Forums / Maintenance / Report Problems

14,184 total conversations in 1,028 threads

+ New Thread


Just For Fun

Last posted Feb 26, 2013 at 08:11PM EST. Added Feb 22, 2013 at 10:29PM EST
45 posts from 18 users

So most of you are probably aware of the recent change regarding moderation on the JFF board. For those that don’t: Several mods were told by the staff that threads that are practically pointless or without a topic don’t need to be locked as they aren’t rulebreaking, something which several mods did before that. Which resulted in the moderators allowing a lot more threads that would get locked without question before that.

So now that some time has passed most of us most likely gained some insight in the change and developed an opinion about it. The opinion of the moderators is not unknown, we simply dislike the change. But I won’t go into detail here and simply ask the following: What is your opinion on the recent change in moderation on the Just For Fun board? And if you want moderation, how strict do you want us to be to feel comfortable?

Last edited Feb 22, 2013 at 10:30PM EST
Feb 22, 2013 at 10:29PM EST
Quote

I feel that the JFF board should be just that: Just for Fun. If a thread is made without point for the purpose of annoying the moderators, the userbase, or any other vistors, it should be locked. If it can be enjoyed by the users on the site, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be left alone.

Feb 22, 2013 at 10:43PM EST
Quote

aerolyt wrote:

I feel that the JFF board should be just that: Just for Fun. If a thread is made without point for the purpose of annoying the moderators, the userbase, or any other vistors, it should be locked. If it can be enjoyed by the users on the site, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be left alone.

A very good point, but please remember that opinions on what makes a thread good vary. There simply are users who get high enjoyment out of shitposting, while a majority will find it annoying and stupid. Even threads started for personal enjoyment or to annoy users have their fans.

It’s a conflict of keeping it fair here. Should we be stricter to shitposters so the rest can enjoy themselves, or are they allowed to make threads like the rest?

Last edited Feb 22, 2013 at 10:59PM EST
Feb 22, 2013 at 10:56PM EST
Quote

Thanks, RandomMan.

I won’t contribute, because RM worded my own stance succintly (I am also taking advantage of making my voice heard in the current state of JFF.)
 
I’m going to dish out karma to whomever states their opinion. Whether it’s for the current state of JFF, against it, or advocating something else, I’d really like for users to come out and say what they think. I’ve had more than a few users come to me directly via PM and say their piece, but it does little coming from my mouth what other users have said.

Feb 22, 2013 at 11:05PM EST

What’s the point of that kind of moderation in JFF when the whole point of it was to be able to do (within reason) whatever the hell you want, so long as it gives you your kicks? It makes perfect sense in any other type of thread, because they’re meant for legitimate discussion and naturally you want to avoid them getting clogged up with things that aren’t that. But Just for Fun is… well… just for fun. Is there anything that could possibly be gained from interfering with people that are just doing what the section was created for? I think not.

Feb 22, 2013 at 11:08PM EST
Quote

I believe I’ve made my opinion of the new and “improved” JFF rather clear – before the changes, it had somewhat of a sense of order and relevancy. Now, it amounts to nothing – a board that is currently filled with threads created just to taunt the mods (which I would put under disrespect and violation of the “be friendly” rule, anyways). Derpy Vasquez, while not the only one, but certainly the most prominent, has spent the last week stretching the limit of what he can get away with, including posts I believe would still count under the bannable offenses, including mild gore and blatant mockery of site moderation in unrelated threads. I’ll concede it may get better after the JFF users find their new-found power less exciting, but if KYM JFF has shown me anything, it’s that it probably won’t be the case.

On the subject of rules, what is it that made staff/moderation decide that it was okay for JFF to ignore site-wide rules? A quote from one of Verbose’s recent posts:

  • Avoid duplicate topics. Use forum search and check for pre-existing threads on the same topic before creating a new one. If there is another thread that pertains to your topic, post your thoughts there instead of starting a new thread.
  • Keep it relevant. If you have nothing to say on a particular subject, you can skip the topic and move on. If you want to address a specific individual about personal matters, contact the user via private message instead of starting a public discussion.
  • No porn or gore. External links to sites containing such content or ads will be censored at the discretion of moderators, unless it is absolutely vital to meme research discussions and accompanied by a clear [NSFW] warning label. (More or less a Cheezburger rule.)
  • No flooding or spamming. Flooding, defined as repeated posting of redundant threads, and spamming, defined as posting of any advertisement or promotional materials, are strictly prohibited.
  • No autoplay outside of your own profile page. Posting autoplay videos, mp3’s, or SWF’s outside of your own profile page is prohibited. This pertains to all comments, forum posts, and user pages. Violation of this rule may result in an extended period of ban.
  • Do not attempt to evade a ban. Using an alternate account, proxy IP address or other means of evading a ban are strictly prohibited. Violation of this rule may result in an extended period of ban.
  • Be friendly. We want our forums to be welcoming place for both old and new users. Please keep your comments and posts constructive and considerate in tone. If you observe a user breaking a rule, try advising the user in the right direction instead of posting insults or harsh criticisms. If the user persists, contact a forum moderator.

