Possible fundamental changes in JC membership

Anyone who has even one shred of decency...when a group of people take their pleasure from insulting another user by making comments about them, or just throwing out random insults about anything they feel like, that's where the problem is. Very prevalent in the JCC, especially against certain users. (Telling someone to "die please kthxbye", for example).

the only reason you said all that is because you've been 'picked on' by certain people. i can understand how you feel, as i've had to deal with this sort of thing before, but i didn't make blanket judgements of certain posting styles and say that it's always bad. as for the 'random insults', i don't think they're very random at all. a lot of times they're directed at specific people and are just in good fun. there comes a point where you just have to stop being so sensitive and have thicker skin. this isn't disneyland.

and btw, 'die please kthxbye' is said simply because it's funny. or at least that's why i say stuff like that. if i wanted to insult a person for real i would be serious rather than a goof. part of the problem is that a lot of these types of posts were originally meant exclusively as lighthearted ribbing and joking, but then a lot of people started using it for meanness. and so now, everytime someone like you sees it you assume their attacking someone.

they have to be held accountable for their words,

people also need to be held accountable for their misunderstanding of things often times.

and here is as good a place to curb their arrogance as anywhere else.

well that kind of unfounded labeling (regardless of who you're referring to) certainly doesn't lend any credence to your argument, now does it.

But for some reason, the JCC is almost allowed to be a war zone. Some threads that should have been locked never were, and only by the eventual death of interest in the thread did the garbage said in it stop. I know it's a more difficult place to handle over there than perhaps even here, but for God's sake, it shouldn't be that hard to know there are certain users more likely than others to zoom in and start shooting out insults (I've got a few in mind right now).

melodrama. my response to this is the same as that of the first part i responded to. jcc is more laid back than other forums, as it should be, because it's supposed to be a lounge type atmosphere where people aren't as restricted in what they can talk about etc.

 

if i wanted to insult a person for real i would be serious rather than a goof
Regardless of YOUR intentions, saying things like "die please" is not apporpriate for a place like this. Yes, things can be taken out of context (I admit I have no idea about this particular case)...but overall there is a lack of common manners on the boards.

I'm of the opinion that the overall JC membership is less interested in issues that relate to the JC itself...and prefers to post without getting much involved in how things work here.
Perhaps it is because many of the boards in the JC...have become such a "exclusive" club, where a select group of users are free to say whatever they want...and newcomers (with differnt opinions) are chased away. The Senate Floor is one of the worst places in this regard. Most people here want to talk SW related stuff...not get wrapped up in administrative issues (since they are ignored on other boards)

 

Perhaps it is because many of the boards in the JC...have become such a "exclusive" club, where a select group of users are free to say whatever they want...and newcomers (with differnt opinions) are chased away. The Senate Floor is one of the worst places in this regard.

I take exception to that. In the Senate, we only really step in when people start to make personal remarks about other users. We try very hard not to moderate based on a user's beliefs or opinions.

Kimball Kinnison

 

We try very hard not to moderate based on a user's beliefs or opinions
Who said anything about moderators? I wasn't attacking Moderators...just commented that I've seen many cases of the "regulars" on the Senate Floor showing a lack of respect for those with differing opinions.

I take exception to that
Again, sorry if your feathers are ruffled...but that's how I see it. And any kind of retaliation by you (or anyone from Senate) would only serve to prove my point.

 

Having a Mod create a new thread is no different than a debate moderator asking questions, I see no problem with that...
I was just saying that having Mods get involved in the lengthy discussions that are already occuring is taking them away from looking at the overall board.

I think I know what KRASH means...

I don't expect most of you to agree with me, that's fine, but you want the mods to be "users with authority" and that seems to be a problem.
It 's like you want parents that are your friends and not your parents. I'm using Mods as an example, but I believe that they have great potential to abuse their "authority" due to their postion.

