[JCC]Why can't there be 2 Survivor threads?

Discussion in 'Communications' started by wild_karrde, May 12, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    What we did, we did with the best interest of the forum and moderating consistency in mind, nothing else.

    Sometimes, exceptions are okay. That's not saying it was required here, but "consistency" should never override common sense.
  2. -_-_-_-_-_- Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2002
    star 6
    We're always under scrutiny and criticism as mods, especially in a forum like the JCC. That criticism can come from users, fellow mods, or even ex-mods but the basic fact is that we're doing what feel is best because that is what we have been chosen to do. In doing that, there will be hits and misses. Which will this HTR policy be? Only time will tell.
  3. wild_karrde Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 7
    Wild, I have explained twice already how we reached our decision and why we did so.

    You have said how you came to the decision, yes, I never questioned that. You have said why you came about the decision, but you have never explained it. You say over and over again that you are doing this to prevent multiple threads about the same subject. I understand that. My question, however, is why do you think there will be a problem with duplicate threads when there never has been before? Until you answer this simple question, I will keep asking it.

    And you ask why I am still going even though I got my thread? Because this is about more than the thread. It is about you guys creating a rule that makes no sense and doesn't make the JCC a better place, which goes against what you were recruited for. Your job is to make the JCC a better place. This rule does just the opposite.
  4. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    And you ask why I am still going even though I got my thread? Because this is about more than the thread. It is about you guys creating a rule that makes no sense and doesn't make the JCC a better place, which goes against what you were recruited for. Your job is to make the JCC a better place. This rule does just the opposite.

    From your comments, it doesn't look like any answer would satisfy you. YOu already think that the mods don't care about the JCC just because they disagree with you on how it should be run.

    If they say yes to your question, you'll just think that they are [stupid|foolish|idiotic|incompetent|insert choice adjective here]. If they say no, you'll simply continue to harass them until they relent because it's a "needless" change. Either way, their answer won't really change anything. If they did not feel that it was needed and appropriate, they would not have made the rule, nor would they have voted to keep it while reconsidering it.

    I will remind you once more that simply because you disagree with their actions does not mean that they do not care about the forum. If they didn't care about the forum, they wouldn't still be here taking a load of crap from every user who disagrees with them on everyaction they take (there's always at least one).

    What it boils down to is that in the end, the decision on how it is rum is made by the moderating team as a whole, not by you or by any other individual user. Your input and views have been appreciated, but it is time to let it go. As has been repeatedly stated already, the policy will be reviewed in a few months and reevaluated or changed if needed.

    Kimball Kinnison
  5. wild_karrde Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 7
    KK, if you're not going to add anything to the conversation, please don't post. If the mods can prove to me that the rule was needed, I will accept that and move on. However, they have not given any explination at all as to why they needed to create this new rule.

    From my point of view it looks like this:

    A few days ago I started a S9 thread that clearly stated it would be non-spoiler. A few people posted some minor spoilers so I PMed Dagsy about it. He immediatly went in, edited out the spoilers and posted a warning for them. Those handful of users, instead of starting their own thread, went to the mods. Instead of just telling them to start their own thread, Dagsy went and changed my thread, and then ordered me not to make a new one. When I (and many others) pointed out how that decision was wrong in this thread, the mods then went and decided to make it a new rule so that they could justify the decision that was made before the rule was even created.

    They say over and over that the rule is to prevent duplicate threads, while I say over and over that duplicate threads have never, in 6 years, been a problem on the JC. Thier reasoning for this rule is flawed. If they have more reasoning than what they have already said, I encourage them to post it. I am a reasonable man and I am man enough to admit when I am wrong and apologize. However, the mods of the JCC still have not shown any respect towards the JCC population by explaining this rule.
  6. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    KK, if you're not going to add anything to the conversation, please don't post. If the mods can prove to me that the rule was needed, I will accept that and move on. However, they have not given any explination at all as to why they needed to create this new rule.

    Last I checked, you were not a moderator, and don't have the authority to tell anyone who should or should not post in any forum or thread, or how they should post. You do not run these boards. I suggest that you remember that.

    No matter how the mods answer you, it won't satisfy you because you disagree with their conclusions. Well, in response to that I have to say "tough". No one needs to prove anything to you on these boards. Not a user, not a moderator, nor anyone else. It is up to you whether to accept or reject their explanation, but that is it.

    In this case, you have had the opportunity to say your peace, you got at least part of what you wanted (the decision was reconsidered, and you have a non-spoilers thread in the Amphitheatre), and the outcome was decided. At this point, I doubt that any "proof" would convince you, as this isn't a disagreement based on lack of facts, but a difference in paradigms. Unfortunately for your paradigm, the responsibility for making the final decision lies with the moderators, and the domoinant paradigm that they hold.*

    The decision is made, and will be reevaluated in a few weeks/months. It is time to just let the issue go for now. Rather than just go round and round on this issue, it is time to observe what effects this rule has, then adjust/revoke it if those affects appear to be increasingly negative.

