MS Update [MSU] Mod Squad Update for 1/4/06

I agree with this to a point. There are many intellegent users in YJCC who aren't there to talk about poop or the O RLY? owl. The Tookie thread and atheism thread are great examples of great intellegent conversation taking place in YJCC. But at the same time, YJCC has to be careful that they're not stealing Senate and Amp's thunder and I think that's the situation we're finding ourselves in here. I for one think the boundries of where topics should be posted are changing and that it is hurting not only Senate, but Amp as well. In fact, I'd almost suggest having some Amp regulars as part of the focus group as well but that will be up to the organizers.

On a side note to KW and the other organizers of the focus group: since I have not seen a place to volunteer for the focus group in YJCC yet, I would like to be considered as a potential participant on behalf of the YJCC.

 

Typho, how is it stealing the Senate's thunder if (the majority) of users participating in the atheism and tookie threads have no interest in participating in the Senate? i say they have no interest based off the fact they could have chosen to participate in the Senate previously and have not.

the focus here should be on the members who post and not the forums they post in.

 

I think Epic is right. I don't think that having these threads in the JCC keeps people from going to the Senate. I think that the people who want to post in the Senate will post there, and the people who don't would just not post in these threads if they weren't around. They wouldn't go to the Senate because the one in the JCC got locked.

And, to go back a bit to what KK said about the Senate being seen as a dumping ground. I really don't think that's the case. I think it's more that the JCC mods believe the flame wars happen because the thread is in the JCC, and won't in the Senate, both because of the different atmosphere in the Senate and because the users who might contribute to the flame wars probably wouldn't go over to the Senate.

 

But conversely, there's no call for the JCC to have an increased presence of "serious discussion" topics as the JCC isn't the place for that sort of thing; the Senate is.

The JCC may not be all O RLY or poop, but it's not supposed to be serious either.

 

First, I'd like to say I completely agree with epic.

To say that the Senate came about purely because those of us that moderated the JCC couldn't be bothered to do our duties is both offensive and insulting, especially to those of us mods that helped create the Senate.

I apologize if it came across that way. That wasn't my intention. Let me rephrase. There are, simply put, more moderators than there were in 2001. I don't think there's any way around that. More moderators mean more people to watch discussions and intervene with problems. Additionally, I think moderating has changed in practice since then. Obviously, I wasn't around then to really get a good look, but from what I've gathered over the years, it wasn't quite the post-level, constant presence that today's moderating can be (at least in the JCC). How could it have been? Fewer moderators and they were more spread out than they are today. I don't deal with any forum but the JCC. Moderators of those days weren't so specific, and sometimes had multiple forums to oversee.

I tip my hat to all moderators from those days, and you know I was able to work with many of them (including you). I know well that there were many factor's leading to the Senate's creation, and of course I've read the original MS discussion that led to it. So, I didn't mean to oversimplify (and mistakenly to boot).

It also helps that I don't think there are nearly so many strong personalities as there were then (or perhaps there are so many people now that things are more diffused, leading to the same end result).


The JCC may not be all O RLY or poop, but it's not supposed to be serious either.

No, it's not supposed to be all serious. Once upon a time, the JCC is where all serious discussion took place.

 

So what about users that want to have more serious discussions but in a more lighthearted atmosphere? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

 

So what about users that want to have more serious discussions but in a more lighthearted atmosphere? Why does it have to be all or nothing?

I hate that word/phrase.

I prefer "lite" discussion. Serious discussion, but in a more fluid style, with shorter posts and quicker responses.

 

And once upon a time, it's where all discussion on art, etc. took place too -- but those days are done.

That's not where it takes place NOW. And no reason to change it really...

It's not a serious discussion if it's lighthearted. If you want to attempt to have a serious discussion and I post about poop in it (provided it's on-topic; and poop usually is!) I'm free to do so. If I did so in the Senate, I'd likely be warned.

But I'd be prefectly justified in wishing all my atheist brothers and sisters "WATCH OUT FOR THAT WALL!" in the Atheist Thread in the JCC, whereas I wouldn't in the Senate. And kudos to those who catch the reference...

 

And once upon a time, it's where all discussion on art, etc. took place too -- but those days are done.