Yet:

Amanda B said:


Please note, these apply to the ENTIRE site.

Emphasis NOT added. That bold has been there since the site rules have been in action. While JFF may be less regulated, does that really mean that it is soooooo special that it gets to ignore rules? If they want near-nonexistent moderation, then those users can go to /b/. I definitely enjoyed the board better when it was still on track.

Feb 23, 2013 at 02:27AM EST
Quote

0.9999...=1 wrote:

What’s the point of that kind of moderation in JFF when the whole point of it was to be able to do (within reason) whatever the hell you want, so long as it gives you your kicks? It makes perfect sense in any other type of thread, because they’re meant for legitimate discussion and naturally you want to avoid them getting clogged up with things that aren’t that. But Just for Fun is… well… just for fun. Is there anything that could possibly be gained from interfering with people that are just doing what the section was created for? I think not.

I like his reasoning.

Feb 23, 2013 at 03:17AM EST
Quote

I may differ from the other mods in this opinion, but I’ve always felt that the only good reason to lock a thread is if it’s offensive in some way. (The rules Twilitlord referred to above are codified examples of offensiveness.) I’ve never understood it when a mod says, “This thread is pointless. Locking.”

WRT Internet discussions in general, and JFF even more so, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that pointlessness is what entertains people for whatever reason. As usual, I’m going to point to The internet can now find stars as one of the best examples of this. A mod could easily have pointed out that the thread was derailed and locked it…1,425 posts ago.

I would even go so far as to say that I don’t get why a thread gets a lock if OP requests it. If people are enjoying and using the thread, then why should anyone get to decide it’s over for everyone else?

Feb 23, 2013 at 04:07AM EST
Quote

Just For Fun needs to be just for fun, we can’t lack rules, just limit reasoning with locking threads. By this, I mean locking threads where the purpose is for it to be for fun and it has a point, a topic, a focus, it’s just not right. It doesn’t break any rules, so why are you saying it should be locked?

The point is, the strictest part of this moderation are locks for threads that, on first sight, look stupid. I’m not at all new to threads being locked for how irrelevant they seem, it’s usually justified though in the sense that nobody in those threads either gets the topic, they aren’t having fun or the thread has been derailed so much that nobody has a chance to discuss anything or participate accordingly.

  • Exhibit A: Some of Rukario’s threads: The last one in which we were supposed to “Pick a fandom to migrate to” was a bit, well, too random. Nobody cared or even thought it was relevant enough of a thread to bother with, plus there’s the fact that people knew that if it wasn’t for the recent moderation change, the thread would have been locked anyway, and we wouldn’t have even had to care any further.
  • Exhibit B: “NSFW Pony images”: Goddamnit, what were you thinking man? Sure, if people actually post porn at all, they will be warned or banned and the thread is liable to getting locked. BUT, if it wasn’t for the new rules, I feel that thread would have been locked soon enough due to topic derailment (or, faaar more accurately, ‘Failure’).
Last edited Feb 23, 2013 at 10:11AM EST
Feb 23, 2013 at 10:11AM EST
Quote

0.9999...=1 wrote:

What’s the point of that kind of moderation in JFF when the whole point of it was to be able to do (within reason) whatever the hell you want, so long as it gives you your kicks? It makes perfect sense in any other type of thread, because they’re meant for legitimate discussion and naturally you want to avoid them getting clogged up with things that aren’t that. But Just for Fun is… well… just for fun. Is there anything that could possibly be gained from interfering with people that are just doing what the section was created for? I think not.

That can be put up for discussion. Because as I stated before, what defines fun differs per individual. I can spam 10 Pony threads if I want, call it “fun”, and it’d be allowed by default. But besides myself, do you think anyone else will appreciate my “fun”? I think the answer to this is obvious.

