YJCC Mod Issue/ Policy Question

It rarely takes more than that to lock a thread, if there's something egregiously wrong with it.

If that's the case with a thread, it shouldn't take a complaint for it to be locked, and the complaint(s) should more or less be irrelevant.

In this case, the matter was discussed amongst several mods and then a decision was made

That doesn't necessarily mean there was much differing perspectives that were brought into the discussion. Were most participants in the discussion of like minds and views (meaning that they tend to agree about most things), or was there general agreement from those who sometimes or often disagree?

They may not understand why, but once the decision is made it's generally final.

Of course, but is it final regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular ban?

 

What he means is calm discussion and communication between member and mod is out of control 'rioting'.

We should just shut up and fall in line. Calm discussion is pointless. A few people have made their decision and of course, would never change it. Because they are as we all know, infallible.

 

In this case, the matter was discussed amongst several mods and then a decision was made. At which point, a riot has apparently ensued.

This, to me, is really no different than someone appealing a ban. They may not understand why, but once the decision is made it's generally final.

You of all people know better than to call this a riot. Unless you define a riot as the clear majority of users coming in an voicing their arguments clearly and logically against the decision.

So basically you had 3 newbie mods and 2 no-show mods discuss the matter about a user that they already feel gets away with too much (which for some reason they can't control) and talk the decision over with several other mods that are not neccessarily familiar with the forum. And you think that this decision should be final?

This is nothing like a ban, the TOS was not violated and the JCC rules which are never enforced could be read to allow this, given common sense were involved.

Everyone here seems to get it except the JCC mods.

 

I see. So the people who complain aren't a part of the community.

What the hell? Of course, they're a part of the community, but just because they complain doesn't mean the management team jumps to change something. Do lock every thread that someone complains about, dp? No, I would hope you use common sense. Is that too much to ask from our leaders rather that running around locking threads that are no more a TOS violation or violation of the community "rules" than a "Look at the color of my poop!" thread?


In this case, the matter was discussed amongst several mods and then a decision was made. At which point, a riot has apparently ensued.

Not really. A previous mod made the decision to allow these threads provided the previous one was locked. No problem was stated by anyone until after the mod that approved it left.

 

Jeez, what a crock of ****. The JCC is made for Ignant's threads. The "Facts" are about the only thing I read there, and as a long time user I and casual lurker in the JCC i can tell you nothing is more offputting than a thread with 3,000 replies to it. At the pace that JCC moves it makes sense and hurts no one that a new thread is started each time, as long as previous versions aren't cluttering up the board.

My reccomendation, despite whatever they tell you Ignant, is to wait until your last one sinks 5 pages, then go ahead and create a new one. If you guys want to get technical with guidelines, it can work both ways.

 

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.

Um... there's a mild difference between moderating a messageboard forum (and especially the SOCIAL subcategory of said messageboard forum) and enforcing speed limit laws which are governed by state statutes, and in some cases, can mean life or death due to reckless driving.
I don't think I'm being too harsh when I say, "Get some perspective".
My point is, the rules were allowed to slide for a VERY long time in this instance, and no one was hurt by it (in fact, some Mods *endorsed* the previous course of action by Ignant and company). However, it's recognized that there is a rule, and it will be enforced in the future. To enforce it in this instance is petty, trivial, and anal-retentive.

It's like law statutes enacted by the US Government -- if a law is suddenly passed that states that it's illegal to wear blue shirts on tuesdays, it is unconstitutional to suddenly start fining and imprisoning people because they wore blue shirts on tuesdays before the law was enacted.
Same thing here. It makes no sense to enforce this law in this specific instance when it was apparently "okay" to let it slide for the past 37 iterations of the thread.

As long as there is only one thread on the first page of the JCC 95% of the time, does it make much of a difference? It isn't like there are always 5 of the "Things you didn't know..." on the first page at all times. In this case, with individual threads, there's typically only one on the first page. With a long thread, there'd only be one on the first page. Since I'd venture to say 90% of JCCers don't venture off of the first page (and the majority of the 10% who do are looking for a specific thread to up), I don't see a difference. Especially if the old threads are locked around the same time as the new one being posted.

EXACTLY! That's precisely what I've been saying. Who really cares if there's multiple threads, if there's only one on the first page of the threadlisting and all the older ones get locked anyway? It makes more sense to have multiple threads, in this instance.

Guys, really, this kind of thing is just ridiculous. It's a community forum. Let people have fun as long as they aren't trolling or causing trouble. These threads aren't a big deal and if people are truly disturbed by them, they should go outside and ride a bike, to get their perspective on life back.

Thank you - that's what I've been saying.

 

Kate, I would have informed you of this thread, but you killed out PM convo. I assume old age caused you to forget it.

DP, it troubles me greatly that when a decision is made it's final. That really doesn't promote te idea that this is a community, that we all have a voice.

 

DP, it troubles me greatly that when a decision is made it's final. That really doesn't promote te idea that this is a community, that we all have a voice.

What if the decision was made because of an evaluation of user feelings. Wouldn't that make it better?

And bannings: since when did the community ever get involved in those?

 

I only have a moment (as I'm still at work and waiting for some reports to print), but I want to respond to one thing.

