Some Recommendations

1) More moderators. There's nothing sacred about being a moderator, so let's appoint some more people. There are plenty of adequate candidates. Get 5 to 7 extra moderators. (Too bad these suggestions are always regarded as veiled attempts to become one, but soit).

We need motivated mods that care. The other day I heard one mod who does the JCC remark that the JCC is crap -- good, then either get working or shove off. Look at jp-30: he cares, and the Games forum is the better for it. Other good mods are Son of the Suns, Vertical, NathanDahlin and Kadue (I'm not going to give a list of who's good and who's not, but those mentioned are just examples of mods that I, personally, found doing an excellent job).

Also, some of the current mods should be more active and should log in more frequently. Too often there's only one mod online for the YJCC -- not good.

1a) Mods that blunder and/or fail to act responsibly should be demoted quicker. Keep things fresh. Mods that start to blurt out all kinds of stories and explanations only to be contradicted later by an "official TFN stance" are confusing things and should leave voluntarily. They create this so-called 'internet drama' and sometimes happily accuse regular users who just like to have things cleared up, of creating it instead. Mods that accuse regular users of, say, having an attitude of degradation towards the JC and then refuse to reply to PMs asking for clarification: go. At least have the courtesy to reply and explain why you said what you said. Same with mods that start threads announcing new policies and after that cop out in the middle of the discussion.

Ideas like the scavenger hunt and the mafia game should be stimulated. Give "them" something to do! It reduces spam.

1c) Be consistent, mods. Threads that invite you to debate about 9/11: to the Senate Floor with them. Threads that ask us to choose between Clinton and Bush: idem. Threads about violence in the Middle East: Senate Floor. (Also, be sure to refer the starters of these threads to the 'official' or 'general' threads if they exist.) Threads that flame users: remove right away, not when you're prompted.

In other words: start working. Too many regular users are desperately wanting and trying to become mods anyway -- mod status shouldn't be a prize or a lucky number in the lottery, but a responsible and active task.

A short while ago a mod asked users to limit the use of socks. I don't know if that was a sincere attempt or not (he/she didn't react to a helpful PM I sent him/her), but it hasn't resulted in anything. There are as many socks active as there were before.

So no half-hearted plans, please. If you are going to announce a big clean-up job: do it. Don't start hanging around in lame threads that get locked by another mod anyway -- no, reserve some time and actually try to realize your plans. But be sure these plans are OK with the majority of the users.

1d) In my original piece, I wrote:

"The Advisory Council may seem a good idea, but, in practice, so far -- despite good efforts by the people involved -- it doesn't really make a difference. To improve the mod / reg user relationship (the AC's prime function), let the regular users elect (at least) one mod (two at the most) for three months. This democratically-elected mod -- an "Ombudsman" of sorts -- will be given the task to supervise and report. He should try to obtain complete transparency.

To avoid the danger of the election becoming a popularity contest only, each candidate will write a post in which he or she states his or her motivations, ideas, suggestions, et cetera. Other candidates will get a chance to react on them; perhaps there could be a some organized one-on-one debates.

Also, during the election, people should motivate their vote and not just, say, scream "I vote for so-and-so!!!!11!"

When the new mod has been elected, he or she fulfils the task for a term of three months. Then, the mod will get a chance to be re-elected, or a new mod

 

Only three threads per week?

Severe sock limits?

Ed doesn't know about this.

Swooky...

 

A few quick responses to things that jumped out at me...


Still, I would like to see more reg user's input into the AC: can't the members be elected the way I described above? Who are the current members anyway? Where can I find a contact address?

The new AC should be going public in a day or two.


It would be better to have a thread in each forum with the names of the mods that moderate that forum.

Like this or this, in every forum?


(3b1) And why not bring the Senate Floor to the YJCC? The more pillars of good discussion the YJCC has, the better.)

No, thank you. I'm quite happy with the idea of the Senate and it's (possibly) forthcoming sibling being entirely "fluff free" pure debate forums.

 

excellent post Debo!

It isn't always clear which mod does what forum. If I see a troll, I always head to "Users online", look for a colored name, and hope he or she has something to do with the forum the troll is in. It would be better to have a thread in each forum with the names of the mods that moderate that forum.


i think that this particular issue will be resolved by the new 'Title' feature that was implemented by zerosleep

( see these threads: confusion and Title Feature?)

