Time to update the JC rules ?

Really? I believe we always allowed a fictional character (usually Mara) to be called a bitch in Lit. So both "Get away from her, you BITCH" and "Not my daughter, you BITCH" would have been completely fine...

It's only verboten when referencing a PERSON, not a construct...

 

*shrug* Just going off what's been edited.

So would "Bitch, please!" work when not referring someone in specific, but just the general world?

 

Probably not, as that's generally referring to the person you are speaking to.

IMO, of course. In JCC, YMMV.

 

Aside from allowing rule junkies to split hairs in artistic fashion, what's the point of all this discussion? What purpose does the rule really serve?

I completely agree with Everton's take on all this. Just keep it simple (stupid) and things will be fine. This is hardly an issue that comes up more than a couple times a year, if that, so all this debate seems overblown, overdone and unnecessary.

 

I agree with Josh. We could pontificate on the nuances of rules for a really long time. Right now, it looks like we'll change the "drunk" posting wording in Rules of the Jedi Council forum and use the new policy. (Regardless of whether you think it's new or not, for this let's say it is and go on.) The JCC rules have been trimmed/clarified and MS has given their input, so something will be posted in the next day or so in the forum.

 

Then someone snuck it in very quietly in a very small window of time since it definitely was not a rule before I left the administration.

 

ok, so the new rules have been up for a number of weeks now - any reference to promotion of alcohol seem absent (unless I'm missing something), which is a reasonably sensible idea providing mods step in if someone is being stupid.

However, getting back to the original thrust of this thread, why is there still a gulf between the published rules and policys, and what the mods actually moderate ?

(I'm not giving specific examples as that would be better suited to PM, but it's simple things such as locking threads saying "this can't go anywhere good", when the policies clearly state the mods should try and allow threads to live until its clear that rules are being constantly broken)

 

The reference to promotion of alcohol etc is in the Rules of the JC. Although the wording still sucks.

 

IV. Rule Making

A. Creating and posting new rules while wishywashy is not allowed. Promoting the use of such rules is not allowed. Any such action will result in a Comms thread.

?

 

yeah, no examples at all, when lately there have been only one and a half threads locked with that reason

yes, try. not "do or do not".
also, the reasons in the edits are the "nice" versions - we don't want to accuse people openly of... well, I'd rather not say, as there's only two people this applies to at the moment.
A thread author always has not only the right to ask for specifics, he also has the right to get an answer. In PMs. PMs we don't get (most of the time) because they know what they did.


You really want us to never ever lock a thread because of the (often clear) direction it may take? And even if you do, during the discussion about spam in JCC (about the 3 threads a day rule), I asked if it was okay to lock with reasons like that and I got no strong opposition to it, then. Can't even remember any weak opposition to it.

 

For me...

If a thread is posted that is starting off on the wrong foot then it needs to be locked - this is obvious. ("User X is a prat.")

If a thread is posted that doesn't immediately break a rule but can only go in one direction, then it should be locked. ("The Official Post Messages from Banned Users Thread" - thread author simply invites rule breaking but doesn't post a message themselves).

If a thread is posted that probably won't go anywhere good the mod should give it a chance by warning early on. ("lol I got caught reading a NSFW site at work!!!" - mod would aks that no NSFW stuff actually be posted in the thread).

The rule mentions "give the thread an opportunity to get back on track". Therefore a thread that should be given a chance is one that has had a worthwhile discussion disrupted by a small window of disruption (which some users are very good at jumping through). These certainly aren't threads that will clearly go nowhere good.

 

I honestly think the concept of homeschool is lol, sorry if that offended anyone. That thread never even got the chance for a debate. No biggie though, we all know the concept is lol.

 

For me that thread was designed to generate arguments (as I'm sure you know). Therefore a mod should've got in there quickly and said we'll have a good debate about homeschooling without a succession of sarcastic jibes aimed at those who are homeschooled. When that (clearly) doesn't materialise, the thread can then be locked without a problem. If the sting is taken out of the thread by a mod, then the thread will either trip itself up very quickly indeed, or die because the potential for stinging people is no longer there.

 

I basically offered a open forum for the positives and negatives. Opinions were asked for, and I offered mine.

Pulsar locking it didn't bug me at all. I was really just trying to lighten the mood in here, by bringing it up.

 

I think that's a very positive spin.

Whatever your motivation, homeschooling is an occassional JCC hot potato, and I imagine the thread was locked because of that fact alone. However (IMO) what should've happened was what I mentioned above. There *is* a decent discussion to be had, but the style in which the thread was presented left things wide open for targeted one-liners. So the mod should've tried to push the thread towards constructive discussion rather than killing it right off.

 

You've got some cheek ignoring my rule proposal, Everton.


I think it's obvious that the JCC mods were all homeschooled (possibly Everton as well). That's why the thread was locked, no doubt.

 

I learnt about some things at home.

 

lol, you got schooled.

 

You walked in on your parents? Ew.

 

lol

 

Like I said, I had no problem with it being locked, and Jesse locked it because she didn't want it to get out of hand, I'm totally cool with that, and I think most others were too. I was really just trying to make locks not such a big deal, in this thread.

 

I have no problem with you having no problem with the thread being locked. Personally, I don't think the thread was posted for any other reason than to press buttons... but whatever the case (even if it was an honourable attempt at a discussion), the thread didn't need to die right off the bat. It should've been de-stung and allowed to hang itself or die through lack of interest.

 

Rules are made to be broken!

No, I agree that rules are rules and need to be followed. I'm not sure what happened with this thread that we're talking about, but if there's ever a case where you believe something shouldn't have happened, shoot the locking moderator a PM. I don't just mean with this situation exclusively, but with anything that happens. From the posts I'm reading, it looks like what happened is no big deal, but rather that situation was just used to remind everyone that there are rules in place, right?

 

It's no big deal. Just a convenient example to circulate around. However:

I really do think this is going too far.

 

I knew the second I wrote that, that someone would say that. I literally thought, "Someone's going to quote this little piece here". No lie.