My insight of how the YJCC is running over the past year... (Take it Seriously)

Sexual innuendoes in YJCC and other boards is hardly a new situation, but how often is it more explicit, vulgar or 'harmful' than a soap opera or teen drama that can be accessed with the press of a button by a 7 year old with a TV remote? I'm sure the YJCC is less educating/corrupting to young minds than either. We are supposed to talking about at least young teenagers here aren't we? The onus should be on them to know what their parent(s) would or would not wish them to view online and to make their choices and except the consequences. Even, *Gosh!*, banishment from the JC.

It would also be very difficult to enforce or implement, who's going to police 6 months worth of active threads for newly inappropriate material? Some things would have to be locked, many posts edited. Who gets to keep what double entendre username and what about all the posts made with that 'vulgar' name stamped on it? I shudder to consider this line of thought turned toward fanfic. Even ignoring the above, it's a fact the all best sexual innuendo, vulgarity and violence is in the archives anyway.

Of course you could always just wipe out YJCC and start from scratch. In that case you'd have my vote as long as everyone gets to select a few threads that can be thrown in the archives. Then the link to the archives can always be moved to the banned word list.

 

---

In 2001, conception rates in under 18s were 3% lower than in 2000. The total reduction since 1998 is 9% which means that around 8000 pregnancies in girls under 18 have been prevented. Conception rates in under 16s in 2001 were 4.5% lower than in 2000, with an overall reduction of over 10% since 1998. The under 16 conception rate in England and Wales fell by 4% in 2001. There were an estimated 7,891 conceptions to girls aged under 16 in 2001 (a rate of 8.0 per 1,000 girls aged 13-15) compared with 8,115 conceptions in 2000 (a rate of 8.3 per 1,000). [hr][/blockquote]

Source :- http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/hsq0203.pdf

The JC started in 1998, and as you can clearly see from the statistics, teenage pregnancies have gone down 10% since we started. It's clear to me that the JC is DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the reduction in teen pregnacies.

 

There should not be rules to define 'family friendly'. I think it's a broad enough phrase to encompass more and less conservative viewpoints. And IMO that's as it should be. Not every family, and thus opinions on the phrase, is / are going to be the same - as has been established in this thread. I think this is a situation where a grey area is far better than a black and white division. Black and white can often spark more intense disagreement than grey. At least here we are able to have a decent discussion concluding that we have a multitude of opinions and that has to be respected... rather than a hard and fast rule that riles everyone up because of its inflexibility. Anyone is welcome to enquire with a mod about whether a thread is okay or not, and if their question is ignored or pooh-poohed then that's pretty bad - I wouldn't want anyone to feel their concerns were being ignored, but provided something isn't universally accepted as adult material then I'd have a hard time censoring it.

 

Yes my family was very open about sex and sexuality... and my father was a pastor. So the assumption that all Americans or "most" Americans want things a certain conservative way is not accurate. I really have issue with people who want the rest of the world to cater to their beliefs and preferences. We're not all you and we never will be. I honestly think if the JC is too "sexual" for a few people, those people need to learn to click back on their browser, stay out of certain threads or maybe find a more suitable internet home. To expect the rest of the world to change for a very small few is folly.

 

May I also point out to the people mentioning Bikini-clad women as a major problem that they are probably forgetting something?

[image=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v728/TheBoogieMan/Leia_Slave_A.jpg]

 

Not to mention Oola's nip-slip, which is canon.

 

You said pooh-pooh

I think that users who feel certain threads are going over the limits are tired of going to mods and having threads justified. I hope that this thread will allow for users to approach the mods and be treated with respect regarding this.

However, with that being said, I would have like to have seen more concrete references in the opening post meaning thread links. When someone is able to provide solid evidence, it makes it easier for the mods and other users to evaluate the claim that is being made.

OK, that brings around a whole different issue - nipples. If female nipples are canon then why is there are no nipple rule?

 

I certainly hope users aren't being disrespected by mods. They should never be afraid to contact us via PM if they have a question on something.

But what kind of concrete references? The examples will only provide the same type of discussion I believe. The conclusion will still be that it's a grey area that calls for a moderator's judgement since there is no way to clearly define the boundaries here.

 

I only think that if you are letting such materials kept on going, than at least you can let us cuss. I think vulgar words are mild compare to the sexual theme that keep popping up, even if it is "mild" to y'all standards as "family-friendly." Also, I have a crappy internet connection so going back in the YJCC's past would take ages for me to search around.

 

What is family-friendly to you? Do you think your definition of family-friendly is the same as mine? Or any other User?

It's a matter of opinion that can never be clarified.

