Thanks for telling us serious topics aren't allowed in JCC anymore and will be moved to the Senate!

Gotta agree with epic.

 

I guess it's back to the drawing board then. A few weeks must not have been enough time to hammer all of this out as easily as it is coming today.

 

And that's okay. Growth comes from trying, listening, implementing, retooling, and trying again. We take the thread in question, why it was becoming an issue, the thought pattern of the mod and thread author, what was done, and the response to it. There are so many great suggestions in here that I know we can work on improvements. Each step is one step closer to greater consistency and improvement.

 

No, it's not back to the drawing board. That would also be tiresome. To entirely rule out any course of action, be it a lock, or a move is to drop oneself in the frying pan once again. Policy policy policy policy, in this instance it's throttling the life out of things. In the light of the recent problems with JCC / Senate relations perhaps a move was always going to spark a secondary debate about the issue, as it's still fresh and the same folk are still itching to make their points over and over again.

EDIT: But... it seems I'm in the minority who just thinks we should get on with it rather than living in anticipation of another blow up in Comms and then promising to both sides that everything will be okay in the end because we're all going to decide on some consistent policy and blah blah blah. It won't be - we won't. This sort of debate will always have polarized opinions and therefore we should all learn to not overreact when someone makes a decision that not everyone disagrees with. There is a grey area, but I'd rather exist there than in a place with no room for movement.

 

No, it's not back to the drawing board.

Right, it's not back to the drawing board. We're going to take the lessons learned here and apply it towards what we do in the future.

 

Just make sure you blame Kate.

 

IMO, the lessons learnt should be to not insist that there's one way of dealing with things and that's that because otherwise we risk violating that sacred stone of consistency. It's a cul-de-sac. Judgement calls don't always work hand in hand with consistency. And yet, everytime someone makes a judgement call out comes the cavalry to point out how terrible it is that everything isn't set in stone.

 

I agree which is why not everything should be made a policy or rule. Many things on this board are better handled on a case-by-case basis using precedence, where possible, to reinforce and improve upon consistency.

 

I believe you're right over the secondary debate. And we are no where near calling this a policy. Quite frankly, it's a learning curve for the JCC and Senate forums and this probably won't be the last time there is debate on moving a thread. It's a pretty big non-issue right now, and could be rectified with the click of a mouse. I'm all for not making a mountian out of a molehill. Let's put it in our "been there, done that" file for later use and move on.

And Everton... Comm's blowup? Pffft.

 

I hope to one day be in that file.

 

Yes, which is exactly what I did, and also exactly what I explained two posts ago.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with that.

It doesn't have to be an "all or nothing" discussion, nor does every action by a single moderator represent a massive shift in forum policy. This was something that fell within the discretion of a single moderator as one of those "case by case" matters. It's also been blown wildly out of proportion and turned into a matter that some see as having to be "won" or lost.

Reasonable people can disagree on such things. There are good points on both sides (such as the benefits of moving a thread to cool it down, versus the benefits of simply locking it). That doesn't make it a major issue where the opposing side has to be crushed entirely.

It's not about winning or losing, but about what is best for the boards as a whole. One of the side effects of these sort of blowups is that it makes it far more difficult for moderators to actually exercise the discretion they were promoted to use. During my time as admin, I had several mods come to me asking for help in various issues because they were afraid that it would blow up into a massive fight in Comms. That's one of the reasons why over the years, there have had to be several attempts to "clean up" Comms.

Is the moving of one thread from the JCC to the Senate a great doomsday event for the boards? Not on your life. It's not even a massive policy shift. It's a discretionary act by a single mod, who was exercising his own judgement. Some agree with it, while others don't. Rather than acting like it's the end of the world, why not give it a chance to see what happens?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Or maybe if things are getting heated, the mods could just watch the thread and punish those who get out of hand, rather than punishing everybody by locking an interesting thread.

If only we had about 100 mods for the JCC, that might work, huh? Well, it's a good theory.

 

Hmm, well, since I'm the author of the thread in question, I hope you don't mind if I throw in my two cents.

