YJCC Mod Issue/ Policy Question

If topics like the AmazingB threads are going to be closed I recommend two things:

1) The current mods getting a sense of humor.

2) Locking 90% of the other threads in the JCC.


If this is going to be enforced at least be consistent. Targeting one person for his peculiar sense of humor really reeks of bias.

 

Let them play! Let them play! Let them pla...Oh, sorry. Thought this was a Bad News Bears game. My bad.

 

Okay, I'll be sure the previous one is closed before the next one is opened. That is what Bria wants, that is what she'll get. I am more than happy to do so.

Although, when i started these, Kate was lockign old ones. As far as I knew, that continued after she was demoted. So it really shows how little these threads get upped.

KK, these are not appreciation threads. Some of the stuff about B is less than flattering.

Merely having a user's name in a thread title does not equal appreciation.

Anyway, the problem is resolved. As there are likely to be no JC mods online for many hours, I'll assume everything is sorted out, as the compromise Bria wanted has been reached.

On a side note, there seems to be a lot of presumptions being madeby mods. I suggest you stop that, get to know your community and use the PM function.

 

No need for that last paragraph man. It'll only make you enemies.

 

I mean it. if Bria had simply PMed me and asked my motivations, said she wanted previous ones locked, the problem wouldn't have been a problem. Practice what you preach.

 

Now if every user wants to steal Iggy's idea and suddenly start doing "Things you didn't know about User X" threads, the precedent has been set that this is allowed.

Not exactly. In fact, I addressed that in my post. With THIS instance, obviously the rule was allowed to be broken (36 times or so, no less), so "AmazingB" threads should continue to be allowed to be made. But with FUTURE threads (even if they're of the same nature), the rules should be vehemently enforced.

 

This is nitpicking and overkill. Jeez do you have to be a prude now to mod the JCC. The B threads are funny community building threads. If Ignant were to use just one thread for all his B facts it wouldn't be as funny and would eventually get old. Cut the guy a break and leave his threads alone.

 

i don't think the issue here is, or should be, whether a previous thread being locked allows for a new thread. Bria seems to have gone down this road as somewhat of a compromise, but, Bria, it only looks like you're backing away from your original judgement if that is your intention. the problem isn't that previous threads weren't locked, the problem is that there are 37 threads with the same basic intent.

i can't help but think that some part of the motivation behind these threads was to see just how much a point could be made, how much that #number could get up to. but that is merely opinion.

it is true, however, that there doesn't need to be a new fact presented in a new thread each day. especially when the new fact is always concerned with the same user. the new fact could just as easily be presented in a single thread, as i said in the thread that was locked asking about the threads. it would seem more logical, as the list of facts would be available to check all in one hit. so for a new user ariving on the boards, he could catch up with everything he's missed, instead of arriving to a forum where he's obviously missed some kind of "in" joke between friends without any reasonable way to get himself up to speed. a 200+ thread may be intimidating, but at least a new user can read through it and be knowledgable on the past events. i don't see how a thread about the 37th fact about someone, with no reasonable way to catch up on the first 35 is less so.

i'm obviously in the minority here, though. maybe because i don't really dig ignant's style as much as everyone else seems to. but in this case, i agree with the administration, except for, as KW pointed out, the fact it's taken this long for the judgement to be handed down. surely this issue should have been nipped in the bud after, say, the 3rd of 4th thread.

 

The vast majority of people enjoy the threads.

I'm sorry... did you just call me a "raging herd?"



But on the other hand: what is the utility gained from compressing into one thread? How many people does it then appease who are NOT happy with the current threads vs. the amount of people who wouldn't find them as likable in one thread?

 

what is the utility gained from compressing into one thread?

i think the right question is how much utility is gained from making a new thread about each new fact? by your rationale each time something related to baseball comes up there should be a new thread on it, instead of keeping it all within one general thread. or each new lunch fate has should be in a new thread, an example i've used before, i know.

How many people does it then appease who are NOT happy with the current threads vs. the amount of people who wouldn't find them as likable in one thread?

irrelevent.

 

epic -- I think we're on the same side on the argument, so I dunno why you disagree with my measuring stick.

 

the utility gained from making a new thread for each fact is that it keeps the threads small and inviting for new people to post in. if they became one mega-thread, people might feel hesitant to post in them because the large threads tend to become really cliquey, and if you look through page upon page and see the same people posting, it's intimdating. however, if it's started over every day, it's a lot more inviting for new people to post in, because even though there is a bit of a clique and history from the thread, it's not nearly as obvious or intimidating.

