The validity of pro-administration viewpoints

While it has always been something of an issue here, the fact that some people are criticized for speaking in favor of the JC administration or defending someone in it has become more noticeable.

Is there something inherently wrong or undesirable about agreeing with the administration (either completely or in part)? Several times in recent threads, I've seen posts derided for seemingly no other reason than because they expressed agreement with something the administration has (or has not) done, or about the actions of a particular moderator.

Is there an unspoken or undefined level of experience on the JC needed to agree with the agree with the administration, or perhaps a certain way of phrasing things?

I'm interested in discussing this and perhaps seeing if we can end or reduce the occurance of people being criticized for agreeing with the administration.

 

I'm pro-administration because of the fact that you KW, Raven, GS, and so on don't have to do what you do. It's something you want to do. You take the time out to make the JC a better place. That's something I can't get mad about.

 

Just so I understand correctly, you're talking about the so-called "Yes Men" of the JC who blindly agree with the moderators?

Whether or not the user's opinion is valid depends on a couple of facts. One would be the mod suck-up type, who, as I said earlier, blindly agree with the moderators, add them all to their WUL, post "Good update Mods! Love you all!" in all the MS updates, etc. Then there are the types who just happen to take the same sides as the mods - most likely due to personal or religious beliefs, considering many of the rules on the JC are made to not offend religion.

 

Just so I understand correctly, you're talking about the so-called "Yes Men" of the JC who blindly agree with the moderators?

I'm talking about anyone who agrees with the administration (particularly if it's on more than a one-time basis).

One would be the mod suck-up type, who, as I said earlier, blindly agree with the moderators, add them all to their WUL, post "Good update Mods! Love you all!" in all the MS updates, etc.

How do you know if people are blindly agreeing with moderators? Does adding moderators to a Watched User List somehow indicate this, along with the other things you mentioned?

 

you're talking about the so-called "Yes Men" of the JC who blindly agree with the moderators?

I think this question itself contains the characterization in question - there seems to be a sweeping categorization of individuals who happen to be of similar opinion with the administration.

EDIT: KW beat me to it.

-or-

I agree with the administration on this issue.

 

Before I say anything else, I am Pro-administration, somtimes, It depends if I agree with what you're saying.


I think that people get criticized for agreeing with the administration because the person that does the criticizing thinks the person who is agreeing with the administraion is trying to be a suck up, and wanting to be a mod(which very well may not be the case, in fact in many cases it's not).
People are agreeing with the administration because they actually agree with them.
The person being criticized is just posting his thoughts and agreement or disagreement on the subject.

Afterall the Terms of Service says,
The goal of the Forums is to foster communication and the interchange of ideas within the online Star Wars community.

Our goal should be to discuss the Star Wars world and the world around us(in the JCC), and have fun doing so.

 

I agree with the JC on some points, disagree on others. But if anyone says "I have and will always agree with the Admins", then I start to get suspicious. It's like always agreeing with the Republicans/Democrats/Greens/etc. You're not thinking, you're just doing.

 

Umm, I highly doubt it's coincidental that certain folks here consistently agree with the administration. I'll bet that it has something to do with ending up with purdy colors one day.

 

How do you know if people are blindly agreeing with moderators? Does adding moderators to a Watched User List somehow indicate this, along with the other things you mentioned?

It's perception, really. I don't find it that difficult to pick out the users that are on a mission to get colors by just being all around shadows of the moderators. These users' distinct posting style and train of thought is very recognizable to me, whether or not others can recognize them ... like I said, perception plays a key role.

 

But if anyone says "I have and will always agree with the Admins", then I start to get suspicious.

So do I, actually.

In case anyone who wants to become a moderator is paying attention, what I look for when deciding whether or not I think someone should be promoted is the ability for said person to think for him or herself, and then to voice their own opinion in a respectful way. I wouldn?t vote for someone who disagreed with the Administration all the time, and I wouldn?t vote for someone who agreed with the Administration all the time.

 

I guess I could say that I'm pro administration too. I've never encountered a mod/admin not willing to help out in the time of need. I think when you get that kind of support, people that honestly wish to make the place better, I feel that my support, in turn, comes easily returned.

I hope that makes some sort of sense.

 

It seems that most of the people here are pro-administration in the sense that they like the individual members of the Mod Squad. It's not so much the individual moderators that worry me, it's the collective decisions that I often disagree with.

