[YJCC] YJCC HTR policy - review time

I am still in the process of working out the details of that information I mentioned earlier, including the original posts when the policy change was proposed. Since it is MS related, I may not be able to present the posts word for word, but rather paraphrased.

 

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.

Once again, speculation.

Mine is backed up by what someone said, now they may have mispoke but they may not have too.

Yours is backed up by... speculation.

Kid I've been from one end of this forum to the other and there's nothing that's made me believe a completely rational and logical mod is behind everything.

 

Think that would work with RotS do you?

There's a difference there, and that is size: RoTS is a huge, very active forum. What we're talking about here is several threads, which haven't been extremely active. There's a big difference there, that I think you realize.

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

I think HTR has shown that it can be pretty effective in practice thus far.

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.

Firstly, I can't control where people go to discuss things. Secondly, if people want to go back to letting them decide, That's fine by me too. I've said that numerous times before, but people conveniently seem to miss that part.

 

If thats the case Amos, then get the JCC mods that arnt away to vote on it.

 

I think HTR has shown that it can be pretty effective in practice thus far.

No doubts there. Overall, I'd say it's not a big thing, and that's why it probably won't be changed. It doesn't get used for more than a few threads at any given time, and I doubt there are ever problems with it (except for the occasional troll or person who just ignores HTR for some reason).

That said, I doubt there was much in the way of a problem with the original policy either, and that's what I always come back to.

 

There's a difference there, and that is size: RoTS is a huge, very active forum. What we're talking about here is several threads, which haven't been extremely active. There's a big difference there, that I think you realize.

As I recall the Survior thread was quite active, the lack of activity was caused by this real not a cause of this rule.

Furthermore if they haven't been active where's the concern they're clogging up the forum? That was a reason after all? The famous "Do you want a spoiler and non spoiler will and grace thread" arguement?

I'm tenacious and obnoxious, but every once in awhile I also have the benefit of being right. Happily this is one of those times.

I think HTR has shown that it can be pretty effective in practice thus far.

To back that claim up please post links to all the HTR threads in the first oh lets say 10 pages.

After all, the HTR's do allow spoiler and non spoiler people to post in the same thread which should make them more active... if this policy is effective.

Firstly, I can't control where people go to discuss things.

That arguement makes a lot mor sense if you don't create rules which make people change forums. Obviously you can't control it, but you can bloody well effect it can't you?

Secondly, if people want to go back to letting them decide, That's fine by me too. I've said that numerous times before, but people conveniently seem to miss that part.

Yes you see you're a mod, that means for better or ill you make the decisions as to what the rules are. To pawn off responsibility by saying you'll do whatever 'people' want is both disingenuous and unbecoming.

 

I thought I'd make it known that the HTR policy was re-examined and voted upon again by the JCC mods back in July, almost two months after it was tested. Four of the five JCC mods at the time voted, and all voted in favor of keeping the HTR policy entact with an emphasis on a case by case basis.

 

With all due respect it seems odd that the idea the people who created the policy agree with it should be a compelling arguement.

 

Define case by case basis please.
And please give any examples of a spoiler free thread that has been premitted by this alleged case by case basis.

More imortantly, why do mods simply say HTR or the hiway when locking/editing a spoiler free thread when tis posted ?

Sounds like this alleged case by case basis rule simply isnt used.

EDIT

With all due respect it seems odd that the idea the people who created the policy agree with it should be a compelling arguement.

If only I didnt like my sig, that would be going in it.

 

After searching the first ten pages of the forum, the only legitimate example I could find where a NS thread was allowed to exist/continue was the Smallville thread.

 

Furthermore if they haven't been active where's the concern they're clogging up the forum? That was a reason after all? The famous "Do you want a spoiler and non spoiler will and grace thread" arguement?

I haven't said that them clogging up the forums would be a problem - because it wouldn't. What I said is that HTR cuts down on the number of threads, which it will. Not that having a few more would be a problem, but having a few less is slightly more desirable, IMO(though only slightly)

To back that claim up please post links to all the HTR threads in the first oh lets say 10 pages.

After all, the HTR's do allow spoiler and non spoiler people to post in the same thread which should make them more active... if this policy is effective.

Now you're just dodging the issue. Just because there probably aren't a lot of HTR threads in the first 10 pages doesn't mean it hasn't worked well to this point(this policy's been in place for months, after all).

That arguement makes a lot mor sense if you don't create rules which make people change forums. Obviously you can't control it, but you can bloody well effect it can't you?

Of course I can effect it. But who's to say that we could change the policy back to the way it was, and people would still post in Amp instead. My point is that I can't force people to post in JCC if they don't want to.

