Time to update the JC rules ?

Well, we have two mods that haven't made manager, yet and Senny is fairly new to the mod team, also. So, we're discussing this more. I have other duties and we're getting input from that know the place well, also as well as running it through MS. So it's taking longer than last time. When you and gabe did it, it was mostly re-wording from what I remember with few changes (the link issue wasn't in it, for instance, I don't know if it was in earlier versions or not). I know it sounds like a lame excuse, but I trust the users of the JCC not to burn the place down while tighten it up.

 

I just read through the revised rules you have up in the JCC, roo, and I have to say that I liked what I saw.

 

Geez. Thx for the guilt trip.

 

More than a spit and polish job, then? I didn't think the rules you put out were very wrong (save for the offsite content stuff being missed) at all, they just needed a little tinkering. That was, as you say, all it ever was last time. I don't think what was there last time (prior to this thread being posted) was very wrong at all - infact this thread (for me) was prompted more by a perceived lack of adherence to the rules as were written than the need for any serious reworking. I read the subtext of this thread (particularly at the start) to be 'you're slacking mods, so perhaps the rules should change to reflect that - wink, wink'. Perhaps I read wrong, but I didn't think we needed the first 'may and maybe' change, let alone a further change which, given the time being taken, sounds like it might be an over-reaction.

But, now we're here, let's hope the new rules will own.

 

Just re-promote malkie already.

 

Were the updated rules updated for the 1980s?

 

Yes. All mods have to sport mullets, and any users who laugh at said mullets were banned until the 1990s.

 

I've been watching this thread for a while and didn't really have much to contribute. But I figured I'd toss in my 1.328 cents:

1. I don't think the rules were fine before and I'm sure they'll be fine now. It may be fun in an "aha gotcha" kinda way to poke a mod in the eye because s/he missed something somewhere, but other than that, it's not the rules that are the problem (not that I actually think there's a problem).

2. The only thing users need out of a moderating team is consistency. The rules are supposed to establish expectations--"This is what we mods care about"; but that's just a baseline. In truth, it's the day-to-day operations of the boards that set the tone and new members to any forum have to go in, observe, and see what's acceptable. In point of fact, users should be doing most of the moderating--without any real "that's against the rules" kinda nonsense, but just simply reminding other users what the expecations of the community are. It's only when that doesn't work that moderators should be necessary. By that point, there shouldn't be much quibbling about whether or not moderation was necessary.

On this point, I kinda have to say that my only concern is in what I call "pre-emptive moderation"--when moderators step in and shut down a discussion because it has the potential to blow up. Fortunately, there's very little of that on the JCC, but it's something to be cautious of. It's a fine line between "keeping things calm" and "sucking the living fun out of everything that makes the JCC cool."

I probably have more to say, but I'm already probably at the capacity of the JCC-willingness to read long posts.

 

Only Zaz can take away my usual suspect points.... Edit: please play nice with one another.

 

I am in full agreement with MalkieD2 on this matter. A while back, I found a post in the EUC where the word "bastards" was used. However, because the individual put smileys after his remark, the Mod saw no need to edit the post, even though it clearly sounded like an insult toward others.
Because of the current state of the rules, if I were a Moderator, I would have banned the user and edited the post, regardless of the silly faces.

 

I agree with malkie as well.

Also, I have a question.

When something is clearly against the TOS and/or JCC Rules and the Mods do nothing about it, who do we go to to complain?

As a corollary, rather than spamming the Mod's PM boxes with complaints, is there a thread or something in which we can list problems and/or violations for the Mods to address when they are available?

 

If you see something against the TOS, check to see if any of the forum mods are online in the Users Online section. (There is a 'MODS' option way to the right at the end of the alphabetical entries). If so, drop the forum mod a PM. (Use a mod with a recent last login time). If the problem is something major (such as spamvertising, or grossly inappropriate images or language) you can PM any mod online. (Again, pick one with a recent last login time).

There was going to be a 'Report Post' facility but so far it is not in use. Sending a PM is your best bet.

 

That still doesn't address my question. That is if the mods are not aware of it.

What if something is a clear violation of TOS, the mods know about it (or even contribute) and nothing is done about it? Where do we go to complain then?

 

Just be a mod favorite. Then you'll be okay.

 

Little difficult when it's the apparent "mod favorites" getting away with the mentioned TOS violations, then the non-"mod favorite" is harassed by the "mod favorites" and then warned by said mods when they speak up against the violators.

 

Change your name to ASO and YodaJeff.

 

There is a moderator complaint resolution process. If it's a complaint against a mod, then that's the way to go.

 

Thanks for letting me know Roo. I believe I need to use that.

 

Holy freakin crap, man. We get it already. You were banned, you're pissed off, and you just wanna blame it all on "mod favourites."

 

Dude, I was just kidding.

 

Back in the day, links to sites with profanity were allowed so long as the site's swearing was not hateful nor excessive. Less lenience for audio/video profanity than written words.

When linking to a site with some swearing, a warning would be included in the post.

If in doubt, PM a mod.




I have no idea when linking to The Onion, Fark, etc became an issue.

 

Back in the day, I don't think ***mouse was censored, either. The current trend seems to be towards stricter censorship.

 

Actually, I've done a little more research and I've changed my mind on the point I'd formed.

 

Back in my day, I had to mod uphill both ways, and posting drunk was frowned upon.

// shakes fist at tonyf