The NJO Critics Club

What it doesn't answer is why serious discussions that branch off into real world discussions that will be coming back to SW discussions were suddenly a problem resulting in several unwarranted bannings.

I think that's a valid question, and one which has been debated heavily on the boards, as everyone knows. But there is a line that is crossed. It's not a line that is set in stone, but one that is constantly changing according to the circumstance.

For example, I posted these feelings in another thread as an example:

Personally, I can't stand Stover's licensed writing. He's good at creating his own world, (ie the Caine series) but I don't think he is effective at all in capturing licensed characters. One of my biggest problems is that when Stover was posting in the forums, he would go on and on for pages if the discussion was positive, but as soon as a negative point was made, he would shut down and claim that he doesn't discuss his work.

However, the positive interaction with the fans far outweighed his "quirks," and that's where the line was established. It certainly wasn't worth anyone getting upset over an interpretation of ficitional works.

Personally, I think a body of work should include positive aspects, negative aspects, and constructive criticism. It's when one part is thrown out of wack that the line is crossed. If the community begins to be impacted, that's when we mods have to take action.

Again, that's all just my opinion, but I hope it helps with your question.

 

What you described is the way boards SHOULD be moderated.
It just seems that they aren't moderated that way, at least here on the NJO CC.
I think individual mods sometimes let their personal feelings interfere with what should be unbiased moderating.

What recourse do posters have when a mod gets out of line?
What do we do when a perfectly legitimate discussion gets shut down because one individual says something that offends some mod?


I can understand Jades Fire's questioning of the fairness and even application of mod powers.

It often seems that those of us who think the NJO in general and certain authors in particular are off track, get slapped down by some mods for very minor deviations from the accepted posting guidelines.
Sometimes we feel as those some mods are just looking for any excuse to keep us from posting.

 

I'm with you, I enjoy a good debate. I just think every situation is different, but we're all human, and that means we all have our own faults.

I'm sure you remember when my brother likened the CC to a certain terrorist figurehead. It was a more "direct" choice of wording at the time because emotions were running high, but everyone learned something from it, and there were consequences.

Again, one of my first experiences around here was in Lit, discussing Stover's cancelled Flash Gordon novel. I was quite- shall we say- dedicated to my position until I was given a warning. Had I continued even after a warning, further action would have been taken. With policy, it's not about who is right or wong when opinions are involved, but what promotes a positive outcome.

I think you summed it up simply and eloquently when you said everone should just have fun. I think we all have emotional attachments to the SW universe, or we wouldn't be here. But hopefully, the majority of those attachments are positive ones.

 

Why are we having this debate again? If something is inflammatory, it's likely going to be edited. If something is entirely off-topic and came out of left field, it's probably not going to be allowed. Those who are referencing earlier edits in this thread know (or should know) why the edits were made. If there were lingering questions I would've hoped that they would have been asked via PM long ago.

It's long-standing policy that if you take issue with a mod's decision, the first step is to PM the mod and make an effort at hashing it out that way. If that does not work, the next step is to approach the other mod(s) of the forum, if any. If the issue has still not been solved, the next thing to do is approach the board admins. I hope that clarifies the process of what to do for those who do not know.

 

Hey, Mr44, thank you for your answers (vague or not) and thank you for your willingness to discuss this. I have always thought that open discussion of issues fosters a better atmosphere. Taking things private usually involves only 2 parties and the rest of the participants are left clueless as what has transpired, what the resolution was, and how to proceed. Besides, if you can't defend your positions in open discussion, then you probably aren't confident in your positions to begin with.

