Without being accused of being a drama monkey, can we please continue discussing the TOS?

Look, these threads fell in the subjective range, the moderator felt it should be locked, and you've seen outside moderators saying the same thing. We're at like 200 posts now between this thread and the last. You can't always come to a resolution on things. That is not always possible with this setting. Someone's thread was locked, a thread which fell more into the clear-cut case than grey area in my opinion and we're talking about violating Terms of Service? We did not steal a newborn child here, we locked a thread containing a few words you typed about word up posse to your mutha.

 

When you start Comms threads that are *very broad and non-specific* such as the interpretation of the TOS or spam, we get lots and lots and lots of posts, but we really don't get too far.

So you have a problem when people demand you respond to something broad and non specific but see no problems in forcing people to respond to you when your accusations and allegations are broad and non specific?

"This is spam" <---broad and non specific
"No trolling" <-- broad and non specific
"No flaming allowed" <--broad and non specific.

If you have a problem with it then why shouldn't we regular members?

I suggest the MS change their policy so they identify what part of a thread is trolling spam or flaming rather then just painting a whole thread with one brush and leaving the Users in the dark as to how the rules are being enforced.

 

I won't get roped into this one again by the baited comments. I've said everything I feel on this topic and I cannot believe it was restarted by the author after it was locked. And give me a break about not responding in Comms. My latest posts have been loaded with Comms posts since before the day I was promoted to watch over the forum. No offense, but what in the world was the author expecting to happen with posse to your mutha in dis house yo word up thread? Funny, sure. But come on. How many hundreds of posts do we need to have again before we realize the conclusion on those threads will be the same?

 

I'm not entirely sure why the "word to yo mutha" thread was closed.

In an instance like that, I think the less-controversial (and perhaps more reasonable) way to handle that is to simply edit out inappropriate posts, as opposed to condemning the entire thread.

Then again, I've always supported a more 'laid back' approach to Community than some mods.

Whatevah, yo.

Vert

 

Sape, If you feel you have to be a jerk to respond, please feel free to stop taking part in this thread. If, on the other hand, you want to actually act like a real mod and accept criticism and ideas, please stay.

You don't want threads in here that are overly broad and subjective? Well tough sith. The 'rules' you demand we follow are overly broad and subjective leaving us very little recourse when a mod says something like 'spam" and locks a thread.

How about providing a bit more explination?

 

unless you were to know that it was a joke, it looks like insulting other people at that level is totally allowed.

i disagree. and i will use this thread as an example. you have to look at the situation as a whole, rather than focusing on individual aspects. when you look at the whole picture, it should be clear to any reasonable and sensible JCer that the thread is a joke. i mean, come on, look at the thread title. look at the initial post. if someone takes that thread and the posts literally and at face value, then they might think it's "not nice". but when you think about it, even if you didn't know the people, it should be obvious that the thread is in good fun. there comes a time when you have to tell people who don't get it to relax, or clue them in, rather than taking action against what they've completely missed the point of. there is no reason to think that the average JCer thinks that it's ok to flame people.

The idea behind the TOS is that posters should agree to, essentially, "play nice" and "not be mean".

the TOS should also include the idea of people being reasonable and understanding that not everything should be taken at face value.

 

Farraday, I was 100% fully expecting that response from you. The moment you know you've got a mod engaged in a conversation with you, the next step is to twist it as if the mod verbally attacked the very core and essence of who you are.

I'll be lurking in this thread for awhile, but I can guarantee where it will be 800 posts later. It's not negative, it's being realistic. Sorry farraday, but I've seen too many of these broad topic Comms thread turn into basically between you and 1 or 2 others and you challenge and attack anything we say presenting mods as uncaring or unwilling to listen. Not today, I'll read more instead of posting on this one.

 

"the TOS should also include the idea of people being reasonable and understanding that not everything should be taken at face value."

The same could be said to the members. Be reasonable and understanding about the fact that the Administration is dealing with things that aren't cut and dry, and that if you don't bring your own good judgement to your posting habits, you will be defering the the judgement of the mods.

However, I agree with you that things should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Not every act of friendly ribbing should result in warnings.

But nor is every instance of friendly ribbing innocent of going 'too far'.

Vertical

 

Sape, thank you for completely ignoring my suggestion twice now.

Vert can you respond to it please?

 

Farraday, I responded many, many times to this thread and the previous one. In there, you will find consistent and repeated posts by me that answer your question. What this thread has become and the reason it's getting so big is because it's another one of those, "There's something wrong with the Terms of Service and the way mods interpret gray areas." Of course this thread will spin its wheels.

 

I don't think you actually read my post, or didn't comprehend it if you did.

Let me try again.