And that is what the moderation was for, keep the thread fun for the userbase in general. Doing whatever the hell a person wants, just so it gives him kicks, is not something people will appreciate. Not even bringing up the topic of trolling, let alone the topic of Flame Trolling:

Flame trolling involves intentionally starting a flame war by posting a provocative or offensive message, sometimes referred to as “flamebait.” The flame troll may be motivated by the attention the post receives, or by the entertainment value provided by those who have been angered by the message.
source

By abandoning moderation, we’re allowing that. Besids trolls themselves, do you think people will appreciate it? As before, I think the answer is obvious.

Feb 23, 2013 at 01:20PM EST
Quote

Personally I am rather quite disappointed at the events leading up to the new policy, which is a horrible decision by the way. That a few users started to complain, and they got what they want. The decision was to relax people, well that plan backfired because a lot of people are now upset with the new policy. From my point of view the large amount of locks that were given from moderation were reasonably justified, and people were just annoyed.

Overall people need to learn to follow the rules, and enjoy themselves inside that boundary so everyone can have a somewhat pleasant experience here on the Forums of Know Your Meme.

EDIT: Please someone lock that NSFW pony thread…. please….

Last edited Feb 23, 2013 at 02:06PM EST
Feb 23, 2013 at 02:04PM EST
Quote

Brucker wrote:

I may differ from the other mods in this opinion, but I’ve always felt that the only good reason to lock a thread is if it’s offensive in some way. (The rules Twilitlord referred to above are codified examples of offensiveness.) I’ve never understood it when a mod says, “This thread is pointless. Locking.”

WRT Internet discussions in general, and JFF even more so, I’ve seen plenty of evidence that pointlessness is what entertains people for whatever reason. As usual, I’m going to point to The internet can now find stars as one of the best examples of this. A mod could easily have pointed out that the thread was derailed and locked it…1,425 posts ago.

I would even go so far as to say that I don’t get why a thread gets a lock if OP requests it. If people are enjoying and using the thread, then why should anyone get to decide it’s over for everyone else?

I was actually hoping someone would bring up the Stars thread, because I feel like it perfectly represents how far these forums have come. I actually remember the days back when that thread started – two years ago, KYM as a whole was a radically different place. It was basically just us in the forums and the database. The first round of videos were just starting – I think I found the site through one of the videos – and there were maybe a few dozen of us on the site total. With the site just having its first steps, moderation was small and lenient, too, only stepping in when a major offense occurred and without exact rules as to how. Otherwise, we basically policed each other, calling out others on their misdeeds. The site was small, and we were good enough to follow our own unspoken rules. Yet those were very few, as shown by the Stars thread, which is pretty much the greatest derail of all time.

The thing is, the site grew up; it became bigger. The database became a serious wiki of memes, instead of the 1337-5p34k insiders-only receptacle that it had been before. The membership exploded after the Cheezburger buyout – one reason I took such a long hiatus. And as usual, with more people came more troublemakers and more difficulty keeping track of all of them. That’s where moderation comes into play. Now that we couldn’t police each other because a chunk of the userbase didn’t know to, a larger moderation force was created to be dedicated to finding them. In addition, since the site grew up, its rulebook did too. It needs more rules to keep with its new image of a semi-academic database that can legitimately be used as a reference in a news article or a paper.

I guess that what I’m trying to say is, when people try to say that JFF needs to be like the old JFF, they don’t realize that this isn’t the old KYM, either.

Feb 23, 2013 at 02:07PM EST
Quote

As of now, I’m not entirely sure I have a valid opinion. I think moderation needs to be toned down a little, but getting rid of it entirely is way too much.

My question is, would threads like this or this would still qualify in today’s JFF (or rather, JFF a week ago)? Both were technically shitposts (the second one especially), but they were both turned into something else by the community.

However, I don’t exactly want to allow threads like this. Nor do I want threads like “I’m back” or “It’s my birthday” or “Hey guys” or “I got 1000 posts today” to be allowed.

However, I don’t use JFF (or the forums) as much as many of the people here, so my opinion might not matter that much.

Last edited Feb 23, 2013 at 02:58PM EST
Feb 23, 2013 at 02:57PM EST
Quote

RandomMan wrote:

That can be put up for discussion. Because as I stated before, what defines fun differs per individual. I can spam 10 Pony threads if I want, call it “fun”, and it’d be allowed by default. But besides myself, do you think anyone else will appreciate my “fun”? I think the answer to this is obvious.

