[YJCC]Satirical Threads

Now, there's been a recent dispute regarding a slavery satire thread, but that's only one facet of a larger issue. Where are we to draw the line between something that is intended in good taste and good humor and something that is completely and utterly insensitive?

An example of something tame on this issue would be a thread by Darth_Ignant, "I may be elitist, but..." An obviously humorous, tame thread. On the other side of the spectrum could be something glorifying contraband or terrorism. And then we have the borderline, with the aforementioned slavery thread being an example. Where is it that we draw the line? It's simply not enough to say that we draw it when the discussion turns negative-people can be aloof in hate discussions. Where is it that we get the difference?

In our supposedly "family-friendly" threads, how can we possibly justify threads discussing how many slaves one could have, but lock threads glorifying sex of minors, like Terpmaniac09's thread? It cannot be reconciled.

Mod feedback would be appreciated.

KK EDIT: This question as been answered. These sort of decisions will continue to be made on a case-by-case basis.

 

If you don't like it, get out. Would you rather see a thread on child sex open?

 

Well, when this place does nothing but stress family-friendly, and a simple question just wants to be answered, the typical and obligatory "get out" doesn't cut it this time.

 

I would rather see them both locked-that's why I said it was inconsistent, Master-Jacen. Why doesn't someone make a thread about raping your mother? If you don't like it, you don't have to enter after all...

 

If you don't like it, you don't have to enter after all...


So why do you keep posting in Ignant's threads, since you claim not to like them.

 

I claimed the exact opposite, Master-Jacen. Why do you even bother to respond to my posts if you only read half of them?

EDIT: I decided to make it easy on you and copy and paste what I said. I hope you'll be able to read it this time.

I normally enjoy Ignant's threads, but perhaps I'm too close to this one.

 

Where are we to draw the line between something that is intended in good taste and good humor and something that is completely and utterly insensitive?


That's a tricky question, because intent can be very difficult to determine. Also, what one user finds humorous is offensive to another. Unless something is clearly, beyond a shadow of a doubt offensive(for example, "I think we should re-institute slavery because I don't like black people" would be clearly offensive and not allowed), it's probably best to let the thread go and edit out inappropriate posts unless the thread degenerates and gets out of control.

 

I think that's a good policy in most cases, FamousAmos, so in that sense I agree. But what if the base topic may be offensive in itself, in whatever way discussion leads(unless it was saying something directly opposite to the 'evil', like "The Final Solution was the most evil thing ever").

 

I think that either falls under that category of "Clearly, without a doubt offensive" or one that is only offensive to a few. Basically, if the thread isn't completely and utterly offensive(see my earlier example), it should be left open until it degenerates into a problem thread.

 

The YJCC has always had very questionable threads posted over the years that don't get locked because they're supposed to be funny and even when that thread clearly goes past the PG rating of the site.

If it's funny it's okay to post what ever you want in that forum. That's the impression it gives off anyway.

 

Leave the moderating to the moderators and go about your business.

 

The slavery thread in question has alredy been discussed by the JCC mods, same with the ellitist one.

Threads like that are judgement calls, something we have to make a lot of as mods.

If we locked every thread that a few people found isulting or inappropriate, the forum would be incredibly boring.

And while sometimes I like to say "if you don't like it, don't post..."

What that really means is:

"If you cannot appreciate this topic and post in a rule abiding on topic fashion, do not post in the thread. Take any issues you have with the subject content to a moderator via PM. Posts demanding a thread to be locked are derailing posts, please remember that. Thank you very much and I hope you have a nice day."

But I am way too lazy to type that every time.

 

yeah, what driodeka says.

Read through the thread - it's not an attack on any particular group of people - it's a humourous thread about having a slave.

If the thread was "blacks should be slaves!", or "all women should obey their husbands no matter what!", then we'd have to lock as both threads are inappropriate. However, that just isn't the case - as far as I can see (I need to go back and check, I've just came online), the posts are light-hearted and humourous. No-one is belittling the african slaves of the past, nor is slavery being glorified.

I could post about how I'm a slave to my girlfriend's every request. Funny or offensive ?