Take me for example. I didn't return to the boards until late April. Apparently some things transpired that resulted in a couple of well respected members given first-time bans regarding off-topic/social behavior. The history of this thread has included instances of off-topic discussion, very often in-depth, that worked its way back to topic. Most times, it contributed positively to this community. Suddenly the law was laid down that this wasn't a social thread, off-topic discussion wasn't allowed, and no more debate. In the last week or two, the thread seems to have become a social thread; it even had moderator participation. It would probably move back to topic. However, from my perspective, it appears as if the rules are not being fairly and consistently applied... some social behavior was clearly being tolerated despite the earlier warning to the contrary. All of this begs the question, why the inconsistent rules? Is some social behavior okay, but others not? If that wasn't the case, was it a clash of personalities, ie, did the persons involved, opinions expressed, or lack of knowledge of the people involved contribute to a great big misunderstanding? Did personal biases contribute to the misunderstanding? Since different parties were involved in the two most recent different instances of off-topic/social behavior, one can't help wondering if it was the people involved. If a blanket ban on off-topic or social behavior wasn't intended, then why state it as such.

You rightly say that moderating isn't an exact science. Humans are involved; human judgement involved. What might be tolerated one day might not be tolerated another day. What one moderator thinks is okay isn't by another. Maybe you've had to put up with heat indicies of over 100 for a week, you don't have AC, and your nerves are frayed. Who knows? The point I'm trying to make that is if new rules are to be imposed or corporal punishment is to be meted out, it shouldn't be done quickly or lightly. If if new rules are implemented, they should be enforced consistently and fairly.

The recent rule that off-topic discussion in this thread wouldn't be allowed has stifled discussion. I, and probably many others, were afraid of talking about the new Battlestar Galactic series. If you're familiar with the new series, it deals with some pretty dark themes. What better place to talk about how the new BSG deals with dark themes than in an NJO thread, a book series that attempts dark themes? Discussion would eventually work its way back to NJO and the newer books, perhaps comparing and contrasting the two. How can that be bad for the community?

This thead has always been closely watched, unfarily so IMO. If you've been here long enough or have a good enough memory, you'll know that the long-term regular members of this thread didn't go into other community threads to stir things up, though we suffer from the opposite. We have always been content to live in our little community here and occassionally venture out into broader discussions in Lit. I never go to Lit anymore, but I know there are others who do. Last time I looked, this forum was called Expanded Universe Community. Let us be a community; let us go off-topic for a bit; let us socialize occassionally. It'll all come back around again.

Sorry for the length. I guess I had a lot to say....

PS: You are related to the individual who likened me to OBL? He's your real life brother and not a metaphorical brother-in-arms? Learn something new every day.

 

We don't have the "rule" (not really an actual rule, but I don't know what else to call it; "long-standing tradition" maybe?) about PMing mods for no reason-- it's intended to keep threads from becoming, well...like this. It also offers an opportunity for clarification. For instance, I noticed that you have some facts wrong about previous issues, and that you have a lot of questions. What I offered a few months back was to answer any questions sent via PM, in the hopes of clarifying things for those who might not understand.

I'm sorry that you are still confused about things, and I wish that you would've brought it up earlier so that both Mr44 and I could help make things clearer. It's not some conspiracy. If you have questions, help us help you by making us aware of these things.

I still maintain that the long-standing policy of "using the PM system when you take issue with a mod's decision, or just want to ask the mod a question" is the best way to do things here. Further, the admins have often said "come to us if things still aren't resolved" so it's not like things get swept under the rug. Users are free to bring the admins in if they have not resolved things with the mods.


EDIT: Let me offer some clarification on the social thread thing...

I don't watch BSG but I think a BSG/Star Wars comparison-type discussion would be fine. It just has to be strongly tied back to Star Wars. The same goes for LOTR/Star Wars, other sci-fi/fantasy and Star Wars, etc.

What the thread cannot be used for it inflammable posts of any type (that goes for any thread here), or as a space to post the latest angry rant that has nothing to do with the topic. We have social threads for totally off-topic stuff like that, or other forums, such as YJCC and the Senate, for in-depth discussion of other issues.

Yes, it's the EU Community, but there are limits. And you're absolutely right, usually it all comes back around, but sometimes things just don't fit.

If you ever have questions and you want to verfiy that a topic is okay to discuss, just ask. I get PMs like that all the time.

 

I also completely agree with everything above.

And for what it's worth, it's also how E_S and I mod the Senate as well, and that's a completely different type of forum.

