topics are being discussed in that environment of whimsy.

 

Religious discussions are notoriously difficult to moderate.

The senate is generally a place where I like to see threads take a mature road. If something lighthearted pops up, or a serious discussion gets too sidetracked, I usually suggest taking it to well....the JCC. Moderating the senate can be tough sometimes in that aspect, ie knowing what is appropriate for a more "mature" forum. I like the "college classroom" analogy that was tossed out.

Think of it like an "introductory" college course, where there is one professor, over a hundred students, and a very LARGE lecture hall. For the most part there tends to be mature, balanced talk, but occassionally, things do lighten up.

For the most part, I try and keep things on track, and this was the advice I received when promoted to moderator (from multiple sources); I try and follow it as best I can.

Now, as far as religion goes, it is EXTREMELY difficult to balance out egoes in any discussion, and religion is definitely the hardest. Any belief system that is ultimately based on religion is, if the individual truly believes in it, unshakable, and this is the perfect breeding ground for conflict. Given the serious nature of discussion in the senate, religious threads are probably best left there. Modding them is difficult, and the JCC mods have enough to do without getting into religious battles, as the past has shown tends to occur.

And right now, religion is a dominant topic in the senate, with 3-4 active threads on various religious topics circulating on the front two pages at the moment. Head over there to join any one of them; if you think a topic is missing or would spice up the floor, PM me or Kimball_Kinnison with the idea and we'll see if we can't get it started.

Peace,

V-03

 

I am very lenient on political threads in the JCC, I don't even think I have locked one since being promoted. The majority of war/political/world threads that are posted are usually news stories (Something The Senate doesn't allow) and this allows a forum where serious discussion can take place while having a looser atmosphere for a bit of humor as well, something The Senate is stricter on.

 

V03: I'm glad that you agree. I don't post in the Senate a lot because I dislike making long-winded posts, but I lurk there more than the JCC. I enjoy reading posts there because they are intelligent and not watered down. I fear that confining all those issues to the Senate would ruin what is otherwise working out quite well. But that may just be me.

Things like posting news articles and simply asking for opinions should definitely be kept more towards JCC.

 

I don't have time to reply right now, but I'll post my thoughts later.

 

Hrm. Well, the notion of which sorts of threads should be redirected to the Senate is a dicey issue. We dont want to stifle intelligent conversation, but we also dont want to encourage topics that might cause animosity between the users.

I havent needed to deal with one of these topics since I've returned, so I'm just really working from memory of how I used to deal with them. I think I used to wait and see how the discussion developed for a short while. If it looked like members were keeping it on the straight and narrow, I'd leave it be.

But in saying that, often things would turn ugly later on, once the thread was established (the Iraq thread in March last year, anyone?). But once a thread is established, it isnt so nice to lock and redirect to the Senate. So sometimes it's necessary to try to exercise some foresight. Try and see if the thread could turn into something bad, despite a good start.

So...yeah. I guess its really hard to decide exactly which threads can stay or go. All in all, it's mod judgement. I guess though, that if a mod sees a thread that might be dodgy but is unsure, the JCC mods could discuss it, and see what we want to do.

 

but we also dont want to encourage topics that might cause animosity between the users.

There's a wide range of subjects that could encourage animosity, particularly with the amount of diversity and opinion range we have here. I don't think that's grounds for redirecting threads.

But in saying that, often things would turn ugly later on, once the thread was established (the Iraq thread in March last year, anyone?).

The Iraq thread was relatively well moderated and was never locked (certainly thanks in no small part to both you and your promotion classmate, B).

ll in all, it's mod judgement. I guess though, that if a mod sees a thread that might be dodgy but is unsure, the JCC mods could discuss it, and see what we want to do.

I think it depends as much on how similar discussion has fared in the past and how well people are going to moderate it. If moderators just let things go and don't show up much, it's liable to get bad. But, the same could be said of the entire forum or site.


Edit: As of today, there's a chance to see parallel discussions between the Senate and JCC in action.

This is a JCC discussion on the draft, as compared to the Senate discussion. I'm sure anyone can see the differences.

 

to be honest, we've already had some people complaining about turning the YJCC into a serious discussion forum as some of you were already deep in that discussion, and I have given out my thoughts very solidly on what I thought.

Now I don't mind the occasional serious thread, but sometimes like the Iraq thread, it did get out of hand. Thats why we have the senate floor to begin with. The YJCC is meant for more for light hearted discussions, and we do have quite a few users bringing their rl problems to the YJCC, and we get serious discussions happening then. But most of the time its more horsing around then anything else. Thats the heart of the YJCC is the whole goofing around theory.

The more serious threads happen in the senate, amphithetre and Census, thats what those three forums are there for. We don't need anymore boards like that or this place wouldn't be fun anymore.

I usually avoid those places for those particular reasons. I have trouble getting into long winded arguements, now if I was interested then I would stop in the occasional one other then that though...

The light hearted threads is what makes up the JCC, without it it just turns into EU or even the senate.

 

As others have said, it's a judgement call on a thread-by-thread basis to allow (or not) political and potentially volatile threads in the JCC. In this case, I decided to lock the thread. I couldn't see a thread that started with "this pisses me off" as leading anywhere good. If people wanted to seriously discuss it, the Senate seemed like the place to do it.

However, the response I got from nashira was, quite honestly, lacking in substance.

You asked me why I locked it, I told you my reasons. ? What's missing in that?

 

The more serious threads happen in the senate, amphithetre and Census, thats what those three forums are there for. We don't need anymore boards like that or this place wouldn't be fun anymore.

The Senate and Amphitheatre are meant for serious discussions. However, they were never intended to remove serious discussion from the JCC. I fail to see how some serious discussion in the JCC makes the forum any less fun. It only ever amounts to a few threads (at most) on the first page or two.

I couldn't see a thread that started with "this pisses me off" as leading anywhere good. If people wanted to seriously discuss it, the Senate seemed like the place to do it.


What was the subject?

Depending on what it was, just because it starts off like that doesn't mean it won't lead anywhere good (or that it's better suited for the Senate).

You asked me why I locked it, I told you my reasons.

I imagine he feels that the reason you gave was insufficient.