Time to update the JC rules ?

Actually it usually leads to places very, very good.

This sounds good to me and I'm proud to see that you guys are takinga second look at things. I have to say that I completely disagree with malkie on making things more strict. Especialy on the profanity level. Almost all great literature contains profanity so you can't argue that it's not needed. At times it is.

Who are you again?

Again, I can't really disagree here. Sounds like a good reworking of the policy.

I also agree with a lot of the things Harpauh said but I've done enough quoting for one post.

 

I wasn't really gunning for putting the word whore on the not allowed list. "Attention whore" is pretty much a part of jcc culture, and really, do people actually take offense to it? It's almost a term of endearment. We're pretty much all attention whores. What I was more gunning for, was relaxing on the word ho.. it's really not that bad of a word. I mean, we can say "bitch" as a verb.. (bitching about something, etc...), so is ho really so bad?

It's hilarious, because I don't use this word... I just thought it a little silly when I saw it edited, that's all.

 

I wouldn't equate the JCC with "great literature"

 

But that wasn't what I said, and totally misses the actual purpose of this thread. Infact, I already clarified this in response to harpuah when I posted :-

It's not a major or point or anything, I just don't like to have my posts misrepresented.

 

What does that have to do with anything? I like to make good posts. I'm not saying they're Shakespeare but I try my best.

But, hey, it's your business if you don't.

 

MAybe that's not what you meant but this:

sure implies it.

 

I note that today it became an editable offense to make reference to a person being 'creepy', but its okay if you call the post 'creepy.'

I think this negatively impacts the JCC, especially since it will have a negative impact on how often the 'Team Creepy' pic is used.

I want to say this could be called a certain rule, much in line with naming laws after children, but I'm afraid it would be edited for baiting.

 

You can't call anybody names, GrandAdmiralStrife. The rule all over the boards is that if you have something negative to say, address the post and not the poster. Not everybody on the JC is going to be popular, but everyone should be able to use the boards without fear of name-calling.

Edit: I wouldn't worry about the extinction of the "Team Creepy" sign. The sign doesn't say who or what it refers to. So long as it (or anything else) isn't used as an unambiguous call-out of somebody, it's not going to be a problem.

 

ahh, yes, the newbie-mod enthusiasm. Maulfly had that once, too. She took some cold medicine and left MS after a month.

 

Speaking of Team Creepy: What about the practice of 'editing due to complaint'?

I know that I do it on occasion (with good reason) but I never found any standard ruling saying yay or nay.

*waits to be proven wrong*

Is that something people want? To be able to say 'I really find that offensive, will you edit that?' and have the Mod in question take it under advisement?

 

I think that works, as long as the mod does include that it was for a complaint, people usually don't question it. And if they do, they must be banned. BANNED, I TELLS YA!

Man, I wish Maulfly was a mod again. Just so's I can bug her every five minutes...

*honey, I found another thread you need to lock*

 

While I often see "You're creepy" in similar light as "attention whore", that's mainly because when I read it I hear the soundbite in my head that they often play on the radio of a girl saying "You're creepy". (I can't remember what movie or show that's off of at the moment.)


Still, while "attention whore" has been part of the JC vernacular for several years, I don't think the calling of others as "creepy" falls under quite the same protective nostalgia-filled category.

For a Mod, it falls under the same category as calling another user "stupid" or a "Troll". To call a person such things is to bait or flame them. To refer to their post or behavior as such a thing ("that post was stupid" or "you're posting like a Troll"), while it may still piss off the other user, is technically alright because it's not aimed at the actual user. (Course, years ago I've seen an instance where a user was called something pretty bad and the mods wouldn't edit it or go after the poster because the word had multiple meaning and it wasn't precisely clear in what way the user had actually posted it...not that there were many alternate meanings for that word based on his usage...but that's a different story...) Assuming the rules on this are still similar to the way they were a few years ago, then yes, directly calling another user "creepy" is something a Mod would need to act upon.


