Jump to content

New Forum Rules April 2021


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

It's difficult to be certain about intent, though.

Err on the side of sincerity( except for Drax, of course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

 

Okay, now knowing what this was actually aimed at, are you not gonna try and dispute him? You instead decide to completely dismiss him, despite his claims of knowing the person about as well as you do based on your own supposed experiences. Given that you fully admit that there are newbies here who wouldn't be privy to this drama (plus Jay showing he is willing to dig through post histories), perhaps giving proper examples (as opposed to purely throwing out accusations) might help your case more.

 

My claims are based on long-standing experience of the users mentioned. Take it or leave it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay said:

I completely admit that I am not infallible, have absolutely been snarky in the past when it wasn't called for, and have absolutely been rude at times.


All I can say is that I recognize this, and will try to be better in the future.

 

I'm liking this, but I don't think you have much to apologize for. Everyone gets snarky around these parts and I think in general you're one of the nicest guys on here.

 

I'm not interested so much in any complaints about a particular person, I'm more or less fine with everyone here. But I do think Quintus has a point in highlighting a certain degree of hypocrisy, among all of us, in feeling righteous in calling out some forms of unsocial behaviour while tolerating, or engaging, in other forms ourselves. This place, at least historically, hasn't been for the timid, the thin-skinned or easily offended. The first words Steef ever said to me on this board were literally "WELL FUCK YOU!" I'm not easily offended, and in any event grew a thick skin, got over it and now I miss him. 

 

I lurked here for a LONG time before I signed up, and this place definitely had a character about it that's slowly changed over the years. Now, you're more of less codifying that change with these new rules.  If we're now calling out behaviour that was previously, and unspokenly, tolerated, I'm not surprised some people can't help but call out what they see as BS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

calling out behaviour that was previously, and unspokenly, tolerated

 

Can you elaborate on this part and be specific about what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

Can you elaborate on this part and be specific about what you mean?

 

Not really. You know what I'm talking about. I'm not interested in searching for old feuds and reposting them here. This place has a long history of people talking crap to each other, quite directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

Well, this other guy is making very different claims than you are, so unless you're trying to imply he's inherently biased in his assessment of the man (to which why do you think you are not then?), I question why you feel so inclined to publicly stick to your guns when you haven't given the rest of us much of a foundation to actually stand on in this matter (that frankly seems like it should've stayed private from the looks of it).

 

I mean, you haven't a hope in hell of me actually taking the time to expand on my justifications in relation to this dude. I don't really want to waste any more of my time talking about a user I idly ignore and am just generally dismissive of. I wasn't the one who actually brought Bilbo or that previous occasion/transgression up here today, you might notice. 

 

But rest assured, I still think what I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Not really. You know what I'm talking about.

 

I honestly don't.  If I did, I wouldn't have asked for elaboration!  I was trying to make an attempt to make sure I understand all commentary about the new rules.  But if you don't want to help me out here than I honestly don't know what I am supposed to learn from your post.

 

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

This place has a long history of people talking crap to each other, quite directly.

 

6 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

Ribbing and even some hazing were the name of the game.  I encountered it when I joined, knew about it when I lurked for nearly two years before joining.  A lot of that stuff I have no problem with, and the rules don't really target it.  

 

Exactly

 

6 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

The rules target behavior that goes way beyond that.  Slanderous and dangerous baseless accusations, baiting people for fun or to vent real world frustrations, and weird self-indulgent trolling do not generate a unique atmosphere.  They suck all the oxygen out of a forum.  

 

Exactly again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Nick doesn't want to elaborate further or he can't be bothered to, possibly since making sure you understand all commentary about the new rules is literally a boring waste of time and effort. I mean, finger and thumb pressing (assuming he's on his phone) along with some semblance of cognitive planning, starts to feel like a precious commodity after a bit here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jay said:

 

I honestly don't.  If I did, I wouldn't have asked for elaboration!  I was trying to make an attempt to make sure I understand all commentary about the new rules.  But if you don't want to help me out here than I honestly don't know what I am supposed to learn from your post.

 

What I'm saying mate is this: Historically, was everyone who engaged in name-calling, personal attacks, baseless accusation and stupid feuds that carried over from thread to thread here given a ban? No? Then it was tolerated, at least to some extent.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SteveMc said:

Ribbing and even some hazing were the name of the game.  I encountered it when I joined, knew about it when I lurked for nearly two years before joining.  A lot of that stuff I have no problem with, and the rules don't really target it.  

 

The rules target behavior that goes way beyond that.  Slanderous and dangerous baseless accusations, baiting people for fun or to vent real world frustrations, and weird self-indulgent trolling do not generate a unique atmosphere.  They suck all the oxygen out of a forum.  

