[YJCC] YJCC HTR policy - review time

I agree Darth_Guy, people should post HTR for spoilers of any type, out of a common sense of courtesy.

What some of hte JCC mods (especily the former JCC mods that made the rule) is that some people want a compleatly non spoiler enviroment.

 

Re: Lit:

Unless the policy has been changed in the last year or so (thus one of the current mods can give the changes), the whole "spoiler space" thing was removed in 2002. Lit operates under a system of "non-spoiler" for unreleased material, and for a further month after their official US release date. Threads that will contain spoilers have to be identified as such, and thus can be openly posted. Threads listed as 'possible spoilers' can have open spoilers and people enter at their own risk, but it's considered courtesy to make them HTR. Every other thread is specifically non-spoiler, although if there is something important to the discussion that is a spoiler, placing it in the thread as HTR isn't a problem as long as it stays that way through discussion.



As to the JCC, there had never been any problems with having the people who create and use threads to decide on what status a thread should have, but it has no real matter to me since I avoid any thread about a subject I'm NS on since I don't trust the JCC populus.

 

I must address something: The reasoning behind this rule was (supposedly) to "cut down" on the number of threads discussing the same TV show/movie/etc. I feel the need to remind everyone that for the last 4 years or so, there has only been one Survivor thread each season, the non-spoiler thread. There were never multiple threads because any time someone started a spoilers allowed thread, it sank right to the bottom because noone posted in it. Multiple threads about Survivor was never a problem, yet that was the reason given for the rule. This I do not understand and would greatly appreciate it if a mod could explain it to me. I think it falls under the old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Also, just a little FYI:

Non-Spoiler Survivor 9 thread in Amp - 323 posts
Spoilers Allowed Survivor 9 thread in JCC - 139 posts

That's almost 200 more posts in the non-spoiler thread, in a forum that gets a LOT less traffic than the JCC. Seems to me that the majority of the community here on the JC would rather discuss it without spoilers. Just something to think about.

 

Is anyone else disturbed by how some JCC mods dont seem to be concerned that they have a policy that seems to be driving away users from there fourm ?




EDIT



Heres an intersting post from Dashy....Date Posted: 6/23 11:41am.....



I can understand where you're coming from carmen and a case by case decision seems like it would satisfy everyone a bit more at this point based on the reaction to this test run, whether negative or positive. We were just trying something new in order to see if we could court to the needs of two groups while cutting down on numerous threads of the same topic. At the end of all this, a compromise could be met and the result will most likely be what you have mentioned, a case by case ruling.





I still must ask this old question. WHY.
Having two active discussion threads (as opposed to the fluff posting that permiates the JCC) could hardly be a problem.

Also, as Dashy's post indicated, the policy was instituted as a test.

The fact that its driven a thread series that's existed nearly as long as Dashy has on these fourms in the JCC asa non spoiler thread (if not longer, Ill let w_k confirm that though) should show somethings wrong with this rule.

 

Is anyone else disturbed by how some JCC mods dont seem to be concerned that they have a policy that seems to be driving away users from there fourm ?

Wes, I'm going to ask you one final time to stop making comments like this. They don't help. Moderators are concerned about their forums, and all of us are trying to do our best to make them a better place.

Every policy "drives users away" on some level or another. I've had cases where I've "driven someone away" from the Senate because I warned them not to call another user "one sick individual" (a pretty clear flame).

Does the fact that the policy against flaming "drove someone away" mean that we should reevaluate the policy? Does it mean that the policy is inherently bad?

Does it mean that I am not concerned about the Senate, because that user disagreed with the enforcement of the policy?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I understand where youre coming from K_K, but this is a policy made to prevent an issue that was not an issue before the rule was made. To clarify, thats why I belive what I said about said rule.

 

I think that it'd be easier for everyone if there were threads with specifics. Such as:

Will and Grace New Series (Spoilers)HTR
and
Will and Grace (Non Spoilers)

It'd be easier.

And there'd be no risk of Spoilers in the NS thread, so no markups to worry about.

 

Sounds good.

 

But why are you JUST brining this up now? Why not 7 months ago?

