[ToS Clarification] ROTS Forum - Social Thread

"The people who were banned had prior marks on their record which helped to decide whether or not to ban them."

So if they hadn't been banned before, but had been saying **** like ****, they would have not be banned?

"But the thread was totally out of control."

I came in late to the thread, but exactly what were they doing that was out of control? Posting girly pics from magizines like Maxim(which contain no nudity), or staring out words? Is the usual mod edit "Please star out the whole word" not applicable in this case(by case)?

"From the excessive number of animated gifs, to TOS violating photos to excessive swearing."

And how many of these animated gifs, TOS violating photos, or excessive "Stars" were posted at that thread, or elsewhere on the JC messege boards several times before, lots of times with a mod responding by posting something similar?

"The RotS mods together have decided that we have to seriously put our foots down, to get in back under control."

How was control lost in the first place? That thread is regularly posted in by at least three of the ROTS mods, I don't see how it is much different than it was a year ago.

"Sinister and I explained to those in the thread that no longer will TOS violations and indecency be tolerated."

Again, I don't see why these pics are all of a sudden indecent or violations of the current TOS, as they've always been tolerated in the year I've posted here.

"Some posters responded with blatent insubordination and hence were banned."

So arguing your point is considered blatent insuborination? The worst thing anyone did was type stars in their posts.

 

I find is discouraging that we are labeled having showed blatant "insubordination", which implies that we are
insubordinate to the mods. That's ridiculous and a very bad way to think. Maybe some were rebellious, but to imply that
all posters are insobordinates of mods, is hurtful, derogatory and harmful to our relationships.


FF

 

So is bad behavior. Seeing how much can be done within the limits of the TOS doesn't help the situation.

 

It was a generalization that captured the attitude present in the thread. Many were showing direct insubordination, and the rest were not doing anything to help settle things down. Laughing about it only encourages the behavior.

 

What was out of control and continues to be out of control is the hostility between everyone. And the culture of the ROTS forum is very different from other forums so it isn't just "e-drama" as usual.

Ousley, I understand you are sticking up for RS77 but she is a new mod that came from a completely different forum that was completely sheltered from the rest of the board. It is like a YJCC mod coming in and moderating a Fan Force thread. Sometimes they do not understand the culture of the group and they shut down something that the RSAs have approved. It has happened before.

As for the starring out of words, I have always seen warnings only on you need to star it all out unless someone is directing it at a person.

 

Why must people be so disobedient?

 

I wouldn't characterize it as 'disobedient'. I'd say why can't people keep things civil? Why can't people keep the promises they make (the TOS)? Why do people just want to see how much they can get away with?

 

we all just want to use our wings and fly, ignant. it's very poetic, actually.


FF

 

" It was a generalization that captured the attitude present in the thread."
So this board is based on generalizations by mods now?

"Many were showing direct insubordination, and the rest were not doing anything to help settle things down."
And why should the other users have been doing something to settle them down? The individual user is only responsible for one person, themself.

"By laughing about it, the rest of the people present were only encouraging the behavior."
I don't take any responsibilty for another user, and I won't make excuses just beacuse what they did may or may not have happened to make me laugh.

 

Nah, it was another mod he caracterised it as disobedience. I quoted for loling.

 

If it helps, I loled

oops, I encouraged your behavior!

 

This is being blown way out of proportion. "Completely out of control" is an overstatement, and there have been less pics posted today. As for laughing at the situation encouraging the behaviour, well, isn't that better than adding to the 'e-drama' and hostility?

 

So you're saying that sinister has no idea what the atmosphere in 3SA is like? He's the one who is essentially "leading the charge" in the thread, and with over two years of experience modding the 3SA, I'd like to think he knows what he is doing. It isn't about RS77 being new, she was just following sinister's lead. It's about the forum regulars pushing the limits too many times and the mods as whole deciding that something needs to be done about it.

When the thread as a whole is rallying against the decisions of the mods, then there is nothing wrong with a generalization.

Yet as friends and fellow posters, it would be the right thing to do to say "hey, maybe you should calm down." You're still hurting the situation whether you are a direct contributor or not. And I don't mean you specifically, but rather anyone who encourges another user to directly defy the mods.

 

So, are pics of Terry Shiavo now baned? ANd does that include pre-coma pics?

 

And I agree with that, Jada, to an extent. There is a line where once every other post is nothing but a bunch of starred out words that it becomes excessive. In that, I have to agree with MS that it needs toned down.

The question, then, is if bans on a hundred members is actually going to settle things, or just cause 100 perma-bans down the line as people become more and more disgruntled?!

 

Actually, a temporary lock would've resulted in the same drama.

Last night sinister gave countless warnings and many of the posts responded in direct opposition to his warnings and contained exactly the content that he warned again. The bans were completely justified, and I thought he was being extremely patient with them under the circumstances.

I was more than patient.

That is propagating more hostility which isn't needed.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm just doing my job. Someone doesn't like it, fine. I'll deal with it.


It's simple. We have rules in here. We're enforcing them. Those who can't follow those rules or do as we ask or tell, will wind up getting into trouble. It's as simple as that. The pics were warned before. Not just by me, but by Sape and the rest of the Wampas. People didn't want to listen. This is the result of that. Don't be lumping this all on RebelScum. She is following the example of all 3SA mods and MS in general.

Captain, Road Prison 36: "What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it."

 

Actually, a temporary lock would've resulted in the same drama.



A lock would have sparked ten times the drama. We all remember what happened last time.

 

Sinister, the last time I saw HLAS lock the GIL it gave everyone a good cooling off period.

 

Darth_Ignant posted on 6/24/05 2:23pm

---

So, are pics of Terry Shiavo now baned? ANd does that include pre-coma pics?
[hr][/blockquote]

Yes, I would like to have an answer to this as well. Considering I am the foremost poster of such pioneering pictures.

 

I'm sure it well probably be decided on a case-by-case basis.

 

I'm not going to try to answer your question regarding the Schiavo pictures, as I wasn't involved in the thread in question.

I will ask, however, why you feel it's a good idea to post pictures like that. That's something that hit home and bothered a lot of people; why do you feel that's appropriate to post it?

 

I feel like it is a good idea because it makes people laugh,and it is some shocking to some people.

That is all,it is a public image forced in to our faces 24/7 for two months,and now it is against the rules to post it.

Stupid.

 

HOnestly, if you have to ask whther someone might be offended by something before posting, 50% of everything at the JC wouldn't get posted. Whether that's good or not is for another thread. But, I don't see how such pics violate the ROC. Just because something is found to be distastful, doesn't mean it's against the ROC.

 

Exactly.

 

I agree with Ignant.

Just because something is distasteful to many posters does not mean that it should be censored. Abiding by the strict terms of the RoC/ToS is the only way to really have any form of constructive, positive, and forward moving community. Stifling people's expression just because it's distasteful, albeit not in violation of any of the parameters of operation set out in the User Agreements, is poor show and has a decidedly negative impact on the community.

Just my opinion.