 

Wow.

goes back to re-read..

I?m not sure how it would be possible for the JC community to ?elect? anyone. Technically that might be a nightmare. Also, the JC is not a democracy, so while I understand the idea behind giving members control over the Mod Squad or the AC, I don?t think it?s going to happen any time soon.

Merging Communications and Announcements is a good idea. However, I?m not sure that would actually improve people?s awareness of the announcements, since I?m not convinced that many people actually come here on a regular basis. (I do, but that?s just so I get my daily JC Soap Opera Fix ).

I?d have to disagree with the limitation on the number of threads per member. While it might cut down on redundancy, I think it cause people to make up multiple topic threads, ie ?Why I love Obi Wan and Mace and Why Clone troopers have white armor?. Or members would just start new discussion in old threads. Letting people start individual threads about each one makes the discussion more organized. In addition, for those of us that visit many forums, a limit of three threads per week could be very frustrating and might stifle discussion.

Re: Experts, how would these people be selected? Would they be chosen by the mods?

I like the idea of sock limitations.

 

Here's another suggestion -- put Debo in charge. It's so refreshing to see a valuable member post something in this forum that actually makes sense and shows a real love for the forums. I tip my hat to you, Debo.

I agree with most of the points above, but I'm not so sure I concur with regard to merging Community with LFL Projects, Games, Senate, etc. While it would certainly add some direction to Community, the topics coinciding to those other forums would definitely suffer, as they would be overcome with the spam that all too often plagues Community. I think the answer simply lies in enforcement in, and attention to, the Community forum.

Great post. This is what the Communications forum is for. Not to incessantly carry on about trivial nonsense, but to provide feedback and suggestions to improve the JC. Thank you, Debo. And I appreciate the degradation nod.

AYBABTU?

 

This is great stuff, Debo! While I do agree with most of your ideas, I must disagree wtih a couple of your points.

There's no need for extra moderators. There are roughly thirty of them patrolling the JC forums, although they often tread upon the JCC more lightly than they should. FanFiction, Literature, and Episode III Spoilers have small, but persistent, teams of mods who get the job done. They work as hard as they can to make their areas look as good as possible.

The rest of the mods also do a very good job. I don't think they get enough credit for the work they perform here, for such a small percentage of people, they do a commendable, if not outstanding, job of keeping order. If they need a few hands, they'll get them when necessary. With a trio of new invites, the Mod Squad is all set for at least a couple of months.

Also, I don't think moving forums will solve much. They've already been moved and the mods picked the best solution out of many different choices.

 

Look at jp-30: he cares, and the Games forum is the better for it.



LMAO!

You don't travel to the Games Forum much, do you?

LMAO!

 

I disagree jedi greg. Often I find that there are not either the right mods for the forum, or not many mods on at all, and annoying or spammish stuff pops up. There could be a few extra mods to lighten some of the burden on the current ones too. Also i find that are some mods out there that don't care, and that is quite annoying. Not that matters, and i'm sure soon those will be talked into being more peppy about their job. But then i'm still a newbie and who listens to me?

 

1d) I really like your idea about choosing one AC representative. This would be logical because they are there to represent us. The current five AC members could nominate ten people for us to vote for, and then post it a week before they leave and the five new guys go in, one of them being the person we elect.

However, two immediate problems I see on this - Polls are very, very bad. Socks can log in and destroy the voting process. Unless every single person voted AND posted their choice, AND the mods checked all IPs in the thread, it wouldn't work out. Additionally, it would be a popularity contest. If you were in it, you'd get the votes from all of the regulars in your hilarious threads. Are you the best choice to represent us? Not necassarily. If these two problems could be ironed out, then I think your idea is excellent.

2) Agreed. It may be difficult in the AotC forum, but in smaller forums, it's very easy and logical. Or they could substitute a link to the forum's official FAQ/index where [TheForce.net] is located in the upper right of the boards (see Games if you don't understand). People don't always look up there, but it's a step in the right direction.

3) Of course, socks aren't really a major problem; still, they can be nasty sometimes.

Right. Then ban the troubling socks and the user. The mods do that now.

