[JCC] Updating the JCC Rules Sticky Thread

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Kimball_Kinnison, Apr 27, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Quite a bit of confusion (caused by poor documentation) has arisen over what set of rules should currently be enforced in the JCC. The most recent thread was posted in October 2003. However, many people, including several former members of the administration, claim that the current rules actually come from this thread, posted in April 2003.

    This leave two possible descriptions of the current situation. Either the October rules are the current ones, and need to be overhauled, or the April ones are current and need to be revised to be made into a sticky thread. Either way, that means it's time to look over the rules.

    So, please take the time to read over both sets of rules, then post your suggestions and comments. This thread is to craft a new rules thread for the JCC. This new thread will be the definitive and final word on what the applicable rules are in that forum.

    Kimball Kinnison
  2. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The October "rules" are nothing of the sort.

    The April 2003 JCC Rules are the official rules that are in place, and no process was ever undertaken to update or change them.

    They were summarized in October, but never updated or changed.

    Period.
  3. LiteraryGeniusIV Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 3
    As I have suggested on a previous occassion, the only logical way to solve this dispute is to place several Boxes of Rules in a field. A blindfolded person, chosen at random from a crowd of random people, will spin three times and throw the spoon towards the boxes, at a distance of 100 feet. Whichever box the spoon lands in is the rules that the JCC will be made to follow for a time period of no less than 2 years. Should the spoon land on the grass, a rethrow is in order.

    I suggest that the administration immediately begins working on this plan of action, and start organizing the event.

    I realize this is somewhat of an unusual idea, but I am completely serious in my suggestion.
  4. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    This thread is not to debate which rules were the current ones. This is to put together the rules that will be posted in the new sticky thread. Whether they are identical to either set of rules, or a completely new set is up to the course that this discussion takes.

    Kimball Kinnison
  5. jacemathem Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 5
    The Rules need to clearly define spam. The definition provided in the October version is sufficient.
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Edit: Just nevermind. It's obvious that no one online right now is listening.
  7. LiteraryGeniusIV Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 20, 2003
    star 3
    If new rules are going to be created, I would like to suggest that a rule be made in the JCC that threads can not have more than a certain number of the following characters in their title:

    !, @, #, $, %, ^, &, * and ~.

    I would say somwhere between 3 and 4. No more. And that does not mean 3 or 4 of each, it means 3 or 4 total.
  8. Jedi_Hood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 10, 2000
    star 6
    Spam: filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts. (from the October version)

    There is no definition in the April version.

    The term either needs to be better and more clearly defined as a reason for closing a thread, or dropped entirely.


    The definition provided in the October version is sufficient.

    I disagree - "unnecessary and irrelevant" covers a lot of ground.
  9. jacemathem Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 5
    The Rules need to clearly define spam. The definition provided in the October version is sufficient.
    ---
    That's not likely to happen, and the "definition" from October was never official. Never. Please understand that, and respect that myself and several others were a prat of the Mod Squad throughout that time frame.
    Also read the Spam vs. Fluff thread if you haven't already, and realize that a concrete definition of spam that included more than extreme things would be harmful to the JCC.






    I'm saying, that definition needs to be made "official". And as also provided in the Spam vs. Fluff thread, the judgement of what's "unnecessary and/or irrelevent" is up to the mod or admin viewing it.

    Disagreements with mods' and/or admins' actions must be discussed with that mod first, then with other mods and admins, and then at last brought up in Comms. (This method needs to be EMPHASIZED in the new rules, since it's not being adhered to).
  10. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I'm saying, that definition needs to be made "official".

    Why? It's a poor definition.

    And as also provided in the Spam vs. Fluff thread, the judgement of what's "unnecessary and/or irrelevent" is up to the mod or admin viewing it.