For example, if I was a new person, I wouldn't trust a Mod that casually posts in a defense force or a basher thread because I feel that they may hold their opinion against me if a "situation" occured with someone that is a frequenter of those threads or they may not like what I post in one if I was a frequenter of those boards myself.
Either scenario shows a potential for "bias".

EXTREME EXAMPLE FOLLOWS:
Really, it's like asking an African-American poster to not be leery if a Mod posts in a KKK support thread.

It doesn't matter what the issue is or the group is, people know there are "cliques" here, I'm just saying don't act like it doesn't exist.

Also, don't act like people are going to be perfect angels here because they can't even do that in the real world!
I'd much rather have to deal with a jerk online than some jerk in the real world.
I can ignore their posts or just go offline, I can't do that in reality, especially if they are really confrontational.

EDIT: Let me add that JC politics wasn't the reason why I came here in 1998.
I'm only commenting because it seems that some people here are upset that many users don't want to get involved in this crap.

Well, look at it objectively, what's the incentive to get involved?

Titles? Colors? Personalized icons? Popularity?
**** that!

Tell me or anyone reading this why we should care?

 

I'm going to reply to the first post since 95% of the responses are background noise to me given those posts were made by many of the people that have made this place the train wreck it has become.

This is a non-issue. The membership is what it is and you might as well get used to the kids running the playground. The reason there are so few moderator candidates available is that the current group of underachievers has not so much run them off as taken what desire there was to frequent the JC away from them. Now whether that is the fault of the admins or the users themselves, I can't say. I think it's more just the way of things. As a community grows and becomes more inclusive, it's collective IQ generally goes down. Those that wish to participate in conversations above the third grade level are forced to do so elsewhere.

My one suggestion would be to take this place less seriously. If you really need this forum to feel needed, appreciated or otherwise, then I suggest you turn off the computer and go buy a dog. I've given up on this place or the majority of the people here ever changing for the better and I'll tell you, it's liberating.

Oh, and I also suggest you do away with Comms.

 

Wow Hob, you've only been registered here for two months and are already overloading on bitterness?

And Comms isn't going anywhere, hate to tell ya.

 

Yep, three whole months, Brad.

Sad, isn't it?

 

wow, jim, that was a beautiful nugget of arrogance and disdain.

EDIT: in your 5:45 post, that is.

 

From my discussions with other users, most seem more wary of mods who don't post as regular users very often. It makes them seem too detached from the forums they're supposed to be looking after.

For example, in discussions of the Lit forum, the collective knowledge of the EU among the moderators is one of the things most often praised. Those mods gain a lot of respect by just posting in threads.

YubYub and TG- Protecting fangirls from hormonally gifted fanboys since 2002

 

I feel that they may hold their opinion against me if a "situation" occured with someone that is a frequenter of those threads or they may not like what I post in one if I was a frequenter of those boards myself.
Right on...Punisher!

I'm only commenting because it seems that some people here are upset that many users don't want to get involved in this
I'm more involved with Fanforce then JC boards...simply because with Fanforce you have both online discussion and in-person gatherings with a bunch of people.

Don't get me wrong, trading ideas about movies and EU with most of ya has been a blast...and there are some who I'd like to go "Magnolia Fan" on! Granted, there are probably some who feel that way about me (it's cool) I think alot of people are turned off to the idea of getting involved with the boards (beyond posting) for the simple fact of...why take the abuse?

 

wow, jim, that was a beautiful nugget of arrogance and disdain.

You guys inspire nothing less.

 

at least there's a point to 'us' being here. and 'we' inspire more benefit than you do. you've contributed nothing other than your delusions of superiority, for months now. if the jc is beneath you, as you make it clear that is the case, then why do you keep coming back? to remind us of just how much better you think you are? sorry but most people don't even pay attention to you anymore.

 

That's more than enough.

If you don't have something constructive to say, don't post. Otherwise, it may be removed.