 

I don't disagree with any of this. Except to say that I'm oddly tolerant of self-indulgent trolling. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

What I'm saying mate is this: Historically, was everyone who engaged in name-calling, personal attacks, baseless accusation and stupid feuds that carried over from thread to thread here given a ban? No? Then it was tolerated, at least to some extent.

 

Thing is: there have been bans issued over some of these matters (even recently). It's just that prior to today, there wasn't a solid way for people to know that information. Me personally, I figured some people simply decided to take their time off after a particularly heated discussion, instead of simply having a time out. And given that people would always come back like if nothing happened, it almost felt like it did absolutely nothing.

 

It was tolerated because as Jay mentioned, he's not always privy to the context and ideas that certain topics present. It's only thanks to recent events that there has been more of a discussion made over what the line actually should be, given it was affecting the engagement of several users. The implemention of the current rules may be a bit spotty so far, but it's questions like these that help our mods in charge figure out what the best courses of action to take are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

This place, at least historically, hasn't been for the timid, the thin-skinned or easily offended.

 

It's all in the spirit of JW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HunterTech is right.  In the past my moderation was too transparent; I'd ban people, but not necessarily post publicly that I did so, so it could indeed look like someone just took a break for a bit, and that the mods didn't do anything.


This is why we will now start posting publicly about bans, and deleting content if we see fit.  There will be no more confusion about what is welcome and what isn't.

 

And he's right that I am not a guy who spends my free time catching up on current events in every country on the planet, so of course some things could have been posted that had a political slant that I didn't recognize.  This is why we rely on the Report button to draw things to our attention.  Otherwise discussion can get heated by the time I realize what is going on as people have been debating multiple sides of a political issue. 

 

Now, the political-tinged posts that start a debate will be deleted and it will be made clear that we don't want political debates beginning by a sly posting of some article that seems relating to entertainment but is actually a political opinion piece, for example

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst of the nastiness must have been occurring in the politics threads (which I avoid), because most of what I see in the threads I frequent is the general ribbing and snark people are talking about and has always been a part of this place, and nothing I personally find particularly objectionable.

 

That said, I told Jay a while ago that I thought politics should be banned here, and I'm gratified that he's wisely finally heeded my counsel. Not just because it poisons places like this, but because politics has literally seeped into every part of our culture...pop culture, sports, music, etc., and I frankly don't want to have to deal with that crap when I come here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nick1066 said:

The worst of the nastiness must have been occurring in the politics threads (which I avoid), because most of what I see in the threads I frequent is the general ribbing and snark people are talking about and has always been a part of this place, and nothing I personally find particularly objectionable.

 

That said, I told Jay a while ago that I thought politics should be banned here, and I'm gratified that he's wisely finally heeded my counsel. Not just because it poisons places like this, but because politics has literally seeped into every part of our culture...pop culture, sports, music, etc., and I frankly don't want to have to deal with that crap when I come here.


I don’t think anything your saying there clashes with the new rules though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

 

What I'm saying mate is this: Historically, was everyone who engaged in name-calling, personal attacks, baseless accusation and stupid feuds that carried over from thread to thread here given a ban? No? Then it was tolerated, at least to some extent.

 

 

 

When I started posting , there were constant memes and links to FOX news. So, you can understand why some here  would think political posts were " tolerated"

It took a while before mods stepped in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bruce marshall said:

there were constant memes and links to FOX news.

 

There are some of us here who can only maintain an erection while jacking to the ladies of the bullshit factory. It's less than some, actually. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a point.

 

Considering most of the people at this site who I ever considerered a friend or genuinely enjoyed talking to has left forever, that's probably the way to go.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jay said:

Now, the political-tinged posts that start a debate will be deleted...

 

This is one of the issues that strikes me as problematic since, as Nick just pointed out, politics infuses so much of our culture. I presume that it isn't the intention of the new rules to preclude conversation of films which deal with political subjects, but they do expressly prohibit "topics which can turn distinctly political". If one user were to write a review of the above-mentioned film Bloody Sunday, another might perceive political bias even in their description of the subject matter; I know this from personal experience (though not on JWFan). Many new films deal with contemporary social justice/activism/culture war topics, and a viewer's response to such a film is likely to betray some hint of their attitude toward that topic. Are such posts, when not intending to provoke any debate on the topic in question, safe from the threat of deletion?

 

43 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

For all the people wanting to debate politics here: there's countless subreddits dedicated to politics, whether it's American, British, European, Australian, right, center, left, etc. Why don't you just go there? 

 

I've seen this sort of suggestion often before and am always rather baffled by it. Are there really people who actively seek out new websites purely in order to vent their opinions to a crowd of others that they've never encountered before?