 

These users' distinct posting style and train of thought is very recognizable to me, whether or not others can recognize them

So, basically you're saying that anyone who remotely agrees with the admins/mods/managers is aiming to become one someday? So what if they are? there are alot of people who agree with the mods/think they do a good job, but alot simply don't post about it. The same can be said for alot of people who don't like the mods. Many simply do not post for fear of being ridiculed.

And that's my $.02

Take my comments out of context if you wish.

 

I think some of it is just pure political machinations of a sort.

If people's PERSONAL agendas for Comms discussion revolve around "The mods say X, but the people demand Y", then having regular users agreeing with X hurts their case. So you have to discredit those users by saying they always agree with the admins, are sheep, lapdogs, whatever.



Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Exactly my point Adam, thankyou.

 

milney:
That's not what I meant at all. IN MY OPINION (may be better if I start the sentence with that) it's much easier to pick out the users who are agreeing with the moderators because they want to become mods from the users who just happen to have the same opinion as the moderators. I thought I made that clear in my first two posts.

 

So, basically you're saying that anyone who remotely agrees with the admins/mods/managers is aiming to become one someday?

Those who consistently agree with the administration, and help them in whatever way they can, are the ones usually thought of as being mod wannabes. It takes more than just a "Yeah, I agree with the decision to ban Word X" here and there.

So what if they are?

No matter how good a member, and how much potential as a mod they might have, the act is tiresome.

there are alot of people who agree with the mods/think they do a good job, but alot simply don't post about it.

Yeah, I guess I fall into that category. I mean, I could post in every thread in Comms. praising the Mod Squad or what-not, but why do that when there's countless posts that already do so?

Many simply do not post for fear of being ridiculed.

Be ridiculed for what? It's just a star wars message board. Others' comments can hold as little or as much weight as anyone wants, and I wouldn't let a few negative comments bring me down.

 

It's just a star wars message board.

nevar forget

 

I'm pro administration.But,it's not like I agree with them just for the point of agreeing with them.I honestly think that the administration makes good solid points most of the time.And are right in many cases. In other words,I don't just blindly follow them.

 

I agree with OBIX1.

 

"that some people are criticized for speaking in favor of the JC administration"

Sounds familiar.

Most of the times I've seen this (recently, in fact), it's pretty much been a knee-jerk defense-mechanism. It's often used to defend (or in lieu of a real defense of ) an opinion when little else can really be said in defense of it. It's kinda like the "respect my opinion" syndrome, where the actual implied meaning is more like "stop pointing out my errors!"

 

I guess I could say I'm pro-administration, its not that hard to be perspective to what the mod is saying. I either agree because I can see what they're getting at or butt heads with them because I don't agree

I have been flammmed before, but also I can't stand those that have an opinion to make and get flammed I have run into more of that then I care to immagine. I hate it when it happens because someone gets hurt on the other end.

The reason I have mods on my list is of a different matter, either I'm friends with them, or the other reason is our group do background checks on new members mainly because we don't want people who make trouble on the boards in our group, so we usually have mods do IP checks for us, because of the rules the lightside have set and its in mutual agreement and a good portion of the ex mods and admins are retired members of the lightsiders and dark lords, so hey its true check out an old list and you'll see what I'm talking about

but we don't show the retired member list but I can tell you who was a mod or admin that was a jedi master or Knight. shrugs

if that helps any on my part anyways

and no I was not sucking up on my 10,000 post if its crossed anyones mind, I only mentioned the names of mods and admins I have the most interaction with

I must confess I have a crush on Neck seriously I do

dam you Steve *shakes fist* Necks mine step down penguin queen roll over
































j/k you shall be demoted when cb has sucessfully taken over the side


kidding Steve you know we love you

 

I tend to form opinions of an issue on my own and if they agree with the administration, then they agree with them, and if they don't, then they don't. I only agree with them when I share a common viewpoint about an issue. If I don't share the viewpoint, then I'll say I don't.

I've been accused of being a mod suckup, which really annoys me, since a lot of times I get mad a mod's decision (or lack there of...) and will strongly voice an opinion. Yet people still call me that--and I know many others are accused of it also. I don't think agreeing with a decision by the administration every once in a while makes you a suckup.

 

technically thats how I see it happens, people think I suck up to them and yet they don't realize I share the same point of views as them

What Grimby has shown is true, I've seen that happen on numerous occasions.

I think users forget this is just a message board and there are times when its taken too seriously and they should loosen up.

but thats in my opinion, the trouble makers are dealt with accordingly it helps make the JCC a better place