Are the Jedi Council Forums a place for fans and praise only?

LOLOL 10 pages and still no clear answer

in the words of Rex the dinosaur from Toy Story 2:

"well, we tried"

 

edit: I mistakenly was attributing a quote to the wrong poster,
.

 

I can only speak for situations I have personally moderated. So take what I have to say as you may. The way I feel about negativity vs positivity is this, as long as no one is flaming each other and neither side is derailing any thread, I'm not going to edit nor lock a thread. I will warn a thread if either side is derailing and if that doesn't take care of it, then I will lock it. The other side to that is, moderators are not going to see everything. When it boils down to it, we're all just users just like everyone else. And we miss things, we are far from perfect.

If you have an issue then yes a comms thread is a great way to ask a question about it. If you think a thread was unfairly locked or other users are not getting moderated for things you, yourself have gotten in trouble for. Contact a forum moderator about it, that doesn't work, then contact an admin. If you see someone breaking the tos or flaming and you don't see a forum mod online, use the report function.

In regards to the why do you post here question and get out. I can not tell you how many times I was told that about my feelings on AOTC. There are several ways you can respond to that, tell them hey look I like Star Wars I just don't like this aspect or you can just ignore them. On some of the forums it's hard to know the forum culture that is being cultivated a user could simply be joking with you. It's a double edged sword, that all boils down to perception. I'm going to interrupt and perceive things differently then someone else.

 

Here's an example from the temp boards. Jabba-wocky went into the movie forum and started a thread about why he doesn't like ESB. He didn't say, "ZOMG ESB iSUUUUX!!" He made a well reasoned post and was immediately attacked. The forum mod locked the thread, calling it a "trainwreck" ... it was the furthest thing from that.

Warning, these links are from the temp board. Clicking them will log you out here. When you return, you'll have to log back in.

Wocky's thread

The thread was locked, and that was brought to our attention over at the jcc. A thread was started about it, and we were really baffled as to why the mod chose to lock the thread instead of dealing with those who were attacking him for his opinion.

JCC Thread.

So a comms thread was started, and after some discussion, the thread was reopened.

Comms thread.

This appears to be the exact same thing... can we get a resolution this time?

 

I was thinking of that one too, and noting the similarities as well.

 

I'd rather hear WHY. Maybe they're right, or overstating something, or misunderstanding something. Or I am. And I would certainly hope said poster(s) would be receptive to hearing "my" way - that's the way of give and take. It's not winner take all - it's developing understanding. And I've had some very productive "disagreements" with some posters and we've often had our viewpoints challenged or found a middle ground, or at the very least found understanding of the other poster(s) viewpoints. I've even "conceded" another viewpoint of certain film actions, if viewed in another light, are more or less favorable to the character than my initial assessment, or at the least understood why we disagreed.

In short, disagree away. Teach me something, or open my mind. Just don't come into a thread and more-or-less inform those having an actual discussion that nothing is worth discussing because the subject is so clearly worthless.

 

I want to thank Katya Jade for addressing these issues with us. I appreciate the time and effort she has made to try and at the very least help the situation.

Basically everything you said boils down to this comment for me. You are basically encouraging us to make snarky comments when people say things we don't like. I'm not sure how it is a solution to any problem, like we will have a little snark off and be done with it or something.

In my opinion that type of behavior is only going to add to the problem, fester negative feelings and eventually blow up way worse. I've lived it the past couple years here. It resulted in permanent bans for some users, and others simply not feeling welcome on certain forum on TF.N. The snark fest de-evolved into an all out war that very much ruined the television forum for numerous people, both users and moderators.

I also made one snarky comment involving censorship towards a moderator in the TV forum and recieved a one week ban for my trouble, even though the same moderator had supported snarky comments made by others towards myself via the magic of the "like' button. To be fair I had also supported snarky comments about the Moderator as well, via that same magic button. I was far from innocent, but I was also far from being the only one who was guilty.

It is pretty easy for you to say "we expect people to be able to handle this or that" because your not going to be on the other end of a ban for your behavior. We clearly are. There are no consequences that I can see for either your actions or the actions of the Moderation team. It is all a large blanket of silence and don't ask, don't tell, type behavior.

I'm pretty sure If I did what you are suggesting I'd find myself permanently banned rather quickly.

Thats really not what a lot of the positive posters are looking for though, at least in my experience. For many the only thing worse than saying "XXX Sux!" is actually having a logical, explained reason for why you didn't like XXX. Those who make the reasoned, thought out negative posts will then hear how they are "automatically looking for the negative in everything" and "not giving it a chance".

Mileage will vary of course, but I've lost count of the number of times I saw someone make a detailed post explaining why they didn't like an Episode of TCW, only to have their post closely followed by a "Why do you come here if you don't like the show?" comment - a comment that has nothing to do with the post that the person who didn't like the epsiode actually made.

If posting "XXX Sux! " isn't encouraging conversation about the episode(which it isn't of course) then neither is "Why are you here?". There are two sides to every coin.

