[YJCC] I thought it was a mods job to......

Jace, you're suggesting the mods are biased, and they are not.

As for the thread in question, Snowball listed his malicious reasoning behind starting it. If I had started a similar thread about him, no doubt he'd be up in arms, demanding a ban. I'm not sure if he even got a warning.

And whoever said I should speak for myself, rather than Tracy assuming; it would have been difficult as I wasn't online, and Tracy can speak for me in such matters anytime she chooses. She has common sense.

 

Thanks Paul

But just dont lock threads or edit things just because YOU think its bad.

But, k3po, what happens in a thread where multiple users are flaming? this are clearly getting worse and not better? Personally, if i can lock a thread and end the discussion without bannings, i prefer that.

Jace... I think all good moderators are still "friends" with their community, but it's more like casual aquantices. I have my close JC friends, and I really appreciate habing them. Everyone else in the JC are my aquantinces. I am not going to run around trying to join all JCC's social groups, but I try to post in a wide variety of threads. sometimes I get sucked into a conversation in one thread or another, it happens, but i amke an effort to be diverse. WHen I was promoted, I lost some of my friends. I wish it didn't have to happen, but I feel out of one of my social groups, for a variety of reasons, and I lost a few friends I really enjoyed chatting with. Quite honestly, it's hard to transition. Certain people start being hostile to you just for doing your job It's part of the reason I appreciate having a few close friends so much. Anyways, haha I think I went into too much detail about my personal e-life.

And you know what, all thes accusations that come up of biased ness... i wish people could see the user notes of people they think we protect. I really think it'd end

 

Guys I guess I should add my thoughts about this. We all know what my thread was about. Ignant puts these lines in his sig as baits and to piss people off. That is all he does it for. First off let me say I realize how lame it is for a grown ass man to be worried about an internet signature. However, I would like to see a show of hands of anyone who does not think Ignant puts those lined in his sig to intentionally take a shot at certain members. There would not be one singal hand in the JC raised. Everyone knows he does it to piss people off so why is it allowed? Hell look at the firt line in the TOS. User agrees not to post material that is knowingly false and/or defamatory, misleading, inaccurate,... His sig breaks every one of those rules. Case closed. I know this has been brought up in Comms before and the conclussion came down to, "Well he can do that because nobody really owns the BYS." If you want to go that route we kind of do own the 3SA Knights the BYS and the FF. We all have seperate domains, web sites and a group message board.

 

Darth_Ignant has misleading/untruthful titles in his sig.

I could say that I'm Michael jackson in my sig and that would be a lie too, but not a bait.

What I think Snowball is clearly staing is that look at my sig for instance, it may be non sense but I don't claim any affiliation with the Awesome Council in it, as he does with the Sarcasm Knights/ Fecal Force/BYS.

Misleading/silly/untruthful statements in sigs should be allowed, I agree,*When not obvious baiting* but there's a strong difference between silliness and baiting. Every moderator on this website that has had the fortunate or unfortunate pleasure of watching me post in their praticular forum knows this. And that I certainly know what I'm speaking on here. I'll be the first to admit I have been a repeat offender in light of the TOS at times, when I get my chain yanked or when the mood strikes me.

My last ban was a week infact for flaming Ignant actually, on board.

Is that the difference? Board post vs sig?

The TOS should apply to both, should they not?


Can we not agree that it is baiting, for a user to post fraudalent claims of membership in social clubs they have no part in when they have openly berated and baited/flamed users from those clubs membership?

Has Ignant not openly flamed with me and Snowball?

The answer is yes.

If his sigs are not baits in our direction as made clear by his continual posting prefernces on these boards, and his open disregard for polite edicate when responding in threads created by our membership, then I don't know what will convince you.

The Knights have a legitamite offsite message board as well as web site. We have a membership posted that is easily accesable for all to see.

If it is wrong for me to claim I am a mod or admin of this website, is it wrong to put it in my sig? Couldn't that possibly ruffle feathers?

If I put: " Phillip Wise's First Born" in my sig.

Or how about: " Head Admin TF.N "

Are those ok?

I think it would be prudent for the mod sqaud to make a simple regulation that states:

"If you are not a member of said social club ect, that you may not post allegiance or membership to them/with them in your sig as it may be considered/ taken as baiting by it's membership."

Is that a complicated request?

DC

 

"If his sigs are not baits in our direction as made clear by his continual posting prefernces on these boards, and his open disregard for polite edicate when responding in threads created by our membership, then I don't know what will convince you."

Yeah, it's not like "your membership" never posts in the thread of one of the groups he belongs to. Oh, wait, everyone is free to post anywhere. My bad. I suppose the double standard doesn't exist after all.

 

, I would like to see a show of hands of anyone who does not think Ignant puts those lined in his sig to intentionally take a shot at certain members. There would not be one singal hand in the JC raised.

*raises hand*

I don't see why this is such a big deal. The first time I saw Ignant's sig, I assumed that it was just generally mocking the importance of internet groups.

It's amusing. You don't have to take something like this personally.

 

It's amusing. You don't have to take something like this personally.

But it is personal under the rules. It is a clear bait.

 

I suppose the double standard doesn't exist after all.

You supposed wrong.

Yodajeff, I assure you it does.

However, again I ask Kimball,Sapient,Raven, Katya the 'Mod Squad' whomever; if my suggestion is not a fair one?