 

If you don't have something constructive to say, don't post
There is more to contributing to the discussion...then just a pat on the back. For this Communications section of the boards to be productive, we need to hear what people feel are the drawbacks of the boards.

at least there's a point to 'us' being here. and 'we' inspire more benefit than you do.
That's a little self-rightous Porkins. And it is exactly that persona that Hob was refering to when he said:
If you really need this forum to feel needed, appreciated or otherwise, then I suggest you turn off the computer and go buy a dog

While I don't think living vicariously through your dog is a effective solution, he does bring up a GOOD point...there are many people who take this thing waay too seriously.

 

The reason there are so few moderator candidates available is that the current group of underachievers has not so much run them off as taken what desire there was to frequent the JC away from them. Now whether that is the fault of the admins or the users themselves, I can't say. I think it's more just the way of things. As a community grows and becomes more inclusive, it's collective IQ generally goes down. Those that wish to participate in conversations above the third grade level are forced to do so elsewhere.

I would have to disagree with this. Ine of the things that has kept me at the JC is that, compared to other message boards, the discussion is a lot more intelligent.

I also stay here because this place has an environment that I have not found anywhere else online. I started off in Lit, at a time when I was first reading the NJO series. Then, thanks to a link from Genghis, I discovered the Senate Floor. Had it not been for that, I probably would not have stayed around here for the past year and a half.

In the Senate, I found a place where the moderators actually made people behave. The first thread I got involved in there was the "Mormonism" thread, where I helped explain my own beliefs. On other message boards where I have been involved in similar discussions, they always degenerated into circular arguments and flame wars, usually throwing lies around about my beliefs and then a person running to a moderator when they were told that they were wrong.

However, in the Senate, Lord Bane made it clear that such behavior was not tolerated. He demanded that users remain respectful of others' beliefs even when they don't agree. That same attitude governed the entire Senate.

KW and RS have continued that attitude in the Senate (and now, I am trying to help maintain it as well). Because I have seen so many benefits from the way the boards have grown, I feel that I owe it back to the boards to do everything I can to help maintain that atmosphere.

The JC has something for everyone. It's not just a playground run by third graders, but it is like a vast market place, offering shops to suit everyone's taste in some way.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It's not just a playground run by third graders, but it is like a vast market place, offering shops to suit everyone's taste in some way.

But its that same aspect that kills the JC in the end. The fact that this board takes itself so seriously is kind of intimidating, not to mention repelling.

A ,ot of people would like a board that didn't get itself in a roll because of "Administrative issues". For heaven's sake its just a the internet.

 

That's a little self-rightous Porkins.

um, no it's not. it was just a matter of pointing out that the people (jcers in general) he feels are beneath him have a reason for still being here other than placing themselves above everyone else as he does.

And it is exactly that persona that Hob was refering to

no it wasn't, as i didn't exemplify the particular 'persona' you implied. the persona you implied is him not me. my purpose for sticking around here is not soley to be disdainful and self-righteous, as it is for him.

anyhoo, i'm just responding to your comments, as he is not relevant enough to me to discuss without relevance to the situation at hand.

now if you don't mind, he is not the topic of this thread.

at some point, a couple pages back the discussion became about the jc as a whole. however that was not the original purpose of this thread. the original purpose was the comms forum.

 

the persona you implied is him not me. my purpose for sticking around here is not soley to be disdainful and self-righteous, as it is for him.


No, I "stick around" here to read 3SA every week or so. I'm still trying to understand why you decided to lump yourself in with all of the people I was supposedly acting "self-righteous" toward. Perhaps you have even more insight into this issue than I first assumed. Either way, I was laughing through Comms for the first time in a month or so and found this thread - and replied. That's all, it's just words. Take them however you will, but I beg you not to lose sleep over such things.

Also, I don't know where this "disdain" applied to my post originates. It's simply a matter of choices, not of contempt or hatred. Many people find that this enviroment is not the one they signed up for and decide to leave. It's as simple as that. Reading more than that into my previous post is simply inaccurate.

