Why are the mods black with a line through?

If they didn't want to drum up support for their cause, they would quit without trying to force others into demoting them.

we already went over this a few posts back...

I'm sure more than a few could imagine what kind of chaos this place would be thrown into if they all resigned over this. While it might be the principaled thing to do, it would also punish everyone else.

 

"If the owners decided to, for example, shut it down, that would be what they wanted, but it obviously wouldn't be what's best for the people who make up this community."

Look, I do understand what you're saying here. I really do. But that is an abstract and emotional way of looking at it. "On paper," the JC is nothing but a message board that must be maintained by the owners and/or their proxies. They ultimately bear the burden of its existence. What is "best for the community" is secondary to what is best for them. And they are the only ones who can make the determination as to what is best for them. Because the JC, in its non-abstract form, is theirs and theirs alone, they are the ultimate arbiters of its value, and they are the only ones who can properly define its "best" path.

AYBABTU?

 

If you understand all that then why do you insist to accept it only as an abstract?

 

But, based on what I've seen so far, there's been a distinct lack of information and connection in regards to what goes into the JC.

From what I've seen, this is the bigger problem than the matter on the surface. Seems everyone's flipping out over a lack of communication and an arbitrary deadline.

We don't have a rogue admin, do we?

 

"If you understand all that then why do you insist to accept it only as an abstract? "

I'm sorry, but I don't guess I understand your question. I meant only that I understood Jeff 42's point of view. I just don't believe that is the proper way to define the issue.

AYBABTU?

 

I'm sorry, but I don't guess I understand your question. I meant only that I understood Jeff 42's point of view. I just don't believe that is the proper way to define the issue.

What I'm trying to say is, and I would guess Jeff 42 wastrying to say the same, is that this whole issue can be boiled down to owner/employee(volunteer), and what the owner says is "right", since he/she/they are the owner. That is not in contention. That is the abstract.

In the "emotional" view (as you put it), it is about something else, what is "right" for the community and for those that have dedicated thousands of hours to largely thankless volunteer work. In this view, just because someone is in power and has absolute control the decision or ultimatums they make may not always be the "right" choice. Rather than just give up and move on, those opposing the decision have decided to protest in the hopes of keeping their positions and reaching an agreement acceptable to all. If that doesn't happen the owners can toss them out and ban anyone who ever mentions them again after they install a puppet system. Everyone agrees, that is their right. It doesn't make it right, though, just because they are the owners. The JC means a lot to a lot of people, for better or for worse, and if you're talking about principles I think it is just as principled to stand up and protest in the face of crushing authority, "forcing" yourself to be demoted and possibly putting the owners in a bad light for doing something they shouldn't have been doing anyway, than it is to resign in protest.

I know you understand all this, so I'm curious as to why you choose to view this in only the abstract and not from the "emotional" point of view.

 

"I know you understand all this, so I'm curious as to why you choose to view this in only the abstract and not from the "emotional" point of view."

Ahhh... you are using one of the noun uses of 'abstract' and I am using the form that is primarily an adjective. I meant abstract in the 'apart from concrete existence' way. To me, that is the same as the emotional view. Sorry for the confusion.

"I think it is just as principled to stand up and protest in the face of crushing authority, "forcing" yourself to be demoted and possibly putting the owners in a bad light for doing something they shouldn't have been doing anyway, than it is to resign in protest."

But here you admit that this is about putting the owners in a bad light. Is that not a means through which others may be persuaded? Does that not contradict your assertion that "No mod tried to persuade me, and I haven't seen any others do so in this thread, so your comment has no basis, and it was irresponsible of you to make that accusation"? If not in this thread, don't their actions support my assertion?

AYBABTU?

 

But here you admit that this is about putting the owners in a bad light. Is that not a means through which others may be persuaded? Does that not contradict your assertion that "No mod tried to persuade me, and I haven't seen any others do so in this thread, so your comment has no basis, and it was irresponsible of you to make that accusation"? If not in this thread, don't their actions support my assertion?


Maybe I also wasn't being clear. I do not think that the mods are actively or even passively trying to cast the owners in a bad light. I think the actions of the owners will do that. If a mass resignation/demotion occurs, users WILL want to know why, and it WILL get out, probably soon. Then the owners will have to explain themselves. The reason I say they will be cast in a bad light is because, like I said earlier, I believe that 99.9% of the board population will side with the mods. No persuasion will be necessary. The absurdity of the reason will itself be enough.

This has PR nightmare written all over it. Can't wait to see the Mod Squad Update for March 2nd...

 

"I believe that 99.9% of the board population will side with the mods. No persuasion will be necessary. The absurdity of the reason will itself be enough."

And you may well be right about that. However, I don't necessarily think that the majority are "right" (even a vast one) just by virtue of being a majority. But here, I am thinking of "right" in an abstract way.

But if you and I, who really are outside this debate looking in, can see that the majority would be against it, I'll bet the owners see that too. Their assessment, therefore, must be that that is acceptable. I don't think the vast majority of users at the JC will be affected by any of this. People will still come to the movie forums and post. People will still show their asses in the Senate. And people will still find things to gripe about in Comms. Most users don't interact with mod on a day-to-day basis. Sure, they see the fruits of the mods' labors, but that may be achieved by any number of users beyond the current pool of mods. I believe that it is presumptuous and self-aggrandizing to assert, as Hawk did, that there is an insufficient pool of users available to fill the need. And I believe that is true even if that pool includes only those "qualified" (however that is defined) users who will also adhere to whatever demands made of them by the owners, no matter how seemingly willy nilly.

