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

I like the JCC thread, there is a lot more tollerance there.

 

well the discussion has been extremely lively upon its move to the Senate. this is true.

however it is an extremely lively discussion between Senate members.

so, in conclusion, a serious thread has been moved from the JCC because mods didn't want to mod it (??), thus inhibiting the possible discussion of an important topic between JCC members because everyone knows that JCCers will not follow a moved thread. is that the users fault? maybe. but it's just what happens. has the best thing been done for the JCC? no.

so now that it seems to be a rule, can we make an amendment to the rules thread stating that no abortion threads are allowed in the JCC?

anyway, back to the sex threads, then. cya.

 

Posting in the Senate and posting in the JCC are not mutually exclusive. Believe it or not, but you are allowed to post in more than one forum.

 

Thats not the point. As its been established the two have completely different posting styles and standards. Some feel more comfortable discussing intellectual topics in the YJCC's environment, rather than having to change gears to match speed in a different forum. Others prefer The Senate. There is nothing stopping people from migrating to the senate, true, but when topics begin migrating because they are deemed to be not JCC appropriate, it does begin to prevent people from being able to discuss choice topics in the JCC.

Personally the Senate is beyond my speed, where as I feel right at home in the JCC. I don't want to lose that, because some people can't handle the discussion. Evidently I seem to be in a minority on this issue though.

I am also not all keen about banning specific topics from the JCC, simply because they inevitably crash and burn. I hate to break out the c word, but that borders closer to Censorship than I am comfortable with.

 

Moving topics from one forum to another is nothing new on TFN. It happens all the time, every day, all over the boards. I think things are being blown out of proportion here. The way this particular thread was going was far more suited to the Senate. It wasn't about censorship or anything like that. No one is saying that serious things can't be discussed in the JCC - that also happens all the time. But this particular thread became very much senate-based (IMO of course). Despite what epic said in the OP, I agree with the admin in that it was becoming a debate between a few select individuals and thusly would belong in the Senate. Others may not agree.

But it's not as though the thread was locked, or deleted. It was simply moved. So there's really no reason why the people posting in it cannot carry on doing that. The thread was a serious debate about a hot topic, so the argument that the rules might or might not be different don't really fly. If you want to go by the intent of the thread and have a serious discussion, then there's nothing to stop you from posting in the senate thread. That's what the thread is for, and that's what the Senate is for.

 

I think the issue is that people discuss serious topics differently in YJCC than they do in The Senate, which if I'm not mistaken is supposed to be the case like movie/tv/book threads in YJCC vs the same in Amph (of course there hasn't been much difference between discussions in YJCC and Amph for quite some time now but I won't go into that rant again ) . So if a thread gets moved there they may feel out of place or uncomfortable for whatever reason.

 

Yeah, I get that. It's just an opinion, nothing official

 

Spiderfan posted:

Thats not the point. As its been established the two have completely different posting styles and standards. Some feel more comfortable discussing intellectual topics in the YJCC's environment, rather than having to change gears to match speed in a different forum. Others prefer The Senate. There is nothing stopping people from migrating to the senate, true, but when topics begin migrating because they are deemed to be not JCC appropriate, it does begin to prevent people from being able to discuss choice topics in the JCC.

Personally the Senate is beyond my speed, where as I feel right at home in the JCC. I don't want to lose that, because some people can't handle the discussion. Evidently I seem to be in a minority on this issue though.

I am also not all keen about banning specific topics from the JCC, simply because they inevitably crash and burn. I hate to break out the c word, but that borders closer to Censorship than I am comfortable with.



Dont be afraid. Embarce the dark side.

I was afraid from regulary posting in the Senate for months,but its not as tough as i imagined.

 

I wouldn't necessarily consider it "tougher", but it's definitely more serious. While JCC threads embrace humor and sarcasm, the same might be looked down on in Senate. Also, once you are an established poster in a certain forum, you have friendships with those you post with. For example, if I trekked over to Senate from the JCC, I wouldn't know nearly any of the users. That's my main reason for staying in my "home" forum.

 

In addition to what Spiderfan, Natasi, and Jello have already laid out, I guess I don't see how the "historical" arguments presented here really match the reality of what was happening in that thread. If anything, discussion became more reasonable as the thread went on, not more heated. Whatever anger there was at earlier "inappropriate" comments had clearly been put aside at that point, and the thread had moved on. While two posters were moving towards lengthier posts, they were shorter than many posts in our other "serious" threads, and new users were continuing to join the discussion (Katana, ShrunkenJedi, Musical Jedi etc). Things were moving along smoothly until, several hours later, one user made a sustained campaign of trying to argue that he had been baited--an issue that was probably more appropriate for a PM discussion with moderators than the thread at large in the first place. As a final piece of evidence, surveying the progress of the thread in the Senate, the discussion doesn't seemed to have changed at all. The pro-life position still "implies" that abortion is murder, just as much as it ever did in the Senate, people are still occasionally using sarcasm to help make their points, and many posts aren't really any more substantive from a content perspective than were the posts in the JCC. All that was accomplished by moving the thread was scaring away a group of users who are uncomfortable posting in the Senate.

In light of all that, I don't see how this decision was justified. What was actually going on in the thread, at the time of closure, that suggested it needed to be locked and transferred?