 

So if the moderation in this forum is as balanced and fair as it's touted as being, both Hob and PiaS now face post deletion for ignoring KW's public warning to stay on topic and continuing their e-grudge match (which...let's face it...is one of the main reasons Communications gets any traffic at all these days)

The issue of balanced moderation has been raised in this very thread, it's been questioned by users and we've been assured that it's alive and well.

But is the proof in the pudding?

IMO the fundamental changes aren't in the JC membership at all, rather in the way the boards are moderated.

 

a lot of times they're directed at specific people and are just in good fun. there comes a point where you just have to stop being so sensitive and have thicker skin

Translation: We can say whatever we want about other people, but they can't say anything back. I won't even ask who wrote that bylaw...

And I was referring partially to some of my experiences...last week was a real eye-opener in the "Attention All Men" thread. The worst comment ever directed at me was allowed to stay in the thread, and the user had no action taken against them. But the comment could not be read as a joke, except by someone who makes these sort of comments and finds insulting others hilarious. Sorry, I don't.

It was those same sort of comments that scared off one user indefinitely...just because a large number of people didn't agree with the contents of his posts and threads was no reason to come down on him in the harsh fashion that frequently occurred. The old standby of if you don't like it, don't read it, always should apply. (Not he shouldn't have posted it in the first place...why should someone have to tailor their posts to what they think others in the YJCC might like to read? I thought diversity of content is to be expected in a place with that many users...and that diversity of content should not include blatant flames disguised as "jokes". One man's joke is five other peoples's insult).

 

As I said in a earlier post, if people want to take this stuff so seriously then the JC SYSTEM (Adminstration, ownership, etc.) and the USERS, need to create their own cyber "BILL OF RIGHTS" & "CONSTITUTION".
These "documents" would be the laws by which this board will operate and we can hold elections and worry about campaign contributions resulting in political favors...

Really, is THAT necessary?
Does the guy wanting to discuss how "KEWL" the newest Boba Fett variation in a run of Hasbro figures, really want to get involved in this?

The insulting, the comments, the exchanges really depend on the person reading the posts and the posters. (Of course, the TOS has rules for such things, but I've never seen rules followed to the letter ANYWHERE, there's always a loophole.)
The Mods have no control over what someone says, how they act here or how the people INTERPRET a post, that is like asking your Congressman to legislate morality.
You can make lying a crime, but people will still do it. IN fact, it seem the people that set the laws will be the largest violaters of them...

BTW, seeing how the discussions here USUALLY degenerate into personal discussions, personal grudes, etc. and the issues/topics discussed are RARELY resolved HERE, it just goes to show how ineffective the system is, adding new rules to a fundamentally broken society isn't going to fix it!

 

Translation: We can say whatever we want about other people, but they can't say anything back. I won't even ask who wrote that bylaw...

i have absolutely no idea how on god's green earth you could possibly 'translate' what i said into that.

as for the last paragraph of your post, you made my argument for me, and pretty much everything you said in that paragraph contradicts your original argument. you started out with an argument (the other day) and now you're presenting the opposing argument, whether you realize it or not.

 

you started out with an argument (the other day) and now you're presenting the opposing argument, whether you realize it or not

You only bothered to read what you wanted to see...perhaps you forgot to read this near the end:

I thought diversity of content is to be expected in a place with that many users...and that diversity of content should not include blatant flames disguised as "jokes".

That's not presenting the opposing argument at all. Because your argument only accounts for one half of my statement, while conveniently ignoring the rest of it.

And doubtless, you were also referring to this statement: "The old standby of if you don't like it, don't read it, always should apply." Now, you are trying to say I should follow this rule. Why not yourself as well? If you come across something I wrote, since you're automatically not going to like what it says, don't read it, so you won't feel compelled to respond to it.

 

yawn