There are two sides to everything in the JCC, and we (the mods) need to decide (case-by-case) what stays, and what goes. We'll never be able to keep everyone happy because there are people on both sides - all we can do is try and stay consistant, and keep as many people happy as possible.

General rule is, if it stays open, we think its alright.

edit ok, I've been back and read the posts since last night, and the biggest problem in that thread are the people (like the author of this thread) who are posting nothing but "LOCK THIS!" type posts (which is against the rules of the JCC).

Other people claiming that it is a racist thread ? How is it racist when no-one is mentioning race ? It is people like you who are turning it into a discussion on race, when that wasn't the original thrust of the thread.

How about people talking about having robotic slaves (like one of those automatic vacuum cleaners), or something from a sci-fi movie.

 

Like malkie said, the thread isn't aimed at any particular race or gender, and was going along fine until some people used it as an excuse to attach it to the injustices of black slavery. It isn't the author's fault that happened.

We decided the thread was originally light-hearted in nature, and we will edit inappropriate remarks as they happen.

 

Yes, the thread is racist. And Jango Fett being maori makes all mexicans look bad. Please press your sarchasm buttons now.

Slavery isn't about colour, and suggesting otherwise is racist at best and self-indulgent at worst. Race didn't even come into it when I made the thread. Maybe because I'm not racist, or maybe because I don;t see racism everywhere. Pick your poison.

 

But what if the base topic may be offensive in itself...

As my fellow mods have expressed, every person is offended with at least one thread. The obese thread has had a very interesting discussion going on for several days, yet some people think it's offensive. There's nothing wrong with having sarcasm in a forum. It's just that every one has different tolerances toward that sarcasm.

As mods, we try our best to make sure that the majority of threads stay within a realm where everyone can post and have fun - or have a debate. I can find at least 10 threads over my tenure here that have been challenged by users as "inappropriate" yet were left open (both before and during my time as a mod).

If you think a thread is questionable, PM one of us and discuss it. We're not oblivious to things going on in the forum. Each of the threads mentioned here were discussed by the mods so chances are, if you think a thread might be on the line, we're watching it.

 

I forgot to add: Family friendly does not mean politically correct. Understand the difference and you'll understand JC policy far better.

 

Ignant tipped his hand

 

Ignant, just what are you talking about? Never in this thread did I ever mention blacks, and in the other thread I only mentioned African American slavery in explaining why I felt I was close to the issue. Obviously you were expecting that to be the main argument, and consequently you jumped the gun. I said that my issue was with slavery repeatedly, and you taking it back to the race issue means that you are the one pulling the race card.

If I may quote myself from that thread, in response to a different user:

"I said the most recent of the slaveries that we readily recognize were by blacks. Yes, Romans, Egyptians, the Spaniards took slaves left and right from different cultures, but I specifically addressed that the topic is still inappropriate when general.

 

Or maybe that comment wasn;t addressed to you, but to people like comet who do jump on the race wagon. Could it be?!?!?!

 

Read through the thread - it's not an attack on any particular group of people - it's a humourous thread about having a slave. I just finished reading the whole thread and I agree.

Take it easier with the thread. If was a serious thread this thread would be in the Senate floor.

 

Is Comet here, Ignant? Is Comet even going to read this? Has anyone who's posted in here "jumped on the race wagon"? Is the "race wagon" even relevant, then?

EDIT: Edited in deference to the Admin.

 

Don't start assuming what other peoples' intentions are. It's not your place to do such things, and making a discussion on policy personal like that (by making accusations) does nothing to solve any problems that may exist.

Keep to the issue of the thread, and stop with the personal remarks and accusations.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Suzuki...
"Where are we to draw the line between something that is intended in good taste and good humor and something that is completely and utterly insensitive?"

This is a silly question, as you answered it already.

Where are we to draw the line between something that is intended in good taste and good humor and something that is completely and utterly insensitive.

Why, in between the two. Obviously. And if you want to get a bit more specific, then it would be at the point where good taste and good humor ends, as that's very clearly the better option than allowing something that's not so completely and not quite utterly insensitive, but is still insensitive.

With the former, you always know that whatever lies inside the bounds will always be good. Because that's the limit. With the latter, there's still a whole lot of bad stuff that lies outside of a "complete" and "utter" range.

 

I cant figure out whats being discussed here.