[YJCC] YJCC HTR policy - review time

Youre right as far as my memory goes kw.

 

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

I can't accurately answer that question for you, KW, as I wasn't a mod at the time. I agree with you that letting each individual community decide probably won't create a problem with too many threads, and I wouldn't be opposed to letting that become the policy in the JCC. But I still don't understand how that would be any better than HTR. Has anyone answered the questions that KK asked earlier(which I think were good questions, that need to be answered):

My problems with an HTR blanket rule
- some people are not careful with markup codes and may accidentally spoil other people

How is this any different from someone accidentally posting in the wrong thread? People have been known to accidentally post spoilers outside of 3SA, for example (even when not trolling).

- it divides the conversation oftentimes into spoiler discussion/nonspoiler discussion

Many threads have multiple discussions going on at once. Again, how is this any different than that?

- there is occasionally a greater demand for non-spoiler threads than HTR or spoiler threads, but the HTR threads are forced instead

If there is greater demand for no spoilers, then there won't be many people reading any spoilers posted, nor will there be many people responding to those spoilers, so again the effect should be minimal.

Here's a question for the people in favor of repealing the policy: can you cite any specific examples of where the policy has created problems? Can you point out specific cases where the policy was not enforced? Where people accidentally posted spoilers and it was not dealt with promptly by the mods?

 

I think the big example of a problem it has caused is the survivor threads. Theyve they went on for years before you registerd, but as soon as the rule went into effect, they dissapered from JCC.


Its not that its not being enforced, but rahtehr there is not now, nor was there ever, a sound reason to have such a policy. As it is, youll have to do just as much modding now as you would if there were seprate threds allowed, because either way spoilers could accadently (or trollishly) posted.


Simply ask yourself the question that concerned users have been asking in various threads for the past 6 months. "Has there ever been a true need for this policy"

And remember, if a rule is worthless, then why bother keeping it on the books ?

 

I think the big example of a problem it has caused is the survivor threads. Theyve they went on for years before you registerd, but as soon as the rule went into effect, they dissapered from JCC.

And what about what Dashy suggested, that the users in the Survivor community never gave it a chance? Maybe they'd have liked it better(or equally well) if they'd been open minded enough to give it a chance.

Simply ask yourself the question that concerned users have been asking in various threads for the past 6 months. "Has there ever been a true need for this policy"

As I said before, I don't know the reasoning that went into changing to the HTR policy, so I can't really answer that question.

And remember, if a rule is worthless, then why bother keeping it on the books ?

Now here I disagree with you. You might think that individual communities deciding is better(and I'm not saying it isn't), but that doesn't mean that HTR is worthless. It's a good policy(I haven't seen any real flaws exposed in it, thus far) and the only question to me is whether or not it's better than letting individual communities decide for themselves. I, personally, think that letting it be decided on a thread to thread basis is better, but that's just me. So to me, discussing whether HTR is effective is fairly irrelevant, as it has been effective so far.

 

Why should they have given it a chance ?

There thread was working just fine, had been working fine for years.
Suddenly theyre told to allow HTR spoilers.
They leave, en mase.

Hows that odd at all ?


Why not just let the person making the thread decide. NS/SA/HTR

The only complaint Ive heard there is redundent threads, yet despite that, the mods using that as there excuse hac not produced ONE SINGLE SHRED OF PROOF OF SUCH EXCESS BEFORE THE RULE.

Now, if it was a problem without the rule, wheres all the excess threads ? Its not like its an old rule and those threads are autopruned, its only 6 months old approx.

 

Why the hell would you need "proof" about the past? It's here now, so accept it.

 

But if that was the case, why would the mods just suddenly implement a random rule for absolutely no reason?

Um, that's our question. The reasoning behind the ruling was that they wanted to cut down on the number of redundant threads about the same TV shows/movies/poop/whatever. However, at no time was there ever 2 active Survivor threads. EVER. There was always the non-spoiler thread. If someone came along and wanted to discuss spoilers, we always encouraged them to start their own thread. Sometimes they did, and when they did noone posted in the threads and they sank like a stone because the majority of the Survivor community on the JCC wanted to discuss Survivor without being spoiled. There was never EVER a case of 2 Survivor threads on the JCC. However, that is the reasoning that was given for the rule. It makes no sense at all.