    Kimball Kinnison

    * An example of such a difference in paradigms is the poop threads. For those who do not find them offensive, or for those who enjoy them, they did not consider them excessive. However, for others, they were completely out of hand. How could you prove to the poop-thread lovers that there were problems with the poop threads? You can't, because such a position is outside their paradigm, and so they will not accept it as proof. The same thing happens over sexual innuendos, "Name Game" threads, "Survivor" game threads, and other types of threads.
  7. wild_karrde Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 8, 1999
    star 7
    KK, all you seem to be doing is telling me what I think and what my point of view is. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me, and I would thank you to stop acting like you know where I'm coming from. The simple truth is, the mods of the JCC have not explained their reasoning behind this decision and until they do, I will keep asking. If I were a mod, I would fully expect to be questioned about any decisions I made and I would be man enough to back them up with facts and examples. So far, I have not gotten any examples or explinations as to why the JCC mods think there will be a problem with duplicate threads on the JCC if there are 2 Survivor 9 threads.

    Well, in response to that I have to say "tough". No one needs to prove anything to you on these boards.

    It's nice to know that the administration feels they can make any decision they want to without the need to justify it. Actually explains why I was banned 2 days ago, now that I think about it.

    Last I checked, you were not a moderator, and don't have the authority to tell anyone who should or should not post in any forum or thread, or how they should post. You do not run these boards. I suggest that you remember that.

    Last time I checked you were not a JCC mod and had nothing to do with the decision they made. I am not asking you to try to explain their reasoning, I am asking them, but you keep coming in here and talking about me and trying to make it look like this is some sort of personal vendetta or something, and thus discredit me.
  8. Katya Jade Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 19, 2002
    star 7
    No matter how the mods answer you, it won't satisfy you because you disagree with their conclusions. Well, in response to that I have to say "tough". No one needs to prove anything to you on these boards. Not a user, not a moderator, nor anyone else. It is up to you whether to accept or reject their explanation, but that is it.

    Okay...what?? Look, KK, there's no reason to cop an attitude when someone is frustrated and angry with a decision. Now, while the decision has been made and, at this point, there's really not a huge reason to keep discussing it, there is no excuse for ever telling a user "tough", suck it up. And telling him "you were not a moderator, and don't have the authority to tell anyone who should or should not post in any forum or thread, or how they should post. You do not run these boards. I suggest that you remember that."

    Absolutely, completely inappropriate - especially for a member of the "senior management" here. You're a regular user to, KK. Just because you have more admin tools than others doesn't give you the justification to treat people like they don't have an opinion.

    If the discussion is over, lock the thread. Don't keep it open so that you can arugue with people and put them down. We all know you're an admin - there's no reason to bash people over the head with that information.

    I am so damn angry right now I could hit something.

    Where's Paul?
  9. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I am not trying to be harsh or anything like that, but in the end, this does boil down to the fact that the moderators decided, and w_k doesn't like that decision. It was reconsidered and he still doesn't like the decision.

    As I sad before, this comes down to a difference of paradigms, not a difference of facts/proof. Look at what I said earlier about the two possible answers to his question. Niether one could convince him by itself because of the difference in paradigms.

    I do say "Tough". THe decision was made, reconsidered, and left in place. As a moderating team, we are not going to keep reconsidering the same question over and over again in an non-stop, endless loop. As I said, we will reevaluate this in a few weeks/months and see what happens from there. Immediately after the decision is made and reevaluated is not hte time to start reviewing it again. THe result will only be the same.

    As for the "You are not a moderator" comment, I stand by that warning. Others have been banned for such things both in Comms and in many other forums. It is the moderating staff that has the authority to moderate, not hte users.

    I need to go, because I have a 6 hour drive ahead of me, but I will add more later. For now, I am leaving this open in the hope that someone will have a new insight on this, and not hte same old

    Kimball Kinnison
  10. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    As I've said time and again, it's not just what you say, it's how you say it.

    Watch me give a different administrative explanation:


    I'm sorry, Derek. The administration discussed this for quite some time, and we reached a different conclusion. I know how important the Survivor thread(s) are to you. However, we ended up deciding that it was more fair to hold all threads to the same standards (meaning only one thread for each show or issue) rather than give any exceptions. We know that things were different in the past with the threads, but it didn't seem fair to the rest of the forum to allow for two different Survivor threads.

    If it turns out that this was a bad decision, we'll probably change it in a few months.

    Nobody has a vendetta against you, and we're trying to do what's best for everyone. I know you disagree with the end result, but we're doing the best we can. Hopefully things will work out in the end :). Is there anything specific I can answer?


    That's a five minute attempt to give an administrative answer. None of the "I'm a moderator, you're not" or "Tough, that's just how it is" stuff.

    Edit: A little late, but I want to add that neither side is without flaw here. Derek, it's probably best to let this one go for now and see how things work out, especially given the new Survivor thread in the Amphitheatre. I doubt anyone here has a vendetta against you, and likewise for anyone intentionally trying to cause problems or not caring.

    Still, I can definitely understand your frustration.
  11. carmenite42 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 21, 2003
    star 4
    honestly? i think the best thing to do right now is lock the thread. the mods have made a decision, and they've made it pretty obvious they're not going to change their mind anytime soon.

    i fully plan to start a thread in a month or so re-examining the non-star wars spoiler policy in YJCC as a whole, but i think things from this need to settle down some first. and they're not going to as long as this thread is still around. to be honest, i'm scratching my head as to why it's still open, but i realize it's not my call. so yeah, do what you will.
  12. -_-_-_-_-_- Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2002
    star 6
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.