"This type of debate really belongs in the Senate, not the YJCC".

abortion thread

B. Serious topics
The JCC will allow discussion on serious issues (capital punishment, political crises, religion etc). However, discussion on topics of this nature should maintain a relaxed atmosphere. Genuine in-depth discussion/debating (where increasingly small groups of dedicated users dominate proceedings, featuring lengthy posts and increased reliance on outside sources to make points) is better suited to The Senate Floor. Each thread will of course be evaluated on its individual merits, but any that are determined to be evolving into Senate material will be redirected there.

never mind the debate about the supposed flaming/trolling that took up the second half of the thread, i remember campaigning a long time ago about allowing serious threads in the JCC.

so why should this debate be moved to the Senate, exactly?

there was certainly not an "increasingly small group of dedicated users dominating proceedings, featuring lengthy posts and increased reliance on outside sources to make points", which is the crux of the rule listed above. the atmosphere wasn't exactly relaxed but certainly not overheated or out of control, given the subject material.

prediction: thread, perfectly suitable and allowed within the rules of the JCC, gets moved to the Senate, no one follows it across and discussion dies.

serious discussion is allowed in the JCC. why are we forgetting/ignoring this all over again?

 

I don't get this decision either. I also feel its a slippery slope once we start redirecting/moving threads to other forums that it would be more appropriate in unless its remarkably out of place in the YJCC (ie Star Wars related material).

 

WDNDAITJCC

 

First, let me say that (and you can ask Ender and KW) I was one of those who fought for serious discussion in the JCC way back in the day. And have the scars to prove it. (But I wasn't the only one!!!)

Second, yes, there was starting to be "increasingly small group of dedicated users dominating proceedings, featuring lengthy posts and increased reliance on outside sources to make points" (see: Quix and OZK), as well. Also, the JCC mods have always had the choice of moving a thread they thought were heading in the wrong direction to the Senate. dp4m's argument and the mod's subsequent disagreement on how they handled OZK's "murder" comment is something that to me, says it should go to the Senate, but that's just me. And I don't know anything 'bout modding no JCC.

 

The same could be said for a number of other intellectual discussion threads that have continuously been left alone in the YJCC and are not altogether different from the abortion thread, but are never moved to the Senate. Just about any political/religious thread for example. Why suddenly now is there a distinction made?? Or am I only just noticing??

Personally I would prefer not to see the intellectual discussions diverted to another forum on the boards...its part of the greater mix that makes the YJCC interesting and appealing to me (even if I am not a participant).

 

When it was agree that we'd allow more serious discussion in the JCC, it was with the caveat that the religious topics and abortion would be the type threads to still watch, and abortion specifically, because of the potential it had to become a train wreck. Also, it as a topic has the potential to offend the sensibilities of users more than even religion (see statements like "murderer", etc.). In fact, when we first agreed about the letting topics of this nature stay, abortion was to be automatically moved to then Senate.

 

Serious threads are different IMO than heated threads.
Serious threads are typically allowed.

If it is a topic like abortion that gets into a heated discussion, then it really belongs in the Senate, where it can be treated the way topics are in the Senate, without having the distractions of the "your mom" jokes and such.
They are much better suited to handle debates with the rules and regulations they have, than we are in the YJCC.

It's not about disallowing serious discussion, but about finding the best place for some of these discussions to take place without degrading.


EDIT: What that 'Ex' above me said too.

 

But if the issue is trying to dissuade the degradation of the discussion, to eliminate the flaming/baiting isn't the the very purpose of moderating??

I am still not seeing why this had to be moved to the Senate, when similar issues of flaming/baiting in other serious discussions are simply dealt with via warnings and edits. Why the distinction here? I can't recall the amount of political threads that are allowed to stand that have a similar amount of ferocity and break down into simple petty personal attacks that are usually dealt with via edits and warnings. Whats the difference between those threads and this instance?

For the record I am not really all that disturbed by the move to the Senate. My concern is about the consistency of the application of the rules. I am really only trying to understand the difference between one instance and another.

 

Like I said above, the removal of an abortion thread is pretty consistent. Those threads just don't happen very often, and when they historically have, they've been moved pretty much immediately. I'm talking about those threads where abortion is the topic, mind you, not when it comes up in a topic as a sidebar, where it's usually diverted at some point. And even then, the warnings have always been there.