Yes you see you're a mod, that means for better or ill you make the decisions as to what the rules are. To pawn off responsibility by saying you'll do whatever 'people' want is both disingenuous and unbecoming.

Really? If people in your forum say that they want something, as long as what they're asking for isn't unreasonable, is it so terrible to listen to them and give them what they want? It doesn't seem that way to me .

 

And why was that thread made an exception ?



More relevent, most likley, were any mods active praticipants in it..........


[looks]

well it seems Kate posts in that thread......


Hmm, so the policy should read

if a mod posts in your thread, it may remain spoiler free

 

Wes, if you're going to make accusations, at least make sure they're believeable. Some facts backing them up would work as well.


From what it appears, that thread was allowed to remain NS because it was a long standing thread and fell under what the mods call, 'The Grandfather Rule'.

 

To interject here for a moment:

had complained to him about wanting to post in a NS thread and discuss spoilers or something of that nature.

Please let me not be the only person to see the absolute fallacy of logic in that statement. I'm hoping that it was a typo, otherwise I'd have to respectfully suggest that some people take the time to appreciate just what being non-spoiler means.

 

Yah, way to set farry up for the slam dunk, Amos.

What I said is that HTR cuts down on the number of threads, which it will. Not that having a few more would be a problem, but having a few less is slightly more desirable, IMO(though only slightly)

I'm curious - why do you feel it's relevant?

 

Thats a non-argument Dashy.

The survivor thread series was ALSO a longstanding thread.

Yet the mods refused to grandfather it in.

In fact, kardee SPECIFICLY asked for it to be grandfatherd in in the first thead on this issue.




My point stands.

 

I haven't said that them clogging up the forums would be a problem - because it wouldn't. What I said is that HTR cuts down on the number of threads, which it will. Not that having a few more would be a problem, but having a few less is slightly more desirable, IMO(though only slightly)

We're talking about a forum with over 40,000 threads.

If you want to give it 'slightly less' I suggest you start with the 35,000 in the back.

Not to toot my own horn(that is after all DLM's and KW's job' but in the past mods have actively deleted every single locked thread in the JCC after letitng people both know they were going to do so and request threads be preserved.

Do that and then we'll see how much more needs to be cut.


Now you're just dodging the issue. Just because there probably aren't a lot of HTR threads in the first 10 pages doesn't mean it hasn't worked well to this point(this policy's been in place for months, after all).

Where's the HTR Lost thread?
Where's the HTR Apprentice 2 thread?

We're talking about those big time reality shows and... nothing.

It seems to me this policy worked nicely during the summer when there was, literally nothing new on TV. Not that the current crop is adequate or anything....

If a policy can not be judged by the threads it's effecting exactly what are your criteria? Certainly it's not response in Comm since that has been at the very least heated.. repeatedly.

Of course I can effect it. But who's to say that we could change the policy back to the way it was, and people would still post in Amp instead. My point is that I can't force people to post in JCC if they don't want to.

You can however create rules which push them away, which was done. Having done so it then seems strange to say "well we alientated them already so there's no reaosn to change the rule". It's always the right time to correct a mistake my friend.

Really? If people in your forum say that they want something, as long as what they're asking for isn't unreasonable, is it so terrible to listen to them and give them what they want? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Really? Because what people asked for was to make the decision themself. Give that to them and then we'll talk about these opinions of yours.

 

I'm curious - why do you feel it's relevant?

It's not incredibly relevant, to be honest. I'm just saying that it does save a few threads, even if it's just a few(like I said, it's not a big deal either way).

Edit:


Where's the HTR Lost thread?
Where's the HTR Apprentice 2 thread?

We're talking about those big time reality shows and... nothing.

Maybe no-one wants to discuss them? Like I said, I can't force people to post about Lost or Apprentice 2 if they don't feel like it.

You can however create rules which push them away, which was done. Having done so it then seems strange to say "well we alientated them already so there's no reaosn to change the rule". It's always the right time to correct a mistake my friend.

First, I didn't change the policy - I wasn't a mod at the time, so leave me out of that, thanks. Second, as KW said, the HTR policy also works pretty well, so there's not that compelling of an arguement to change, just as it appears that there may not have been a very compelling reason to change to HTR in the first place.

Really? Because what people asked for was to make the decision themself. Give that to them and then we'll talk about these opinions of yours.

Like I said above, I wasn't around when the decision to go to HTR was made. As to going back, isn't that the point of this thread? I've upped the thread in the JCC mod forum about this, and we'll discuss it there as well.

 

The survivor thread series was ALSO a longstanding thread.


I underlined the key word in that sentence. In my experience, 'The Grandfather Rule' was usually extended to longstanding threads only and not a series of threads related to a show and what not. Perhaps farraday or KW could use their experience to expand on this and elaborate on what the rule covered during their modding tenures.