3a) Users without a bad track record should be able to post as many threads as they want. It's been like that for nearly four years and has worked fine. I like your ideas about people who have been banned having limited prileges. Although I'd fall under the problem user category, it's probably a good suggestion, no matter how impossible it is to regulate.

3b) I read like a week ago that the administration would post their definition of spam and its regulation in a few days. What happened to that, I don't know.

3b1) The Senate Floor was created so thatsensitive issues wouldn't be in the YJCC. In years past, sensitive issues (religion, abortion, etc.) have been banned and unbanned countless times in the YJCC due to its abuse. It's handled perfectly in the Senate Floor. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

3c) No. It's been that way for two and a half years. It's fine the way it is.

4) I don't see what's wrong with this idea. Sounds good to me.

That was fun.

 

1) I dont know about more mods...the only people that really know about workloads and whether mods are required are the current mods. I am happy to stick with this.

There should definitely be multiple mods online for a forum like the JCC. I guess that sometimes these things happen. It isnt like people are scheduled to be on at certain times.

1a) Mods are appointed because they have a history of being good members (apart from a couple of blunders here and there).
Loyalty is an important thing in my mind. You dont just dump a mod because he/she makes one or two mistakes. It has to be more than that.

1c) Consistency is good.

1d) Elections are no good. I will NEVER support an election here. I dont see any way that an election here will be about anything other than popularity. It wont be about who does the job best. The majority of users will vote for their friends.

Current AC members are listed in a thread in the welcome forum. We have one in the JCC, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. Additionally, AC members have a comment in their sig.

The AC, right now, doesn't really differ from the Mod Squad: it's just a little extension. I would like to see the AC having more decisive power. A month or so ago there were discussions between mods and regs about pruning -- the AC could serve as an independent court of sorts during debates like that. A referee.

The AC doesnt have decisive power. We are an ADVISORY committee, we advise. We have advised on all sorts of matter, including the JCC situation.

They should be in the picture more, and more transparent. I want to know what they're doing behind those close doors, and if they really make a difference.

Well, as soon as you open the doors, then the discussion is hindered. You will have to trust me on this, but I for one couldnt talk candidly and openly about topics if I knew everyone was watching my every word. We discuss things that are not to be let out in the open.
If you want to know about where ACers stand on matters (to find out if they represent you), just ask them. PM them, or post in the AC update. You'll find out. We were appointed because we are regular users. We are the people affected by policy changed.

2)Make sure all information new and experienced users need is easily accessible and always "in sight". In other words: UP informational threads regularly
Yes. But do mods need to do this? Why cant you, or other users?

It isn't always clear which mod does what forum
The new titles should help there.

2a)The Announcements forum should be merged with JC Communications. The Informational Threads forum can be split up between the forums for which the threads are relevant: Episode II threads into the Episode II forums; threads dealing with Communications to the JC Communications forum.

Its an interesting proposal, and I am sure its been discussed before. Last I heard the answer was "no" though. I can really comment...I dont mind either way, although I can say that yesterday I was looking for the names of the Games forum mods, and went straight to the Info forum, mod listings, and there is was. Easy. All the mods in one place. I wouldnt want to lost that.

3) There is a sock policy. Last I saw, it isnt really a strict policy.

3a) I cant agree with the limits on thread posting. If I have 4 topics of interest, I cant post them? No. Not good. It isnt a matter of how many topics, but whether they are worth being posted.

3b1) The senate floor was started because serious conversations were difficult in the JCC. Now you want to put it back.
Additionally, earlier, you said :

Threads that invite you to debate about 9/11: to the Senate Floor with them.

Do you want these in the Senate or the JCC?

4) I dont like this idea. Why is one person better than someone else that might know as much? And it wont stop people posting threads asking specific questions.

5)Good threads should be rewarded. Someone who manages to make several (appreciated) quality threads, could b

 

goldbubbly: Sometimes it seems that the mod coverage is weak, like in Community (which is often) or late at night (JC board time). It's often frustrating to log on at midnight and seeing a few spam/trolling threads and there's no mods in sight. Waiting is painful, but it's better late than never.

Mods not caring? Practically all of them truly care about the JC. Sure, some of them do seem to contradict that from time to time, but deep down they really do care. If they didn't care about the JC, they wouldn't be modding now - they either would have initially refused or have their privileges taken away for being so lackadaisical.

 

These ideas are well thought out, but I do find myself dissagreeing on some points.

