MS Update Mod Squad Update: 6/25 - 7/02

[image=http://www.sgtfretsurfer.com/Grilled-Sarlacc/drama.jpg]

 

Over moderation is drama? ?

We have rules in Comms regarding drama...maybe it needs to be diversified and clarified after discussion with the AC to specifically cover drama regarding over moderation?

 

e-drama not a new concept

 

We can't prove age. But if someone PM's us saying they're receiving unwanted advances via PM's and their attempts to ask that user to stop has failed, then we can verify the PM and ask that person to stop or be banned. But we aren't policing your relationships. So relax.

exactly. there's a big difference between sexual harrassment and e-dating.

i think the problem here is in the way mods are saying things here. the average jacktard knows that there is no way the administration can legitimately moderate 'e-dating', and that's before we even get to the ethical and sensible issues regarding the administration trying to moderate people's lives.

i don't think anyone in the administration is stupid/insane/power-tripping nearly enough for them to actually try and moderate e-dating of jcers.

...and besides, we all know that e-dating isn't real dating. e-dating is really just pen pal romance.

 

> Over moderation is drama?

Over moderation isn't actually happening, though, is it (assuming of course you are refering to the "e-dating minors" section).

If certain people cared to read the MS Update instead of selecting a couple of key words and then using them as a basis for a tangental rant about the poor conduct of Mods, they would clearly see that there is absolutely no policy (and none in the works to the best of my knowledge) that will effect people of different ages meeting up.

The whole thing arose out of a query in the Modsquad about TFn's liability if a statutory rape case sprang from a meeting facilitated by the JC.


Edit: spelling.

 

That's what I thought you guys were talking about. More of CYA discussion then actual rule/policy making.

 

PiaS...
RE: moderating of e-dating:
"I e-forbid you to e-see her again! You can do much better for yourself. She e-runs in the wrong e-circles and even has an e-record a mile long. She's only going to e-break your e-heart. Please understand, as your e-guardians, we're all just e-looking out for your best e-interests in mind. We're only forbidding you because we e-care about you so much."

After you get up off the floor from laughing, wouldn't that just want to make you e-attracted to your e-date even more.

 

you're fired.

 

*high five*

 

I did read the MS update and quite frankly you provided more and better information that, if other mods had been kept from posting rather ludicrous statements, would have ended the discussion far sooner.

A general guidline to how MS update discussion goes.

Item of incomplete or indistinct understandability.

Users question.

Mod one makes comments that cause more debate.

Mod two defends mod one.

Users get disgusted with mods two and one

Mod three comes in, posts this is all drama and is never heard from aagin.

Mod four enters with post answering question.

Mods wonder why no one understands them.

Users wonder who the **** put these clowns in charge.

Fin.

Of course you could always have mod 4 step in as soon as the question was asked to clarify things rather then letting mods 1 and 2 make a hash of it, but I suppose blaming users for questioning/asking for clarification is easier.

 

and what was the considered legal opinion about the JC's liability in a statuory rape case mayhaps?

seriously, i really want to know


[note to self: remember to edit "hot to trot" thread, don't want encourage e-lust]

 

Fate, I'm anal with spelling, as my signature would let you know quite easily, but I'd be more concerned about how cb hasn't logged on to the JC since 6/30 than if my title is misspelled.

Oh, and those poor BB people without a week 9 task too! I hope they found something to do. . .

Jae Angel

 

Yes well, the image is higher profile than the sig, so I thought it was in a more dire need of repair, although your membership in the EUDF is concerning.

Oh, and I am appalled to see people calling this e-dating issue "DRAMA!." Do you people know DRAMA!? Have you seen DRAMA!? This is not even close to DRAMA!.

kthxbye

 

I think "drama" would happen if we imposed a rule saying that everyone in an e-relationship will be banned.

