Possible fundamental changes in JC membership

Nothing to do with the subject at hand.

However, my point IS relevent. I didn't even know when the AC was created, that says something!

If you are to be a representitive body of the JC posters, then you should have a responsiblity to report back to them 'what's up'. Elsewise, the AC only represents the AC and should not represent the Administrations choices for all.

Again, not condemning the AC at all or saying it should be disbanded. Just...saying update us more and keep more communication in comms for the general populace to see what's going on.

You might be surprised how many people will care if they're informed and not shut out.

-GAT

 

I know the AC is not the current topic, but I have to agree with someone's (I believe it was epic's) suggestion that the AC board be read only. I'd like to know what they're discussing without having to wait for a monthly update.

 

"If you are to be a representitive body of the JC posters, then you should have a responsiblity to report back to them 'what's up'. Elsewise, the AC only represents the AC and should not represent the Administrations choices for all."

Go back and ready ANY of the discussions on the AC from before. You'll see this point has been discussed many times. The AC does not represent you in a direct politician fashion. They represent you as an example good poster and put forward their own beliefs as such a model poster.

AssassinDroid12, Discussion in the AC is private for a reason. This is too allow a variety of things to be said by the moderators that they would not want to be placed in the present public forums. This may be random thoughts, ideas, opinions etc that they do not want less scrupulous members with their own agenda's to twist for malevolent purposes. In the AC the entire discussions are taken in good grace and in the spirit of co operation.

There is also discussion of general trends in the users participation of the JC that members of any particular userbase may find awkward. In the end, the AC is an offshoot of the modsquad and as such, the privacy rules for both apply.

UKS

 

If the mods have the problem of saying one thing in private and somethign different in public it would be nice to see them admit so.

If the AC exists just so they won't have to worry about loosing face when they say something stupid I'm sure they can admit that too.

The only problem here comes from context, if it's public it's easy for anyone to see the context the comment was made in. Only if it's a comment from a private board would you have to worry about people not seeing the whole statement.

I do not think the mods wanting to hide their views from members is a valid reason to have a private forum.

 

Maybe the AC could work better if it was expanded?

 

Expansion is not the key. The AC has expanded in size once, and it didn't make it "better". It didn't make things worse either, IMHO, but the AC is best left as is for the time being.

And not to break anyone's heart, but some JCers just aren't meant for the AC. Only by keeping the number at a minimum, can the AC select the best candidates without scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

So the selections really aren't based on the popular picks of the outgoing members?

 

I never said that. Of course the new AC group is voted upon by the outgoing members. But the mods will double-check to see if the members of the upcoming group are 'good enough'. Aside from this, the Mod Squad has zilch to do with the selection process.

 

I know you didnt say it, I was just stating that the consensus is that you must have a friend on the AC to be considered for the next term.

 

I was just stating that the consensus is that you must have a friend on the AC to be considered for the next term.

Not really. You can be respected and known as a good poster without being friends with someone.

 

Where did you get that assumption? ?

Last time I checked, I wasn't friends with anyone on the term before mine. The members are chosen because of their maturity and respect for the JC, not because they're ACer X's buddy.

 

This is too allow a variety of things to be said by the moderators that they would not want to be placed in the present public forums

I apologize for dwelling on the issue, but why? If you all consider yourself as regular users, why can't other regular users see what they (the mods) have to say? Comms would be a great place for those comments.

But since this isn't an AC thread, I'll drop the subject with one final comment: I do support the AC and think it's a great idea, but like any good idea, it has flaws (as stated before).

 

I guess this an arguement I can't win. I'm just pointing out what the average posters think from what I've heard.

 

I apologize for dwelling on the issue, but why? If you all consider yourself as regular users, why can't other regular users see what they (the mods) have to say? Comms would be a great place for those comments.

Been there, done that. The old AC updates actually included snippets from the threads, but since the AC updates have discontinued I suppose there's no real need to publicly display the ACers comments, especially if they don't want their words shown in public.

I guess this an arguement I can't win. I'm just pointing out what the average posters think from what I've heard.

What the average poster doesn't know makes him/her the average poster.

 

What the average poster doesn't know makes him/her the average poster.

I guess this true. People only know what they hear/see. And if they don't see otherwise they beleive it to be true.

 

i think we've spent more than enough time discussing the AC. there are plenty of other issues that relate to the 'lack of member interest in comms.'

anyhoo, that's just my opinion. there are a lot of other things that also need to be discussed here.

 

I honestly don't see what's the big deal about the lack of participation in Comms. Doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

The JC is kind of in a fallow period right now. We're a year removed from AotC. The membership rate's slowing down. There aren't any major spoilers (if that's not the case, I'm spoiler free so I'm doing my best to remain sheltered!) and there aren't any major breakthroughs in the literary or fan film departments.

The JC in a way reflects how things go in the SW universe. And for many people in the JC right now, Star Wars isn't a top priority, and surely Communications would be among the last things they'd want to worry about. I don't see any threat to the JC's well being by lack of mod-member participation in this forum.

EDIT: Perhaps a JC Communications 'introductory' sticky thread should be made. If people don't know what the forum's all about, and would like to learn the ropes, such a thread could be created. Not only would they know some of the fellow JCers better, but they could possibly overcome any barrier that they feel may have existed beforehand.

The initial post should include general conduct in the forum, examples of threads that are acceptable in Comms., answer commonly asked questions so threads won't be created in the future, etc. I'm not saying this'll work but why not give it a shot. It very well could make the layperson feel more 'at home'.

