[ToS Clarification] ROTS Forum - Social Thread

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Kavic_Toth, Jun 24, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Why is that unreasonable?

    It does apply to the entire JC.

    However, its practical interpretation and what's allowed varies between forums. The Senate allows (and was intended for) a different kind of discussion than the JCC, and it shows in particular with religious discussion. The Senate allows full-fledged discussion and debate of religion, while the JCC generally keeps it at a modest to light level. Anything more than that gets kicked over to the Senate.

    I'd say it's clear that the ROTS social thread doesn't allow for as much latitude as it might in another forum, or with a different group of regulars. The moderators have to work with what they're given, and so they have.

    If rule is made it should be enforced in all forums and threads.

    That's inflexible and rigid. Moderators should be able to think outside the box and be flexible whenever possible and reasonable. If a certain issue, thread or forum requires a different standard, so be it. I outright banned discussion of evolution in the Senate during much of my time as a moderator there, because of how such discussions inevitably turned out. Discussion of Islam was always closely watched, and I didn't allow as much leeway with that subject. Why? Because both subjects were far from ordinary.

    As I mentioned, an easy alternative is just to shut the thread down entirely. That would make things much easier for all involved, I'd say.
  2. PrincessKenobi New Films Manager of DOOM

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 6
    No, actually it wouldn't. It would make modding ROTS that much harder. As someone who has been a Spoiler board regular since 2000, I can say the Social Thread has helped maintain a level of sanity between the constant bickering.

    And I will repeat what I said last October when the thread was locked because of things that happened. What a lot of the Regulars there now don't realize that 2SA or PSA at the time had 3 Social Threads and other threads heading along that way. I remember 2 of the threads because I posted in them. The Cantina and the Beardi Knights thread there was another but it is long forgotten to the relems of time any oldbie that does remember please feel free to add the name.

    Anyway one day in October of 2000, an event had occured that involved me and a troll attacking me. Spefically talking about doing things to me that was well inapporiate. In all 3 of these social threads. Well people were outraged and began attacking back. Because thats what we did back in the day we lashed out. Well long story short, Vertical came in and locked all 3 Social threads that day.

    We begged and pleading to get it back then. He agreed on the grounds that there was only one thread. Which went thru many names before it became the GIL. Personal fave still The Jedi Knights Club, the fastest growing social thread in one day and locked in one day because of how fast it grew. No one could keep up with it. Anyway Vert agreed as did the rest of 2SA mods that the social thread was needed to keep other threads from becomming Social.

    Because after a while thats what threads do, they gain certian members who show up to it everyday and they talk. Not about the subject anymore but about life and what not. Anyone around back in 2000 and beyond have been thankful for the haven that the Social Thread brought us. If it be a bad day and we needed a pic of a hawtie to make us feel better to having great news and wanting to share it with all of our Spoiler Social buddies.

    Closing the thread shouldn't be an option as much as the 3SA mods would love that. It would create more problems then necessary. Some say PK you should just shut your mouth, you're way to close to the situation and fighting for something over senitmental reasons. Which yeah I am way to close to the situtaion. And when the thread comes under attack I do get upset about it. Because it does mean a lot to me. But I personally am a great reason along with some of the other users as to why it shouldn't be closed.

    And personally though like I said before, there needs to be a general rule thru-out the boards to make it more uniformed. I'm not saying don't think outside of the box. But take in consideration where the userse in question post most the time anymore. I find myself posting more and more in the JCC these days with my usual good morning post in the Opera house. Point being, I can link a pic of a hawtie in any thread there or a gif and not get in trouble for it, if it relates to the thread.

    So whats to say I don't find that gif or pic particularly awesome and I want to share with my ROTS friends in the Social Thread. What am I going to do, I'm going to link it or post it there. Am I going to think twice, no. Why? Because I can do it on the JCC boards why can't I do it in the Social Thread which in a way is an extension of the JCC in ROTS. So I'm going to post that image to be like ha look I thought this was funny or cute or whatever, to my friends there who don't venture outside of 3SA that much.

