YJCC Mod Issue/ Policy Question

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Darth_Ignant, Mar 29, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    the older threads shou;ld have bene locked definately. I willingly call Ignant on that for presuming that Katya's actions in working swiftly and unobtrusively in locking the old thread would be continued by other mods.

    He should have realized that the mods failure to lock days old threads which weren't being upped would translate into immediate usernotes for him for daring to act as if things hadn't changed.

    Bad Ignant, bad!

    Two very distinct styles I see then. One where the mod would see a new thread wa sopened and lock the old unused one, and tow where the mod would see a new thread was opened, go back to check if the old one, now unused, wa slocked, and if not come back and slap down the thread creator.

    You know with all the coverage issues we're having it's amazing they have the time, since we aren't paying them and all.


    Edit// The only thing I like betterthen someone bringing thread caps back into the JCC is someone trying to use them invalidly to abck up a struggling arguement.

    The original JCC thread cap, the only one that was enforced, stated that threads would be restarted by their 5000, post. In practice this generally meant that right about 5000, or slightly above, the thread would start a new one and the old one would be locked. No one really cared which order that occured a slong as the time period wasn't exessive.
    I'd also point out that given the ease of seeing when it was coming up a mod could be there to do it without being PMed.

    The thread cap was just that, a cap, not a floor. There was nothing that said threads couldn't restart except at 5000. There was nothing that said if you start a new one even a moment before the old one was locked you'd be smacked around. No, for all the complaints it caused it was really a benevolent exchange, except of course when the users rather refused to restart.

    Anyways, as that coutns ehre, no one has ever said you have to have x000 posts in a thread before you restart. If you want to whine that ignant didn't tell anyone blame Katya for not requiring it before she did what was obvious to her, or blame the current mods who refuse to do anything unless told, or blame yourselves for modding them.
  2. FateNaberrie Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2000
    star 6
    So you, by definition then, believe that there should be mandatory thread caps and reboots. For example, the WWF thread in the JCC should be restarted immediately since it's intimidating and cliquish, right?

    No. No no no no no. You misunderstand. Large cliquish threads are fine, part of the nature of JCC and will always be there. But the AIM of creating a new B thread every day rather than consolidating them is to keep fresh blood in the discussion, to prevent the intimidation of large thread in this instance only. That does not mean that anyone wishes to outlaw large clique threads at all.
  3. Darth_Ignant Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 24, 2001
    star 7
    "He should have waited for the old thread to eb locked before starting the new thread. "

    I asked you to lock it. You refused. Isn't that against JC policy? What the hell are you doing?
  4. Darth Dark Helmet Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 6
    Both threads are now locked, where do I go for my daily dose of Amazing?
  5. FateNaberrie Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2000
    star 6
    WTH? Um, you refused to lock the thread and then told him he couldn't start a new one until the old one was locked? That's like telling a kid he can't have dessert until he finishes dinner and then NEVER SERVING HIM HIS FREAKING DINNER.

    So you've decided it's best to just undermine everything the JCC mods have agreed to in this thread?
  6. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    I asked you to lock it. You refused. Isn't that against JC policy? What the hell are you doing?

    You had already broken the compromise.

    As I said then, I am leaving the new thread locked until Bria and the other JCC mods can deal with it. Just because there are no JCC mods on right now doesn't mean that you can just ignore policy or the compromise.

    Kimball Kinnison
  7. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    farraday: epic, the precedent has been set already, are you really saying large threads should follow different rules then small ones?

    no.

    Fate: Actually, no. The other large threads in JCC cannot be split up like this one into distinct and unique topics. There is more than enough reason for these threads to be separate whereas it would be difficult nigh impossible to split up the Blue Yoda Society or GTKY thread.

    but the examples i gave, the baseball thread and your lunch thread, could be split up into various topics.