 

Personally I've never sought out a website specifically to proclaim my views on any subject whatsoever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I've seen this sort of suggestion often before and am always rather baffled by it. Are there really people who actively seek out new websites purely in order to vent their opinions to a crowd of others that they've never encountered before?

 

You just described people like Drax and Gruesome. They want to make sure that every JWFan member know about their Trumpism, whether we like it or not.

 

Since politics are forbidden here, they can spread their Trumpian views to other forums and subreddits, but for some reason they're obsessed in doing it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's what Twitter is for. But when you have practically no followers, jumping on a soapbox to scream politically charged statements goes nowhere. It's emotionally unsatisfying. Same with starting out fresh at a new forum website with post count zero. 

 

But here... Here we have a bunch of nerdish guys and "girls" drawn together with a common love of soundtracks, some for 20 years. It's more of a captive audience and easier to get a rise, which keeps the conversation going and empowers the instigators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

They want to make sure that every JWFan member know about...[etc]...for some reason they're obsessed in doing it here.

 

I think you're sort of arguing against your own point there, by showing that the particular venue/audience is not irrelevant to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, trying to think up situations that might be interpreted in such a way just isn't very helpful IMO.  The new rules are an attempt ameliorate an issue many, many users were having with the tone and content of the board.  I say just see how things play out, how the rules are actually applied once the excitement dies down, if anything about the board feels different over the coming months, and if you think it's a change for the worse, say so.

 

In my view, the difference between something like what you mentioned and the kind of post that a moderator would have to intervene about is that the latter introduces political ideas to the board purely to be antagonistic and inflammatory (ie, in bad faith).  It's like what the American judge said about porn, you just know it when you see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Introduces political views ...purely to be antagonistic and inflammatory (ie, in bad faith). 

THIS is the definition of  "trolling"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

This is one of the issues that strikes me as problematic since, as Nick just pointed out, politics infuses so much of our culture. I presume that it isn't the intention of the new rules to preclude conversation of films which deal with political subjects, but they do expressly prohibit "topics which can turn distinctly political". If one user were to write a review of the above-mentioned film Bloody Sunday, another might perceive political bias even in their description of the subject matter; I know this from personal experience (though not on JWFan). Many new films deal with contemporary social justice/activism/culture war topics, and a viewer's response to such a film is likely to betray some hint of their attitude toward that topic. Are such posts, when not intending to provoke any debate on the topic in question, safe from the threat of deletion?

 

I should trust Jay not to immediately start deleting threads and banning people just because a post about a film or a score to a film touches on the film's politics, unless it's the sort of post that deliberately seeks to start a controversy. That's *why* the new rules give the mods some leeway, so they can leave a civil discussion of on-topic stuff that happens to have some political aspects unmoderated without it setting a precedent that allows someone else can claim as a justification for starting a propaganda crusade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

Yeah, trying to think up situations that might be interpreted in such a way just isn't very helpful IMO.

 

No, you're quite mistaken here. The particular situations I posited may be hypothetical but they are not at all unlikely. They are going to arise.

 

11 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

...the difference between something like what you mentioned and the kind of post that a moderator would have to intervene about...

 

Sure, I understand what the intention of the new rules/enforcement policy is. What I'm seeking clarification (or, as you put it, illumination) about is the possibility of ramifications beyond the primary intention if the rules, as formulated, are consistently enforced.

 

4 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I should trust Jay not to immediately start deleting threads and banning people...

 

I wasn't expecting that. I'm only inquiring about how cautious, or evasive, one has to be to be sure of staying within the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Glóin the Dark said:

I wasn't expecting that. I'm only inquiring about how cautious, or evasive, one has to be to be sure of staying within the rules.

 

You just keep posting like you always have.  You've always been a respectful, good-faith, and intelligent poster so it's not like the moderators would just instantly perma-ban if you accidentally missed the mark in some way, which seems highly doubtful in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about me , Stu?😞

20 minutes ago, Disco Stu said:

You've always been a respectful, good-faith, and intelligent poster ...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JWFan Moderators said:

Time for this conversation full of politics, personal attacks, and pitting people against each other, to come to an end.

 

Quintus is banned for 24 hours.

 

If anybody has any commentary about the rules as a whole that has not already been stated you may post it.

 

But this Bilbo vs Quintus conversation is done.

Wait, why was Quintus banned? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something involving the IRA, which appeared in the conversation for some reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I missed what caused the ban, but he literally said he wasn’t the one who brought up Bilbo and didn’t want to continue talking about it, while others, including Jay, all participated in the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Koray Savas said:

Maybe I missed what caused the ban, but he literally said he wasn’t the one who brought up Bilbo and didn’t want to continue talking about it, while others, including Jay, all participated in the discussion. 

He did not bring Bilbo up, but when Bilbo was brought up Quintus accused him of supporting terrorism.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.