And that is what the moderation was for, keep the thread fun for the userbase in general. Doing whatever the hell a person wants, just so it gives him kicks, is not something people will appreciate. Not even bringing up the topic of trolling, let alone the topic of Flame Trolling:

Flame trolling involves intentionally starting a flame war by posting a provocative or offensive message, sometimes referred to as “flamebait.” The flame troll may be motivated by the attention the post receives, or by the entertainment value provided by those who have been angered by the message.
source

By abandoning moderation, we’re allowing that. Besids trolls themselves, do you think people will appreciate it? As before, I think the answer is obvious.

I realize that you don’t live in the US, but this is the best thing I can come up with that relates perfectly to my opinion:
I’m sure you’re familiar with the Westboro Baptist Church, but if not, it’s a small group of (mostly related) bigoted assholes that go around and “protest” with signs that proclaim things like GOD HATES FAGS and THANK GOD FOR 9/11, most infamously at military funerals. In 2011, the United States Supreme Court held the case of Snyder v. Phelps (the latter being the pastor of the church) to decide whether they had a right to do so or if it could be considered criminal harassment punishable by law. "The Court held (8-1) that speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be “outrageous”. (Wikipedia)
The reasoning is simple- yeah, fuck those people, the world would be a better place without their shit, however once we decide that we can prevent them from using their First Amendment (freedom of speech) rights, we’ll start to do the same with cases that are a little less extreme. Slowly but surely, we’ll end up preventing people from expressing their opinion in much more questionable situations, and eventually you might as well throw the “right” out the window.
In the same way, there are many cases of obvious trolling that most of the userbase would agree should be blocked, but when we do it’ll put us on the slippery slope to blocking our members from doing things that most of the userbase wants to be protected. Instead, why don’t we learn to just not feed the trolls?
Of course, there’s still situations where this sort of action would make sense (porn and especially gore), but otherwise I think we should let users in JFF pretty much have the reins for the above reason.

Feb 23, 2013 at 03:26PM EST
Quote

Hmm.

Well, if I’m going to contribute my opinion, I suppose that I might as well start by saying this: I haven’t actually posted in about a month, so my opinion of the “new” JFF really couldn’t be considered “firsthand,” if that’s how you’d like to look at it. On the other hand, I have lurked semi-regularly during my period of silence, so I’ve got something of an understanding of the current situation regarding the board and its moderation. Seeing as I’m now “back” though, I’ll be able to compile a point of view from actually posting on the board, and I might come back here later when I’ve done that. (I should stop, before it starts to look like I’m attention whoring…)

I’ll start by addressing a point made by StarGazer:

I feel that the JFF board should be just that: Just for Fun.

This IS a good point, of course, but I don’t view it as an either-or argument. That is to say that, even in the days where moderators were free to lock threads on the board, I’d still have argued that most of the threads were silly. The differences between the “old” JFF and the “new” JFF, as I take it, are:

  • Threads with no topic whatsoever in the original post are no longer locked.
  • Threads specific to a certain user are no longer locked.
  • Certain rules formerly in place on the JFF board, like relevancy and prohibition of double-posting, no longer appear to apply.
  • Threads without a clearly defined topic in the original post are no longer locked.

So, take away all of the former rules and guidelines, as has been done with JFF, and basically, we have a more civil /b/. Threads that explicitly break the rules, or are requested by the OP to be locked (I agree with Brucker about the OP of a thread requesting a lock, by the way), are the only threads that mods are allowed to touch. But I don’t think that, just because mods are no longer allowed to lock threads of certain types, the board is any less “just for fun” than it was in the past. Back when the moderators WERE allowed to lock most threads, threads still existed for the purpose of entertaining the users. If users couldn’t have had fun with the types of threads that JFF hosted in the past, then I don’t see how that’s an issue with the moderators. Rather, I think that’s an issue with the user him/herself.

With this in mind, I’ve interpreted the argument that “mods aren’t letting the users have a good time” to be unfounded to an extent. I think that the moderators would have to make a conscious effort to prevent the users from having fun, or at least more conscious than simply locking threads that they view as unnecessary. Is it the mods that aren’t letting the users have a good time, or is it the users that aren’t letting themselves have a good time? I ask that legitimately. If a thread gets locked for one reason or another, then what’s stopping the users that would complain about those kinds of threads being locked from moving on to another topic that interests them? If you aren’t entertained by a forum game or lighthearted (VERY lighthearted, of course) discussion thread, then why not start a topic of your own that you think everybody can enjoy? Either I’m missing something here, or the problem doesn’t lie with the moderation at all. What I’m trying to say is, Just For Fun was never something other than “just for fun.” Users just have different viewpoints and ideas about the board’s content, which is perfectly understandable. So, like I said, either I’m just missing something, or the users that appear to wish for total anarchy in JFF (or at least for more lenient moderation) are missing something.