    That's the point though. They haven't missed anything that's imperative to the new and unique discussion. They may have missed other, unrelated facts about AmazingB, but they aren't missing out on anything that will help them in discussing today's new topic.

    and they, as new users, are meant to know this? even if the other threads' content are irrelevent, there is still a history of threads in which they have missed, that pertain to the current one, that older users know about, and which they, as new users, cannot hope to catch up on. the "compromise" of locking all previous threads only exasperates the problem. compromise indeed.
  8. FateNaberrie Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2000
    star 6
    You had already broken the compromise.

    Didn't we decide that was an honest mistake? He assumed #37 had been locked because of all the hubbub.

    Just because there are no JCC mods on right now doesn't mean that you can just ignore policy or the compromise.


    And just because you don't like what the JCC Team decided on doesn't mean YOU can just ignore policy.
  9. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    farraday: epic, the precedent has been set already, are you really saying large threads should follow different rules then small ones?

    no.


    So you're saying large threads should not be allowed to restart?

    Am I missing a fundamental difference between amazing fact 37 and the pants side of the nipple ring version 4.0?
  10. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Didn't we decide that was an honest mistake? He assumed #37 had been locked because of all the hubbub

    His assumption was wrong, and he has been told to wait for one of the JCC mods to take it from here.

    And why would he assume that it had been locked? The cause of the fuss was that he was told to limit it to the 37 thread, not that it was going to be locked. It's hard to limit it to that thread if it were locked.

    And just because you don't like what the JCC Team decided on doesn't mean YOU can just ignore policy.

    He broke the policy, and I dealt with the immediate infraction. From there, I am leaving it up to the JCC mods themselves to decide the next course of action.

    With that said, I have to get to class and my place of employment. I consider this matter closed until one of the JCC mods is available to deal with it.

    Kimball Kinnison
  11. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    So will that be this week or next?
  12. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    No. No no no no no. You misunderstand. Large cliquish threads are fine, part of the nature of JCC and will always be there. But the AIM of creating a new B thread every day rather than consolidating them is to keep fresh blood in the discussion, to prevent the intimidation of large thread in this instance only. That does not mean that anyone wishes to outlaw large clique threads at all.

    The "large, cliquish threads" you refer to have names: social threads.

    E.g. Dark Lords, Dantooine Base Bonanza, Geriatric Ward.

    What are being posted about Teh B are not social threads. They are threads in the vein of the WWF thread, or the MLB thread, etc.
  13. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    So you're saying large threads should not be allowed to restart?

    i missed your point.

    Am I missing a fundamental difference between amazing fact 37 and the pants side of the nipple ring version 4.0?

    the difference is that the large threads (eg: MLB discussion), incorporate what could be many numerous small threads of discussion. once this thread reaches a large amount, say your 5000 limit, it could be re-started. however the following thread could then link to the previous. in anycase, these "changeovers" would occur infrequently, not every day or so as is the present case with ignants threads.
  14. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    Except 5000 is the upper limit and there is no lower limit. If they wanted to restart every 1000 there would be nothing in the rules against that.

    Since the mods have abandoned a strict thread cap they've no cover for telling users when they can restart their thread without a new rule, which I'd love to see them enforce the 12 hours a day they're here.
  15. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    Now, let's look at what the JCC rules say about this subject. In the "Don'ts" section, it says, "Don't...Spam: filling the forums with unnecessary or irrelevant posts. ... Start Redundant Threads ... Start Individual User Appreciation Threads."

    As a point of clarification, those are by no means the "rules" of the JCC. That was lifted from the "Guide to Better Posting." It's always been a suggested guideline than hard and fast rules. Besides which, that JC definition of spam is no longer used, or at least it's not supposed to be. Spam is advertising. And really, if you're going to lock threads for "unnecessary or irrelevant posts" than you have a whole lot of work to do in the JCC, not to mention a whole lot of users to ban. And a thread about another user is not automatically an appreciation thread.

    Amazing.
  16. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    the difference is that the large threads (eg: MLB discussion), incorporate what could be many numerous small threads of discussion.