 

I think that reading forums where swear words and vulgar terminology are par for the course is an unpleasant experience.

 

I have no issue with swear words but I'm glad they are a no no on this forum as they serve no purpose except to either bait or reduce a disagreement to simple I disagree with you so **** off etc.....



The issue regarding "nudity" sex etc... is a touch OTT IMO.

You can see worse whilst walking down a beach (Unless your in the UK ) Mind you I've seen women (and Men) wearing virtually nothing on a hot day in Manchester (Skimpy shorts and Bikini top for the women, Shorts only for the men) and I have no issue with it.


The human form is a lovely thing (in most cases) and there should be nothing against showing pictures of an attractive person. I also feel the nipple rule is insane but thats me

Sex discussion and innuendo is a part of life as well, I've not really seen anything in the JCC (even in the Hotties thread) that I haven't seen on the middle isle of a magazine shelf or even in Hello etc... or seen on TV during the day.


As has been said before if you don't like it don't view it. If your unlucky enough to go into a badly titled thread and get offended then let a mod know so they can amend as they see fit and then don't go back in it.

It's like people who hear about a show that going to be on TV and object to it even though they get advance warning as to what the contents of the show will be.
If you don't know the content then your complaint is valid, if you do know the content and view anyway then it's your own fault.

Better thread titles could be the way to go with this one.

 

Meaning if you are going to take the time to write up a thread contending that there is an issue provide proof of this issue through the means in this case of specific thread links with examples of what you are contesting.

Better thread titles could be the way to go with this one.

I agree with Master-FatBurt and I have seen thread titles changed by moderators to reflect a more suitable title in the past.

 

Actually, I've noticed an increase in moderators being less than professional with users (at least in public) when discussing policy in recent times. For example (and this is not meant to be picking on malkieD2, but his post is one of the closest at hand), consider malkieD2's post earlier in this thread:

 

That amount of sarcasm can come across as mocking or insulting to some users, and hardly encourages them to try to bring up concerns with moderators in the future. It certainly doesn't advance the ideas contained in the Comms Rules.

Such behavior is disrespectful, and certainly isn't necessary.

Yeah but the alternative, to me, is that mods instead are happy little robots in comms that merely say "Thank you for your thoughts let us go ask the admins in the ms and we'll get back to you." There is nothing wrong with showing a little personality in your posts.

 

There is a big difference between "a little personality" and a post that is mocking and sarcastic. You might want to go back and reread the Comms rules, specifically the guidelines for moderators:

There is a middle ground between sarcasm and "happy little robots". Sarcasm, by itself, should never be used, because it simply creates the appearance that the moderators are refusing to listen to and are mocking the users. That is never appropriate.

You can be professional and still demonstrate personality. They are not mutually exclusive.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I think Tracy was giving us the polar opposite to highlight her point.

 

The only way to get things done is to have objectivity, between both mods and regular users. Comms supports this and I don't believe we shoot down any sort of concern a user has without discussing it to an extent first.

Everyone here has spoken their side of the issue and my opinion thus far is that it's too much of a grey area to define. It's a matter of opinion that will always differ between one user to the next. Someone's idea of family-friendly is not another person's idea of family-friendly. We do the best we can to limit the extreme sexual/inappropriate references with our current policy in hand. The rest, or the "grey areas", will be left to moderator judgement. Which I think is the best way to go.

 

While all of you are having tea and crumpets you have avoided this question:

 

I included that when I said "extreme sexual/inappropriate references". It's nudity, and nudity in that nature is not allowed here.

 

OK, and I am being serious here, if female nipples are not acceptable then why are male nipples acceptable?

And if nipples are canon then why aren't nipples allowed on the forum.

Truly, I'm not trying to be "smart" here. This is something that has bothered me for quite some time.

 

Jada, you and I both know we couldn't walk around outside without our shirts on. Men can.

It's not a JC problem, it's a problem with society.

 

I obviously said that in jest. Oola's nip-slip was an accident. Hayden's chest in ROTS however was not.

Opinions on the difference between the two, and why one should be allowed but noit the other far exceeds the JC, and is a issue in and of society as a whole.

 

Actually, in parts of Ohio and Oregon State women are allowed to go topless. [Ask Kavic about Ohio] Because mammary glands are not sex organs.

But as you say, this definitely is a societal problem.

And gabe, as a moderator you should know better than to jest.

edit for better wording

 

This is weird. We're talking about a very similar topic in The Senate.

I'll say what I said in there; it comes down to time. As time changes, so does what's considered acceptable. Currently, society deems female nudity (upper chest) to be inappropriate. Is it always consistent? No, but it is the standard based on public perception. It's just one of those unwritten rules ... for the time being.