And what about what Dashy suggested, that the users in the Survivor community never gave it a chance? Maybe they'd have liked it better(or equally well) if they'd been open minded enough to give it a chance.

I really don't know anything about you because before now I never even knew you were a mod anywhere, but it seems to me that you are not very good at paying attention. As has already been said MANY times in this thread, HTR spoilers were tried in the first 1 or 2 seasons of Survivor, but they always resulted in people openly posting & dicussing spoilers, ruining it for the rest of us.

Let me put it in terms you may understand: A guy offered me boiled eggs once, and I threw up. Another guy offered me scrambled eggs, and they tasted great. Someone else offered me boiled eggs a few years later, and I threw them in his face and left the room. Get it? Good.

Why the hell would you need "proof" about the past? It's here now, so accept it.

So when Hitler told the Jews to get in the incinerator, they were supposed to do it because "it's here now, so accept it"? A bit of a drastic example, but my point still stands. Just because a rule is here now, that doesn't mean it's a good rule. As for the proof thing, that's like invading another country without proof that they have WMD. Wait, nevermind.

 

W_K, is that type of behavior really needed? You can easily make your point or express your opinion without resorting to poor taste. I find it interesting that the people who are actually trying to contribute something and work towards a soltuion are the ones being attacked. It doesn't quite add up.

I also find it ironic that you're taking shots at the one JCC mod, outside of Kate, who is consistently posting in the thread and attempting to find a solution that would best suit the community. You obviously want the truth and I am willing to give you that.

The JCC mod team made a decision based on the circumstances of the community at the time and what we felt would be best for it. Someone who knew the forum relatively well proposed the idea and the majority of the team supported testing this policy, myself being one of those who voted in favor of it. The users who frequented the Survivor thread happened to be the ones negatively affected by this change in spoiler policy. Rather than collectively direct your efforts in a diplomatic and assertive way, you chose to add to the problem and not the solution, much like you're doing now. In the process of your rude and obnoxious behavior, you decided not to give the HTR policy a chance to succeed or fail. I apologize that you did not agree with our decision at the time and being a moderator, as with anything, means that you cannot please everyone at all times. What I am asking you to do however is to conduct yourself in a diplomatic manner and work towards a compromise/solution if you disagree with a policy. I can assure you that formally organizing the members of the Survivor community who are against this policy and bringing forth your concerns to the JCC mods in a diplomatic manner would yield far better results than taking unnecessary shots at the administration and those associated with the policy. The best course of action at this point would be to ask the current JCC modding team to re-examine the issue and hold another vote concerning NS threads in the JCC.

 

The JCC mod team made a decision based on the circumstances of the community at the time and what we felt would be best for it.

I'm honestly curious, though: What specific circumstances led to the change in policy? I've yet to find an answer to that.

Was it too many threads, complaints of double standards, or something else entirely? Was it the Survivor thread itself that led to the change?

I never saw anything of concern mentioned in Communications or in the MS while a moderator, and the change in policy seemed to happen out of nowhere. So, I'm interested in finding out just what it was that sparked the change.

 

I'm honestly curious, though: What specific circumstances led to the change in policy? I've yet to find an answer to that.

Dagsy was the one who originally proposed the change. If I recall correctly, I believe a user had complained to him about wanting to post in a NS thread and discuss spoilers or something of that nature. I'll attempt to find the old thread and get the exact facts. I know cutting down on thread numbers was a main issue when it was originally proposed as well. It wasn't a major problem like having 8 NS/Spoiler threads on the first page but more so the issue of people having their new threads being pushed down the forum and forgotten before they had a chance to get started. I'll attempt to dig and see what I can find from the original thread where the policy was first proposed.

 

Thank you very much . I appreciate it. That's the sort of info I've been looking for.

I'll reply in more detail later on, but thank you again for posting that and looking for more.

 

It wasn't a major problem like having 8 NS/Spoiler threads on the first page but more so the issue of people having their new threads being pushed down the forum and forgotten before they had a chance to get started.