However, all that happened was that a question was raised about whether or not we have any existing rules on the subject of underage dating via the JC. Currently, we don't. So, the question was answered, and we had a little bit of discussion on whether or not we could or should try to police something like that. It's something that I think should be able to fall under "common sense", and probably falls under an existing rule. If someone is harassing another user, that's already against the TOS, and whether or not they're in a "relationship" should be irrelavent. Also, as most people know, it's nearly impossible to actually prove what someone says about themself online. They could easily say that they're 15, when they're really 12. Someone could parade around, pretending to be a hot female, when they're really a man.

I personally don't think we should moderate e-relationships. All of the possible problems I can think of seem to be covered by current rules. Besides, I don't think that someone else's e-relationship is any of my business.

Basically, if someone else comes to us with a problem, we'll look into it, and see if or how we can help. Otherwise, I don't think we're going to go around checking into everyone's personal lives.

 

Fate: Is it the Spanish or the EUDF that concerns you?

Jae Angel

 

The EUDF, I'm PR, kthx.

The sharks are gonna get their day, tonight.

 

Hehe, gotcha. Noticed your signature after I posted. Gotta say I agree with you for the most part.

*crawls back into the fanfic forum*

Jae Angel

 

However, all that happened was that a question was raised about whether or not we have any existing rules on the subject of underage dating via the JC. Currently, we don't.

Nor should there be...ever. At all.

What you people are talking about feeling the need to moderate (online sexual harassment, admission of sex with a minor, etc.) is an issue totally separate from "e-dating" on the JC. E-dating is a (At least I'm hoping) distinctly farcical relationship done purely for fun, i.e. gundark and Seraph-Skywalker. It's foolish of the mods to even think about setting up some sort of rule system for that sort of thing, since it is not harming anyone. The rules on this don't have to be any different than they are for anything else: Nothing inappropriate or illegal.

Simple.

JMA

 

that's exactly what i was trying to say earlier, but you said it much better. *tips hat*

 

That also happens to be pretty much exactly how most mods felt about the issue too. I don't recall anyone saying that we should set up certain rules for it. I know that I don't care to know what's going on in your love life, and I don't see a reason to invade anyone's privacy. If someone complains to us about harassment, yes, we should look into it. But we'd do that regardless of any sort of relationship, and I don't see the need for more rules.

 

I don't recall anyone saying that we should set up certain rules for it.

Perhaps it's a problem with wording then. This is what the update said, as posted by Amazing.

Whether or not there is existing policy regarding e-dating minors was discussed.

Dp4m jumped in immediately thereafter with this.

No, but if someone says "I'm 18 and screwing a 16 year old girl!" we probably should take action.

That isn't e-dating, and if that's what the discussion in Mod Squad was about then it was a misrepresentation in the actual MS Update. What dp4m is talking about is a no-brainer, what Amazing is talking about is harmless, and more to the point, not illegal.

I actually agree with DarthAttorney on this one. Any moderation of actual "e-dating" is going to be over moderation, IMO. Do we really need policies for this, outside of the general rules of the board? Because if the situation is serious enough to shift into what dp4m is talking about, it is no longer e-dating, but something else entirely. Shouldn't the normal forum rules apply? ?

EDIT:

Anytime, PiaS. Anytime.

JMA

 

Nice Update AmazingB

A new JCC game was proposed, the JC Mystery Guest, in which a sock starts a thread and JC members guess the user's true identity. Ideally hilarity will ensue. Details and prizes are still being hammered out. Any similarites to recently started games are purely coincidental.

Thiefs, ive seen a few threads like this. Do we know what prizes will come?

...were discussed. Try and guess which ones. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.*

Is it me?

*Author's note: Don't actually guess.


Oh wait a sec...

Our very own Bacabachaui hit Star Wars Nerd pay dirt with a Gamescape article in the latest Star Wars Insider. Requests for him to sign my chest have gone ignored.

Nice Work Baca, Now i have an excuse to buy the Insider, to read an article by my Fav Mod

EDIT: Whether or not there is existing policy regarding e-dating minors was discussed. There is no specific policy, but the ever popular TOS can and will be invoked as necessary.


Can we get more info on this?

 

Benji, you're the best.

 

What the...

That was a little random for a MS update...

 

oh, sowwy, benji. carry on. The discussion earlier was about possible e-relationships, I believe.