This is NOT a "PG rated" board.

"Why does everyone think the JCC is so restrictive? It's interesting to me that the JCC, the forum with the loosest rules and guidelines, is the one that people feel are the most restrictive. I never once received a complaint from the movie forums about creativity being stifled by not being allowed to cuss a little bit."

But that's because the movie forums aren't a place for members to express and discuss who they are. They're forums to exchange ideas about movies. Profanity hardly really enters the equation. But that's not really the case in a forum designed to 'get to know' people. Some people curse or use profanity. While that may not be (and isn't) necessary in a movie discussion forum, it can be very indicative of who someone is as a person, and limiting that can and obviously does lead some people (however few and however loud) to feel as though their individual method of expressing themselves has been limited.

It's a perfectly valid complaint, but not one anyone should realistically expect to be changed simply because the desires of the owners are contrary.

But I don't think it's right to suggest that people have no grounds to feel as though their ability to express themselves is limited (which it undeniably is, no matter how you feel about using profanity) by comparing the JCC to a movie discussion forum. They're two entirely separate beasts.

Vertical

 

I understand it's a conversational-style forum. I really do. But I also feel that if you allow a completely different standard there while disallowing it on all 240 or so other forums, then that's a problem as well.

 

[edited]?!


Teeheehee...

[edited]?!


Teeheehee...

I get amused so easily...

[edited]?!

YJ edit: Please refrain from using that acronym in the future.

 

"I understand it's a conversational-style forum. I really do. But I also feel that if you allow a completely different standard there while disallowing it on all 240 or so other forums, then that's a problem as well."

Oh, I'm not suggesting changing the rules in there. I support the choice to filter out profanity. I'm just saying you shouldn't be surprised that people might react differently to the filter in different forums. I wouldn't expect any problems with in the movie forums, whereas, to me, it's not surprising that folks in JCC find it restrictive.

Vertical

 

The question is, how many people really find it restrictive in the JCC? Is it really the huge outcry about the tyranny of the owners or is it just a few that happen to be very vocal?

 

I'm sure it's a minority, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to complain.

But I also think they should understand that the rule is not likely to be changed. Not likely at all.

Vertical

 

That's why we can't allow vulgar language that does appear in PG films from time to time. Hearing it once an hour is one thing, but over and over again is another.

true. but at the same time, there are things that are acceptable in PG rated movies (regardless of frequency) that are not allowed PERIOD here. so it's a contradiction to say it's not allowed here because this place is "PG rated." otherwise, you'd be allowed to say it once in a while, like in some PG movies, but not over and over again.

Simply view it as "Family Friendly" or, "Parental Guidance reccommended."

exactly.

But please be patient instead of trying to call us on every single inconsistency. Talk about feeling like what you do never really matters. I moderate towards PG in the movie forums with the films as my guide. Really, what is so wrong about that?

where did you get the idea that i'm trying to call you on every single inconsistency? this is something that should be fairly simple to correct: tell the mods not to say "you can't do that because this is a 'PG rated board'." because that is inaccurate. just do what PoT said, call it "family friendly" or whatever. and i already explained why it's "wrong" to moderate based on movies and their ratings. i don't understand why you are getting so defensive about this. i brought the issue up because i think it's a detriment to the jc by promoting an idea that is wrong. i wouldn't waste my time by just "complaining" or looking for "drama" rolleyes). is there any way that you could see this as a well meant concern? probably not. but i guess that's just a casualty of unfair judgements and labeling.

So yeah, I moderate the movie forums as if this were a PG-rated site with the movies as my reference. So sue me.

that's not a very good attitude. :\ so i guess that means you have dismissed the issue. :\

Bottom line: no, this place isn't "PG rated", but I'm not sure it's necessary to verbally crucify anyone who refers to it as such, simply as a point of reference or a 'general' idea. They may not be exactly the same, but they're at least similar.

ryan, i think you know that i wasn't trying to "verbally crucify" anyone, and that i actually have good intentions.

It's funny to me because the family-friendly, PG-rating principle I have never found limiting in any way, shape, or form in nearly two years here. It is so clear-cut for me. Moderate the movie forums to the level of the films, moderate fan fic to the level of fiction approved on the market already existing, moderate saga and SWC to the films, moderate the EU and Lit to the accepted level of books and comics, etc...

i don't understand how you could not see the logical problems. there are things that are strictly prohibited here, yet may appear in PG rated media. ONCE AGAIN, i'm not arguing about what should or shouldn't be allowed, but rather, i just think you should not refer to the desired atmosphere as "PG rated". because the boards and the movies are not completely interchangeable or analogous. trying to say that the word "***********" is strictly prohibited here because the boards are "PG rated" is like saying water isn't wet.