As for the locking of “pointless” threads, on that issue, I’m really not sure what to think, actually. The idea of “pointless” differs per individual, much like the idea of “fun” does. A moderator may call a thread “pointless” for any reason, some reasons better than others. Threads specific to an achievement that a user has acquired on KYM may not be needed, because we already have a “KYM Achievement General” thread that’s featured. Birthday threads and stuff like that DO have topics, but the regular creation of birthday threads isn’t really something that most users may be turned on to. Would a “Birthday General” thread or something along those lines work?

Furthermore, “pointless” threads that some may enjoy may very well be disliked by other users, and the conflict between those who wish for more lenient moderation and those who wish for more strict moderation is what I think caused this whole issue to begin with.

Now, I’ve also noticed that a couple of users have complained that the moderators don’t care what they think. I’d like to start by saying that I’ve never viewed the moderators as being more important than the users; rather, they just have more power. However, I think of moderators and users alike as being equally important members of the community, or at least as important as they choose to make themselves. For example, whether or not I’m an asset to the forum community and whether or not I help to move discussions forward is entirely up to your opinion, but I don’t see how I’m guaranteed to be any less useful in resolving issues and contributing to discussions than Verbose, RandomMan, madcat, MDFification, Chris, or any other moderator. This may not be entirely relevant to the topic at hand, but I like to think that it is, because I think of it as meaning that, although some may have more privileges than others, we’re all equally capable and qualified members of the community. Some members may be seen by the administration as more consistent in making good contributions than others, but honestly, we’re not all that different. Moderators are users too; they just have a few extra buttons and options that they’re entitled to.

Now, on to the actual point at hand: moderators not caring what users think. Bluntly, that’s not really true. RandomMan has just created a thread asking users what their opinions were concerning the moderation of JFF. I think that says that moderation is interested in hearing what the users might have to say. The moderators regularly respond to users and contribute to discussions; they post on users’ walls and respond to questions and even simple conversation topics. If the mods didn’t care what users thought, then they wouldn’t be doing any of that.

Do the users care what the mods think? Surely, unless a moderator had a severe case of power addiction and corruption, they wouldn’t lock a thread just for the heck of it. Shit, mods have unlocked threads in the past because users appealed to them, and I say that coming from personal experience, because I’ve done it myself. The mods are not tyrants that crush any idea that doesn’t fit their own subjective ideology; they’re just users that stood out to the administrators and were given a few extra privileges. The mindset of “the mods are a bunch of Nazis bent on crushing our fun” is just as flawed as the mindset of “I’m a mod, I’ll do as I see fit so that the forum will be just so.” What I’m getting at is that users can be just as narrow-minded in their views about the moderators as they think moderators can be about the users and the threads in JFF, and that’s the root of the issue.

JFF as a board, and the community built around it, is very close to lacking any structure at all. I may be alone in this, for all I know, but I think that rules are the bedrock of an organized society. I’m not going to argue that even threads without topics can develop topics. The Stars thread is a good example, but that thread had a topic from the start. It was intended by Sweatie Killer to be a serious thread. If that weren’t such an important piece of KYM culture, it would be locked right now. Heck, it would have been locked had it been started about a week ago. Fun can come from derailed threads, yes, but I’d rather not use that as an excuse to derail threads. Some derailed threads can become important pieces of KYM culture, but I’m fairly certain that that wouldn’t happen very often. Most of the time, I’d think that derailed threads would just annoy most users.

On that note, I add that RandomMan is correct. It is an issue of fairness. Some users want to shitpost, of course, while others prefer a more organized structure. Yes, shitposts can be funny indeed, but they can be horribly irritating as well, if they throw a thread totally off-topic (which is sort of what shitposts tend to do). But is it an issue of extremes? Does JFF have to be a police state, or does it have to lack any rules or structure whatsoever? Of course not! There’s no need for extremes here at all! Rather, why not work out a compromise that could make both camps happy? It’s doable, I think…

I guess that I’m leaning more in favor of reinstating the tenets of the former JFF, but I’ve also surmised that I may not be quite “in touch” when it comes to the viewpoints of different users. We can take Alex’s advice, “LeVe it alone” and “smoke weed eryy day,” we can make JFF a police state, or we can find some level of equilibrium that can make everyone happy. Maybe JFF just needs a new set of guidelines or something, but I’m not ready to make any significant suggestions yet until we’ve at least resolved this issue. For now, I’d like to just continue to see where this discussion goes, and I’d encourage users to respond to me if they have something to say about my reasoning.