Because it was brought up months ago and the response was "we've alreaday discussed it. Bring it back up in a few months." Which was mentioned earlier in this thread. The first post, actually.

 

Wes, I find it interesting that you seem to make it your point to attack me despite the fact that I am only trying to be honest and give the reasoning behind the policy you're questioning. It would help your case immensely if you focused on the issue itself rather than trying to take shots at people or attempt to twist their own words against them. That's only my advice though.

As I said before, this really isn't my jurisdiction anymore since I no longer mod the JCC. I thought my input would be helpful considering I am the only mod, outside of Katya, who was around when the policy was put into action.


Non-Spoiler Survivor 9 thread in Amp - 323 posts
Spoilers Allowed Survivor 9 thread in JCC - 139 posts

That's almost 200 more posts in the non-spoiler thread, in a forum that gets a LOT less traffic than the JCC. Seems to me that the majority of the community here on the JC would rather discuss it without spoilers. Just something to think about.

Those numbers speak volumes, w_k. However, as I said before they are skewed and inaccurate considering that the HTR policy was never given a chance to gauge on how effective it could or could not be.

For example, if your favorite dish is scrambled eggs (non-spoiled in this case) and it is served in your local college cafeteria (The JCC). Suddenly, the menu is changed and scrambled eggs are no longer offered, but in their place is boiled eggs (HTR). You've never tried boiled eggs and by chance another eatery on campus (The Amphitheatre) begins serving scrambled eggs. Logically, you aren't going to give boiled eggs a chance or even try them when you can just go somewhere else and get your favorite, scrambled eggs.

 

Dashy, if you've had boiled eggs before, and you didn't like them why should you keep trying them if you can get scrambled eggs just as easily.

HTR used to be the case. People didn't like it, it was switched to NS.

 

Those numbers speak volumes, w_k. However, as I said before they are skewed and inaccurate considering that the HTR policy was never given a chance to gauge on how effective it could or could not be.

But the community felt that things were fine the way they were, and what incentive did they have to completely change the way they were doing things? None. So they packed their bags and moved elsewhere.

That's what people do with their business in real life. They didn't feel welcome in the JCC, and so they took their business elsewhere. Happens all the time in life.

Just as you've asked for examples of problems of the HTR policy, you (at the time) were asked for examples as to why it was needed to begin with, and I ask that again now. I don't believe any substantial reason was given for the change, and it amounted to fixing what wasn't broken.

There may not be overt problems with the HTR policy, but things were fine before it came along too. I see no reason that communities shouldn't be allowed to individually determine what they want to do about spoilers, particularly since the subjects of discussion are so varied. There's nothing wrong with having multiple threads on a single TV show, and it's doubtful there will ever be more than one active one at a time.

In short, the HTR policy was an unnecessary policy that was introduced for reasons that remain unclear (at least to me), and should be dispensed with in favor of allowing individual communities to decide for themselves what they want to do about spoilers.

 

Exellent point KW. Ive been wondering that this whole time.



For example, if your favorite dish is scrambled eggs (non-spoiled in this case) and it is served in your local college cafeteria (The JCC). Suddenly, the menu is changed and scrambled eggs are no longer offered, but in their place is boiled eggs (HTR). You've never tried boiled eggs and by chance another eatery on campus (The Amphitheatre) begins serving scrambled eggs. Logically, you aren't going to give boiled eggs a chance or even try them when you can just go somewhere else and get your favorite, scrambled eggs.

Um, what exactly are you saying ? That the policy was meant to drive the TVshow threads away ?

Im sorry if that came off wrong, but thats honestly all I can make of that post.

 

I actually didn't really have an issue with threads that were "no spoilers" for the blockbuster movies or very popular threads like Survivor. I don't see the need for two threads for every tv show or movie, but I certainly wouldn't have an issue with two threads for bigger "blockbuster" films or the really popular tv shows aka Survivor. Quite honestly, we didn't have a huge problem with the two thread issue when this all came up, as far as I can remember.