    ~PK~
  3. carmenite42 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 21, 2003
    star 4
    Things that don't make sense to me:

    Why you can say SOL but not WT*

    What is considered "excessive star swearing"

    Why it is a problem that someone got banned for doing something after a mod told them not to

    Why people think it's okay to flame someone, but use *s to hide it


    I'm sure there are other things, but that's all for now.

    Thx.
  4. PrincessKenobi New Films Manager of DOOM

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 12, 2000
    star 6
    Disregard issue clarified elsewhere.

    ~PK~
  5. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    The pic was not simply of girls kissing. They had their pants down and one had "Seymour Butts" written on her rear. Hardly "just girls kissing."

    edit - nevermind. Sinister cleared it up in the thread.
  6. Jack1138 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2005
    star 5
    Well, after reading this whole thread,

    What exactly is the problem again? I'll post whatever I want. If a mod says "don't do that" I wont. I might question the reasoning behind it and disagree, but I'm not going to continue to post it.

    Now how hard is that? :)
  7. DarthSapient Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jun 26, 2001
    star 10
    The thread over time has run well but was plagued with a small group of users doing inappropriate things repeadtedly that warranted constant moderator attention. It sometimes resulted in the thread being locked. Since the 2SA days we've asked where possible to limit images to Star Wars and if you must post an image, link it if you can. Pages and pages of animated gifs and pics in general bog down a thread and make things slower for those with dial-up.

    Regarding language, we have tried over the years to have that social thread not turn into something that could easily be a JCC thread. We've constantly stressed to try to talk here and there about Star Wars.

    Forums have different rules. The scantily-clad pics in RotS isn't appropriate. Heck, a lot of those are borderline okay for the JCC. Many of those you see getting edited or banned have long, recurring histories and it all stems from that thread. Some people never leave that thread and all they've done is cause trouble and get in trouble. As it is, the primary purpose of the thread to countdown to the release of Episode III is over and it serves as a continual source of needing to be watched and moderated.
  8. G-FETT Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    This thread has been an on-going problem since I was a moderator and well before I was a Moderator, infact. Many of the drama's this Message Board has experianced with various off-shoot groups, have started in the Social Countdown thread. The primary reason for keeping the Social Countdown Thread was because it was a historic thread that harkened back to the 2SA. Now that ROTS is out and we no longer actually have a Social Countdown Thread, I think it may well be time that we start looking at whether the ROTS Forum actually needs a Social Thread anymore. If it becomes more of a problem to keep it running than to not mantain it, my own view (And I have no idea if my former Moderator friends agree or not) is that it should be closed sooner rather than later, unless behaviour shows dramatic signs of improvement.
  9. hitmbig Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 2004
    star 5
    This has gotten crazy. Why not just have board standards that all forums are to adhere too?
  10. G-FETT Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    Will some of the people who post in this thread ever actually adhere to the rules, though? For too long some people have assumed that the ROTS Forum Social Thread is a right. It isn't. Theres no rule that says the ROTS Forum has to have a Social Thread, it's just something that the mods have allowed for these last few years, mainly for historic reason's. But ultimatly it's not set in stone the the ROTS Forum has to have a social thread, and some people would do well to remember this.
  11. hitmbig Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 6, 2004
    star 5
    What I would like to know is why mods think their poop don't stink and can talk down to other users. Your '..some people would do well to remember this.' portion is blantant bully talk. Name names G-Fett.
  12. rhonderoo Former Head Admin

    Member Since:
    Aug 7, 2002
    star 9
    I'm confused. It looks like Sinister and those guys are not saying that starred out words are against the rules. In this case it looks like they were more being used to spam the thread, maybe just to tick the mods off. I could be wrong and often am, just an observation. :)
  13. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Riot Deterrent

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 7
    There are plenty of users who post in that thread on a consistent basis who don't post gifs or pics at all.

    I've done nothing but link since 2003, and once my links were considered less than appropriate, I have ceased even that.

    Why? Because I respected the way it was presented to us as a strain on dial up users.

    And I'm one of your textbook examples of a 'problem user'. [face_plain]

    Even gesturing toward perm-locking the ROTS Social Thread at this time (getting into is in this thread is pointless) looks like little more than 'teaching "some people" a lesson'.

