So, is this an actual rule now.. (Discussing parody threads)

I'll unlock Carmen's thread until we reach a decision.

Concerning the spam thing I brought up, we've been getting complaints about the increasing level of spam threads, and the decreasing level of quality threads in the JCC, and from out point of view, unoriginal, spammy parody threads just don't help that, which is what starting the discussion of a possible rule change.

Part of the discussion we're having is whether the rule change needs to be made at all, and I'm grateful for your guy's feedback on that, as it will give us more stuff to think about before we make our decision.

 

You can't (or at least shouldn't) retroactively lock threads that were not against the rules at time of posting. So great that you're unlocking Carmen's thread, but you can't go and lock it again later if you make up a new rule that bans such threads.

Besides if you did that you'd have to lock EVERY parody thread that's open in the JCC, wouldn't you?

Can you link us to some, please?

TJCCINAGAIUTB.

It's not like mods have any control over some subjective label like 'quality'. Sure, some people post nothing but drivel, but users find a way to make even those threads interesting, most times. Though Andy-Bandy is missed hugely, he was a master of that.

I agree they don't help. I think most people would say the same. But the current rules already deal with sprees. if you absolutely need to force a new rule, Roper's makes the most sense. One parody allowed, no parodies of parodies.

 

Can you link us to some, please?

I'm not sure if there's threads or not, I thought I remembered discussing it with some users in Comms or the JCC, but I don't really want to dig up specific threads on it right now. Regardless, I've gotten PMs from some users about it, and I told those users that we'd discuss it in TJCC, so that's what we've been doing. The complaints came in about a month ago, but since then we've been looking at threads in the JCC, and discussing what we can do to bring down the spam stuff. Obviously, enforcing current rules is the place to start, and we're working on consistency in that regard as well.

It's not like mods have any control over some subjective label like 'quality'. Sure, some people post nothing but drivel, but users find a way to make even those threads interesting, most times. Though Andy-Bandy is missed hugely, he was a master of that.

Certainly. Everything we've been discussing has come as a result of user complaints we've gotten, or an overall feeling that the JCC has gotten more spammy of late. But you're absolutely correct, and we're trying right now to look at the current parody thread rules, deciding if they need to be changed, and if not what else we can do to encourage the posting of good threads that are conducive to the kind of discussion that makes the JCC the JCC, and discourage the bad ones. Regardless, there's not going to be a huge rule change either way, and it's not the result of us 5 mods getting together and deciding that the JCC doesn't live up to our standards of what we think it should be. If that's the impression we've given, I'm apologize.

I agree they don't help. I think most people would say the same. But the current rules already deal with sprees. if you absolutely need to force a new rule, Roper's makes the most sense. One parody allowed, no parodies of parodies.

Right, that's what we're discussing right now. Thanks for the feedback.

 

I think the mods can help a lot regarding the quality of threads, but it takes some time and inclination. I'm not saying the current mod team isn't doing it, I see a lot of interaction in threads. And this is a good thing, as a mod that's one of the good things about the job, that you don't have to spend all your time editing and banning. You can direct conversation. In JCC it can sometimes make you want to *head desk*, but hopefully the good comes with the bad. Part of that may be deciding as a team (along with the community) what type threads you want to see on page 1 all the time and post in those and keep the interaction going in them when possible. It can be tough, especially on day when there IS more to do in the editing, locking, banning, but when it starts working it's a lot of fun to be around.

As far as parodies, when we changed the rule, the intent was to keep the fun parodies. By that I mean those where there is a legitimate subject, not just something thrown in there..., but a good parody, could stay. If it went too far, or was just a spree of the same subject... it would be locked. A lot of that depends on the moderator's judgement, I've locked some that had their own subject but was just too silly or stupid to stay. So yeah, if it's a problem and too gray...worth looking into I guess.

 

Sounds good PRENN. Just be aware that for every person that complains about a particular thread (or whatever), there are tens or hundreds of other people who are perfectly happy with the status quo.

The silent majority oughtn't be ignored, if you know what I mean.

 

Only marginally related, but can we get a definition of parody sprees? I really thought the spirit of the rule was multiple threads spawned from the same one, not just multiple parodies in general. Has that changed?