AYBABTU?

 

I'm glad to see the mods are standing up for what they believe in with this.

 

Despite your gripes with a few choice comments by a mod that may or may not have been appropriate (it's probably not the wording I would have used, but then I've never had to appoint a new mod), how do you rationalize supporting the ousting of a large number of GOOD mods who have proven that they care about the community and are willing to dedicate time and energy to volunteer work simply because they enjoy Star Wars?

Would you truly rather be in a board ran by a bunch of Wise-bots rather than a group of already accepted and effective mods that, despite what you may think, have established a rapport with many of the communities on the boards. These aren't just movie forum mods, there are Lit mods (which is a very tight collective) and Fan Force mods (you can't get tighter than that). This could potentially be the biggest crisis the JC has ever faced.

So why do you cling to the abstract "right"?

 

[Concerned parent voice] What are you rebelling against?[/concerned parent voice]

[James Dean voice]What have you got?[/James Dean voice]

In all honesty, I think it would help your cause if you took your 'protest' to the people it effects, (I assume that this disagreement with the PTB in in regards to something that affects the entire site?)

*Yes I find it ironic to be watching a 'protest' about board policy on the sidelines...* [Face=innocent}

 

Yes, I'm with Breezy on this one.

Besides, I think you guys need my passion for protesting/rebelling.

 

What I don't get is how this thread has generated so much discussion yet nobody that's not in the Mod Squad has any idea of what's really happening on the inside. So some of the mods have changed their colors to protest something. Earlier Jeff even admitted that this isn't the first time this has happened, but nobody's made a big deal about it before. Why now? For all we know this could all blow over by tomorrow.

 

"how do you rationalize supporting the ousting of a large number of GOOD mods who have proven that they care about the community"

But it isn't just an arbitrary ousting. It coincides with their failure to perform a task requested of them by the site owners. Now, I will not begin to try to tell you the reasoning behind this request. I do not understand it myself. But understanding is not always a prerequisite for performing an action, and it certainly isn't a prerequisite for performing an action in a workplace setting (if you'll grant me the stretch of calling the JC a workplace, in this scenario). "Employees" are not always in on the "big picture" view of a manager or owner. They may simply choose to perform the requested action or not. If they don't, then they will be "ousted," as you put it.

That isn't arbitrary. The rationale is simply that the employee did not do what was asked of him or her.

AYBABTU?

 

why do I get the feeling this is unnecessary drama that will blow over quickly?

 

That isn't arbitrary. The rationale is simply that the employee did not do what was asked of him or her.

But is that a valid rationale if the "employer" is wrong, despite the fact that they can do whatever they want with no financial or legal consequence?

I would say the course taken by the owners is morally and ethically wrong, and is also irresponsible. Since they are the owners, they can do this despite it being wrong in my eyes, and in the view of many, many others, were they to know the details.

The question to you is this: WHY support this course of action? What does the community stand to gain from this? How do the ends justify the means? How do the ends justify the DANGER?

 

> In all honesty, I think it would help your cause if you took your 'protest' to the people it effects

What, you think a Comms thread started by a non-mod, and some synchronised colours is the extent of the effort we're making to resolve the situation? Please.

 

Well, as a former mod, I'd just like to say that anything that can issue a formal declaration of viewpoints, such as changing the username style is just great. It's nice that mods still care deeply about the future of this place. It's changed soooo much since I joined, but it is still something I care deeply about.

Dialogue is a key aspect of progress.

 

I don't think that we should be prejudiced on an issue that so far has nothing to do with anyone who is not a current moderator or admin. with access to modsquad. We don't know whats going on and I don't think they plan to or need to inform us about this private issue.

(not pointed towards anyone, if you feel this is too harsh feel free to edit

Axl.

 

jp's right in a sense. This really has nothing to do with any of us that don't have colors. Well, not directly at least. Which makes the protesting more of a stunt than anything, to get some unaffected parties on their side.

 

Let me say that I agree with the mods who are protesting. I'm behind you guys (and gals), at least in spirit.

Rhett, trust me, I know where you're coming from, and I understand your argument. I also understand where the mods are coming from. I don't think that anyone is saying that TPTB shouldn't be able to make rules on their own site. However, "taking a stand" or "protesting" isn't really any different than arguing in Comms. The administration/staff has the right to make whatever crazy rules they want, but that shouldn't stop users from speaking up when they feel that they have been wronged, or when they feel that something should or could be improved or changed. It may not accomplish anything, and it may be more stressful and frustrating than keeping quiet and not saying anything. However, people like to have their voices heard, especially when they feel that they are fighting for what is right. TPTB have the right to refuse their requests, and to ignore their arguments.

In one sense, getting killed while fighting for your cause is more honorable than running away when the going gets tough. I know, you could argue that it means nothing, since you're dead. However, in this particular case, it appears that the end result may be the same, regardless of which course of action is taken. The mods really have nothing to lose by sticking it out and fighting for what they believe in. If they give up, they know what will happen. If they fight, there is a possibility, no matter how slim, that they may make progress.

 

well said...

 

Anyone want an image that reminded me of the situation, but diminishes the seriousness of the context of the image while inflating the real-life seriousness of the online conflict?

I thought so.

[image=http://www.historywiz.com/images/china/tanks.gif]



And YodaJeff is right.