Time to update the JC rules ?

I've always had a problem with this, although it's maybe more of a language-nerd argument than anything, but the dictionary generally contains the profane definitions along with any 'cleaner' or archaic ones. So the 'dictionary definition' rule really just means that I can't use tit to mean something that's not in the dictionary (i.e. not a normal usage and therefore doesn't make sense) like "What the tit?"
But it is usable to refer to breasts, since the 6th noun listing for "tit", item 1.b. in the OED says "a woman's breasts."


Again, it's probably just a semantic quibble, but it's entirely stupid to say that "dictionary definitions" are okay when the dictionary contains the slang definitions as well, perhaps it should say "non-profane usage" or something, since that's really the point.

 

Josh is still an owner? Why did I think he sold his ownership interest to PWise? I guess he's just a silent owner now.

 

I believe Josh is the minority owner, but I could be wrong. I'm pretty sure Wise is for all intents and purposes the head honcho in charge.

 

Correct in that he majority, I believe, but he still consults with Josh.

 

You win.

 

I believe the ownership is 2/3 Wise, 1/3 Josh.

EDIT: ..and it is

 

We've updated the rules and put them in a sticky in JCC. It's locked like the last one, but any feedback we can talk about here.

One thing of note is the relaxation of the parody thread rule (with stipulations - like sprees and discussion content) and "WUL" threads.

 

you might want to put the correct link in your post, unless you mean to direct people to the old rules

don't have time to review right now, but will shortly and give feedback/praise/critisism where appropriate.....

 

re: parody threads.

If someone posted a thread: I like my hair. And the thread featured a photo of the person's hair for general JCC appraisal.

Could I then post a thread: I like my bear. If I took the trouble to concoct a fictional bear, does that count as discussion-worthy? If I only posted a picture of a bear, and left it at that, I assume that would get my thread locked.

Further threads though, I like my chair, I like my pear and I like sea air (different authors) would get locked as a spree - no matter how much effort the thread starter put into demontrating their chairs, pears and appreciation of sea air.

 

In both those scenarios, I'd say yes. I think a little bit also depends on where the thread goes, espcially if we don't catch it right away. If it just attracts spam, it's more likely to be locked.

Going by past parody sprees, they're likely to be locked, as they rarely involve any sort of content. Buy they'll be judged on a case-by-case basis. And if there are threads that include actual topics that lead to discussion, but just happen to have titles parodying others, they could be allowed to remain open.

 

That seems reasonable enough. Makes it more of a grey-matter situation for mods, but better for the users. Not necessarily an immediate requirement to be trigger happy with the lock button.

EDIT: btw, do you like bears, chairs, pears or sea air?

 

I hope you shattered that crappy social thread rule with the almighty hammer Mjolnir.

 

ok - couple of points :-

Can this either be enforced or have the line removed please

Seeing as you've concluded this needs to be in place, can the JCC mods give some sort of assurance on their part to actually deal with profanity, and not leave it unedited? It gets back to my original point of this thread, which was that we had rules which weren't being adhered to by the mods (even after profanity had been highlighted to them). Are you going to make a little more effort now?

Personally I don't think the highlighted part is necessary. I think if you are posting, and are quiet obviously drunk or high then you should temp ban the user (and make mention of this in the rule). However, if you have been drinking (ie you are intoxicated), but it is not adversely affecting your posting then it shouldn't be against the rules. Basically, if someone is acting normal then you won't know they have been drinking, however I don't feel there is a need to make users feel they are rule breaking if they log in to check out the boards when getting home from a few beers on a Friday night.

Why is there a lack of clarity here? Either they are ok, or they are not.......This edit to the original rules seems a little grey to me, and one of the purposes of this review was to clarify what is, and is not allowed - this (to me) is a step in the wrong direction.

Again, can we get clarity please ? I'm not looking for stricter rules, just ones which are clear and easy to follow.

Can we see this rule being followed too please - I do feel its better to give the JCC regs some chance to prove themselves. All too regularly I'm seeing JCC mods lock with a "I can't see this going anywhere good" comment.

==================================

Can any of the JCC mods explain why there isn't a policy regarding offsite content? That was one of the original issues I raised back at the start of this thread (as a mod had reviewed and left unedited a link to content with the F, S and C words). A simple policy (for example) would be that anyone who links offsite must include a disclaimer in the link saying there is mild, moderate or extreme profanity in the link. An alternative policy would be to forbid linking directly to sites with any profanity.

Can anyone explain why this has been overlooked?

==================================

In honesty I see this review as a bit rushed and a little lack-luster and filled with numerous cop-out clauses to ensure the JCC mods can't be accused of not following their own rules - far too many "maybe"s and "might"s and a distinct lack of clarity. To stress again, I am not campaigning for more rules, or more strict rules, but simply clear rules which are easy to follow.

Can

 

Hi malkie


Thanks for all of that - we're working on what you've said and you should see results once Roo is back and can join in on the extra discussion.

Please bear with us.


Kindest of regards,

Pulsies.

 

Surely there's discussion in Team JCC from the recent revision that can be used to provide a slightly quicker answer than simply waiting for roo to return?

 

Of course there is. There's plenty of discussion, but that doesn't mean we're going to be posting without the entire of Team JCC having some input. We're not waiting for Roo to come back so we can talk, we're waiting for her to come so she can read what we've spoken about in Team JCC and add her opinions. Malkie brought up some points that need to be addressed as a team to facilitate clarity.