-Severe sock limitation. I probably have more than I need, but it's not like because I have 3 socks that I go around acting any differently than I normally do. I don't think I'm an exceptional case.

-Rewards for good threads. The reward for being a good poster isn't modship, and shouldn't be VIP-ship. It's becoming a valued member of the community. Sadly, my best example, Mr. Neck was promoted, but he was rewarded with respect, compassion and friendship for his being a good poster.

-More mods. Having more of them won't terribly increase thier productivity. I do get the feeling, though, that some threads won't be taken care of until someone gets a PM about it, which is a little distressing.

-The elected AC rep idea. No matter what you do about having candidates prepare speeches, people will vote for thier favorite member. Heck, people do that in presidential elections here, and this is just an AC spot.

-Merging JCC and LFL projects. It could work, I don't visit LFLP often, but then the JCC could become even more of a hodgepodge. "This forum is about nothing and other projects form Lucasfilm."

Just a little fuel for the fire of good conversation. Thank you, Debo for sparking it.

 

i'm strongly against voting for anything.

there are all sorts of sub-groups and spin off boards, that each of them would be vying for "their people" to get power. i think it's better if it's chosen by a group that's NOT the general population.

 

No complaints about leadership here, and I've had my share of threads locked.

I just wanted to suggest three features for the forums. First a search feature. If there is one then I'm just stupid, please point it out to me. Second, pictures in the signature are really cool. Like here Third, an easier way to quote posts. Refer to the link above.

Of the three I think a search feature could lighten the load of the mods and even decrease use of server space (although bandwidth would spike).

Thanks

 

The only thing I don't warm up to is 3c

If you limit non-SW games discussions into YJCC, you'll have more redundancy in your hands. Besides, there are well-established information etc. threads in Games concerning non-sw games anyways and people will need to limit 1 thread per game title (who knows the sheer amounts of non-SW games there are out there), and besides, you'll find most people in Games do play a lot of non-SW games anyways.

If you take that away from Games, you'll be left with a dying forum, which is small (relatively) enough as it is. There's console/PC games and the many gaming issues out there. There are only a limited number of SW games. You need to be a gamer to understand. It's not just playing the game - there's Gaming ideas, hints, tips, walkthroughs, cheats, troubleshooting, computer problems, general gaming issues, socialbility (you have to be a gamer - not just a poster in Games - to understand), servers to play in, tech/game events and ideas, etc. etc. People would be going to page 35 just to dig for old threads just to see if "How do I get past the troll in Zork?" or "Does anyone have a complete cmdlist and cvar list for Quake 3?".

I don't see why people can't just go to Games and integrate within the community there and make it grow rather than keep it within an already large and hard-to-control place like YJCC. And there I thought the masses of people thought that the Games forum is "cliquey" ::rollseyes:: enough as it is. Besides, jp does a great job in that forum, showing imho, more dedication than other moderators, who's sphere of moderating is broader, so is less effective.

Just look at SW.com's official boards. Their non-SW games goes to the Cantina section, and its virtually impossible to get any decent info on anything unless you start the thread and up it constantly.


The rest of your points are good stuff tho.

 

//deep breath


1) More moderators: one word, why? You can't just go and promote moderators, there has to be a need or, at least, a want, for more moderation in a forum. We're not here just for the colors and the titles, we're here to moderate. If there are any forums that you feel need more moderator, a'right, we can deal with that. But just more moderators just for the sake of it? I fail to see how that would help.


1a) I'm not touching this with a ten-foot mouse cord.


1c) "mod status shouldn't be a prize or a lucky number in the lottery, but a responsible and active task. "

trust me, it isn't. And you have to realize that we're not all the same person. Something that I might consider banworthy might be considered mere fun by another mod. We have to use our judgement. I personally have no idea how many ppl are banned daily. I do know, on the other hand, that the percentage of banned users or edited messages that becomes drama is very small. Can you look at the good and not the bad? Probably not, b/c only the bad is aired.

And you can't expect us always to agree. By posting this am I representing the modsquad? Not directly. I'm representing Liz Skywalker, a regular at the JCC, who understands a bit about how message boards work. I'm not God, I'm not even a messanger angel. I'm the devil standing in the back saying "I wouldn't do that. It wouldn't be good in the long run."