    So it would be a pretty bad idea to make such a subjective definition the rule, don't you think?
  11. jedi_john_33 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2003
    star 7
    i may not be active in JC Politics, but, the rules do seem bland. They could use some elaborating. I just cant think of anyway to make them more clear and to the real point that everywhere is aiming for.
  12. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The more rules you have, the more complicated things get. That's not good when it comes to moderating.
  13. jedi_john_33 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 26, 2003
    star 7
    Yeah, that is a problem too, but with less or more laid-back rules, poster problems can arise too.

    I saw a lot of stuff today that should have been editted by a moderator, but, it went unnoticed. if i PM'ed a MOD everytime i saw something wrong, i'd be behind in getting the PM's sent.
  14. Jedi_Hood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 10, 2000
    star 6
    The more rules you have, the more complicated things get. That's not good when it comes to moderating.

    I think most of us would be happy with fewer, but clearer, rules.
  15. Vader Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    rules:

    1. no flaming
    2. no racial, sexually explicit, or otherwise inappropriate, material that a reasonably objective person would find offensive.
    3. no post/thread flooding or unsolicited advertising.


    DONE.
  16. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    In the case of the October thread, I believe it was JMT herself.

    In April 2003, it was the end result of a great deal of feedback and discussion from the community and JCC moderators at the time.

    Edit: My post was in response to a question asking who wrote the rules.
  17. Vader Fett Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 1999
    star 4
    i edited above, so, disregard, i was somehow thinking that the new rules were already written. i should sleep more often.
  18. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    From my point of view here, it just seems like KK has realised he is losing his argument, so rather than concede it he's overriding the authority of the JCC mods and stalemating the whole debate. I could be wrong, but since no JCC mods have posted in regards to this discussion, I don't really have any proof otherwise.

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just take this April 2003 rules thread, maybe update it a little if it needs clarification, and repost it as the "official" rules? I mean, it's already the guidelines that mods follow, so we might as well make it the most recent to stop this laugh-fest from ever happening again.
  19. Jedi_Hood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 10, 2000
    star 6
    From my point of view here, it just seems like KK has realised he is losing his argument, so rather than concede it he's overriding the authority of the JCC mods and stalemating the whole debate.

    Let's not start this all over again. The thread's here, let's use it.

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just take this April 2003 rules thread, maybe update it a little if it needs clarification, and repost it as the "official" rules?

    The April version, while probably the more complete of the two, still leaves a few things to be desired. See some of the above posts.
  20. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Hence the word "update" in there. If it can be improved, let's get to it. I just don't think there's a need for a whole new one when we've got one that served perfectly well before which we can use to build upon.
  21. Jedi_Hood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 10, 2000
    star 6
  22. DarthBane420 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2003
    star 5
    A few things come to mind after extensively reviewing both rules threads.

    1. What is the consensus on the number of threads an individual is allowed to start in one day?
    Is three set in stone? Should someone seen constantly posting the maximum threads allowed a day be asked to ease off a little? Should it be unlimited as long as they are solid discussion topics that aren't obvious spam?

    2. What acronyms are acceptable?
    There was a thread running entitled The Good, The Bad, and the ****ed. It ran for about two days and then the entire title was edited out. Is the definitive policy that ALL the word must be edited, or can some parts of it be left? If all the word must be edited, then why even allow "*****" in the first place?
  23. Jedi_Hood Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Feb 10, 2000
    star 6
    What is the consensus on the number of threads an individual is allowed to start in one day?
    Is three set in stone?


    As far as I know, yes.

    Should someone seen constantly posting the maximum threads allowed a day be asked to ease off a little? Should it be unlimited as long as they are solid discussion topics that aren't obvious spam?

    Personally, I think a further limit should be in place (for instance, no more than 3 per day, or 10 per week). But that might be too hard to keep track of and enforce, so I can live with the 3-a-day rule.

    Is the definitive policy that ALL the word must be edited, or can some parts of it be left?

    The entire word must be edited.

    If all the word must be edited, then why even allow "*****" in the first place?