 

Well, not referring to anything specific ('cuz I can't think of any specific examples), but if poster B comes in with a reasoned out, negative post (and I love those posts) and poster C refutes certain points or think other points are being unfairly blown out of proportion, then poster B basically "wah wah" fingers in ears, then personally I'd believe (though not say) poster B IS just looking for the negative. And perhaps some other poster said what I thought.

Let's face it, SOME posters do blow in with their opinion and don't even do the courtesy of listening to others. (But then, I guess that's the internet.)

Best examples I can think of, top of my head, is the endless series of "RLM nails it, the PT sucks" threads that pop up every other month. Many posters take the time to address the points, but the same "but RLM says" points are brought up over and over in the thread. Before the latest thread was locked, I pointed out that a couple of pages back those very issues were addressed and I was not going to "research them" and list them for the benefit of said poster, resulting in a comment that apparently I could not come up with any examples.

I was certainly left with the impression that said poster did not care to read contrary opinions and wished his "opponents" to supply counter points practically every page. Said poster's apparent goal was to stifle discussion, out-shout everyone, and weary everyone into abandoning the thread or taking counter-aim.

I finally got so fed up (another thread) that I finally broke down after years of "stiflng myself" to report a post (or 2) to a mod - and the thread did get locked. I do say stifle because I do care to hear various opinions; I'm tired of "GL is a hack" or "the PT sucks" or whatever threads.

 

There is a flipside to that, and that is that there is a certain type of poster that cannot accept when their explanation of a plotpoint is rejected. Two people don't have to agree, and these arguments that last for pages don't happen because of only one type of poster, it takes more than one. That is in fact a requirement. It's a ying and yang kind of thing, you can't just point to the ying. The argument requires equal participation, and blame, from both.

If a person rejects an argument, why should that not be the end of it? What's wrong with just agreeing to not agree?

Almost every problem I have ever had here revolves around this very thing.

If I say I'm not interested in an EU explanation, why should I have to defend that position over and over? Do you know how frustrating that is?

 

Based on your example, B contributed with thought out opinions - then C came along to debunk B's opinions and B wasn't interested in changing his/her opinion, or felt that nothing that was said changed how B felt, so by that logic B was just looking for the negative?

I admit I'm not sure how "wah wah, fingers in ears" is defined, but it is pretty hard to refute(defined as being proven to be false or wrong) an opinion. For instance I might feel that the Mortis Trilogy is the best TCW arc that has been produced because I loved the metaphysical themes in play, how it delves deeply into the nature of the Force and is just such a facinating, abstract concept for a story that it just hits every point just right for me.

In turn poster B might have think that the episodes are the worst produced because he isn't into the metaphysical discussion what soever, he likes the more scientific approach of midiclorians and the concept of the Force not being represented by physical manifestations in human form. He might feel that the whole concept isn't even very Star Wars like in its presentation, what with not only the Father, Son and Daughter but the visions of the future and the convienence of characters seeing their fates only to have their memories wiped for plot convienence.

Neither person would be right or wrong, there is nothing to refute there. I wouldn't be able to come along and refute anything poster B said just because I don't agree with their opinion.

 

That is true too, there is a great deal of subjectivity involved in almost every conversation here. We aren't talking about physics with hard set rules, we are talking about interpretations of fictional stories

 

Where's the fun in that?

1.) Here's a thought: instead of running off to comms to complain, why not ask the mod who locked the thread, first?

2.) Never once said everybody had to agree with one another, I said we are here to discuss the films.
Anything beyond that, is not getting it. Got it?

3.) I locked that thread because it had more reports than pages, no warnings, no edits, no bans required.

--Did I lock it prematurely? Possibly.

--Could it have been reopened? Absolutely.

--Have I ever failed to respond to an active user's pm? Never.

--Did anyone contact me to ask if it could be re-opened? No.

--I have locked threads in the past because I did not have the time to clean it up right then and there, but returned to edit/reopen, as soon as I was able. There are others that I have locked without warning, never reopened and haven't heard a peep about since. So when the OP didn't contact me, I figured it wasn't all that important.

 

The reports were not seen until Saturday morning, I chose to lock it and Katya Jade covered that already when she explained how different mods have different styles. CT didn't start that PT-thread and the one who did, did not contact me... this thread was started less than two hours after I locked the other. I had to work Saturday morning, booked from 8-10 and from 11-12. When I locked it from home at a little after seven, I figured I would get a pm about it and would deal with it during my free hour. I logged in at eleven and I ended up handling something else. My client showed, so off I went for another hour. Then, at 12:03 I found this thread up and running with nary msg in my inbox.

At that point: I commented in here, then notified MS before taking off to go out of town on Sunday.

 

Dude, didn't you read the fine print when you signed the contract? You owe Philip Wise 90 hours a week buddy.