I'll always be honest and as open as I can with any of my own decisions. But there are many factors in play here. Discussing general policy is fine in my book as is anything I've personally posted. But I also agree that to discuss specific decisions, PM's are the best way to go.

I also realize I was vague, but with some things, there are no specific answers. There are guidelines. That's why none of us mind answering questions, or tryinmg to clarify as much as we can.

 

So, NP, let me highlight again what I posted 2 days ago. This is what you said (my emphasis added):

Over the past week, the thread became a social thread, despite your statement that it wasn't allowed to be such. You even participated in said social behavior. Your actions and your words are in conflict. Any confusion that has resulted, has resulted from your contradictory behavior. How are we plebs to interpret this contradiction? What I would like explained or clarified are the prior remarks that you made, quoted above, regarding social and off-topic behavior. Specifically: 1) is some social behavior okay, 2) is off-topic posting allowed, 3) and if so, does there have to be SW content in every post, or can it linger for a few posts before getting back to topic?

Rather than answer a bunch of PM queries, answer the questions for all to see. I am not seeking explanation for previous decisions. My example was merely illustrative. The explanation shouldn't involve personal remarks about other individuals, therefore there shouldn't be any reason not to answer it openly -- unless you have different rules and responses for different people. All regular thread participants can't reasonably know how to act if there are different standards. We shouldn?t have to ask permission when we want to post something; it seems rather grade-school. State it once and be done with it, and the sooner the thread can get back to normal.

Mr44, I don't participate in the Senate Floor forum anymore for a variety of reasons. I see that you've invited people to host threads, to steer discussion and keep things on-topic. Perhaps a little experiement might be in order. Allow one of the regulars to host this thread. I wouldn't be opposed to having DP do the hosting if you won't/can't allow a regular member to do so. He's familar with this community, far more so than you or NP (no offense intended). Though he may not like the added duties I've volunteered him for. Discussion in here can sometimes be lively. Opinions expressed can often be pretty strong. And despite the conventional thought (I can't use wisdom), we do not object to a contrarian opinion. If you can express yourself intelligently and defend your position, we are open to discussion. Just keep in mind that you're among a community that does not share your view, so don't be belligerent and be respectful. Rules that should be followed no matter where one posts, I might add.

 

I never said you needed to ask permission when you wanted to post something. I offered it as an option to help clarify in cases where you might be uncertain if it's okay or not. You asked how you were supposed to know what is and is not allowed. A simple PM saying "Hey I thought about bringing this up for discussion, would that be okay?" is one way of obtaining an answer. You don't have to use that option, but you should be aware that it's there. Asking for clarification when you have questions doesn't seem at all grade-school to me. It's something everyone does, every day.

To address your remarks about social posting: the questions have already been answered. Here are the two key points I will re-state from my previous post:

1. I don't watch BSG but I think a BSG/Star Wars comparison-type discussion would be fine. It just has to be strongly tied back to Star Wars. The same goes for LOTR/Star Wars, other sci-fi/fantasy and Star Wars, etc.

2. What the thread cannot be used for it inflammable posts of any type (that goes for any thread here), or as a space to post the latest angry rant that has nothing to do with the topic.

I understand the confusion that has stemmed from the earlier posts by me and Mr44. I believe my old edit that you keep posting has contributed to this confusion because everyone understands the term "social thread" differently. What I meant by "this is not a social thread" is "this thread shouldn't be used to talk about non-Star Wars issues unless they are tied directly back into Star Wars, and as always, inflammatory posts are not allowed."

Can you see how that is a little wordy?

You should feel free to post some social posts as long as it is kept to a moderate level, i.e. as long as it doesn't go on for multiple pages, and eventually circles back to serious discussion.

I don't know a way to make this any clearer. It seems like you want a hard-and-fast definition and unfortunately we just can't give you that. But I think we have been more than reasonable in trying to answer all your questions, and I hope it is more understandable now.