On the current topic, my feedback would be to do something that leaves room for transparency - if it's up to the call of the mod, then that makes it significantly more difficult, so I really think that specifics are better than gray areas.

And back only marginally off-topic, I mentioned this in PMs, but if you want to cut down on spammy threads, my vote would be for banning threads that are song lyrics.

 

Only in TwiLekJedi's mind, it would seem.

 

The way that I could see the rant thread existing is in a "the first parody thread after that is okay, any thread after that gets locked" environment. If a thread is funny then it'll get replies, and if it's not funny, then there's only going to be one so you don't have to worry about the board getting completely spammed up.


One locking that I really don't get is the locking of harpuah's Jello thread. How was that not a thread that could stand alone?

 

Roper's rule would work fine.

 

If it's a really clever parody, then it can happen afterwards. I made "ITT we post MALE pictures" weeks after the original thread, and people still got it.

Also, under the 'clever parodies' rule, why was the Jello thread locked?

 

You know, this place has been DEAD this past week.

That parody spree was entertaining and didn't hurt anyone.
In fact, it seemed to wake things up.


If you have one person complaining about them, then.... well ... nevermind.

I understand that it is against current policy, but with fewer people in general on the boards, something like that happening during a slow time is very enjoyable.


The Forum Feud and the BB and the P&W forums have been more exciting than the JCC because there was a bit of chaos which stayed within the TOS.
I think the JCC could use some more chaos.

If you want orderly, then go to the senate.


My petition for First of the Month Parody Free-For-All day starts here:

1. GIMER

 

First of the Month Parody Free-For-All day

1. GIMER
2. BF2K+1

 

Maybe we should have a parody board - a board where we can post all the parody threads that we want, so long as they don't use inappropriate words/have inappropriate topics.

 

Well, that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

Unless you mean reopening P&W for P&W style parody threads. That would be OK.

 

See I don't see why a parody like Carmen's should be locked because it's a 'twist' on the original thread and not having something to 'discuss'. Honestly, they're probably my favourite type of parody when done right. Effort was put into the thread and it's funny. People would have a laugh and it would probably get a reasonable amount of replies before sinking. It isn't going to clutter up the first page. The sprees on the other hand, are mainly drivel. There might be the odd good thread, but they're mainly just an excuse to post a thread without any effort.


Maybe we could give out licenses to make parody threads...

 

So, I'd like to know what this was a parody of.

I didn't make it as an intentional parody of anything... so I'm really not understanding why it was locked. It appears to have been ego related, and locked under the guise of parody.

Again... I didn't create that thread to be a parody of anything... and I fail to see how it was classified as so.

Anybody?

Jello?

 

The allowance of parody threads is a grey area. It's a grey area that people supported opening up. Rightly so. Now the grey area is coming back for its revenge. It doesn't seem like it's easy to pin down a rule to cover all this - as Jello says - and so it must (IMO) be left at the disgression of the mod. I think if parody threads are going to be allowed we have to be comfortable with this grey area existing. If there are disagreements about its enforcement, or the mods get themselves into the occasional muddle over it (Carmen's thread), then I say so be it.

Maybe it's a lesson that grey areas are bad and unsustainable, or maybe it's an example of how life can't always be made straightforward. If we had a rule, we'd only be losing something, somehow, and IMO we'd nly be back here in a few months complaining that the rule is too stifling.

Mod disgression (without the silly error of Carmen's thread) FTW. We want parody threads, but we don't want a grey area. I'm not sure the goals are altogether compatible.

 

No, the rule that was adopted caused the grey area. Not the allowance of parody threads themselves.

 

I thought that was the point of the parody thread that we brought in when we outlawed parody threads. The point being you could have the comedy from amusing parody thread titles without spamming up the JCC with essentially one-up-manship.

Why not return to using that more?

 

Wow Jello... you appear to be extremely frustrated with your "job."

It was a Friday night, and those involved were just having fun... which is really what the place is intended for, isn't it?

I don't know... I feel that when a moderator is aggro and bitter like you appear to have become in recent months, perhaps it's time to take a little break, or perhaps step down. I'm just not understanding the need to be so stiff lipped and bitter.

Do you really view my threads as "baiting?" Really?

I'm fine discussing this here... afterall, it's board related and relevant. There's no need to make it private. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't really all that serious.