Um, I dont understand that. Last I checked, threads die for a reason. If they get pushed down and frogotten, maybe its because noone wants to post in them aside from the thread poster, prehaps a few others. Threads die in the JCC all the time, I dont see how this is any differnt.

Heres a example of what happened withthe HTR debacle, put into an example of european soccer (and the riots that seem to follow.....)

You have two prosports teams. These teams and their fans dont get along (like European fuotball teams). Infact, they are a european soccer team.
ProSport team A (the survivor NS thread) is making lots of money (posts) because they have a large fanbase (posters) who regulry show up and raise revenue for the team (postcount).
ProSport team B (the spoiler threads) is making almost no money (posts) because they have a small fanbase (posters) who infrequently show up and raise little revenue for the team (postcount)

Now the goverment (moderators) decide that this isnt fair. They merge the two teams, and move them to a location nearby the city that team b (spoilerville)came from. Considering the differnces between the two teams and their fans in the past, team A and its players and fans opt to simple not show up rather than risk getting hurt (spoiled) in a sports riot, as theyre apt to happen even if the cops (jcc mods) try to prevent riots (spoilage).




Makes perfect sense, aint it.


So in summary. A change was made. It did more harm than good.
When something doesnt work, you replace it.

Or repeal it in this case.

 

Wes, I don't know what else I can do make you understand or see our logic behind the decision. Everyone else seems to be pretty comprehensive and on the same page as far as our reasoning for doing it. As I said before, instead of being a part of the problem it might be more helpful if you actually made a point for once in this thread rather than focusing on mockery and insults.


So in summary. A change was made. It did more harm than good.

Harm was done to one segment of a much larger community, that segment being the Survivor users in this case. Overall, the policy hasn't shown many flaws but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be re-examined. Repealing the policy for the sake of satisfying one segment of the community, the Survivor users in this scenario, would be a variation of favortism. As I said in my previous post, I think the current JCC mod team would be very open to re-examining and possibly voting on the issue again if it were formally proposed.

 

First, thanks Dashy for posting the reasons that the policy was changed, that helped alot

Second, here's what I think should be done on this issue(this is just my opinion, though):

I think the spoiler policy in the JCC should stay the way it is now, and here's why: You can have both SA and NS discussion in the JCC, with (potentially) half the number of threads using HTR. At the same time, users who are avidly against spoilers and are afraid of being spoiled(like the Survivor community) in JCC can still discuss things w/o spoilers in Amp. So everybody wins IMO. Where's the harm in that?

Now I'm not opposed to letting the individual communities decide either. IMO, what we have now is a little better, but if there's a lot of interest in going back to that, then that's fine by me too.

 

Thats the point youre missing Amos.

Why should we have to go someware else to discuss something that from the begining of the boards til 6 mos ago was open game for discussion when, as has been proven multiple times before, the 'double thread' problem DID NOT EXIST. IT NEVER HAS EXISTED.

Why would repealing this un-needed rule suddenly result in more thrads ? And even if spoiler thread's also suddenly because heavily used to, what would be wrong there ? Shouldnt the mods WANT fun, substintive discussion threads ? If a spoiler thread did suddenly have a posterbase that kept it up, thats what would happen.

EDIT

And Amos, youre missing the point. HTR is NOT NSA/SA in one thread. HTR is HTR.

SA is SA and NSA is NSA. Its why TF.N doesnt have E3HTR

 

I think the spoiler policy in the JCC should stay the way it is now, and here's why: You can have both SA and NS discussion in the JCC, with (potentially) half the number of threads using HTR. At the same time, users who are avidly against spoilers and are afraid of being spoiled(like the Survivor community) in JCC can still discuss things w/o spoilers in Amp. So everybody wins IMO. Where's the harm in that?

Is thread congestion an issue? Because quite frankly the JCC si going to explode in upcoming months and any thread without an active user base is going to drop rapidly. You're presuming a spoiler and non spoiler thread would have equal numbers of posters and thus take up space, has that ever been true? Hell even the most popular spoiler and non spoiler place son the board, NSA and 3SA don't ahve equal useage, is anyone here really concerned that the hardcore spoiler viewers of will and grace are going to take up more space then a social thread about titmice?