 

EDIT: Those guys tell it so much better than me.

And as a note, the discussion seems to be continuing nicely in that thread where it is in the senate for anyone who is interested in the topic.

 

Again I understand that abortion threads are moved to the Senate. What I am asking is why Abortion as a topic specifically over other Hot Button topics??

My understanding is that the justification and reasoning behind moving them is that the Senate is better equipped to keep the discussion in line and not degrade into flames/baiting. But if its occurring regularly in other hot button topics, why are they ok to keep in the YJCC with close moderation but Abortion is immediately a special exception that must be moved. Why are the others not moved?? Why can't abortion be addressed with the same level of moderation in the JCC as other hot button topics??

Should the rule not be enforced equally among other similar situations??

EDIT: Grimby posted while I was pondering my response so I missed his comments. I am still not understanding the distinction, and perhaps thats a failing on my part, but I have seen political threads decay just as quickly or sooner than the Abortion thread and they are never moved. I get that abortion is touchy but so are both religion and politics, but they are allowed to stand. My only concern really is the consistency. I am also not comfortable with the instant assumption the Abortion can't be discussed rationally in the YJCC and must be moved without hesitation.

 

For the same reason that the country is divided over it. It just IS a more sensitive topic.

For the most part, everyone can take place in religious threads and have an opinion on it, because it's not an exclusive topic. Even those that aren't religious have the ability to BE religious if they choose to. And in those threads, the forum has done a good job of moderating themselves in the past couple of years.

In abortion, a percentage of the population that would be discussing it doesn't have the ability to be pregnant, thereby making it hard to moderate the discussion because the discussion isn't on equal ground and it's hard to identify (doesn't mean that males CAN'T, but it does seem to make the top way more incendiary). Were I a mod, I would have warned folks over the comment about murder, etc. Right there is where the discussion took a nose dive, and it's why they've always been moved. The person commenting on murder could never HAVE an abortion (theoretically, I guess), because they were male.

Yeah, it's a gray area, but it's not inconsistent application of the rules as they were made at the time, IMO. And the JCC has always had special circumstances in rules based on the history of a topic (social threads, parodies, user appreciation,etc.), and a mod's discretion. And I haven't seen the topic of abortion outlawed in JCC, just watched closely.

 

That "murder" comment was clearly out of line and should have been edited/warned, I fully agree. But I am very concerned with the thought process that suggests those who can't experience something shouldn't comment on it. I know thats not what you are trying to say but your statement just doesn't read right to me.

However, by this logic shouldn't discussions of Prop 8 and gay marriage be moved as well then??

Perhaps I am offbase and just missing the point, clearly I don't know the history of these decisions as well as some do, so I can only comment on my own experiences and this specific instance, but I am still concerned, and thought I should address that openly regardless.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying males shouldn't be allowed to discuss it or have an opinion on it or that their opinion isn't any less valid, but part of that is the heart of the whole issue over all, I think. And what I was trying to say is maybe that's why it IS more sensitive in nature anywhere you discuss it.

As far as being concerned about it, I wouldn't. It's happened before in JCC, and the serious discussions still stayed. I don't think this means the JCC mods are going to start redirecting all serious threads to Senate, like it used to be (someone can correct me on that, I'm not sure). Just that this particular issue hasn't arisen in a while, maybe for years.

The gist has always been when the tone of the thread gets heavier or more serious, and there's a point where the JCC rules may start hampering the discussion (i.e. the comment on murder, or the scientific data that was starting to be referenced), that it was usually moved. For instance, there's going to be edits all over the place, and the discussion is hard to follow for everyone and comments that may be okay in the Senate due to the level of detail that could be involved (like OZK going on to explain his position), being harder to moderate in the JCC or people feeling the topic needs more serious discussion to be backed up with facts, etc.

I mean, there's a reason the Senate's there, and the decision to work with it with serious, more controversial topics has always worked well in the past (there's a thread or two around here in Comms where this was detailed out to everyone, I believe.) It's always been moderator's discretion, on both sides, with the Senate folks sending threads to the JCC at times when they were more relevant to that forum. Hope this helps. I should probably let the actual forum mods discuss it, I've been away awhile.