 

the problem isn't that previous threads weren't locked, the problem is that there are 37 threads with the same basic intent.

I disagree.

Especially considering that there's never more than 1 of the "AmazingB" threads on the first page of the thread listing anyway (since the old ones are locked each day), it's as if there's only 1 thread anyway.

Seriously, what's the problem with having multiple threads? What's the point in compressing it all down into one thread? No one in favor of Bria's position has answered this question yet.

 

dp4m, oops.

ML: the utility gained from making a new thread for each fact is that it keeps the threads small and inviting for new people to post in. if they became one mega-thread, people might feel hesitant to post in them because the large threads tend to become really cliquey, and if you look through page upon page and see the same people posting, it's intimdating. however, if it's started over every day, it's a lot more inviting for new people to post in, because even though there is a bit of a clique and history from the thread, it's not nearly as obvious or intimidating.

i understand your point. however the precedent has been set in the JCC. there are large threads all over the place. to make an exception in this case is to play favouritism. also, generally speaking, it's the same people posting in these threads anyway. and i think, if we're talking about the benefit of new users, the fact that there's a #37 in the title, with no obvious way to catch up on what they've missed, as i said in my last post, is just as intimidating, if not more so, than if everything was in one thread and they had the chance to catch up on past examples if they so desired.

Syntax: Especially considering that there's never more than 1 of the "AmazingB" threads on the first page of the thread listing anyway (since the old ones are locked each day), it's as if there's only 1 thread anyway.

my point has nothing to do with there being multiple threads on the first page. it's the fact that any new thread is obviously the xth incarnation of an original theme.

Seriously, what's the problem with having multiple threads? What's the point in compressing it all down into one thread? No one in favor of Bria's position has answered this question yet.

precedent. read my examples.

i should also note that i haven't complained to anyone about these threads. although the current new thread in Community seems to either be flying in the face of the ruling, which would thus further the point of the lack of JCC mod presence in the forum, or is now being allowed by a spineless JCC moderating team. either option isn't good.

 

my point has nothing to do with there being multiple threads on the first page. it's the fact that any new thread is obviously the xth incarnation of an original theme.

...and this wasn't a problem until the 37th thread was formed. Why the change-up? Why the inconsistent moderation?

precedent. read my examples

I read your examples, and I still disagree. Did you read MY examples about precedent in my first post in this thread, on page 3?
The *precedent* for the past 37 iterations of the "AmazingB" threads was to let new ones get created every day. Suddenly that's not okay. I am yet to hear a satisfactory reason addressing the change-up.
If the threads had started getting locked down at thread #3 or something, that'd be one thing. That'd be just the Mods letting a few threads get created just to see what the pattern was, and then deciding, "Okay, this has gone on long enough, we're going to put an end to it". Instead, it's been nearly 40 threads, with some mods actively supporting the creation of new threads... and then all of a sudden we've got 1-2 mods changing up and deciding "this is bad" without explaining why.

The "rule" was broken this time, and it was broken 36 or so times. Let it slide. What's the point in being anal-retentive about it NOW, when all it does is create more DRAMA!!? to debate the issue? Why not just enforce it in the future, and let this instance go (seeing as how the Mods/Admins chose to let it go sicne the FIRST "AmazingB" thread was created?

Edit --

i should also note that i haven't complained to anyone about these threads. although the current new thread in Community seems to either be flying in the face of the ruling, which would thus further the point of the lack of JCC mod presence in the forum, or is now being allowed by a spineless JCC moderating team. either option isn't good.

They'd only be considered "spineless" since two (of the five. Hardly a majority) Moderators decided there was a problem when there really wasn't one... and now they're not backing up their own word.
Then again, this isn't entirely a bad thing. If you make a problem out of thin air, then decide it's not a problem, and opt not to "solve" a problem that wasn't there, that doesn't make you "spineless". That makes you rational and understanding of reality.

 

No, it isn;t flying in teh face of anything. Bria staed in this thread the com[promise. I'm more than happy to follow that. This is a comms success story. Stiop trying to stir it up and cause drama with name calling of teh YJCC mods. I'm also having trouble stomaching that reaching a compromise means backing down to you, rather than taking information into account and making a rational decision. I'm glad you're no longer a mod if that really is your attitude.

 

I have no problem with enforcing a rule even if it's been ignored before.


But I disagree highly with the interpretation of the rules being used to put the smackdown here.

AsI pointed out, there is a very serious precedent here of threads being allowed to restart whenever they wish, as long as the old one was locked.

I should know since it pretty much stems from my policy.