Part 1. 'Spam' 'Trolling' 'flaming' are overly broad.
Part 2. 'Overly broad' doens't help anything.
-This is true if it's a thread on the TOS or a comment on locking a thread.
Part 3. Therefore, if mdos want to avoid more of the post lock problems they should be more specifc as to the reasons for locking it.

I'm not sure I can break it up smaller.

 

I can certainly respond, but keep in mind I'm not actually a moderator any more...

The suggestion that moderators actually put a little more descriptive substance in their lock explanations is one that has been suggested and brought up many times in the past, and, in my memory, is one that has been met with concession by the Administration.

Most of the times the Administration agrees that more description in the posts would help alleviate some of the confusion and indignation at many of the closings.

While simply typing "spam" or "trolling" or "flaming" or "bad news" or something equally as dismissive and blunt is certainly an indication as to why the moderator closed any particular thread, it oftentimes does not fully describe what, in particular, about the thread was "spam" or "trolling".

This is a point that the Administration has conceded in the past, and should be nothing new. It's not an opinion, it's a fact - the more you explain things in-thread, the less you have to explain via PM or Communications later.

However, as is the case with a great many things on the forums, while the good intentions are there at the time of the discussion, the desire or incentive to actually put forth the effort decreases dramatically as time passes from the discussion.

While the best that could come of this is the Administration to once again re-assert that they do agree that more explanation would be good (it would, there's no argument over that point, really), I dare say I don't honestly think it would change much, unless the actual Administrators (as opposed to managers and moderators) start 'demanding' that moderators do this.

It's a question of priorities. Until more descriptive messages in thread closings become a priority, there will always (or at least regularly) be a thread in Communications where the members are griping about it.

So, the Administration can either deal with it on a thread-by-thread basis, or deal with it here.

I don't think anyone should be surprised that people are unhappy about the level of 'disclosure' or explanation in thread-lockings.

If the Administration continues to place this lower on the priority list, they'll have to continue to deal with threads like this.

Vertical

 

Well, we demanded mods to sign all unban requests. We can bring this up in terms of demanding more. But there it is again, what's more? That is subjective. You want a specific TOS clause, a paragraph, an essay like you see in here, a blurb, what do we require?

 

you could start by demanding all mods to respond to PMs.

but seriously, how do you keep them "in line"? do you just tell them to do things and then hope they do it? obviously, they don't always do it. what is the motivation for an unscrupulous mod to be ethical or do what they are supposed to do?

 

Well, that's something that can be determined as you go.

Perhaps start with just a few sentences. If the threads in Communications complaining about lack of detail continue, you're obviously not providing enough. So, write a paragraph. If that doesn't help, write more.

Although if a paragraph doesn't help, something tells me the person's not looking for an explanation, but rather an argument.

So, it's really up to you guys. Put as much as you like. Put as little as you like. But the less you explain, the more likely you are to have to come to Communications and explain it in a 200+ response thread, as opposed to doing so with a few sentences, and maybe even a PM to the author.

Vertical

 

Since this is bording on profane...

compared to

"Using 'beeyatch', as a term for another poster is not allowed, nor are 'mutha' and 'your mother jokes'"

Were those the reasons for locking the thread? I have no idea, all i know is that something in that thread bordered on the profane and it obviously was so pervasive it couldn't be edited out and required the thread to be locked.

As this is and has been for 3 pages (50 ppp) a free for all for users to insult one another, I'm locking this.

The insults by themselves were rather mild, some of the word choice however probably required some mod action.
In any case the majority of posts weren't anywher enear the line, some probably edged up agaisnt it and a few may have crossed over. In any case much of it is obviously in good humor while only a few posts would require mod attentions through PM or editting. A warning would probably more effective rather then calling the whole thing against the rules.

This thread crosses the line. If you have a problem with a thread being locked, or the TOS, either take it up with that mod, or in Communications.

Pretty good, but could be better.

Many of these posts don't cross the line, however too many do and if the only goal is pushing the line you're going to keep crossing it. If you want to know which parts are objectionable PM me, if you want to discuss the TOS in more detail please refer to Comm.


Would everybody be happy? Hardly. Would the mods have had less complaining? I'd say yes.

 

PiaS...
"you could start by demanding all mods to respond to PMs."

I have to hope this goes on. At the very least, even if that response is to pass someone along to a more qualified member of the administration, it should still be made.

I would think that one of the lowest expectations the administration would have for its moderators that PMs with respect to forum administration are being responded to.

That expectation is given all the more weight by the fact that the terms of service even say as much:

"In order to contact a moderator who can help you with your questions, simply check the "users online" page, and look for any user with a multi-colored name (there are, however, some 'VIP's' with colored names. Please click on the actual user's name to view his or her profile. If the profile says moderator, manager, or administrator next to their name, they can help you with your questions)."