Feb 23, 2013 at 04:21PM EST
Quote

I remember a time when JFF was like it has been this last week all the time. I also notice JFF is much more active. Activity began to decline sometime around when we started policing it.

Still, I think we still need to do this;
-If there’s an unlocked thread that has the same topic, the more recent thread should be locked.
-If a thread doesn’t actually have a topic, i.e. “herp derp”, then we should lock it. It’s not hard to have a topic guys.

Feb 23, 2013 at 05:05PM EST

Twilitlord Needs a New Theme wrote:

I guess that what I’m trying to say is, when people try to say that JFF needs to be like the old JFF, they don’t realize that this isn’t the old KYM, either.

That’s another topic I’ve brought up in various conversations about what direction the forums should take. You just can’t compare the site today with how it was a year ago, or two years ago, or three years ago (or four years ago, for the few ancientfags that may still be around). It really serves no purpose to say, “Back in 2010, the forums were awesome, and now they suck!” Someone who feels that way would be better off citing specifics, like, “I miss when the forums used to have fun threads that were less free discussion than a sort of community effort to achieve something, even if it was just to find a picture of a fictional character for each letter of the alphabet.”

In general, if people have things they wish to see incorporated in the forums, they need to say what it is specifically, or even better, just start a thread that attempts to do what they want.

0.9999…=1 wrote:

In the same way, there are many cases of obvious trolling that most of the userbase would agree should be blocked, but when we do it’ll put us on the slippery slope to blocking our members from doing things that most of the userbase wants to be protected. Instead, why don’t we learn to just not feed the trolls?

^this. I think that’s a skill that any online community would benefit from greatly. If someone starts a thread or makes a post you don’t like for one reason or another, seriously consider simply ignoring it.

Kris wrote:

I may be alone in this, for all I know, but I think that rules are the bedrock of an organized society.

Certainly! Allowing JFF to devolve into total anarchy isn’t going to make it a fun place anymore than excessive moderation. There are obviously times that the moderators should step in and deal with a situation that is getting completely out of hand, but in JFF, a little out of hand is not just acceptable, but maybe preferable.

Feb 23, 2013 at 06:56PM EST
Quote

I can agree with both sides on this case. I agree with fellow mods that the rules must be implemented. I also find some pointless threads a lot of fun. One of the reasons I don’t post a lot anymore is because the usual forum games we have doesn’t appeal to me as much as some more random threads do. However, I do not like the state that JFF has become. The current JFF is little more than shitposting, Mods suck threads and buried comments.
Maybe we need to all get together, as in mods, users and admins, and come up with some new rules for JFF, so it can be more enjoyable for everyone.

Feb 23, 2013 at 07:39PM EST
Quote

The point that MDF makes about JFF seeing more activity recently, likely because of this “anything goes” business, is interesting, but not surprising. The old threads that users posted in and enjoyed from the “old” JFF are still intact, and unless the “new” JFF’s threads mingling with the old ones is pretty fucking annoying, I don’t see much reason for those users to leave at all. In addition, newer users to whom the “do whatever” culture and mentality appeals have and will come out of the woodwork to participate in threads that they find fun or interesting. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with shitposting because “everybody else is doing it and because it’s allowed.” Of course, shitposts happen; everybody has those moments where they make a post and later on think, “Man, that was stupid.” But if you see somebody derailing a perfectly fine thread and you join in on the derail just because you know that you can get away with it now? I don’t like that mentality.

Also, I agree with Brucker about the point that he made addressing Twilitlord, and the point that he made addressing myself. Complaining that threads that wouldn’t have been locked three years ago are locked now won’t get you anywhere; many mods and users that posted here three years ago no longer stop by the forums. The site has changed, and that’s all that there is to it. The thing is, though: I can’t say that I thought of the mods as “policing” JFF in the past, like I’d already pointed out. Threads that didn’t necessarily have a topic (as in, subject matter for a discussion), but rather had a focus, were still permitted. In part, it’s why the Stars thread has been allowed to stay open for so long (both because it was an important and cherished thread to many forumgoers that remember its conception, and because people were enjoying themselves contributing to the combo). The Funny Pictures Thread has been allowed to stay open, and even featured like the Stars thread, because it had a focal point; a base. Threads that can’t really expand in any (good) direction past the first post, or that implicitly broke rules or were otherwise offensive in some way, were locked. Now, offensive or rule-breaking threads are still locked, but most threads can slide through without a hitch.