The absurdity of this is clear if you just realize the response you'd get with having all RotS discussion in one forum with a HTR rule. Sure as hell every NSa person would leave, does that really solve the problem or just prove you didn't understand the problem to begin with?

The problem here is someone complained that a thread which was not popular kept getting buried. The response to that isn't 'oh lets piss off a bunch of people whose threads are popular' it's 'too bad that's the way it works, popular threads survive unpopular ones dont'.

Call me Smith, Adam Smith.

 

Why should we have to go someware else to discuss something that from the begining of the boards til 6 mos ago was open game for discussion when, as has been proven multiple times before, the 'double thread' problem DID NOT EXIST. IT NEVER HAS EXISTED.


The choice to go elsewhere is optional, those users who wish to discuss Survivor weren't forced out of the JCC. They chose to take their discussion elsewhere because the policies of the forum did not suit their tastes. As for the issue of the Survivor threads being non-spoiler and prosperous since the beginnings of the board, do you speak from first hand experience or hearsay from other users?


Why would repealing this un-needed rule suddenly result in more thrads ?

In theory, each show/movie would then have two threads, one for NS and the other SA. In a community this large it is a given fact that not every user will want to discuss a show in one fashion, NS and SA. Logic tells you that you're going to have to accomodate to users on both sides of the spectrum in this scenario.

 

Why should we have to go someware else to discuss something that from the begining of the boards til 6 mos ago was open game for discussion when, as has been proven multiple times before, the 'double thread' problem DID NOT EXIST. IT NEVER HAS EXISTED.

Wes, you're missing my point. You don't know that it never existed, actually. If you read what Dashy posted, it appears that a user did complain(wanting multiple threads, since they wanted SA but that wasn't allowed in the NS thread), and that led to the HTR policy. So obviously there was a problem. That's why there's a policy for it, and one that (IMHO) works pretty well. And if you don't like HTR for some reason, Amp. allows for NS discussion. In my opinion, that should make everybody happy. People who want SA have it in JCC, people who want NS can have it in JCC, there aren't too many (basically) redundant threads, and people who don't like HTR can still have NS discussion. Seems fair to me .



Why would repealing this un-needed rule suddenly result in more thrads ?

By it's very nature, obviously. If HTR allows discussion of one movie/TV series in one thread, than having it be decided would mean more threads(one for NS and one for SA for each movie/TV series potentially, though not every movie will need both).

And even if spoiler thread's also suddenly because heavily used to, what would be wrong there ? Shouldnt the mods WANT fun, substintive discussion threads ? If a spoiler thread did suddenly have a posterbase that kept it up, thats what would happen.

I never said that would be a problem, only that what we have now allows for both cases more effeciently that before.

And Amos, youre missing the point. HTR is NOT NSA/SA in one thread. HTR is HTR.

Actually, I think it is. HTR allows discussion of spoilers if you want that(just highlight them to read them) and NS for those that don't want spoilers.

 

Actually, I think it is. HTR allows discussion of spoilers if you want that(just highlight them to read them) and NS for those that don't want spoilers.

Think that would work with RotS do you?

I never said that would be a problem, only that what we have now allows for both cases more effeciently that before.

Perhaps it is more efficent theoretically, but practically is another matter.

The real effect of this has been to drive most all of the time sensative entertainment discussion into Amp.

If that was your intention then well done, if not then thanks for demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the board you moderate.

 

s for the issue of the Survivor threads being non-spoiler and prosperous since the beginnings of the board, do you speak from first hand experience or hearsay from other users?


First hand experince (atl east from the time I joined)


Before this rule was shoved down our throats, I almost always saw the survivor thread on page 1.

I havent seen it since.