    For example:

    MLB 2004 thread includes:
    - dp4m's Official Yankees Thread
    - dp4m's Official "I Hate Teh Sox" Thread
    - KW's Official "I Hate dp4m Hating Teh Sox" Thread
    - KW's Official Diamondbacks Pwn J00 Thread
    - The Official JC Fantasy Baseball Thread
    etc, etc, etc.

    All of those COULD be seperate threads, as they'd all have wildly varying thoughts on matters. But we incorporate it all into one thread in the spirit of conversation with one another. Y'know... like what a messageboard is for?
  17. UK Sullustian Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 18, 1998
    star 4
    The obvious answer is to fire Santa and bring back Katya.

    UKS©
  18. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    farraday, it still doesn't work. the MLB discussion, if re-started (at 1000 posts, 500 posts, whatever) would remain discussing baseball. it would continue to discuss many individual topics pertaining to baseball. in the current case, each new "re-starting" is a new topic. that is a difference.

    if there was one thread about things you didn't know about amazingb, and each day a new fact was posted, and after a month or so it got to like 2000 posts, it would be fine to re-start it. there is a fundamental difference, though, between that scenario and the present one.
  19. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    No there isn't unless you're makign value judgements that long threads are better then small ones. Which you already said you didn't want to by saying you think they should follow the same rules.
  20. DarthBane420 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 13, 2003
    star 5
    Well what I brought up earlier is still valid.
    Syntax you are saying since there has been a precedent set that Amazing threads are cool then it's ok to have them but anyone else who wanted to do a fact a day about themselves could not since the mods have now ruled, that's not true.
    If the speed limit decreases on your road just because you used to be able to drive faster that does not mean you still can, and vice versa. Current law stands and is applied to all users, we can't have different sets of standards for different users.
    The problem with this situation is that it opens the door for anyone in the Jcc to start doing fact a day threads.
    So far we have not addressed that problem.
    Really once again I kind of like these threads but it does set a very dangerous precedent going forward.
  21. AmazingB Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jan 12, 2001
    star 7
    All of those COULD be seperate threads, as they'd all have wildly varying thoughts on matters. But we incorporate it all into one thread in the spirit of conversation with one another. Y'know... like what a messageboard is for?

    Or we could include the MLB thread, the NFL thread, and the NHL thread in one all-encompassing sports thread.

    What I don't understand is why threads that people enjoyed are now being clamped down on. They didn't cross the family friendly line. All they dared do was become popular and enjoyable, so it's time to act!

    And there seems to be some sort of worry of double standards. Double standards can't exist on a presumption. You assume the threads are being treated different because of the users involved, but there hasn't been an example of another user trying the same thing and having it locked. Of course, if they were to try it, I'm pretty sure the bizarre parody thread rules of the JCC would be invoked. It almost seems like punishing the idea of original threads.

    As for precedent, which keeps coming up, as I understand it one user said they were going to complain about the threads because apparently the existence of these threads was terribly detrimental to his enjoyment of the JC. One user and the mods acted. Is this how things work now? If there are threads that I don't like, can I complain about them and get them locked?

    Amazing.
  22. farraday Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2000
    star 7
    New threads would mostly violate the parody rules. But of coruse they'd have to be taken on a case to case basis. A user who starts a new thread every day on something, as long as the old one becomes locked or unused, is not inherently a bad thing. I imagine the actual useage by some members would violate a rule though.
  23. Thraxwhirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 14, 2002
    star 5
    forgive me if one or two of the points I'm about to make have been covered. I'm regrettably in a hurry, and had to skim over a little of this, but, my two cents' worth is as follows:

    Agree about Shorty's rants. I personally have no objection to them if they're free of harsh language and adult content, but they are spam-tastic when all's said and done, and I don't see how they could be seen as less inappropriate than Paul's succession of threads about you-know-who. They're either both ok, or both unwelcome.

    Ditto the countless threads about how this or that actor/actress/pop star is "teh sexiness"(complete with pictures). They never stay exclusively dedicated to the author's choice anyway, since numerous posters want to argue that their fave celeb is "teh sexier" and show a picture to back it up.

