Mod Squad Update for January 5th, 2011 - Policy Changes

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Grimby, Jan 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. Grimby Technical Consultant

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2000
    star 7
    [image=http://cdn.techi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/The-Internet-is-Serious-Business.jpg]
    (This thread is approved by JelloCat™)

    Mod Squad Update for Wednesday, January 5th, 2011

    Finally, some real news for a change. Mod Squad has recently made some changes to a few JC policies, thanks to the input we've gotten in a few recent Comms discussions. In addition, some words have been removed from the disallowed words list after receiving feedback from Philip.


    Changes made to Rules of the JC:

    Rule #5 of Bans and Moderator Interaction (Changes are in bold):
    5. If you're banned, you are not allowed to make or use any other accounts for posting or private messaging other users. All bans are by the person, not just by the account. Circumventing a temporary ban *will* extend the ban or make it indefinite. However, it is always permissible to contact a member of the administration via Private Messages with a sock if you are banned. You must have at least 20 posts on a sock account in order to utilize the private messaging system. In order to reach 20 posts, you may post in the Getting 20 Posts Thread in the Welcome New Users Form. If you post anywhere else but that thread to get your posts, you will be deemed as ?posting with a sock? and your sock account banned and your ban length may be extended. Once a Moderator informs you that no further discussion will be allowed on the subject of your banning however, further communication may be construed as spamming and subject to further disciplinary action.

    Rule #6 of Moderator Expectations (Completely re-worded):
    Old text:
    6. The only person(s) who may ask a staffmember to step down is the Head Administrator (or any Site Owner). However, we do have a formal process for lodging and investigating complaints against staff. More information on these procedures may be found here.

    New text:
    6. If a moderator?s performance is deemed lacking or there is a complaint lodged against a moderator (see policy here), the Administrators will investigate the pertinent issues together. Should such an investigation result in the needed demotion or banning of the moderator, the three administrators must be in agreement. The action of demoting or banning a moderator should be performed by the Head Administrator but, in the event of an urgent situation, one of the other administrators, or a Fan Force administrator, may perform the demotion or banning.


    [image=http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt95/ChocolateChris/bringmesoloandacookie.jpg]


    Updates to the MCRP:
    Moderator Complaint Resolution Process

    Whenever you have a problem with a moderator's action, it is preferable that you contact the moderator involved directly. Should an unresolved problem arise with the actions of a moderator, please contact an administrator for review and investigation.

    Please provide as much information relating to the complaint as possible. Be specific. If you have a problem with moderating a specific thread or post, provide a link to the posts involved. If you cannot give a link, at least give the date and time of the post, and the URL of the thread. If you wish to report a pattern of complaints, provide several examples and links. Unclear allegations are difficult to investigate and may be dismissed for lack of evidence.

    Once receiving a complaint, an administrator will begin an investigation. The administrator will review the post(s) indicated, the user notes of the involved parties, as w
  2. Darth Tunes SfC Part III Commissioner

    Game Host
    Member Since:
    Nov 26, 2000
    star 10
    Jesus Christ, a god damn informative update!

    They beat Boston!: 2009-2010 L.A. Lakers: Back-to-Back World Champions :cool:
  3. TwiLekJedi Pretty Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2001
    star 10
    Goddammit, I can't think of a clever way to use both newly-allowed words in a post.
  4. DVeditor Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 21, 2001
    star 6
    Thanks for the updates! Nice to see it packaged all in once place.
  5. Healer_Leona Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2000
    star 9
    How about Jesus Christ, it's about goddamn time?
  6. Spider-Fan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 15, 2008
    star 4
    Let the blasphemy commence! [face_dancing]
  7. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    Jesus Christ, can I finally post in the God dammit Star Wars forums again? :)
  8. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    loosening certain rules like this (a good thing, i should add) only further highlights the ridiculousness of others, though (i.e. the letter "b" aside the letter "s"). we can take the lords name in vain but can't write an ackronym of an arguably less offensive profanity? surely the mods should discuss the "bs" issue in light of the precedent set with the current rule amendment.
  9. TwiLekJedi Pretty Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2001
    star 10
    I said clever :p
  10. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    You speak no bs, epic.
  11. GIMER Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 15, 2000
    star 6
    Wow, really reaching out to the bottom tenth percentile.
    I guess somebody has to be persuaded to come to the boards now.
    What a difference a decade makes.
  12. Dark Lady Mara Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 19, 1999
    star 7
    Thanks for the update. Appreciate the transparency.