 

Yeah, that's it.

and to add, I suppose I'm a Galatica purist. If Lorne Greene or Dirk Benedict aren't involved, I don't watch it.

However, exploring the themes between the two would be quite interesting indeed.

 

QFT

Mormons in Space FTW!

And, as always, I'm around in here as well as one of the founding members (in spirit, even if I didn't know this place existed) of my own, personal NJOCC!

 

and to add, I suppose I'm a Galatica purist. If Lorne Greene or Dirk Benedict aren't involved, I don't watch it.

However, exploring the themes between the two would be quite interesting indeed.

Yes it would. I was very skeptical when I heard they were going to re-make BSG, but I'm a big fan of the new one. There are a lot of themes that could be compared. The darkness of the new BSG vs the NJO's would be worth watching in here. And yeah I still lurk in my old haunt.

 

I just reread the Tales of teh Jedi comics in order to straighten out some details for a fanfic and to get inspiration for fanart since Yobi kinda requested it on the fanart forum, and noticed some things. Is it just me or do the descriptions of Sith and the Force directly contradict the established canon of the comics?

 

Hmm, been a while since I read them, care to elaborate?

 

Yeah, it's been a while for me too, but I'm intrigued.

 

It's just how there seemed to be a total separation between dark and light in the TOTJ comics but none of that with the Sith stuff in Betrayal (or NJO, for that matter). Oh well, I don't take Betrayal as canon for most purposes since nobody tells me that Darth Vader isn't a true Sith and gets away with it.

 

Take it any way you want, but that doesn't make it any less canon.

Plus, please consider your source.

 

Since the bulk of the Sith stuff in Btrayal comes from the Sith - what do you think they're going to say?

I'm with dp4m on this one.

 

Doh! oh yeah, everything that a Sith says is a lie!

 

I was over at Wookiepedia reading the NJO page. It mentioned how around half of the old Bantam readership left during New Jedi Order. While I don't doubt it, can someone give me a link to a site that shows how much the NJO books sell on average compare to the older novels?

 

That does make sense to me, Sniper. Out of about 15 or so of my RL friends, only myself and another finished the NJO. And I was the only one to buy any of the DN books.

The rest never made it past Dark Journey...

 

Here's a detailed description of A Practical Man, the new NJO e-book by Traviss.

 

Sniper,

You ought to contact Bror, he always seems to have sales info.

As for the e-book...Well, my rule on these things is to not touch them, don't like the format. As to how it sounds...Well, I'm not exactly intrigued.

 

You mean you don't want to see the Mandalorians look stupid again?

 

Hiya!

I seem to stop in once a year. This time, it's because somehow DelRey (oh, how I wish we could still use all the fabulous names Bror made up for the lovely and talented people at said company) found my e-mail address and insisted on sending me their newsletter. I didn't sign up for it and I don't want it - but it did make me wonder how things were in my old stomping grounds.

I see some old nemeses are gone, but my Maker! I read some of the posts over the past few months and I almost yearn for the days of moderation by good 'ol Genghis and Fred (Darth Ludicrous). Nice to see that the old gang is still capable of making incisive, witty, razor-sharp smart and spirited repostes to those whose arguments lack, well, logic. And cohesion. Come to think of it, those are some of the same qualities the EU under DelRay lacks. No wonder everyone is so good at puncturing the pretension and pointing out the structural flaws.

I'm so out of the EU - I tried reading a spoiler thread on the latest, um, I guess book is the polite word to use, and it left me completely cold. No nostalgia at all - except for the NJO Critics' Club, of course.

Sniper_Wolf, I don't know about half the readership leaving during the NJO, but judging by the oh-so-not-scientific sample of me, that's about right. I was gone after, um, hmmm, let me think...nope, can't remember where I stopped. Pretty much wiped it right out of the memory banks. Oh wait, it was that Jaina novel, the one with the Harlequin pink cover. And I was SUCH an EU completist before then. I even had the Marvel comic books. *sigh* Oh well, I value my brain cells too much to subject them to more DelRey EU.

Anyway, miss some of you lots and lots!

aleja