So, is this an actual rule now.. (Discussing parody threads)

I seriously doubt they agree with her actions... they just have to put on a show here in public.

 

Well, whether they do or not, they should. Because if they didn't, and we allowed such things to happen on a regular basis, I would bet that things would go downhill pretty quickly. Perhaps even the closure of the JCC.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

Of course.

 

No.

 

Grimby didn't feel the need to make an edit, and neither did I when I saw it. Cathy did, and she posted a warning and removed some posts. She's since apologized and admitted that she might be in the wrong, and we've worked it out. People make mistakes (mod mistakes tend to be a bit more visible than most), and that's okay, as long as they're admitted and learned from. That's exactly what's happened here. No rules have been changed, or anything like that, so there's not much to worry about in that regard.

 

So.. Par-tay!?

 

So can we go back to making wisecracks?

 

Not on my watch, wise-guy!

 

Not for nothing, but way worse things have been openly said about Wise than quoting something that has been widely spread and quoted for how many years? I mean it's not like it's a secret that what was quoted was said at the time.

That being said, Cathy is new to the MS and still learning how to mod her forum, so there's going to be a bit of a learning curve, and she did what she felt was right.

I don't think this has made JP bitter about anything, just that he wanted clarification. I really don't think he's jumping on Cathy per say, just trying to communicate his feelings on the edits.

He's already let it go, and Cathy if she made a noobie mod mistake or not, was just trying to uphold what she thinks is expected of her role as a mod.

It's no biggie either way, so there's really no reason to argue about it further.

Like I said, I think JP just wanted clarification about why it was edited. Keep in mind, I didn't see what was edited, but I suspect I know what JP quoted. It wasn't a big deal, but Cathy was just trying to do her job as a mod and make sure the thread didn't get out of hand.

So, everything is cleared up hopefully, and the only thing I'd have suggested was maybe her PMing JP before making the edits. However, like I said, she's new to modding and wants to do things as right as possible.

 

*Jumps in and makes a quick statement from Galactica's CIC.*

As owner of this site Wise doesn't deserve our respect...he earns it. Many others including myself lost the respect we had for him years ago. So anything that JP said is awesome. JP FTW!


*Jumps awai*

 

WE WILL MEET IN THE PLACE WHERE THERE IS NO DARKNESS

 

my post was simply

Which is true - Philip said some time ago that he wouldn't tolerate trolling him directly on his boards, and mods should take a very harsh line with it. As far as I understand it this policy still stands, but it came into place long after 'Wisegate'. I posted that as a 'helpyhelper' to remind everyone of the rule before anyone inadvertently got themselves perm banned. The JCC mods online at the time (and who posted in that thread), maybe have wanted to do something similar, just to set the tone of what are acceptable comments, and what are not.

However, Cathy posted

Which to me sounds like a little bit further than the original policy was supposed to go, which is why jp questioned it. She's been big enough to come in and say that the editing was maybe a step too far, which should be fine with everyone. Surely we are able to reference decisions made by the owner (his ruling on slash fanfic is a perfect example), and public posts by him should be repostable for whatever genuine reason.

I disagree. He provides this messageboard for us for free, and asking nothing in return. I appreciate how the advertising etc works, and I do wish he was more active on the boards, however these are his boards and while you don't have to respect him, you do need to respect whatever rules he feels are necessary.

Anyone is free to start an offshoot board, and many have with different degrees of success.

 

The second the thread came up, Cathy performed some actions and immediately made a thread in MS. She certainly wasn't acting like some vigilante mod who set aside the rules. She performed her duty, made a MS thread, asked questions, had a desire to learn more, etc. The situation was just a little sensitive because the truth is, when the owner is the topic of a post, it's looked at a little more closely. That's just the reality.

I think beyond that, this wasn't a huge deal and I think we're pretty much back on track now. No new rules or anything.

 

I agree with Malkie's post, it's always iffy making statements about the owner. And the mods have to respect that position and mod it as best they can according to their judgement. They're tasked to be his voice, and sometimes that can be a hard thing to do in any situation, even in RL. The owner has stated his position on comments about him, mostly in MS. Granted it was in response to a very stressful situation and at a bad time in the boards' history. He was in defense mode as were folks on the other side of the argument, going by what was said at the time.