    If it's advisable that we have one thread for Paul's series of facts about our distinguished friend, instead of numerous ones, couldn't we have a rule that all this-or-that celeb is a 'hotty' business is kept in two threads(one M, one F)?

    Speaking for myself, I'd far rather have countless threads of dubious info about a JCer or JCer(s) than dozens that have nothing to say except "cor look at him/her", and are nothing but pictures which I could just as easily find on Google, and which, frankly, are a pain in the backside if you don't have broadband. At least Paul's threads aren't irksome on the bandwidth.

    What about 'upping' threads which are blatantly unnecessary? For example, look at the one on "Saruman"'s assassination the other night. My mouse is pretty knackered, so going and locating/providing a link is difficult(if anyone else wants to, go ahead). Point is, after the author had been told of his error(ie. "we've already had two of these"), said author tried but failed to lock it. Whereupon it was constantly 'upped' by spamming to point out that it was spam. INCLUDING a post by a mod, which I personally felt was not a good example of how to behave as a mod, and the example to set to us 'mortals'. Well, where's the difference between doing that, and starting a new thread on a covered or similar topic while letting the old one sink?

    I myself, in that instance, tried to explain to the author how he/she could lock it during the first 30 mins, and was, I must confess, shocked to note a passing mod spamming in it, rather than locking it, which the author him or herself had wished.

    In the end, a different mod locked it.

    But, is there really any difference between upping redundant threads with a pointless spam that offers no worthwhile contribution, or starting a new thread upon an 'ancestral' topic or forebear once the previous has died and is no longer receiving posts?

    My solution would be to suggest this... allow any user to follow up a thread with a successor if and when the old one's out of date and been locked so that they are not both eating up page space on page 1 or 2.

    The way to do it? Well, is it possible to extend auto-lock time(ie. 'auto' as in 'by the author' as in 'autobiography', rather than 'automated'), to an indefinite period?

    If Paul were able to lock each Fact thread before starting a new one(even if it were several hours after the first post), then it wouldn't be a problem.

    And no, I'm not just asking for Paul's sake, or my own as a fan of said series of threads, but Shorty et al, with these 'by-and-large-the-same-tuff' threads could do the same.

    Might encourage thread authors to be more responsible. I for one would lock my own several hours/days later if appropriate(for example if spammed so far off topic as to become unrecognisable and perhaps even contraversial).

    Indeed, it would encourage posters at large to stay on-topic if the author could lock the thread if they don't.

    Of course, they'd be those who deliberately throw threads off, so as to annoy the author, but you'll get that anyway, and it is - always has been - the duty of mods to dis
  24. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    No there isn't unless you're makign value judgements that long threads are better then small ones. Which you already said you didn't want to by saying you think they should follow the same rules.

    one long thread encompassing many small threads of the same intent is better. i don't want to see a new baseball thread concerning one, new baseball issue every day. i don't want to see a new thread every day telling me what new thing fate has eaten for lunch that day. i would rather one large thread that encompasses many details and topics relating to baseball, and i would rather see one long thread that details what fate has eaten that day, and every day. which, funnily enough, are currently found in the JCC. this is the precedent i'm talking about.

    (note: i really could care less about baseball or what fate has eaten, but that isn't my point)

    Amazing: What I don't understand is why threads that people enjoyed are now being clamped down on. They didn't cross the family friendly line. All they dared do was become popular and enjoyable, so it's time to act!

    yes, because all the threads currently being left open in JCC are not being enjoyed by anyone.
  25. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Or we could include the MLB thread, the NFL thread, and the NHL thread in one all-encompassing sports thread.

    That's where it breaks down though.

    Individual sports can be broken out into their own threads (e.g. MLB, NFL, NHL, etc.) because you can't really compress all sports discussion into one thread. However, all threads on ONE sport could be condensed into one thread.

    Just like all threads on ONE user could be condensed into one thread.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.