Discussion in 'Communications' started by jp-30, Oct 2, 2008.
Let's hug it out *****.
Maybe a good way to go is to provide an explanation, or even warning in the thread as to why you're having to edit, so that others won't do it. For example, "We still can't openly discuss bans, folks." Or something to that extent. I don't know what the edit is, but apparently, it's not just a one off infraction.
That's fair. Those edits weren't because someone was voicing a different opinion. They were because we don't talk publicly about bans.
Well, me assuming that people here know almost always exactly what has been edited, is nearly as telling as automatically accusing "us" of the worst possible e-conspiracy-scenario whenever we so much as look at the edit-button.
I'd have to say that posting in the edit "We don't discuss bans publicly" would have had more clarity than "we don't discuss these things publicly".
Obviously, I, and the editing mod, have the knowledge of knowing what was edited out. The general public does, and editing out "these things" might look like a cover up. I know it's not the topic of this thread, but we've discussed in the past, in Comms and MS, the need to be more clear when we do edits why we are doing them, so others will know what behavior to avoid.
To the topic at hand, I don't envy JCC Mods at all. The forum has an ever-changing dynamic, and what is acceptable and community-building one week, might be the opposite two weeks later. This goes for everything from games, to parodies, to discussion topics. It's got to be the hardest forum to moderate. That's why, to be honest, a lot of the rules there need to be grey. To allow the moderators, and the forum, to continue to adapt with the forum.
I would say that editing out the entirety of a lengthy post containing valid discussion, questions, and criticism because of half of one sentence counts as trying to stop discussion.
Just a suggestion, but I think it would help if mods tried to more often say why offending text is edited out.
As a regular user, "GK edit: We're not allowed to publicly discuss the terms of a ban" is a LOT less off-putting than "GK edit: Don't discuss those things publicly". The latter just makes it seem like you've got something to hide.
Many mods do this already, but there are others who far too often simply erase entire posts and replace them with a mod-colored "No". If a mod can't be bothered to give even a vague explanation for an edit/deletion, then maybe being a mod is too much of a commitment for them.
EDIT: I composed the above before the last 4 or 5 posts (which basically say the same thing as mine) were made.
I would like to second ASO's point about whole posts being deleted when there's only a line or two of offending text. It happens WAY too often.
My stress level here at the office has multiplied by ten the past couple of weeks, are you guys sure you can't provide some sort of conspiracy or something to distract me?
While we can't talk about bans, we CAN talk about things that happen (such as edits, etc) that may have resulted in bans. We just can't talk about the consequence of those posts (ie the ban) itself, right?
Edit: Also, I'd like to echo the frustration at whole posts being edited when the whole post isn't against policy. It's easier, yes, but a lot of times (especially in Comms) that tends to happen, and we lose good discussion or good points being made, because someone made a poor word choice (or just wasn't thinking) and wrote part of something they shouldn't have.
Well usually there is a reason why something was edited out, so it sometimes might be hard to talk about the edits. Furthermore, usually if there is a problem with a specific edit and/or a specific moderator, that's always done privately as well.
This thread is currently containing two subjects. Here we're going to talk about parody threads. If we want to create a separate thread to appropriately discuss another issue, we can do that.
Okay, this is a reconstruction of the text from my post made on 10/20 at 9:11pm board time. GK removed this portion, but I am reposting it with permission from 506:
Was it that hard to find? You managed to answer it in your post anyway, so thank you for that. What's interesting about your explanation is that the reasoning for why you don't see yourself as "one of the users" seems almost so obvious as to be trivial. You say that you can't see yourself as just one of the users because you sometimes have to enforce edits and bans against other users. Well, the definition of a moderator is a user of the boards charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules through edits and bans. Yet, somehow, several other moderators who have or have had this duty managed to fulfill it and still consider themselves to be one of the users. Was there more to your reasoning than just the fact that you are responsible for enforcing the rules? If not, I still don't understand why you can't, as many others before you have, see yourself as one of the users.
I think one thing to remember, Dani, is that Lemminglord isn't a JCC moderator. So what he's saying may not be applicable to this particular discussion because it's how he moderates his forum. And his forum may be (and probably is) completely different than the JCC when it comes to things like grey areas (like parodies for instance). The movie forums are a lot more black and white than the community forums, and his way of moderating may work in that forum. It's probably not a good outlook to have in a general sense when it comes to users/mods, but I think he's closer to agreeing than it looks like. If you sign into the JC with a password, you're a user. You may have other duties and password, but first and foremost, you're a user. If we can all agree on that, it's a step in the right direction.
Hey guys, I went ahead and (per 506's request) created a new thread for discussing the mod v. user stuff here, so that this thread can stay focused on the parody issue.
Poop wrong thread.
New parody spree on the JCC right now! And I don't know which thread came first! It's awesome!
How about a new rule!
Parody threads are allowed, but they must not rhyme with the original thread.
The JCC has brought me great love and pleasure today.
Obviously, I'm trying, but MS has become nicer and nicer in the past 5 years, especially towards the users. Even I have noticed that now, and that's saying something.