1d) Mod election: No. firstly, who's going to vote? the newbie who just started here and had a thread locked, now going off half-cocked with a grudge against the mod who locked the thread? Secondly, so after three months, the status will just disappear? So, what you're saying is that they're good enough to be a mod, but not a permanent mod? I don't like that. If they're a mod, we have to trust them all the way. There's no half doing things.




2) "[We] try, Master."

2a) I have nothing to say on this.

2b) ditto.



3) Limiting Socks: Again, I don't see the logic behind this statement. Most people understand that socks are there for fun. What you post with a sock, you are responsible for. No matter what. If I went off and flamed using one of my socks (which would be kinda hard since I've banned most of them and the ones left unbanned are the known ones), I would be held responsible for the flaming. The problems come up when people don't know that. They forget about the IP check.


3a) no. firstly, there would be no way to enforce it. secondly, some people have more than 3 things to say each week. And many people go cross forums. Let's say I wanted to do 4 things: start a new fic in Fan Fiction, complain in Comms, air out a new idea in AOTC, and generally chat in the JCC. Are you saying that I would be unable to do this?


3b) congrats, that's probably the most succinct definiton of spam I have ever read. But since I have never been in LFL Projects, I can't comment on the rest.


3B1) no. it was created for a reason.


3c) I don't have enough knowledge to comment on this.



4) and who would define who was an "expert"? And what would the criteria be? Would you allow banned users to become experts, or would they be held to the same standards as are moderators?


5) the two aren't necessarily related. Just b/c someone has started many good threads doesn't mean they don't also spam.





I'm willing to bet that some of my thoughts are echoed above, but considering how long it took me to type this, I thought of them first.

 

All right, like Liz, these are my own thougts on these. This will be long, as I'm keeping all of the original post in for reference.


1) More moderators. There's nothing sacred about being a moderator, so let's appoint some more people. There are plenty of adequate candidates. Get 5 to 7 extra moderators. (Too bad these suggestions are always regarded as veiled attempts to become one, but soit).

We need motivated mods that care. The other day I heard one mod who does the JCC remark that the JCC is crap -- good, then either get working or shove off. Look at jp-30: he cares, and the Games forum is the better for it. Other good mods are Son of the Suns, Vertical, NathanDahlin and Kadue (I'm not going to give a list of who's good and who's not, but those mentioned are just examples of mods that I, personally, found doing an excellent job).

Also, some of the current mods should be more active and should log in more frequently. Too often there's only one mod online for the YJCC -- not good.

Well, I don't think more mods is the answer, there are already a lot of us, probably close to or more then 20. Things get to a point where its two many cooks in the kitchen. Already there are complaints about the definition of spam, just because everyone has a different view on it. Add in five more people to that mix, would it help things in community, or just make it more confusing?

As far as mods not caring? I don't think a mod would be here if they didn't care. People may get frustrated at times, but I don't think any flat out not care. And as far as log on time, people are here as much as they can be. I'm here as much as I can get away with at night, and when I get a chance during the day. For a forum like JCC, I would say for the most part you can PM any mod, same with AOTC and other forums. The only time there was a real restriction on what mod you could PM, was when people were spoiler free, and couldn't moderate the spoiler forums. Sure we all have our own forum emphasis, but that doesn't mean we can't or won't help out in a different forum.

1a) Mods that blunder and/or fail to act responsibly should be demoted quicker. Keep things fresh. Mods that start to blurt out all kinds of stories and explanations only to be contradicted later by an "official TFN stance" are confusing things and should leave voluntarily. They create this so-called 'internet drama' and sometimes happily accuse regular users who just like to have things cleared up, of creating it instead. Mods that accuse regular users of, say, having an attitude of degradation towards the JC and then refuse to reply to PMs asking for clarification: go. At least have the courtesy to reply and explain why you said what you said. Same with mods that start threads announcing new policies and after that cop out in the middle of the discussion.

If you find that happening with a mod, and they won't respond to you, go above them. Drop a PM off to Vert or Nathan, tell them situation, they will deal with it.

Ideas like the scavenger hunt and the mafia game should be stimulated. Give "them" something to do! It reduces spam.