    There are a lot of people who use that thread primarily and other threads sparsely, and to lock it on them when more than most have no posting problems (check their folders when you need toilet reading) is just cheap.

    I'm not telling you what to do, just to be aware what appearance it gives to start openly contemplating locking it at this point, no matter what positive, justifiable intention might be underneath the surface. There's a verse about that in the Bible somewhere... I just know it...
  14. Admiral-Snackbar-81 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2004
    star 4
    Man I go to sleep, and look what i miss.

    Notice, that it says ADMINISTRATION, not, not NOT MODERATION. There are layers. I'm a VP (shocked?), but just cuz the word president is in my title, after the word vice of course, does not give me the authoritah that the president/owner has. So that right there backs up the users when a mod on an ego driven power trip, or go out to get their first ban does the unjust.

    Next, Holding different threads, OR PEOPLE, accountable on different levels is bunk, pure pure bunk. Look at the FCC censorship of Howard Stern, when a CALLER, not HS himself, used a racist term, he got banned, but Oprah has a show discussing performing oral sex on someones anus? Is/was Michael Powell in charge here too? Moderation should not be case-to-case, cuz I've seen many a time a moderator baits, or flames, or violates TOS. But they NEVER get banned. [face_thinking]

    I agree with this statement, that some people believe they have risen above. Condescending talk is inappropriate regardless of your title. It just gives you a different title behind your back
  15. YodaJeff Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 18, 2001
    star 7
    "Notice, that it says ADMINISTRATION, not, not NOT MODERATION"

    Moderators and managers have long been considered part of the "administration".
  16. A Chorus of Disapproval New Films Riot Deterrent

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Aug 19, 2003
    star 7
    ... and with that... there goes three paragraphs worth of substantial points and views... [face_plain]
  17. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8

    Notice, that it says ADMINISTRATION, not, not NOT MODERATION. There are layers


    Everyone who is a moderator, manager and administrator is considered part of the administration, and always has been (so far as I know).

    Moderation should not be case-to-case, cuz I've seen many a time a moderator baits, or flames, or violates TOS

    Inappropriate behavior by a moderator is a separate issue, and you can always PM an administrator if you feel there's a problem.
  18. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    what Jeff and KW said.
  19. Siths_Revenge Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 27, 2004
    star 7
    Well, it just proves that no one in these forums gives a crap really anymore about the SW films, and just posts fluff. You guys are arguing over fluff. It's funny.
  20. Jack1138 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2005
    star 5
    And what I said. It was simple and to the point. Case closed. Questions?

  21. Darth_Daver Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 23, 2005
    star 5

    The spamming really only started after the warning. There were few starred-out words before that. It was in part to tick off the mods, because they were annoyed at being told they weren't allowed to do something which isn't against the rules of conduct.
  22. Admiral-Snackbar-81 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2004
    star 4
    funnest part about you people? you try to find one thing to criticize, then you discount everything else someone says

    I dont give a flying rats rectal cavity if someone was a mod 3 years before i was a member. If i'm supposed to know all your histories, then "read about the people who will be condescending *****'s to you" should be part of the TOS

    and u know, i interpret things differently. Considering how certain moderators twist any word in a TOS to fit their definition, why the hell can't i?
  23. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    Considering how certain moderators twist any word in a TOS to fit their definition, why the hell can't i?

    You can.

    Just don't expect anyone to take it seriously or otherwise give much credit to what you're saying.
  24. Jack1138 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2005
    star 5
    Say it again I will! This aint rocket science folks! There are many things among these threads that I do not agree with but I am not one to break the TOS. OK one time I did and I got banned and granted I was posting when I should not have been so I accept that.

    Thomas Jefferson once stated that revolution is good from time to time. We SHOULD express our disagreements here. It may not be a democracy and cannot be. But perhaps our complaints can be heard and considered in the MS. I have no ending for this so I take a small bow.

    =D=
  25. jedi_master_ousley Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 14, 2002
    star 8
    You're right.

    It would have been better for the users who did not understand the rules to PM a mod asking for clarification rather than to directly disobey the mods in the thread. But that'd make too much sense.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.