I, personally, had no qualms with the thread being moved to the Senate, but this is partly because the thread had pretty much diverged from the original topic I presented in my first post anyway. In fact, I'm pretty sure if I had posted the thread in the Senate to begin with, it probably would have been locked immediately and redirected to the JCC (forgive me if that's not accurate, I really don't go to the Senate). From that standpoint, it does seem a little odd to me that the thread is in the Senate now. I can also see, however, that the thread evolved from my original topic into another topic that was perhaps more suited for the Senate (again, I don't go to the Senate, so I couldn't really tell you what a "Senate appropriate" discussion is). So what does a moderator do? Well, they can lock the thread due to derailment, but it seems a shame to cut off a good discussion even if it isn't completely on topic. I really do applaud the moderators for coming up with more creative alternatives to simply locking threads. It shows that they value and are committed to discussion over black and white rules and policies.

I think maybe one of the misconceptions about the thread was that it was moved in the middle of a heated JCC discussion. I had been following the thread pretty closely all night, and the thread actually got moved after it had slowed down to a select few JCCers debating in longer, more thought-out posts. Certainly, moving the thread to the Senate favored the discussion going on between those making longer, more thought-out posts rather than those posting in the thread in JCC-style, but like I said, the thread was moved after the JCC-style posting had simmered down.


Anyways, this is a tough issue with a lot of gray area, so umm, good luck and stuff.

 

Rogue, you're still failing to see where we talked to the thread creator, I see...


And you're still acting like the thread can't be moved back.

We got your point about three posts ago when you said that Rogue. I still heart you, though.

 

Yeah, I understand and I overreacted at the beginning (see that, kids? I'm backing down . . . to those Senate posters reading this thread, see how it's done? Oh, and Mr44, look for a PM from me shortly) because I figured that it had been moved permanently . . .

My main issue was the fact that, once again, the 'different forums for different kinds of posting' was misconstrued, at least to my way of thinking . . . as a champion of the Amphitheatre, this is a topic close to my heart and it's a particular kind of misunderstanding that I've been battling ever since I became a mod. So, this is a few years of frustration, I guess. It just seems that its been stated many times, though, of course, it is the purview of a forum to change its focus and if the Senate wants to do that, that's fine and I have even less right to talk about that than I do about the Amp.

But, while this may not be indicative of a policy change, it is indicative of a flawed perspective on what the Amp and the Senate are for and I've been fighting that perspective, literally, for years now. So, you understand, I hope, where I'm coming from and why I was perhaps too passionate about it. (Not to say 'belabored' . . I would never do that )

And that's why speaking to the thread author is more or less irrelevant to me . . . It was an issue in the first place because of a flawed perspective. In my opinion.

If it was moved simply for a 'cooling off period,' and I'll take everyone at their word on that, that's different. And if that's the case, then this is moot and I misconstrued, at least partly.

Regardless, I think we all understand each other a little better now.

 

I really do applaud the moderators for coming up with more creative alternatives to simply locking threads. It shows that they value and are committed to discussion over black and white rules and policies.

And this is exactly what we've been saying all along.

For the third time now, besides this thread, we had this exact situation come up last night. Someone outlined an idea they had for a thread and asked the mods where they should post it(in the Senate or the JCC).

Using this exact same criteria, and even though it's of a "serious nature," it was decided that it was more appropriate in the JCC. It's only a general guide, but sometimes some threads will be more appropriate for the JCC, sometimes more appropriate for the Senate.

It's not about taking one thing away from the other and vice versa. But for some reason, that idea continues to be repeated again and again. There is no policy that says that all serious discussion is being removed from the JCC, nor did we ever entertain such an idea. But there is such a thing as forum interoperability, and this is what the guideline covers.

As an option, the idea has even been explored to create simultanous threads in both forums that discuss the same topic-an idea exchange of sorts. It's no different when someone in the past suggested the idea for a "JCC Funhouse" (and that's going back 3 years) or any other of a number of other ideas that were thought up along the way.

 

So who wants a group hug?

 

IN!

Well, looks like it's just you and me, roo.

 

I'm a little late on this, so sorry, but I feel I have to address it.

Games in Census. Yes, my idea, yes, it's going on. But let's look at what's happening.