Please let me not be the only person to see the absolute fallacy of logic in that statement. I'm hoping that it was a typo, otherwise I'd have to respectfully suggest that some people take the time to appreciate just what being non-spoiler means.


Agreed, though I think the issue itself was the fact that these users wanted to participate in the overall discussion of the subject reguardless of the thread. The NS was restrictive to what they could and could not discuss naturally. Like they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

So how is that any differnt Dashy ?

They had been posting for a long time, they hadnt caused any problems, they asked not to be screwd over.

They were ignored.

 

The NS was restrictive to what they could and could not discuss naturally. Like they say, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Possibly not, but should one or a few people's desire for change force a community to change what they've done for years?

If a couple dozen people use a thread to talk about a show without spoilers, and one or a few people come along wanting to talk about spoilers, I'd say the one or a few people either need to adapt to how things are, go to a Survivor message board or start a new thread if allowed.

Sort of raises the question of whether just a few people can force a much larger group to change their ways.

 

Maybe no-one wants to discuss them? Like I said, I can't force people to post about Lost or Apprentice 2 if they don't feel like it.

Maybe no one wants to discuss them in JCC, you know for whatever reason.

First, I didn't change the policy - I wasn't a mod at the time, so leave me out of that, thanks.

When you enforce a policy you take the heat for it even if you disagree with it. Is that fair? Maybe not. Is it fair to enforce a policy you disagree with and wash your hands of it? No

Second, as KW said, the HTR policy also works pretty well, so there's not that compelling of an arguement to change, just as it appears that there may not have been a very compelling reason to change to HTR in the first place.

Exactly how are you judging it works well? By the lack of topics? That seems to be a strange yardstick for sucess.

Like I said above, I wasn't around when the decision to go to HTR was made. As to going back, isn't that the point of this thread? I've upped the thread in the JCC mod forum about this, and we'll discuss it there as well.

JCC mod forum? If only you were joking.

I underlined the key word in that sentence. In my experience, 'The Grandfather Rule' was usually extended to longstanding threads only and not a series of threads related to a show and what not. Perhaps farraday or KW could use their experience to expand on this and elaborate on what the rule covered during their modding tenures.

Grandfathering is stupid. You make a rule and you enforce it equally, none of this namby pamby "oh I'll piss off established users" crap.

But inherent to that is the understanding that the rule you're enforcing is both good neccesary and equitable. A bad rule equally enforced is no better for it. A bad rule unequally enforced is twice the farce.


Edit// Heh I combined two words to get a meaning i was looking for.

Warnign a large vocabulary combined with a vague idea of synonyms is a dangerous thing.

 

Wes, once again can you please focus on the issue without resorting to mud slinging and attacks? Your posting habits are becoming counterproductive to your goals in this thread.


So how is that any differnt Dashy ?

It could been seen as different because the threads themselves were usually locked and created with each new season. Other considerations could have been taken into the equation had there been one, long standing Survivor thread encompassing the discussion of several seasons.


If a couple dozen people use a thread to talk about a show without spoilers, and one or a few people come along wanting to talk about spoilers, I'd say the one or a few people either need to adapt to how things are, go to a Survivor message board or start a new thread if allowed.

I see your point, but while this may have been a minor issue in the final decision to change the policy, it brought the realization to the mods that perhaps this change in policy could address some other, larger issues such as thread redundancy. And in turn, perhaps serve the community, as a whole, better. With that being said, keep in mind that the original change in May was merely a test run to see what the results of such a policy would be.

 

I see your point, but while this may have been a minor issue in the final decision to change the policy, it brought the realization to the mods that perhaps this change in policy could address some other, larger issues such as thread redundancy.

But was there ever a problem with thread redundancy (in regards to TV shows and movies, that is)? Possible redundancy isn't quite the same thing as actually having to deal with multiple threads. Social threads (until they were regulated) are a great example of redundancy, and an example of when things need to be clamped down on.

With that being said, keep in mind that the original change in May was merely a test run to see what the results of such a policy would be.

Which brings us right back to there not seeming to be any particular need to test a new policy in the first place. There didn't seem to be any actual redundancy or clutter, no problems within the threads themselves (save one or a few complaints) and no great concern on the part of the community as a whole.

I guess we're just going in circles on this one .

 

I see your point, but while this may have been a minor issue in the final decision to change the policy, it brought the realization to the mods that perhaps this change in policy could address some other, larger issues such as thread redundancy. And in turn, perhaps serve the community, as a whole, better.

But it wasnt implemented as such.

With that being said, keep in mind that the original change in May was merely a test run to see what the results of such a policy would be.

Well, lets see, a usegroup has been driven away.
Hows that for results.
not only cut down on spam, but also get rid of some pesky users.