 

agreed with everything wocky said.

can we get confirmation that no abortion threads are allowed in the jcc whatsoever?

 

What we can do is typically follow what we've done in the past. Let a thread remain open, observe which direction the thread is going and make a decision on action then. That would avoid pre-mature locks and hardline rules.

 

People shouldn't be uncomfortable, there really isn't much difference to the discussion if an existing thread is moved. It's not like Senate regulars will always raise the intellectual bar of a discussion, I mean, didn't the JCC whip the Senate's arse in the last Forum Feud?

 

Just so we're clear, if the JCC is supposed to be the "lighthearted" discussion forum "amongst friends" then when the "religious nutjobs" enter threads and give their opinions on how we are partaking in "baby killing" and "murder" then I'm free to good-naturedly bash their religion, correct?

I mean, absolutely baiting women on the forums who have had very personal, very legal, elective medical procedures is totally cool in NuJCC, amirite?

Statistically speaking, it's almost certain there are posters on the JC who have had one. There's also a smaaller, but possible chance, one of the female mods have (not speaking for them, just listing the possibility).

Going into a thread -- about abortion, about circumcision, about really anything where religion is involved -- there has to be some amount of logic, or there's no point. It's why the people on the religious side of the abortion debate drove me crazy and similarly the non-religious folks on the circumcision side -- there's no logic. It all devolves into a mentality of baiting, illogic and demagoguery so quickly that no good can come of it. I support a woman's right to choose (to a point) on a scientific basis and I support my own right to choose to circumcize my future-child on religious grounds, but it's not like I don't do research and understand "facts" (such as they are) rather than waving my hands in my face going "lalalalalalala you're going to Hell!"

Which is where any discussion of a "lighthearted" nature is pretty much gonna break down...

 

Okay, that last one drove me in here. The JCC is not about being "lighthearted." It's about what the community is and has made it after a decade-plus in existence. Sometimes that means serious discussion and sometimes it means very silly discussion, with both often being amongst good friends.

Kick out the folks who are making reasonable discussion impossible or have succeeded in breaking a good discussion down and things are generally fine.

 

Theen you're saying the original intent of "lighthearted discussion among friends" is no longer a valid distinction? Considering that's what allowed "serious topics" allowed back in the JCC?

 

I wanted to make a comment in light of recent moderator comments in another thread on about a news story. Much like in this case, a lock seemed to be threatened in the absence of any heated arguments or provocative comments. In this case, there aren't even any long posts.

This is, frankly, ridiculous. I can understand the need to monitor the environment closely, and perhaps to be extra cautious around the most sensitive issues. However, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy if you persist in locking threads that have no evidence of inappropriate behavior just because you think there's going to be. Give us a chance. It's not something that we should have to beg or ask for. If serious discussion is allowed in the JCC, then let us discuss. Period.

EDIT: To be clear, if there is an official rule that all discussion of certain topics are banned, that should be put in the TOS. If there is not, then I don't feel there should be de facto enformcement of such a non-existent rule.

 

I fought much too hard (for my own good in particular) to see serious discussion in the JCC be disallowed for any reason. All it needs to succeed is good moderation and a group of responsible posters.

 

Wocky, my comments in the abortionist killed news thread about "stay on topic" are just that. Stay on topic discussing the article. When it starts getting into "abortion is right" "abortion is wrong" it is off topic.

The thread is continuing just fine, and respectfully I might add, so let's not make this into something it isn't, for the sake of drama.

 

A. As you'll note, I generally don't. But the blinding speed with which action was taken last time logically suggests that very rapid, even pro-active moves be taken to stake out affirmations about the appropriateness of what was going on.

B. I guess I don't see how your proposition even makes sense. The only reason this story is in the news at all is because of how it weighs on the larger issue of abortion. It is, in fact, the only reason there was a murder to be reported on in the first place. Trying to divorce the two issues is ridiculous. In any other thread, and on any other topic, it would be considered a legitimate extension of the issues laid out in the original post.

Ultimately, though, if you say that you see no reason for an imminent lock, I'm more or less satisfied.

 

I have to agree with Wocky that separating the abortion aspect from the story misses the point of the story's relevance.

 

thus the issue clearly is that abortion is not allowed to be discussed in the JCC - period.

clearly the administration believes the users of the forum are incapable of discussing a serious topic in a serious fashion. alternatively, they dislike the idea of moderating such a discussion. this is regrettable, but if it is so, it only makes sense to add it to the forum rules. no discussion of abortion. period.

 

Once we start banning topics outright, something is wrong IMO. I can understand being cautious and the moment the thread is out of hand, lock it or move it, but I would prefer the benefit of the doubt, even in a topic that fails as often as abortion and let the conversation continue.

 

absolutely. this is seemingly not the case, however, as evidenced by these examples.

i find it ludicrous, in fact, to be allowed only to discuss a topic as serious as abortion in a light hearted fashion. how is that even possible?

 

Most problems can be adequately dealt with by intelligent moderation. If I can do it (and I did), I know others can as well. If someone in particular is causing a problem, ban them or require that they not post in a given thread for a certain period of time. If several people are a problem, deal with them in particular. Going right to locking a thread should be avoided unless it's necessary.