Again, it's all in usage, intent, and phrasing... *shrugs*



As for the links to places that have profanity, I've noticed more of that going on myself in the last year or two. I know it used to be that links posted in the JC that went to something obscene or documents with even one bad word in it would get removed from the post by a Mod. In some cases it would get the poster a ban. Have things relaxed since then with the policy about linking to places with profanity or is it just that users don't alert mods to it as much as they used to now that things have relatively slowed down?

---

[b]Edit:[/b] *smacks silly hubby* :p

As for the complaint thing, I think it depends on the nature of the complaint and of the post.

If it's something general that is found offensive by just one person, it's more of a judgement call for the Mod. If multiple people come to the Mod because they find some general post offensive, then it's more likely that the Mod will edit or remove it. But yeah...once users start bringing something to a Mod's attention, I would think at that point they're taking the user input into advisement.

If it's something about a particular person and they didn't give permission for it to be posted (say personal information or their picture), from my observation a Mod will go right in and make edits/removals if the person makes a complaint.


At least, that's how I remember it from back in the old days. :p

 

How would it be handled if I told another user "You're creeping me out." (I've wanted to tell innumerable users that.)

One of the words on the Disallowed Words List is the plural of the name of a bird, and in practice is allowed in that context. Yet the list makes no mention of that.

 

Nothing wrong with that. You're describing how you feel, not calling the other person a name. I'm talking about stuff that is clearly meant to belittle or insult another person.

Dictionary definitions are fine. Therefore, all the titmice in the world are safe.

 

Technically, there are users baited quite often and we need to stop that. Yes, people can get on your nerves, but at the end of the day, there's this thing called the scroll bar or the back button. When you address someone personally, you've crossed the line from talking about the post to talking about the poster. We mods count on folks to try to be the better person, even when people are irritating you. Calling someone creepy is a slam. We'll be cracking down on it and the baiting of users that tend to do irritating things that rile you up. Let us handle the irritating things, if they're are something we need to handle, we will.

I'm not a newbie mod, and it's something that irritates the heck out of me. I don't do playground gangs and hate when a thread turns into that. I can deal with users a lot better that are a detriment if I don't have others adding to the scope of the problem, instead of being part of the solution, which is reporting them and letting us deal with them or ignoring them. Nine times out of ten, you're giving a problem the attention they're trying so hard to get.

Edit: And no "boobs" or "boobies" are not disallowed. But "gay" or "ghey" is, as a negative connotation, and I've noticed that get by, so look for edits on that. (i.e. this movie was gay)

 

But what if you say a movie was gay, but meant it as a compliment? The original meaning is happy, so someone should not take offense. Come to think of it, I think we had a thread about that many years ago. But I digress.

 

The disallowed words list addresses the very issue of "gay" not used in a derogatory fashion! Also, the list makes excellent summer beach reading, and if you read it out loud to yourself, you can pretend you're watching "Pulp Fiction!"

Check it out today!

 

I have been wondering this for quite awhile, but is it really necessary to outlaw the acronym wtf? Like...seriously?

Was that the TFN owners or something? What's the story?

It's not a big deal or anything, I just always thought it was a tad bit on the silly side.

 

It really is silly..

 

It's from the owners, or rather Josh Griffin. Who is still an owner.

 

Do they ever look at the boards?

Maybe you guys can be like "Oh, suuuuuuuuuuuure, Josh Griffin, we'll outlaw wtf! Definetely! Good idea!" but in reality you can be like "Ah, wtf, who cares, they'll never know, ah ha ha ha ah ah aha!"

Too nefarious?

 

How about we just replace it with wtf.n?

 

I concur with this thought.

 

Me too.

I think.

 

And in this instance, I've had a user contact me before about a thread in which there was reference to it being (the post/thread) being "stupid" or some such. This would be an instance where a user complaint was deflected until the thread devolved into a situation where I could hand out warnings for baiting/flaming. Under the rules, it was fine until it hit the 'personal' level, meaning comments about the post itself were technically okay, but once they were directed at the user, then it moved into the arena of being punishable. This is where complaints have to be judged on a 'case-by-case basis, as nerve wracking as that phrase is for the users and the moderators alike.

And does "What TheForce.Net" really have the same effect?!