 

The point is, is from my history of posting, I have not seen a single abortion thread in the JCC run smoothly. This one opens, seems to be going okay...then bam, conflict of some sort *has* to start up. Why? It's the specific subject matter. Yes it's in a category of touchy subjects, but it's probably one of the worst if not the worst. It's not a subject that can be discussed lightly in any way. It's serious, and it's personal, and it's often insulting - such subjects belong only in the Senate. I'm all for supporting intellectual and serious threads in the JCC, but if there is one specific type that will consistently prove to be trouble, then I'm going to push to have it moved into the Senate.

 

What you are saying Roo makes sense. My issue is that this seems to be a blanket statement for just abortion, and I don't get why, when the justification for it being this special case ruling could easily be applied to any number of threads. Perhaps thats simply an issue I am going to have to live with then (because I am not seeing a clear enough distinction for it to be a special instance), but my voice won't be heard (and I won't get answers) if I don't speak up.

For the record I don't think it was the wrong move necesarily and I am not condemning the actions of the mods, I am just trying to wrap my head around the special circumstances. Again thats most likely my failing.

EDIT1:

You are not explaining anything to me that I don't already know. I am trying to root out why one topic is immediately considered worse than others when other topics have decayed just as quickly and are not treated the same. And frankly I am not satisfied with "It just is".


EDIT2: Perhaps rephrasing this will clarify my point:
I get that its consistently an issue whereas other topics may not be and can maintain a certain level of discussion appropriate for the JCC. But when they do descend to the same level inappropriate discussion that is consistently seen in abortion discussions, why are they not moved to the Senate as well?? By the logic illustrated to me about abortion discussions, several other discussions should have been eligible for being moved to the senate and treated the same as this instance, but weren't.

 

Well, the moderator's discretion part is where this comes in. For me, religion was easier to keep in line because even though it is as personal as abortion, the arguments were less vehement, for the most part. But there were times where if the discussion got overly vehement or someone was going to be banned in JCC (where they might not in Senate) because of the difference in tone of the two forums, even if the discussion was political, I'd send it to Senate. Take torture, for instance, which seems to be doing fine in JCC as a subtopic of the Obama thread, but as it's own topic, KW (rightly so, IMO) started it in Senate. Because from the beginning the topic is controversial, there may be long posts needed to explain a controversial remark (like the religious stance in the linked thread above, which was later explained, but lead to more lengthy and detailed convo), and the mods can tend to those threads and not have to worry about other threads the JCC mods do have to worry about.

 

if all abortion threads are essentially not allowed in the JCC, then why isn't there something in the rules and guidelines stating so? i'm with Spiderfan on this one - i understand that abortion is a sensitive topic but i think it's extremely lazy moderating to suggest that no good discussion can result from it being allowed in the JCC. i don't care if there have been 50 train wreck abortion threads previously, it is lazy to lock down the 51st simply because it's "bound to happen again". if there is an active moderating presence in the thread, and if users who continue to cross the boundary and break the rules are countered for, then there should be no problem whatsoever. end of story. if there have been 50 train wrecks previously, then perhaps there's a learning experience to be had for the mods present in the 51st.

i find it absurd that moving a discussion into another forum, on the same message board, magically makes everyone behave themselves and have rational discussion. it will not. it's such a cliched, tired idea that senate users = rational & intelligent and jcc users = bunch of rabid kids swinging from ceiling fans

this thread in question was certainly not out of control - the heatedness towards the end was in fact a tangent to the actual discussion itself and so should have been curtailed earlier. and i disagree, roo, that it had got to the point where only one of two users were dominating the discussion with lengthy posts, citing external sources.

i know the JCC is fun and games but it's a massive disservice to suggest that its members cannot handle sensitive topics. it is also constantly evolving so what may not have worked 1 or 2 years ago should not be the barometer of what is happening now.

 

I guess thats where my issue lies then, that the interpretation and mod discretion feels too inconsistent to me.

 

nvm

 

This has been an issue ever since the creation of The Senate (as well with The Amphitheater). There is one solution, and it will never happen.

 

I do think there is some merit to there being separate locations where you can find more specific and pointed conversation pertaining to various discussions so I see the value of the Amph and Senate.

 

Why can't people continue to post in a thread which has been moved? Why does it matter where the thread ends up? It's the same thread, the same subject matter with the same people posting in it, except it's on another forum which is one click away. I don't get the problem.