1c) Be consistent, mods. Threads that invite you to debate about 9/11: to the Senate Floor with them. Threads that ask us to choose between Clinton and Bush: idem. Threads about violence in the Middle East: Senate Floor. (Also, be sure to refer the starters of these threads to the 'official' or 'general' threads if they exist.) Threads that flame users: remove right away, not when you're prompted.

In other words: start working. Too many regular users are desperately wanting and trying to become mods anyway -- mod status shouldn't be a prize or a lucky number in the lottery, but a responsible and active task.

A short while ago a mod asked users to limit the use of socks. I don't know if that was a sincere attempt or not (he/she didn't react to a helpful PM I sent him/her), but it hasn't resulted in anything. There are as many socks active as there were before.

So no half-hearted plans, please. If you are goin

 

Currently VIPs are restricted to ex-Admins, City Reps, and Famous People.


I didn't realize I was famous.

As such, I demand two cookies.

 

Its in the mail. Start checking your box.

 

Debo (the cheque's in the mail );
Look at jp-30: he cares, and the Games forum is the better for it.

Fluke;
LMAO! You don't travel to the Games Forum much, do you? LMAO!

And you, Mr Groundwalker, obviously weren't traveling there much prior to my appointment a couple of months back. Feel free to PM me to discuss any problems you have with that forum and how it's run.

Debo, some good ideas there (and some I don't much care for). Hopefully I'll find a bit of time to lay down some thoughts in the next day or so- especially the ones concerning the Games Forum.

 

I personally have no idea how many ppl are banned daily.

The last couple of days it has been about 1-15 per day. Sometimes a little more, but those are generally just socks. Yesterday, 11 people were banned, the day before it was 10, and the day before that it was 16.

 

yeah, I can tell you how many times peope hit the ban button, but there's no way of knowing on a statistics evel (well, there is, but my head hurts thinking about it), how many of those were Mafia and socks.

 

"The last couple of days it has been about 1-15 per day. Sometimes a little more, but those are generally just socks. Yesterday, 11 people were banned, the day before it was 10, and the day before that it was 16."

Perhaps you could make a graph about it?

The only point I really want to make concerns Debo's idea that "[m]ods that blunder and/or fail to act responsibly should be demoted quicker." I know the official policy is to PM a mod if you have a problem with him/her and then, if you feel nothing comes of that, PM Nathan, Vertical, or CA. But the inherent problem is that we never know what actually comes of that. The Mod Squad Updates generally aren't that specific, so we're not kept informed of what kind of action is taken against a mod, unless there has been no action outside of one specific mod over the past couple of months, which doesn't seem right. There's also the problem of what kind of action can be taken. There's no intermediate step between warning them to be better mods (which I presume is what almost always happens if one of the admins gets a PM, if that) and demotion. To be honest, I don't know what that intermediate step would be. But it seems to me that if a mod is warned (again, I don't know that this is what actually happens behind the closed doors of the Mod Squad), then shouldn't it be made public. This may not be the best approach, but I think it's better than keeping everything a secret.

I hope this makes sense, as I'm still not entirely awake.

Amazing.

 

Amazing brings up a good point. If the general populace of the JC feels a mod is doing a bad job, or even if it's just an alright job, but another user could probably do it much better, how can our voices be heard? And don't reply with the AC. I've been a card carrying memeber since it was created, and I don't believe it works at all. Most of our suggestions are brushed aside, or seen as "undoable", basically because we don't know enough of "how things are". Honestly, I think the communications forum is a much better place to gauge user reactions and comments. Plus, if a person wants to make a proposal, he can have the support of the entire JC here, and not just a couple of other AC members.

As for the limiting of creating threads, 3 is waaay to little. I used to try creating one per day, 7 a week, and sometimes more, and I don't think I was close to spamming. If a user creates 3 in one hour, now that's obviously a little much, but that's just common sense. Granted, a few users are lacking that, but isn't that why we have moderation at all?

I'd also like to add that to me, the best moderators are those that don't run into so many confrontations. Obviously, if a particular mod is always having to explain over and over why they closed a thread, perhaps they shouldn't be closing them. If you ban a troll, it shouldn't make people wonder why. If you close a thread for spam, someone shouldn't ask why the thread was closed. It's nice to have the comments in a closed thread, but if a mod is asked again and again via PM or whatever why they closed a thread, maybe they should look at being a little less strict* (*void in AOTCSA forum).