    This is something that could be explored more, I think. My suggestion? Don't allow it, even if it is starred out. Just delete the word entirely.
  24. HawkNC Former RSA: Oceania

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 6
    Just out of interest, who edited the "good, bad, ****ed" thread title?

    Edit: Never mind, found out for myself. I was of the impression that only the base word had to be edited out so as to be unrecognisable. The "-ed" on the end has, as far as I know, never needed to be edited. That's what I was taught, at least - any mod is free to correct me on the issue.
  25. The Bigger Fish Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 24, 2000
    star 7
    Crikey.

    Alright, a few ideas-

    From April Rules Thread:

    Posting Of ?Lock This? Type Posts:

    Posting things such as: ?+1?, ?lock this?, ?this is spam?, and anything that can be construed as this type of post, is not allowed.

    Any posts like this will be deleted, and a PM will be sent to the poster. Doing this will lead to a warning, and then to a ban.


    Nothing wrong with this.

    If you feel that a thread is spam, please contact a forum moderator and let them handle it.

    A lot of times perfectly good threads are cluttered with these types of posts in the first 10 posts. There is no need for that. If you don?t like a thread, please move to one that you do enjoy.


    This is where it gets tricky. Firstly, 99% of users don?t PM Mods when they think they see a ?spam? thread. They post in it. It happens every day. Do we strictly enforce the ?Don?t post in a thread you think is spam/about to be locked? rule? Secondly, there is no clear 100% definition of what spam is. It?s open to interpretation, and always will be. One user thinks a thread is Spam, another doesn?t. It has to be the Mod?s call. However, I think we should try and expand on what constitutes a spam thread. It won?t be able to cover all situations, but it could help.

    Lock Reasons:

    Mods should give a clear reason for a lock. This will allow for the thread creator know exactly what was wrong with the thread.


    Agreed. Most of the time the reason is obvious (For example, Redundant, with a link to the current thread). When it isn?t, a short explanation should be posted. If the poster of the locked thread isn?t satisfied, PM the Mod. I?ve re-opened a thread I?d locked after talking to the author, so it does work. If you think that the Mod hates you, PM a different Mod. We are all around at some point of the day, so you?re query should be addressed at some point during the day. Be patient.

    Self Promotion Type Threads:

    You are allowed to have your name in the title of a thread.

    Watched user list threads are not allowed.


    Clear

    Member appreciation threads are not allowed. Other appreciation threads are allowed, though we suggest discussion threads instead.

    I think this could do with some clarification.

    Before posting a new topic (especially concerning news stories), please check within the last 5 days to see if it has already been discussed.

    Not enough people use the search button. It?s really quite useful. We should also encourage more use of the Sticky Index thread. That?s where I look for answers to a lot of queries I receive.

    And please use common sense while posting. That?s really all that we ask.

    ^^^Yup!^^^

    From an earlier post:

    1. What is the consensus on the number of threads an individual is allowed to start in one day? Is three set in stone?

    Yes. If a user posts thread threads in one day, a Mod should send a PM reminding that user of the rule. If a 4th thread is posted, it is locked, and if a 5th is posted, it?s ban time.

    Should someone seen constantly posting the maximum threads allowed a day be asked to ease off a little? Should it be unlimited as long as they are solid discussion topics that aren't obvious spam?

    I don?t know many users that can post 3 quality threads a day for very long.

    2. What acronyms are acceptable?
    There was a thread running entitled The Good, The Bad, and the ****ed. It ran for about two days and then the entire title was edited out.


    That was a mistake. Some of the fault was mine.

    Is the definitive policy that ALL the word must be edited, or can some parts of it be left? If all the word must be edited, then why even allow "*****" in the first place?

    The current system of *-ing the whole word has worked well. I don?t see a reason to change.

    From my point of view here, it just seems like KK has realised he is losing his argument, so rather than concede it he's overriding the authority of the JCC mods and stalemating the whole debate. I could be wrong, but since no JCC mo
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.