The days when the JCC was the sole forum to discuss such things, but neither forum was intended to remove all such discussion from the JCC.

It's not a serious discussion if it's lighthearted

It ain't "lighthearted". Instead, it's faster responses, shorter posts and a different mentality from Senate discussion, but it's still relatively serious discussion about a given issue.

 

Sorry, KW; what you said is what I meant. Just was the best word I could think of at the time.

 

I think all or nothing may be a good analogy. I don't post in the Senate and have followed the links provided by KK, Ender, et al, and I still believe that for me, posting too much in there would be draining and anything I would have to say had been said by the regulars/people who normally engage in more serious discussion.

The JCC IS the forum for current events, though. And some of this discussion will lead to Senate-type threads, but as others have said, you don't have to post more than two words if you don't want to and more levity is allowed for those who like their conversation less serious.

I look at the shorter posts referenced in the threads above from the Senate and they are still longer than anything I would really post due to my posting style (which has admittedly gotten longer over the past few months. Bah.) I'm one of those people who believe in saying what you have to say succintly and not adding superflous words in there for effect.

 

There's absolutely NOTHING in the JCC rules which requires me to be serious in any discussion which takes place in there.

So to artificially enforce that in a discussion in the JCC seems... artificial?

 

I've always been surprised and saddened that there are calls for the closure of The Senate Forum. I have to admit I just don't get it. I see both the JCC and the Senate as two unique forums with those who call it home each day. The JCC will always lead all forums with posts per day. But that doesn't get tied to decisions on whether any JCC-category forum should stay or go. The Senate is thriving from all signs I can see. Why kill that off? Why force the square into a circle? The JCC has some more serious threads and the Senate has some lighter threads. Users know the expectations of each forum and shouldn't be too surprised when they try to go too far against the grain, the users will fairly quickly respond.

 

So to artificially enforce that in a discussion in the JCC seems... artificial?

There's no such enforcement going on. Rather, such discussion is simply allowed from those who want to participate.

 

But, conversely, if I want to participate in that same discussion in a completely non-serious manner it's sounding like that will be enforced against...

"WATCH OUT FOR THAT WALL!"

 

So what exactly is the arguement, then? As far as I can tell, both have their own audiences, so why merge them just for the sake of one less forum to moderate?

 

But, conversely, if I want to participate in that same discussion in a completely non-serious manner it's sounding like that will be enforced against...


No, that kind of contribution is one of the things that separates the JCC from the Senate. Granted, no one can spam or intentionally try to send a thread off-topic, but unserious posts in a serious discussion are just a fact of life in the JCC.

 

And something that those who participate in these threads in JCC are used to, and I know I for one get a good laugh out of them a lot.

 

Rather, such discussion is simply allowed from those who want to participate.

And I think a lot of it comes from current events, a al the Tookie thread. There's a gray area there, IMO between the Senate-type threads and the threads that some are saying are going too far over the JCC line and it comes from JCCers discussing things that happen in the news on any given day or an issue that came up in the media, etc. And to me, that's always been allowed in the JCC. So it gets serious sometimes (again I reference the Tookie thread), it doesn't have to be serious and it doesn't have to be capricious, it can go either way. But like Sape, I don't see how this means that the Senate is in danger of losing its user base or being shut down.

 

Unless it's the O Rly owl again

 

[image=http://www.hjo3.net/orly/gal1/orly_spock.jpg]

 

I see mods in here kind of continuing the private debate out here and not paying as much attention to what regular users are saying. At least I'm not seeing replies that match up to posts by non-mods.

 

At least I'm not seeing replies that match up to posts by non-mods.

Well, for what it's worth, epic has pretty much summed up virtually my entire argument in his posts.

 

And I haven't seen anything from anyone which has convinced me that the status quo has to change in any way from what it has been in the past.

Yet the seasons they go 'round and 'round and the painted ponies go up and down...

 

epic and Jesina summed up mine, as well. And dp's right, we seem to go around and around on this. Do we need to set up a Comm's thread (if there isn't one already) to discuss Focus Group items, or have things from other users who want to weigh in in Comms ideas taken to the Focus group? I'm not sure how those really work.