What is the difference between this and some absurdly named social group restarting after hitting the post button 5000 times? The JCC mods apparently have fallen into the trap of believing large threads are inherently better then small ones, not surprising really considering how enmeshed they've been in those social threads themselves.

epic, the precedent has been set already, are you really saying large threads should follow different rules then small ones?

 

No, it isn;t flying in teh face of anything. Bria staed in this thread the com[promise. I'm more than happy to follow that. This is a comms success story. Stiop trying to stir it up and cause drama with name calling of teh YJCC mods. I'm also having trouble stomaching that reaching a compromise means backing down to you, rather than taking information into account and making a rational decision. I'm glad you're no longer a mod if that really is your attitude.

Actually, the compromise that she stated was this:

Yeah, that's it exactly. Please. Before new versions were started, the older versions should've been locked. When I come online and start reading, I don't start pages down with threads that haven't been posted to for several hours or even days. When people want to start a new version of a thread they PM a mod to have the old one closed and then they start the new one. This ceratinly wasn't happening.

You didn't do that. The old thread was not locked, and so you should not have started the new thread.

Kimball Kinnison

 

KK please to verify that Ignant didn't send a pm to a mod before opening the new one up.

Sicne you're being exceedingly anal retentive I'll point out her compromise only states a PM must be sent before the new thread is opened, not that the old thread is locked.

It seems like you're less concerned with what the compromise is then not appearing weak, well done KK you're everything anyone could ever want in a political operative.

 

i understand your point. however the precedent has been set in the JCC. there are large threads all over the place. to make an exception in this case is to play favouritism.

Actually, no. The other large threads in JCC cannot be split up like this one into distinct and unique topics. There is more than enough reason for these threads to be separate whereas it would be difficult nigh impossible to split up the Blue Yoda Society or GTKY thread.

the fact that there's a #37 in the title, with no obvious way to catch up on what they've missed, as i said in my last post, is just as intimidating, if not more so, than if everything was in one thread and they had the chance to catch up on past examples if they so desired.


That's the point though. They haven't missed anything that's imperative to the new and unique discussion. They may have missed other, unrelated facts about AmazingB, but they aren't missing out on anything that will help them in discussing today's new topic.

 

Actually, I did not PM to get the trhead closed. For some reason, I assumed it was and did not check, which was my error completely. Although Farraday is correct in his assertion about KK's Presumption.

But, I have now shot off the PM so all should be well.

 

I only glanced at the AmazingB threads and didn't bother to keep up, but I didn't think they were much different from any of the other social/game threads that are always on page 1. No harm/no foul as far as I was concerned. I assumed that they would probably run their course and then fade away. Some people were obviously finding them fun and I thought that's what the JC community was supposed to be about? Besides, revealing all these facts about AmazingB might only end up spoiling his mystery and turn him into MundaneB.

 

Sicne you're being exceedingly anal retentive I'll point out her compromise only states a PM must be sent before the new thread is opened, not that the old thread is locked.

The compromise clearly states Before new versions were started, the older versions should've been locked.

While there is a gap in JCC coverage right now, that does not give license to plow ahead with something assuming that the mods will just agree. He should have waited for the old thread to eb locked before starting the new thread.

Kimball Kinnison

 

the utility gained from making a new thread for each fact is that it keeps the threads small and inviting for new people to post in. if they became one mega-thread, people might feel hesitant to post in them because the large threads

So you, by definition then, believe that there should be mandatory thread caps and reboots. For example, the WWF thread in the JCC should be restarted immediately since it's intimidating and cliquish, right?

 

Syntax: ...and this wasn't a problem until the 37th thread was formed. Why the change-up? Why the inconsistent moderation?

i asked the same question. this is no retort to my points.

Ignant: No, it isn;t flying in teh face of anything. Bria staed in this thread the com[promise.

so the compromise is for old threads to be locked? all that does is further the problem. new users will NEVER be able to catch up on old threads when they're going to be sinking further every day.

I'm more than happy to follow that.

of course you would be. you could care less about the old threads.

This is a comms success story.

only because the "compromise" allows you to continue what you've been doing.

I'm also having trouble stomaching that reaching a compromise means backing down to you, rather than taking information into account and making a rational decision.

i'm also having trouble stomaching that reaching a compromise means backing down to you, rather than standing by the rational decision stated numerous times, by both Bria and TBF on the first page of this thread.

I'm glad you're no longer a mod if that really is your attitude.

you should be, because the current thread would be closed.

i should re-iterate that this compromise is seriously very weak. Bria, you should have stood up to your original convictions. this compromise does not negate the many valid reasons you initially had in regards to these threads.