Moderators should be answering PMs.

 

As I've stated in the Advisory Council, I think there's a lot to be said for Moderators moderating at the post level as opposed to the thread level.

Edit posts as they need editting, but be wary of locking an entire thread simply because you had to edit 3 or 4 of the posts.

Don't toss out the entire barrell if you find one bad apple.

Vertical

 

Moderators should be answering PMs.

is that a rule or a suggestion? if it's a rule then the rule is broken at times. if it's a rule then there should be sanctions for breaking it, just like there are sanctions imposed on regular members when they break rules.

Edit posts as they need editting, but be wary of locking an entire thread simply because you had to edit 3 or 4 of the posts.

Don't toss out the entire barrell if you find one bad apple.

EXACTLY. there's something to be said for "righting the ship" and trying to salvage a thread.

 

It's neither a rule, nor a suggestion.

It's common sense and decency.

Excuses can be given for those too busy to handle them, but then if one is too busy to handle it, it should be handed off to someone who can deal with it.

For example, in the Lit. forum, we have an informational thread where people can learn if a mod will be unavailable.

For example - when Gandolf took a hiatus at the end of last year, etc.

Although, you can go to the Terms of Service to see the level of expectation which is established for the Administration to handle any moderating-related issues:

"The Jedi Council Administration has the right but not the obligation to monitor and/or moderate the Forums, and offers no assurances in this regard."

Note, that the TOS has already established by way of precedent that it applies to PMs as well as forums.

So, you essentially have your "rule" that covers Moderators response to PMs.

 

What I'm driving at is look around the forums and you'll see 99.9% of the threads have a spcific topic, silly or not, a purpose and they tend to stay open. Take what you wrote and it's locked. You have moderators saying they agree.

Each of those threads had just as much of a purpose as this thread, yet that one is still open (NOTE: I am not asking for nor suggesting that that thread should be locked). Even the silliest threads have some purpose.

But I can't see what reason the posse/mutha thread should be open, or any of those for that matter.

But Erik said a couple of times that he didn't think the Posse thread should be closed, which brings us back to the whole issue of mod consistency.

This isn't to say that a jib every now and then in a thread here and there is going to be dealt harshly with, but definitely a whole thread

Actually, I would think a whole thread of a small group of posters going back and forth would be more obvious as an "all in good fun" type of thing rather than a random jib somewhere.

I agree that a rule with "unless they're friends" would be ridiculous, but I still say the mods of a forum should have a pretty good idea of who gets along with who.

In an instance like that, I think the less-controversial (and perhaps more reasonable) way to handle that is to simply edit out inappropriate posts, as opposed to condemning the entire thread.

Make that man a mod.

You want a specific TOS clause, a paragraph, an essay like you see in here, a blurb, what do we require?

Just an explanation. Vague terms like "spam," "inappropriate" and the like don't help. Thread lockings should be something of a learning experience so people don't keep doing the same thing over and over again. What is inappropriate or spammy about the thread that deems it lockable? That's all.

Edit posts as they need editting, but be wary of locking an entire thread simply because you had to edit 3 or 4 of the posts.

Don't toss out the entire barrell if you find one bad apple.

No, seriously, make him a mod.

Amazing.

 

Actually it is a rule, or a policy anyway. A few months ago I started a thread about mods answering PMs, and I believe the general concensus and policy was that mods are to answer any legitimate PMs, even if it is a simple "Acknowledged" or "OK".

 

"Spam" is not a vague term. It is a term that has several meanings, but none of those meanings are at all vague.

And in the context of this site, it is a term which has been defined fairly narrowly. One long-established, overall JC site definition from Welcome to the Forums is as follows:

QUESTION #6: What is "spamming"?

The act of filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts is considered "spamming". It is also considered spamming to advertise excessively for other websites. Posting unnecessary posts for any reason can be considered spamming and will get you a warning, and after that: banned.

And the spam definition most germane to this discussion is the JCC forum-specific definition:

Spam: filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts

These two definitions are neither contradictory to one another, nor vague in nature. And the JCC one is in fact an abbreviated version of the main site one.

Spam on the JC is a very simple and clear concept.

 

Yeah, but are unneccesary and irrelevant?

 

filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts

You seriously don't see how that's vague or subjective? How what one person sees as "unnecessary or irrelevant" can be exactly the type of thread that another poster enjoys most?

Anyway, this discussion seems to have turned quite productive, despite the fact that DarthSapient has said all he has to say on the matter. "I'm shocked."

And Vert, I could hug you right now.

That's all.