Is this entirely a bad thing? Absolutely not! For one, it gives the users that have been waiting for a chance for self-moderation (and there definitely were some) the opportunity to put their karma where their mouths are, and show the mods and the admins that they can take care of themselves and the content posted in JFF. Also, some users, like Alex and Moargun, clearly would rather have an “anything goes” JFF than a “just so” JFF. However, like I said in my last post, it isn’t an issue that we need to take to extremes. There’s no reason that we have to have JFF lean all the way to one side or all the way to the other at all. Now, administration is very, very kind-hearted, and I totally understand if they don’t want to appear heavy-handed, but I reiterate once more that it isn’t as though one side is completely in the right, and the other isn’t.

Feb 23, 2013 at 08:32PM EST
Quote

Now I have seen the point of making new rules for JFF appear a few times. Point is, we already have Site Rules, and a specific subsection for NSFW content. And the rules even read that they apply to the ENTIRE SITE. JFF is no exception to the rest of the site. And given the work put into updating the rules by mods and staff, I find abandoning them a bit of a “Fuck You” against our effort.

Now I understand we can be more lenient in following the rules when the case is JFF. Hell, we already were more lenient in JFF compared to the other sections to begin with. But that doesn’t mean we need to create whole new rules for JFF, just the old ones with a few grains of salt. I’ll only cover specific rules that were abandoned as shown in Twlitlord’s post based on a past one by Verbose. These are also personal suggestions, nothing official, feel free to reply.


Avoid duplicate topics. Use forum search and check for pre-existing threads on the same topic before creating a new one. If there is another thread that pertains to your topic, post your thoughts there instead of starting a new thread.

Man, it can’t get more obvious than that. If you create a Dildo General, and person 2 creates a Dildo Generaldo 2 days later, then the latter should be locked for being a duplicate. Having the same topic divided over two threads hurts the activity of both, and will only risk that both die instead of one staying active for having combined posts.


Keep it relevant. If you have nothing to say on a particular subject, you can skip the topic and move on. If you want to address a specific individual about personal matters, contact the user via private message instead of starting a public discussion.

Derailing can be fun, and JFF is for fun, so this rule clashes a bit. If it’s a thread with a solid topic and clear direction, point out users trying to obviously derail it. If it’s a pointless thread with no future, let users have their way if it’s fun to derail. The first thread will hurt more users by not moderating, the second one can only become more fun from derailing as it had no topic to begin with. Of course there are some limits to what can be allowed with derailing (NSFW and such), but you get the point.


No flooding or spamming. Flooding, defined as repeated posting of redundant threads, and spamming, defined as posting of any advertisement or promotional materials, are strictly prohibited.

Spamming is obvious, we permaban for that stuff. Plus I don’t think any of you will like us allowing spammers in JFF. Flooding is defined clearly enough here, and I don’t really see how duplicate redundant threads can suddenly be allowed. You can also redirect to “Avoid Duplicate Topics” here.


Be friendly. We want our forums to be welcoming place for both old and new users. Please keep your comments and posts constructive and considerate in tone. If you observe a user breaking a rule, try advising the user in the right direction instead of posting insults or harsh criticisms. If the user persists, contact a forum moderator.

Clear enough. If users are being a dick, they are definitely not being a valuable asset to the site or the community. JFF is for fun, being a dick isn’t “fun”. This rule shouldn’t clash with what we want JFF to be for.


Now let’s point out that they need some updating. This is on area’s of covering other sections better (as they mainly focus on the forum even though they apply everywhere) and making them more easily accessible (a thread isn’t really easy to find). But we’re already working on this, so stay tuned. As this topic is about the threads though, the current state of the rules works enough.

Last edited Feb 23, 2013 at 09:23PM EST
Feb 23, 2013 at 09:03PM EST
Quote

@RandomMan:

I can’t deny that saying that JFF needs an entirely new set of rules and guidelines does seem sort of like a middle finger to the moderation, what with all the work that they’ve done for the community and the board. Because you were kinda-sorta-partially addressing me in your post, I’d like to quote myself:

Maybe JFF just needs a new set of guidelines or something, but I’m not ready to make any significant suggestions yet until we’ve at least resolved this issue.

As you can see, I’m sort of in the same boat as most everybody else in this thread. As in, I’m not completely closed to the idea of amending the rules for JFF or developing a new set of rules altogether; rather, I’d like to reach an end to this discussion first.