 

I justify the AC in the following way:

a) it is inevitable that there are going to be things or issues that the mods want to discuss that they will not want to put into general ciruclation

b) moderators run the danger of becoming isolated from public opinion given their elevated position ( i don't buy arguments that claim becoming a moderator doesn't change a person----it does, both in their own personal actions and how others percieve them)

c) it is important for principles of good governence that the administration has both good relations with the general members, and genuine consultation.

now given those three points, there exists a need for a place where people who are not moderators can keep a check on the administration without compromising relevant security issues

= the AC or a AC like body

whether or not the current AC, its membership or structure addresses these needs is another issue, one which I havn't really been following........when i was a member in AC#2 we had to fight hard to keep interest among the mods up, and though we had a generally poor term, the reform we initiated ensured that AC#3 and #4 were more effective (after which i stopped following the issue)

 

To relate this back to the discussion at hand, it appears the AC has the same problem as the MS, that being too few acceptable canidates.

There are 8 rotating AC members, and yet to expand any further would be scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Is it any wonder then that the MS can't find anyone to meet their more stringent standard if the AC's pushing the limit?

It makes you wonder how hard they're looking for new people, or if they're just waiting for people to make themselves known.

In both situations the groups seem to have a policy based on the assumption of their own importance.

On the raising of new mods.

Who puts forth suggestions? The mods in the forum to be modded? As I understand only jp-30 runs games, with some help from the outside but it's mostly him. How many people do you expect him to name as possible canidates? Remember, he is not an impartial observer, but will have to work with the new mod. The rules here are subjective to a greater or lesser degree, if one of the requirements is going to be understanding the rules, doesn't that mean the canidates are filtered by what the mod suggesting thinks of the rules? Aren't you, in effect, choosing mods by who agrees with your view on the rules?

And if the users in general disagree with the mods in general won't that severely cut the pool of "potential" mods.

The mods have cut back Comm by creating a deliberately restrictive enviorment which limits the ability of users to have arguements.

Now you wonder where the potential mods have gone? They're still here, you just can't see them because you've clamped down on their ability to speak UP. Civilized disagreement is not conductive for visability.

You want mods who want to work to make the JC better? First admit the JC, all the parts of it, need improvement. "Help us keep the status quo!" is a miserable slogan.

I would bet dollars to donuts the real reason most members would say yes to being a mod is to be a mod, to have the colours and the title and the ban stick.

The desire to keep people from making waves has turned this into a kiddy pool, now you're surprised because you see fewer adults?

 

The mods have cut back Comm by creating a deliberately restrictive enviorment which limits the ability of users to have arguements.

Now you wonder where the potential mods have gone? They're still here, you just can't see them because you've clamped down on their ability to speak UP. Civilized disagreement is not conductive for visability.

You want mods who want to work to make the JC better? First admit the JC, all the parts of it, need improvement. "Help us keep the status quo!" is a miserable slogan.

I would bet dollars to donuts the real reason most members would say yes to being a mod is to be a mod, to have the colours and the title and the ban stick.

The desire to keep people from making waves has turned this into a kiddy pool, now you're surprised because you see fewer adults?

[denzel]boom[/denzel]

regardless of your bitterness, farraday, that was very well said.

props.

 

I would bet dollars to donuts the real reason most members would say yes to being a mod is to be a mod, to have the colours and the title and the ban stick.

Hey, I just signed up for the pretty colors. I didn't care how I got them, as long as I got them. The rest (ban stick, title, etc) was just icing.

 

I was reading the list of things the mods look for when selecting new mods on the last page, and one of the things stuck me as odd- Visibility- Now the rest of the stuff I agree with, but it seems to me that visibilty is not exactly a quality I'd go after in a mod. I mean, yeah, give them colors so they can be found once they are mods, but....

I think you'll get quantity, not quality with this approach. You'll get big personalities that can't accept criticism, and you'll get people that will have trouble seperating the poster they were from the mod they'd now have to be.

Take me for example. I post a lot, in both Community and 3sa, and am pretty visible. However, I am a humongous jack-ass and should never be allowed near a ban-button.

Yes, there are frequent posters who may defy this logic, but I've noticed that more often than not, it's an infrequent poster that will drop some insight into what looked like a long dead discussion. A person with an old registered date with only a couple hundred posts...

I'm just thinking out loud here. Sorry.

 

I think you'll get quantity, not quality with this approach. You'll get big personalities that can't accept criticism, and you'll get people that will have trouble seperating the poster they were from the mod they'd now have to be.

This is not always the case. For example, one of the more visible posters in the Senate is sellars1996. However, he only drops in every day or so and only shows up in a few threads. What makes him visible is the quality of his posts. When he speaks, he is often able to bridge the gaps between two sides of a political argument.

There are many ways to be visible and stand out.

Take me for example. I post a lot, in both Community and 3sa, and am pretty visible. However, I am a humongous jack-ass and should never be allowed near a ban-button.

Any user should be allowed near a ban button. The only question is on which end of the ban button?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I never saw this highly visible infrequent poster, but I'm a night owl, so who knows?

I just think of visible posters, and I think of self important spammers/arguement seekers(like myself) who are not fit for modship.

 

2) Often simultaneously with the debate over whether or not we need another moderator, we?ll start discussing candidates. A partial list of qualities we?re looking for are: how much time the person spends online, how visible they are in the forum in question, their conduct on the boards, their interest in the boards themselves, how even tempered they are, and to a lesser degree how long they?ve been around.


But how will you know if someone is a lurker.





I want to ask a question about feeling ignored...part of the topics from late last week...



In the Technical Problems thread right here in Comms...do any of you Mods/Admins read those?

Of course I ask this, because an Error with a question was posted and never responded too.