It's like law statutes enacted by the US Government -- if a law is suddenly passed that states that it's illegal to wear blue shirts on tuesdays, it is unconstitutional to suddenly start fining and imprisoning people because they wore blue shirts on tuesdays before the law was enacted.
Same thing here. It makes no sense to enforce this law in this specific instance when it was apparently "okay" to let it slide for the past 37 iterations of the thread.

Your analogy fits almost perfectly with what did happen.

Ignant was not told that he would be punished for any of the 36 previous threads that were started before the decision was made. He was asked to limit them in the future to a single thread.

No one is trying to make this decision ex post facto, but the fact that it was allowed through #37 does not mean that it must be allowed beyond that if the policy changes (to make it more consistent with similar threads).

Kimball Kinnison

 

Error, the decision was made with no regard to the actual rules. No new rule wa smade, the threads did not violate any existing rule, the only failure was on the MS which, because of incommunication, managed not to realize they'd have to actually do the stuff Katya was doing before she left.


That's not necessary.

 

"What if the decision was made because of an evaluation of user feelings. Wouldn't that make it better? "

Absolutely. I'm not saying mods shouldn't make decisions, but when a decision is made that is so horribly against what the community wants, they should reverse. As was the case with 3SA being made semi-private


"And bannings: since when did the community ever get involved in those?"

Sorry, I don't see what bannings have to do with this, really.

 

Absolutely. I'm not saying mods shouldn't make decisions, but when a decision is made that is so horribly against what the community wants, they should reverse. As was the case with 3SA being made semi-private

It doesn't seem like anyone would MIND the threads being condensed, except for the author who cites "laziness" as the factor.

Just a theoretical barrier to entry by new users vs. the actual complaints the mods have received.

 

Please explain the reason for the complaints.

An "actual" complaint isn't automatically a valid one and saying what the complaint is does not violate any secrecy clause you pretend to abide by.

 

No, not just laziness (did I say that, can you link?) or the barrier, but also because each is a different topic, and I've found that each genertaes it's own discussion, largely independent to that thread.

But I don;t really see what this has to do with any of what I said.

Also, if you read this thread, and the one I linked to, you'll see the author is not alone. A majority of people do prefer the threads being seperate. You saying something doesn't automatically make it so.

 

but also because each is a different topic,

Each IS NOT a different topic.

Each is about the same topic: AmazingB and his amazing deformities (or piercings, etc.)...

 

And again if you simplify things, all the movie topics belong in one, ll the sports belong in one etc etc.

The fact is, if I didn't say these were about AmazingB, that they were about me, and I didn't use similar titles, it would not be an issue.

And please answer Farraday. i too am interested in the types of complaints, and the number. because looking at this thread at the YJCC one, there doesn't seem to be much negativity at all.

 

Let's lock every Anakin Skywalker or Darth Vader-related thread in the movie forums and make them post in one "Official Anakin/Vader thread" - they all have the same subject, right?

 

At 50 threads per page, there are currently 6 threads about single food products.

Now explain to me why AmazingB threads should be combined, but there is no need for an all encompassing food thread. And use small words, because I'm rather dumb, despite being delightfully eloquant

 

Let's stop the sarcasm. NOW. It's not going to help anything on either side.

Keep things professional here.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't think there is any sarcasm. I know there isn't on my part, and I'm pretty sure Jeffffff wasn't being sarcastic.

 

> Let's lock every Anakin Skywalker or Darth Vader-related thread in the movie forums and make them post in one "Official Anakin/Vader thread" - they all have the same subject, right?

That's what happens in 3SA. One of my threads there getting good replies was swiftly locked and deleted, and I was told to repost it in the "official humour thread". Of course once I did that it got ZERO replies. Another great thread by deltron zero was also locked and deleted after several days of good activity, though the reason was never discovered except there was already an **official thread** on the character that Deltron's thread was about.

Naturally I don't post in 3SA any more.

I'd hate to be forced to abandon the YJCC too, due to rules that kill discussion and don't actually 'improve' anything being overzealously enforced.

 

If trying to point out the flaw in logic that resulted in this decision by comparing it to how silly it sounds when applied to threads in different forums is considered "sarcasm", then I'm guilty as charged.

 

It doesn't seem like anyone would MIND the threads being condensed, except for the author who cites "laziness" as the factor.

I would mind them being condensed, for the reasons I stated above, that making a new thread every day keeps them small and less intimidating.

I believe other people have said the same for the same reasons.

 

Jeff, its a completely different topic, IMO. The JCC threads are about another user, and the movie forum threads are about the films--and these are Star Wars boards. Of course we'll get a lot of threads about a character from Star Wars. These aren't the AmazingB boards, and therefore it is not necessary to have a bunch of threads about him.

To be honest, I don't go in JCC much anymore, but it seemed as if almost every time I did go in there, one of Ignant's AmazingB threads was up on the first page. I asked Maulfly why they were allowed to keep being posted, she said it was something that had apparently been decided before she was promoted.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

"To be honest, I don't go in JCC much anymore, but it seemed as if almost every time I did go in there, one of Ignant's AmazingB threads was up on the first page."

One of them. If they all were in one thread, there's a chance that that one thread would be on the first page. Right up there with the BYS, Dark Lords, Geriatric Ward, Lightsiders, etc.