    Regarding society's generally-accepted hierarchy of profanity:
    Damn, hell, etc: When said to someone who believes in God, implies you are asking that they spend eternity being tortured. No biggie.
    Synonyms for bodily functions, sex acts, taboo anatomy: lolol, poop! This is bad for our children's eyes and must never be spoken of.
    It may not make sense, but alas, one can't change the world on a website.

    That said, epic's point about certain acronyms makes perfect sense to me.
  13. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    If you're going to let offensive terms like God Damn it, and Jesus Christ acceptable, you seriously need to revisit retarded. I understand calling another user retarded would be considered a flame, but in any other context there's no reason it should still be on the not allowed list if you're willing to let many people that would be offended by god damn it and Jesus Christ deal with their beliefs being pissed on.

    Thank you, as always for reading suggestion, and casting aside.
  14. Dingo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    Counterpoint to this, while both "Jesus Christ" and "God Damn" are considered offensive, it is based out of a singular religious viewpoint.

    The reasons behind 'retarded' being on the list is of a completely different nature in that it is used as a derogatory term with an explicit judgement on a specific group of people for whom that term has been historically applied to. Should we also be taking the term 'gay/ghey' off the list, or even 'nigger' as they are barred from useage for the same reasons that 'retarded' is?
  15. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
  16. FlareStorm Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2000
    star 6
    "that's retarded" = "that's stupid" = ok
    "you're retarded" = "you're stupid" = not ok

    It's 2011. It's part of the internet vernacular. Nazi-ing words on the internet is really REALLY dated. Try to keep up.
  17. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    where's my counterpoint eh?
  18. FlareStorm Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2000
    star 6
    My damn bitch dog (with a douche in her arse) told your bastard penis "b*"

    I think I'm good!
  19. Dingo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    epic, one only counterpoints something that they disagree with.


    Flare, you are oh so clever, would you like a gold star for that?

    And we have every right to dictate a minimum standard of language for interaction on this site. There are a lot of things that are considered to be internet norms that we don't allow here and we can pick and choose as we wish if we want to. There are certain profanities that are commonplace in their use, but there's no way that we are allowing them to be used on these forums.
  20. FlareStorm Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2000
    star 6
    Yes Dingo we acknowledge your power. *bow*

    The point is, things have changed on the internet. Time to adapt.
  21. TwiLekJedi Pretty Ex-Mod

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2001
    star 10
    I still say the logic behind the "retarded" ban is backwards. It's not a very nice word, so I find it offensive that it should only be used when referring to sick people. Others probably find it offensive that I called mentally challenged persons "sick people" just now, because they always go to great lengths to make up as many euphemisms as possible (challenged? special?). But then calling them retarded is fine? What?

    And it's not comparable to gay. It's the exact opposite. Go find the MS thread on it from a few years back, we explained that wonderfully there.

    And it's also not comparable to the n-word. A n****r is exactly one thing. But many things can be retarded. Forum rules, movie plots, FoxNews, similies, internet opinions...
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    That's stupid.

    A "gyp" can be more than one thing. Like paying $10 for a candy bar. But it's universally a slur referring to gypsies/Roma. I can "Jew" down the price of a used car. Hell, "homo" can mean "same," right? It's also the human genus! "Gay" can also mean happy. So let's pretend that "retarded" doesn't insult mentally disabled people because we can broaden its usage.
  23. ObiWan506 Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Aug 5, 2003
    star 7
    On the new text, it's not entirely clear if you're referring to JC Admins, FF Admins or both groups together. Yes, I did read the 'three administrators must be in agreement' part but it's otherwise vague and doesn't say anything more about which administrators will be doing the investigating (all six?) and who will be making decisions (The three from whichever side the complaint originated from?)
  24. AaylaSecurOWNED Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    For the record, the derogatory etymology of "gyp" is contested, and OED attributes it to servants at Oxford who wore a kind of jacket called a "gippo."
  25. Rogue...Jedi Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2000
    star 7
    Honestly, 506, I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. If the issue on the JC side, the three JC administrators must be in agreement; if its on the FF side, the three FF administrators must be in agreement. That's for the decision. Investigating would be the responsibility of the admins of whichever side the issue is on. That said, the administrators from the other side would certainly be welcome to give their input during the investigation.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.