If you'd like me to rephrase what I posted above you, we're looking at what malkie has posted in response and we're going to come back with more than just a flippant, one-person post in reply. If that takes a little bit of time, I apologise, but I thought you'd prefer solidarity and clarity to off-the-cuff posting.

 

I genuinely appreciate your efforts

I'm confused by this comment. Was the updated version of the rules you posted the final version (open to feedback), or simply a work in progress? If it was the final version (open to feedback), can you explain why a number of points originally raised were overlooked?

Can you also give comment on what appears to be a step in the direction of less clarity, rather than more clarity? (just looking for your personal comment, I'm not asking you to speak on behalf of Team JCC).

Thanks for taking the time to work on this

 

I would've thought that simply stating why such conclusions were arrived at for the revision you all posted is a task one person can easily accomplish.

Also, why ever would you think a response now to the questions posed, or at least an account of how the conclusions were reached, would be either flippant or off-the-cuff?


EDIT: Team JCC.

 

My personal opinion on this is that yes, it was a final version that was posted, and of course, open to feedback. Which is what we got, so we're going over the rules again to take that into account. It'd be pretty poor form of us to do otherwise. The missed points are due to human error - at least in my own case - and now we are rectifying that.

I'm not sure as to why the new rules have come across as less clear than before, but as you've pointed out, they have. Perhaps the desire to move on from the rules of the past and provide a set of rules that reflect the current JCC has meant we have 'greyed' the rules in the instances noted above, or maybe it was because the 'higher ideal' was to take everything on a thread by thread and post by post basis, so we can't say 'it WILL be locked' definitely anymore. These are just theories, as I can't pinpoint the exact reason myself. Perhaps if the others reply to these questions, you'll get an overall answer.

As the original intention - both your own and ours - was to help bring about clear and precise rules to help both regular users and mods, another drafting process is obviously needed to make sure we get to that clarity. So your comments and the pointing out of things we've missed are appreciated.


Team Everton - I am untested on the waters of Comms and rulemaking, and am better suited to the flippant comment-making, hence, I always reckon my posts are So I hesitate to answer any questions without holding the hand of someone smarter.

 

It's hard to straddle the boundary between allowing leeway in decisions and ensuring doubt is kept at bay. I think the parody thread revision is suited to 'maybes' and 'mights', but things like threads asking about adding to people to your WUL should be pretty clear cut. In that instance, I'd have it read that threads specifically asking for people to add you to your WUL (directed at an individual or just a general pleeeading with the JCC) are absolutely forbidden, but threads about WULS outside of that criterion will be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure they don't deteriorate in an 'add me to your WUL' thread.

 

That's a very good point. Thanks

 

I appreciate your honesty and frankness in your response.

The conversation has gone something like this. I've pointed out that various rules in the JCC aren't being followed, and that some new policies need to be hammered out. You've (collectively) returned and posted updated rules which have simply changed the statements "are against the rules", to "might be against the rules, maybe", which is a horrible direction to take.

I'll give you time to address the points which were overlooked, but I think more work is needed and some difficult discussion about what is, and what isn't allowed in the JCC. Saying "might" or "maybe" is too easy and doesn't benefit the community.

You just need to decide what you feel is best for the forum and try and stick to it. Saying that threads may or may not be ok doesn't help the user base, or yourselves moderating.

edit

removed a bit that I dont' think makes sense when I reread it......

 

You can't be completely black and white without constructing rules that run into paragraphs each. The mods are there to make judgements about what's going to work and what's not. Have a basic set of absolute no-no's but beyond that I think saying 'depending on x, y or z' isn't a bad thing.

Allow parody threads provided they aren't thoughtless spam, and allow WUL threads provided they aren't outright requests for addition. And the 'provided' bit is all down to the mod's judgement.

 

exactly. the vagueness allows more things, without outright encouraging them. at least that's how I looked at it during the discussion.

The only thing that would work better is having no mention of it at all and allow us to fall back on other, more general rules for editing/locking those kinds of threads.

actually, I'll have to think about that...

 

'Vagueness' frustrates people. Instead of being deliberately vague, keep your rules to the bare minimum that you an be concrete on.

I might be way off the mark here, but take the WUL rule as it's worded right now:

I suspect that this rule is designed to take care of all WUL threads, instead of just the 'add me' threads it mentions. Now, you can't just lock all threads about WULs; some will be okay to keep open. That is why the 'may' was included, as in to say that your thread about WULs will be locked if it's basically just asking for more people to add you (in an outright or 'cleverly' disguised fashion). Unfortunately, the rule is worded such that the 'may' appears to be in reference to only threads that ask for people to add you to their WUL, when that isn't the intention. Threads that are so one-dimensional should certainly be locked.

Thus the rule should read:

You do not need to add any additional caveat, as this rule is now specific to only "Add me..." threads. Threads about WULs in a more general sense will not be subject to the rule, only instead to a little more attention from mods (as you would expect, with the thread sailing so close to a clear cut rule) who will be entitled to lock and / or post a warning in the thread if it becomes an "Add me..."-o-thon.

Removing the 'may' adds clarity, but still gives mods leeway to lock WUL threads that become inappropriate.

Finally I don't think that removing all mention of "Add me to your WUL" threads would be a good idea, because for my part I don't think they're spam, or an issue of poor posting, or even liable to cause tension. The motive of posting such a thread could easily be one of wanting to be popular (an elemental drive on the JCC). It's just something that isn't 'the done thing', so a specific rule is best.