One of the issues I see with doing it on a case-by-case basis is defining "blockbuster" or when to allow two threads and when to implement the HTR policy. One way is to allow the thread author to decide. However, what if an author wants no spoilers when discussing "Lemony Snicket"? Not exactly a huge blockbuster. Right now we have a Smallville thread that says "no spoilers", but we've used HTR in there and it's been fine.

I think, for the most part, the HTR policy is good, but I wouldn't be adverse to introducing no-spoiler threads on a case-by-case basis.

 

And eggs and Policies don't go together well. One is bitter, one is nice.

 

Kate, why not allow ALL topics to be spoiler free ?


If there are enough people wanting a topic, the topic will stay active.
If there arnt, the topic will die (but can be linked to when people ask for it).

Its not like the JCC had a large amount of threads of this nature before the rule, and even after the rule the JCC still has quite a few spam threads, why not give a fun discussion thread a chance ?

 

Kate, why not allow ALL topics to be spoiler free ?

So have every tv/movie/whatever thread be totally spoiler free? Nope. Just not going to happen. The HTR policy is at least an attempt to let all parties discuss a topic. If you can't post a masked spoiler like OMG! I just found out that Vader is Luke's father! in a thread at all, it's going to have the same effect that going to one HTR thread per topic did. It's just not realistic to expect that people aren't going to want to talk about the exciting twist in the previous night's episode.

 

YOu misunderstand.

I Mean why not go back to the policy that was succesful for years of allowing the author of the thread to determine if it is HTR/spoiler free/spoiler allowed.


And why was the policy made in the first place, kw raises a very valid point in asking, as I dont belive an adiquite explination other than 'because we say so' has ever been given.


EDIT

And if its been aired, its hardly a spoiler Kate, depending on the thread of course.

The HTR policy is at least an attempt to let all parties discuss a topic.

Thats patently untrue. As the survivor threads show, the hardcore spoiler free will simply be stamped out bu such a policy.

 

Katya, with the HTR, there is a chance of a markup slip, so there is potential for it to contain major spoilers.

If it was up to the Author, and there was one spoiler and one non spoiler, there would be no such problem.

 

If it was up to the Author...

Right, but as I said, what if the author thinks that there should be two Arrested Development threads? Is that such a popular show that we need two threads. The issue is that we can say "sure let the author decide" and then we've got the first 3 pages of the forum glutted with spoiler/non spoiler threads. I would rather say that the default for threads is the HTR policy and, when the author feels the movie/show is popular enough to warrent two, then PM the mods and we can review on a case-by-case basis.

That way, we can have spoiler free threads for the more popular topics and keep the clutter down with the HTR.

 

Kate, what your saying makes no sense. That problem NEVER existed before, why would it suddenly exist if the rule was recended ?

 

Wes, you've been insisting that that there were no problems before the rule was implemented. But if that was the case, why would the mods just suddenly implement a random rule for absolutely no reason? I don't think they would have unless there WAS a problem. I've had some issues with mods over the years, but I don't see any of them, past or current, making up rules just for the hell of it.

 

But if that was the case, why would the mods just suddenly implement a random rule for absolutely no reason? I don't think they would have unless there WAS a problem.

I think that's sort of a major point here. I don't remember any clear, substantial reasons being given for the change in policy at the time.

It wasn't implemented randomly, of course, but I don't think the reasoning at the time (which remains hazy) holds up to scrutiny. That's part of why it seems like something that wasn't broken was fixed anyway.

 

I don't remember any clear, substantial reasons being given for the change in policy at the time.

Me either. Then again, I probably wasn't paying attention.

From what I've seen, the mods were trying to reduce clutter - that seems to be the prime reason for the rule. *shrug*

 

I agree. And to me, that's not a particularly good reason if true, because there didn't seem to be a clutter problem to begin with. An overload of social threads has produced multiple Communications threads on the subject, and other JCC problems have usually been voiced here and/or privately. By contrast, nary a word was spoken about this issue in Communications (at least as a concern or problem area).

To my knowledge (which may well be limited regarding this, so please correct me if I've missed old threads on this subject), there were never too many active TV/movie threads in the JCC, or if there ever were, it didn't last too long.

So, that just makes me wonder why there was a need for the change in policy.