Now that all that's over, I don't think he's going to be perusing the boards looking for insults at this point in time, BUT he does still deserve some sort of gratitude for keeping these boards open for our entertainment, regardless of how or why he's doing it. I, myself, certainly don't presume to know everyone's feelings or motivations at the time or even now.

I don't think Cathy's approaching dictator territory, yet. She's new and that's a big, scary rule especially if you don't know the history. As always, communicating with people as you edit, even in the thread, and explaining your position (like Cathy has done here in Comms) can help these things in the future. I don't think getting defensive does, though. I will say from my experience in MS and JCC, especially, if you've got mods posting in threads that edits come up in situations like this in JCC, going to Team JCC and discussing it helps with a lot for the mod wanting to edit and those that have posted. I've been guilty of not doing that myself and learned that it's just good team work.

 

Can't we just add the word "Wise" to the filter so it gets starred out?
Then we don't have to worry about anyone saying anything about him.

 

For clarity, was your post in reply to anything I said? I don't disagree with any points you've made in this post.

 

Not to stir the pot or create problems but in the interest of clarity, where does the line sit when discussing Phillip Wise. Obviously trolling/flaming is out which is to be expected given the standard rules about anyone on these boards but I am unclear what beyond that is or isn't acceptable.

For instance, if he has said something that I don't agree with am I going to be edited (or worse) for questioning that statement? Is this a preventative ruling intended to eliminate all negative comments about Mr. Wise or simply one that prevents unfair demonizing of him.

 

No malkie. It was just a generic post addressing the entire thread.

 

This is a good question. It's always been my understanding that you could respectfully disagree with things he said, but like any other user, you certainly couldn't flame or bait him. And as a VIP (more like the LFL type), he would deserve more respect than say a regular VIP like me. It's probably conducive to getting that clarified and just in the general rules, if they're not there. It wouldn't be adding anything.

 

This post is speaking independently from jp's situation. I'm not trying to say that jp did this. I'm just giving out a broad clarification.

If you want to quote the owner with stuff he's said publicly, then there really is no harm in that. If you want to respectfully disagree, that's fine too. We're not trying to impose some massive censor. Obviously any direct flaming would be edited immediately. However, the thing with the public quotes is context. If users are just starting to post out-of-context quotes by the owner that serve no purpose to the discussion other than to demean someone by displaying quotes without the correct circumstances of the conversation they were taken out of, then that's not allowed.

 

That's a good burn GIMER.

 

Thanks, that makes sense. I think Spiderfan's "unfair demonizing" is a good way to put it. We have that even with LFL VIPs, and I understand it's certainly not something that can be put in black and white in rules for every situation, and context means it does take more judgment on the moderator's part as well as deciding when something is "unfair" as in LFL VIPS, but it's a good way to put it. I think your paragraph up there makes for a good clarifier in the rules.


*looks at Gimer's post*

*Runs off to post in JCC*

 

Sorry I should clarify further that my inquiry isn't directly relating to the issue at hand, I was simply unaware of a special rule pertaining to the sites owner. I would expect that he would be covered like anyone else here by the no flaming/baiting/trolling rules and be given the same respect that is expected to be given to anyone else. I became concerned that certain posts seemed to state that there was some elevated importance given to him (which is fine, he is the site owner) and that there were certain rules that seemed to make him immune above and beyond the usual flaming baiting rules. Until now I was unaware of any rules relating directly to him and to me it started to sound dangerously close to censorship. I just wanted to know where the line was drawn and what the ruling relating to him directly entailed.

Thank You rhonderoo and ObiWan506 for clarifying. I think I understand now.

 

I have a question, if it's even going to be an issue shouldn't the owner have some sort of participation in a forum he owns? You know, other than to hack his collectibles? I mean, no offense to the man, but at least be frank about the reason that you keep the boards open. It'd suck if you had to socialize with the sad people that you sell your goods out to.