 

I'll admit that I've been part of the problematic "why are you here?" trend. Sometimes, though, I'm just absolutely baffled by the motivations behind people's actions. I made the comment in this thread, for example:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/revisiting-the-prequels.50005061/page-4

Narutakikun said: ↑​

No thank you. I'd rather not revisit them. I don't even want to hate them anymore. I'd rather just forget them. And now that Star Wars movies will be an indefinitely-long continuing series like Star Trek or James Bond, I can. The prequels will simply be the Star Trek V or Die Another Day of Star Wars movies - something that was bad, but can be forgotten about, and won't interrupt one's enjoyment of the series as a whole.​

Then, I have to ask (and I don't mean this antagonistically): why are you here?​

​

Do you imagine that posting in a forum dedicated to the prequels is going to help you forget them?​

​

For the life of me, I just don't understand why someone would bother to post such a thing on a thread titled "Revisiting the prequels." Of course they have the right to post their opinion, but I will admit that I find it to be a rather uncharitable thing to say.​

​

One of the most difficult things for me, as a fan, to swallow, is when people say they wish the PT had never been made (a comment I have seen occasionally) because I can't help to find it a bit alienating. I'm a Star Wars fan because of the PT, so when someone says that they'd prefer for the PT never to have existed, they're basically saying that they feel the PT adds nothing of value to the story and its fans add nothing of value to the fandom. Obviously, the solution is for me to grow thicker skin, but I think it does explain some of the...harshness in replies (or mine, at least).​

​

There's no common ground to be had and so it's a lot more difficult to come to a mutual understanding.​

​

I will stand by what I said earlier, though, when I say that I think the personal attacks and pettiness displayed towards the cast and crew are inappropriate and immature. There's no reason for this thread:​

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/ahmed-best-stars-in-wendys-commercial.50011620/​

to exist or still be open.​

 

I was going to merge that with the unintentional humor thread, but Barriss_Coffee threatened to come out of retirement, just so she could ban me for trolling.

 

The reports were not seen until Saturday morning, I chose to lock it and Katya Jade covered that already when she explained how different mods have different styles

---

which I don't technically agree with to be honest, there should be a strict set of guidlines on what is and isn't allowed and not on the whim or style the mod you get , this sounds like "well depends on what moderator you get, if you get a canterkerous one, too bad, you might be getting a weeks vacation if you put a foot wrong, or you're lucky you'll get a tolerant happy go lucky mod, who might edit after edit with no ban" but that's a whole other thread, so best not de-rail it

So to conclude this is what I have got from the thread:

- SSS got a lot of reports (why I don't know, unless it is reports about pitying people and derailment, if thats the case, edit, warn those doing so and leave the people enjoying it to post in peace ) decided to lock it because..yeah it's easier to do it then to edit troublesome posts

- Admin has said she wouldn't have locked it herself "necessarily" but it's the mods call, so coming here about it is a waste of time.

- we are allowed to say negative things, but don't be surprised if you're edited or banned for it

- reporting posts gets one step closer to having a whole thread locked as it's an easy solution

- people who "complained" about this seem to be still none the wiser


and that wraps that up.

 

unfortunately Anakinfan I just hope they are disscussing it in MS for a pretty good solution,

as for the thread in question, and I promise this is the last time I'll mention the thread as it's not the issue anymore, if SSS wants to re-open it, I could give him some virtual cookies or something


Valairy Scott said: Well, not referring to anything specific ('cuz I can't think of any specific examples), but if poster B comes in with a reasoned out, negative post (and I love those posts) and poster C refutes certain points or think other points are being unfairly blown out of proportion, then poster B basically "wah wah" fingers in ears, then personally I'd believe (though not say) poster B IS just looking for the negative. And perhaps some other poster said what I thought.
-------

the points you refer to mostly (in my experiance anyway) revolves around an answer given by EU, and user B believes that major plot points shouldn't be handled by EU but by the films themselves, when it comes to Syfo Dyas I'm user B in your scenario. And as User B, no i'm not just looking for the negative.


----
we are allowed to say negative things, but don't be surprised if you're edited or banned for it
---

the above is the one that is quite upsetting and one I WOULD like resolved before the thread is locked, because although I don't see myself a basher, as I hope others see, sometimes I "don't get it" so don't want to end up banned by an unpopular opinion,

 

Poster B in that situation is often the one being harassed. What's the more stubborn position, the one who is not interested in a form of discussion, or the one who refuses to accept that and spends days at a time trying to make poster B "see the light" of their argument?

If a person offers an explanation from a book, and poster B says that they are not interested in what that book says on the subject, why should that not just be the end of it? Why is it allowed that a person can follow person B around pestering them about the merits of these EU explanations for days on end?

 

at: ACoD: yes I agree, lets not take anything mods say seriously just before a locked thread

lets treat everything they say like one big joke and see how far that gets us

Edit: be interesting if mods like your post, just to confirm, that we weren't supposed to take his wording literally

I mean perhaps we weren't, I know triple S enough to know that he has a sense of humour,

it's why we're here isn't it? to get a concrete answer.