EDIT

In theory, each show/movie would then have two threads, one for NS and the other SA. In a community this large it is a given fact that not every user will want to discuss a show in one fashion, NS and SA. Logic tells you that you're going to have to accomodate to users on both sides of the spectrum in this scenario./i]


Theroy. Thats the key word. Did every subject have 2 threads before the rule ? YOURE MAKING THAT PROBLEM UP DASHY. IT NEVER EXISTED BEFORE, ITS NOT LIKE IT WOULD EXIST AFTER



And Amos, re-read Kards posts. He mentions that hte survivor threads were HTR their first 2 seasons.

Read what happend there. Thats hard evidence that HTR threads have failed before.

FACT (HTR fails a lot) takes precedence over FICTION (allowing multiple threads would mean every subject would automaticly have 2 threads)

 

Farraday, I can see where you're coming from but using the ROTS example is somewhat futile. These forums and this community are based on Star Wars, we have no obligation to any subject matter outside of that. Whether it be creating a special forum for Star Trek or tailoring a policy to satisfy one segement of the overall community, the only obligation of the JC from a subject matter standpoint is Star Wars.



First hand experince (atl east from the time I joined)


Then you cannot legitimately speak from any point before March 04 in theory, thus making your other claims of this being the norm for years or since the boards began only speculation.

 

Yet policy was tailored. And for a single user at that, when Dagsy made the survivor thread HTR.

Then you cannot legitimately speak from any point before March 04 in theory

Try reading user notes for a change, this just might not be my first username............


And I lurked for quite a while before joining

 

Farraday, I can see where you're coming from but using the ROTS example is somewhat futile. These forums and this community are based on Star Wars, we have no obligation to any subject matter outside of that.

Bing-********-o.

So why is it you're creating an obligation to support that one person who complained the spoiler thread was buried and ignoring the majority who don't want it?

That's what you don't seem to understand, that the one person who apparently was upset a thread they liked wasn't a popular one doesn't really have a strong complaint. I've got lots of threads I like that have died, are you going to change the rules to force people to post in them?

Someone earlier said that if 80% of the people want a non spoiler and 20% of the people want a spoiler we should have a spoiler. Why? Why is it you've suddenlly decided that what works and is popular needs to be subsumed by more rules which you have very little intention or ability to enforce?

Obligation?

 

Yet policy was tailored. And for a single user at that, when Dagsy made the survivor thread HTR.


Once again, speculation. Dagsy never disclosed how many users had complained to him over the issue. Based on his expertise of the forum and his general experience as a mod, he wouldn't have proposed such a change on the complaint of one user.

 

f you read what Dashy posted, it appears that a user did complain[/(wanting multiple threads, since they wanted SA but that wasn't allowed in the NS thread), and that led to the HTR policy.

If it's true that a single member's complaint led to the policy change, I find that troubling. There always have been and always will be complaints about various things on the JC, be it about moderating, colors, threads, etc. Usually, when a policy is created or changed, there is a groundswell of support for it (either in the administration, membership or both). I don't recall seeing concern in either area about TV show/spoiler threads, so it just doesn't make sense that the policy was changed as a result of just one (or even just a few people's) complaint.

Would it have been so problematic to simply explain to the complaining member how and why things are with the spoiler threads and move on from there? If just one or a few complaints is what it takes to change something here, I'd say there's quite a few things that could use changing, and a lot of them are probably contradictory in nature.

Now I'm not opposed to letting the individual communities decide either. IMO, what we have now is a little better, but if there's a lot of interest in going back to that, then that's fine by me too.

I'd say a major reason why things shouldn't have been changed in the first place (lack of concern or interest) is why things will stay the way they are. There just aren't enough people concerned about it, and there isn't much in the way of evidence or examples against the current policy. So, the very thing that should have prevented a change from ever happening is the same thing that will keep things the way they are now.

There were never more than a few spoiler/TV show threads on the front page, and clutter was never an issue. Given that, and the lack of concern shown by members of the JCC at the time (or in the months leading up to then) or the administration, it just doesn't make sense that the policy was ever changed.

Dagsy never disclosed how many users had complained to him over the issue. Based on his expertise of the forum and his general experience as a mod, he wouldn't have proposed such a change on the complaint of one user.

That's probably a good point. However, it doesn't change the lack of any obvious chatter about it in this forum or the JCC (to my knowledge, at least), which has almost always been a precursor to policy change.