What's happening is a TRIAL run (yes, I said trial) with 5 or 6 JC games being brought into census. I'm still waiting on one game to move in, and then after a fews my plan was to talk to the individual game hosts. If they were interested in staying, I'd then talk to the JCC mods and see if they still thought it was a good idea. Then, I'd bring it up in the MS and in the sticky i made in census, alerting the regular users about what was going on and why. It has been a very open process, in my mind, AND it is merely a trial. I wasn't making decrees as a census dictator.

Ultimately, if the games stay, the definition for census will change. So Rogue, you can sleep well at nights, because the forum name/description will reflect the contents... if it is permanent.

As to Mr. 44's comments about me not understanding wanting to promote a forum, I do, but that is definitely not my main goal in the census/games thing. I hoenstly think census can afford to have them in there, and that it is very benficial for the games invovled and jcc. If, it isn't, it shouldn't be kept.

In my opinion, the problem with the JCC/Senate thing we're discussing is that (IN MY OPINION) it benefits senate much more than JCC.

Anyways, if anyone has input on the games and what should be done with it, I encourage you to discuss it in the sticky in census.

 

I'm aware it's a trial run, which is fine. I kid you a lot, Tracy, but I hope you know it's just that: kidding. I don't know where or when it started, but I enjoy ribbing you.

And a name change would be great.

I still do disagree, but for reasons that run back a long time. I'm a nostalgic kind of guy and it just feels wrong to not have Mafia in JCC. I said the same things when the RPG forum was gearing up and they wanted to move the JCC RPG. At the time, I knew a lot of people wanted an RPG forum, but I didn't . . . so much for that. Same thing is going on here. And the outcome is the same, I think.

And the RPG forum, despite the fact that I don't post there, has done well. I'm just one man . . . I tend to disagree a lot of the time with prevailing sentiment, but that's okay. Keeps me humble.

 

I have to say that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of focus going on in focus groups. Just a lot of vague ideas.

 

epic's 10 point post. the answer to all of lifes problems, including the JCC and Senate. brought to you by epic.

disclaimers:

1. i do not think that this thread is in any way a 'bad' thing. it is not a 'fight', a 'blow out', or any of these terms. it is a condusive thing. threads like these are NOT why Comms need to be 'cleaned up'.

2. this thread has got nothing to do with gabe directly, as in, a person, etc; it is about a combinaton of different ideas (cross promotion, better suited discussion, cooling off) being confused.

3. if mods, or users in fact, fear one of 'these type threads' and this then effects their decision making ability, performance, confidence, then they need to look at why because 'these type threads' are not a problem for the board or for them as a moderator.

the real stuff:

4. talk of consistency, grey areas, moderators personal judgement, et cetera, are being constantly bandied about however this isn't, and shouldn't even need to be an issue if the following point was instituted. that is:

5. serious JCC threads will not be moved to the Senate.

6. if this rule was implemented there would be no talk of point 4. at all. no grey. only sunshine! further:

7. if a JCC thread becomes monopolised by a few users discussing an intellectual, deep tangent, to the detriment of the general discussion and the other participants, then a mod can inform those involved to set up a SEPERATE thread in the Senate -- or the mod can do this themselves -- along with a link to the previous JCC thread. you could provide a link to the new Senate thread in the JCC thread (cross promotion!) and allow the existing JCC thread then to continue on in its generalness and jcc-ness. thus no JCC user misses out on the chance of their own kind of discussion on a serious topic, and neither does the Senate. everybody wins!!

8. if a serious discussion in the JCC gets heated, lock, leave it a few days, re-open. this is because locking a thread gives a distinct impression by the moderator to curb particular, detrimental behaviour.

9. if a Senate mod, or a JCC mod wants to set up a discussion that will be moved between forums, for experimentation, cross promotion, whatever, no problem! but make it clear that this will occur at the beginning of the thread!

conclusion:

10. this point is just because 10 points sound better than 9.

 

whether i think anything will come of my marvellous 10 point plan or not, i believe i have said my peice and i will return to the JCC now to e-flirt with Rhonda and Kate and such. and talk about football! yes, football.

 

Well, obviously I'm going to agree, as it goes along with what I said earlier - I think that this not-quite-a-policy-yet policy actually created a gray area. Like you say, if serious discussions are allowed in the JCC, there's nothing to worry about. Nothing to decide on. Let the author decide where they want the thread to be.