"If you are not a member of said social club ect, that you may not post allegiance or membership to them/with them in your sig as it may be considered/ taken as baiting by it's membership."

I don't believe that is all that difficult and as far as policing it goes, it's real simple:
If someone complains to/brings it to a mods attention they ask the user to remove that line from their sig.

By the way administration, I guess parody threads in the JCC are frowned upon but parody sigs are not?

Just checking, because I have a host of great ideas for parody sigs....

DC

 

However, again I ask Kimball,Sapient,Raven, Katya the 'Mod Squad' whomever; if my suggestion is not a fair one?

"If you are not a member of said social club ect, that you may not post allegiance or membership to them/with them in your sig as it may be considered/ taken as baiting by it's membership."

First of all, the various social groups are a matter for the community forums, and so policies relating to them are decided by the moderators for those forums (JCC, SWC, EUC). Even though I am an admin, my job is not to dictate policies to them, but to support them in running their forums.

However, even if you think that a person is baiting you, that in no way justifies you responding in kind. If someone flames you and you flame back, you are as susceptible to punishment as anyone else. If you have a problem with a user's actions, take it up with a moderator. If you have a problem with a moderator, take it up with the Head Admin. Don't try to respond by breaking the rules.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Dude, paragraphs are your friend.

 

Obviously there is worry over Ignant's sig and I agree that something needs to be done about it but I also agree that he shouldn't be flamed back.

Essentially teh mods need to step up to the plate and so far they haven't done that.

 

Well, this issue came up a year or two ago, and it was ruled that signatures like IGnants were perfectly fine. So, modding by prescedent, ignant is totally fine. It's not like his signature says "3sa knights suck!" or something that is flaming.

 

I'm actually still wondering why being an "ass man," grown or otherwise, has any relation to being worried about internet signatures.

 

Basically, the admins and mods need to distance themselves from users they have known from the past and the pettie arguments that happen daily.

Bad idea. Why? Because people are made moderators for the person that they show themselves to be on the forums, and their friendships make up a part of that. I would never have stayed sane without the friendship group I had around me. The only thing is being able to either separate yourself from doing what you do, and either leave friendship out of certain mod decisions, or realise your limits and hand the problem to another mod to deal with.

Moderators and administrators should be a part of the community, not apart from it. People only need to cast their minds back a couple of years to remember what the sheer appearance of an "Ivory Tower" mentality from some moderators did, without it actually being there.

 

So, as mods, people want us to be a part of the community yet distance ourselves from any friendships? How does that work exactly? I'm here to help the community - not to take up residence in some Ivory Tower of E-Justice. If we have to have the mods sever their friendships when they take this e-job, you're not going to get many mods promoted. This whole "the mods are biased" thing has been going on for at least as long as I've been here and, for the most part, it's an unfounded panic.

It is possible for mods to do their e-jobs, be a part of their community and ban when necessary. Those of you who haven't had the priviledge of being a mod here most likely won't understand. Yes, it sucks sometimes because you have to ban someone that you've known for a long time, but that's the gig.

As for just banning and warning when it's necessary - like Kimball said, who defines "when necessary"? You aren't going to have all your mods on the same page 100% of the time. Is that really going to kill a forum? No, it's not. It does make it difficult sometimes when one mod might allow a thread and another will lock, but, again, it doesn't happen that often.

As for the signature issue - please read the thread linked to above about that. We had this discussion before and I still believe the resolution that came out of that discussion was the right one.

 

Those of you who haven't had the priviledge of being a mod here most likely won't understand. Yes, it sucks sometimes because you have to ban someone that you've known for a long time, but that's the gig.

Admittedly, it can also be quite enjoyable to ban a sibling. Not that I've ever done that on a whim. My brother earned every ban I gave him.

Of course, the downside to that is that he doesn't send in unban requests. He just calls my cell phone.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Who's your brother? [/curiosity]

 

He's on my WUL, and I'm on his. I'll give you a hint: he's not a VIP.

Kimball Kinnison

 

jace, my name is kind of a hint of his. Look Kinnison's WUL over and see if anything looks familiar.

By the way, if I just gave that away, I'm sorry Kimball.

 

I'm actually still wondering why being an "ass man," grown or otherwise, has any relation to being worried about internet signatures.

How'd you know I was a butt guy?

 

Admittedly, it can also be quite enjoyable to ban a sibling. Not that I've ever done that on a whim. My brother earned every ban I gave him.

Sure. I can just see it now...

KIMBALL'S BRO: I strongly disagree with that comment
KIMBALL: Okay, I'm gonna give you 24 hours to think about it.

 

Nah, that's just a generalization. Kinnision is fair in his discussions.

 

Aragorn hit the nail on the head. It isn't about users, it's about internet groups over all. Feel free to put silly stuff about any I'm a member of in your sig. I LIEK SATIER!

 

I think Dingo's post is perfect. We all joined this site like everyone else. We weren't mods, just fans. Then we got the ability to lock threads. We hate it when we don't feel like a part of the community. Our goal is to never have to use the admin tools.

That said, you'll find that for forum-specific issues I will always ask you to try to work it out with the mods of the respective forum. If you still feel you can't get it done, then feel free to bring it to me.

 

It might be fun to create an E-Justice League of Amodica.

DarthSapient: Supermod
Katya: Wonder Womod
Raven: Batmod
Kimball: Martian Modhunter