What I see again and again are the same few members making lots of lengthy posts. They're loud and direct. But I don't see lots of different members saying the same thing again and again. And therein lies the difference.

i'm assuming you are frowning on people who speak up about things, and hinting at the notion of "drama monkey" or "trouble maker", because that's what it seems like. :\ maybe the same people speak "loud and direct" because they are people who have strong convictions and aren't afraid to say what's on their mind. you know how discouraging and unfair it is to make it seem like someone who speaks their mind is just being a "drama monkey" or "trouble maker" and thus deserve no credence whatsoever and should have their valid concerns dismissed???

I'm sure it's a minority, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to comp

 

I don't think anyone has really disagreed with the notion that "PG" doesn't really describe this place. Your point is seen, and taken, but in the course of discussion, other points were raised. You personally may not have called into question what should/shouldn't be allowed, but others have.

I know you weren't trying to "verbally crucify" anyone for the "PG" bit. I was using hyperbole to show that while I think it's a valid concern, I don't think it's anything anyone should be getting seriously upset about.

Vertical

 

"If a person feels the need to minimize a thread when their parents walk in the room, we've gone too far."

My mom is a very open-minded nad liberal person. Hell I don't even feel the need to minimise porn when she walks in.

So that guideline won't work for everyone.

Deltron, back up off KW a little. He's one of the good ones. He at least listens to people.

Anyway, I'd consider this board more like G&1/4

 

I'm sure it's a minority, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to complain.

But I also think they should understand that the rule is not likely to be changed. Not likely at all.

I would never suggest that they shouldn't have the right to complain. I simply think that the proper perspective needs to understood.


well, it's obvious that people often times get crapped on no matter how they complain or how valid and well meant the complaint is. *sigh*

C'mon, Brian, drop the persecution complex. People are allowed to disagree with you as much as they are allowed to disagree with me and everyone else. Disagreeing doesn't necessarily mean someone's out to silence you or humiliate you.

 

persecution complex? what the hell are you talking about? and disagreeing isn't the problem. the problem is getting crapped on regardless of whether someone agrees or not. the problem is some people letting their shameless, ignorant, and insulting judgements of the speaker effect their opinion of the message often times.

 

The defense rests.

 

thanks for playing. better luck next time, rhett. er, i mean jim.

 

Don't drag me into your petty squabbles. I quit reading your posts long ago.

D'oh! I just read one! I've been out-foxed!

AYBABTU?

 

OHNOOOES!!11

are you done?

 

All right, quit the baiting everyone.

 

quit the baiting everyone.

Better yet, quite debating everyone. There's a simple resolve to this; I'm right. You're all wrong. End of story.

~PAd

 

^^I agree with him.



Therefore, since he is right, and we are all wrong, including me, who complements his opinion that I myself am wrong, am wrong to suggest that he...crap

 

Uhh...maybe.

 

Screw movies. Lets look at this from a sports view of mind:


In soccer you can foul. Big deal. You can slide tackle someone or trip them a first time, and nobody cares.

The second time you foul someone, the ref MAY blow the whistle, but you won't be carded or anything.

The third time you foul, the ref may warn you. He may talk to you and ask you to please stop

The fourth time it happens, you'll probably be looking at a yellow card. One of the resons for a yellow card in soccer is Persistant infrigment of the law.

The next few times, you're most looking at a red card, an ejection from the game.

What am I getting at? A new system for the JC "Family Friendly" idea. you can break it a few times, with no real big time, but after 2 or 3, you're looking at punishments.

 

So does that mean we'd have people faking offense to try to draw a punishment for the other person? I mean if you really want to use football as a guide...

 

No, in the offical FIFA guidlines, Faking a foul or diving is considered an immediate warning or yellow card.

 

Do we get to have penalty flames to decide perm-bans?

 

I'm not even going to play along with this ludicrous premise.

Did Iwish just suggest that we be allowed to circumvent the owners' mandate occasionally with no real consequences at all? We should be able to use hardcore profanity from time to time and it would be no big deal.

Ummm... I disagree with this approach.

AYBABTU?

 

It's always going to be decided by the mod. If they think it's bad enough, the person could be immediatly banned or perm-banned.