Actually, as it stands, I think the rules are fine in their original iteration. The issue regarding the rules is, I think, a related one to the moderation of JFF (the reason that this thread exists). In both cases, the viewpoints of any given user are based upon their interpretation of the current enforcement of the rules. I should hope that moderators don’t lock threads just because they think that the thread they’re locking is stupid; because subjectivity and moderation shouldn’t mix too much. But if a thread somehow breaks the rules through the eyes of a moderator, of course it’s going to be locked. I could almost guarantee, though, that at least one user disagrees with the actions taken by a moderator in instances where a thread is locked or a post is deleted, et cetera. Moderators act based upon their own interpretation and understanding of the site rules, of course, and when users disagree based upon their own interpretation and understanding, you have an issue, small though it may be. The issue here is that some users and some mods disagree about how JFF should be moderated, both with the opposing party and with those among their own ranks. How JFF should be moderated relates directly to the site rules.

As for the abandonment of the rules that you talked about, like I said earlier, I don’t think that anything is wrong with the rules themselves, but rather, it’s how they’re applied and enforced that some have a problem with. A user calls another user a shitlord. Would locking the thread be justified? Somebody posts a Spiderman image derailing a good thread, another user joins in. Do you delete their posts and/or lock the thread, or do you just downvote them? There’s the heart of the issue right there: how lenient or strict moderation comes across as being. Leaving everything alone will only result in chaos to me, no matter how I look at it. But the forums wouldn’t be enjoyable in the slightest if the mods perused every thread and monitored every last detail; that would just make the users feel oppressed and uncomfortable. If it takes a new set of rules for those on one side of the issue and those on the other side to reach an agreement and a compromise, then why not?

Feb 23, 2013 at 10:15PM EST
Quote

The JFF section of the forums is for people to relax and have fun. JFF does not need to be as strictly moderated as other sections. Surprisingly, JFF hasn’t become a complete hellhole since moderation has become more relaxed on JFF.

Mods getting less work (not having to moderate JFF) is suddenly causing panic? Wow.

Since moderation of JFF relaxed, more threads have been created and there is more fun stuff going on.
Unlike before where very few threads were created.

JFF doesn’t need to be strictly moderated, its a place to relax.

Unless a spam/ad thread is created, it doesn’t need to be locked and/or deleted.

There is no need to police and lock threads in the JFF 24/7/365. Relax and have fun in the JFF, instead of constantly locking or deleting threads.

After all, the JFF exists as the forum section for people to have fun and be entertained.

Feb 24, 2013 at 06:16PM EST
Quote

I have a few thoughts to share about this new JFF.

I see some people mention that the forums are better after the change. There’s been a rise of shit threads and rehashes since the change, nothing really new or great. Personally, I never understood the fear of making a thread before the change. A thread only needed to have a topic to stay up, that’s really it. Whether the users liked it or not was up to the userbase, not the mods. Seems like laziness under the guise of fear to me. But, who was to blame for the way things were before then?

I’m not sure how the users feel about the change, but it seems like most are for it. I haven’t really heard that many complaints about it, so we can only assume so.

Feb 24, 2013 at 10:43PM EST
Quote

I am absolutely annoyed with the rise of shit threads. We need to find a compromise, and find a balanced level of moderation.

A single mod with powers that work only in JFF, A JFF moderator
Last edited Feb 25, 2013 at 12:00AM EST
Feb 25, 2013 at 12:00AM EST
Quote

^ complains about shit threads, makes a shit thread in the JFF.


There has actually been very few shit threads all of a sudden since the change. And that surprised me.

The mods need to talk to amandab, last time I talked to her, she said that she needs to have clarify the JFF thing to some mods again because people aren’t getting it, but the trip to the west coast sorta delayed that talk.

also, the idea that we have too many mods was brought up, we have too many mods, not enough content to mod, and that few mods should be removed, interestingly enough few mods supported that idea and said that makes perfect sense. Either mods want to control the JFF for whatever reason or are bored because there is no work. Less mods, more work for the mods that remain. Believe it or not, I originally refused to post this out of fear of being censored/banned/deleted. But decided to do so, when a mod said if I don’t post this, he or she will.

What I’m getting from all of this, is that mods and other mods and admins aren’t on the same page.

Most people are happy with the JFF change. Most mods just follow what admins said (thank you Bob) and others are still trying to resist the change.

As long as people are having fun, and because mods aren’t the “enemy” (they never were, mods are cool – but the same feel goes for the police, they aren’t the enemy but people will always act different if they are watching) anymore, people are more willing to jump in, participate and have fun.

Amandab said everyone needs to relax re: JFF and everyone should just relax and have fun. Its just one section of the forum, dedicated to random, stupid stuff. There is no need to be super serious in a section meant for silly stuff.

Last edited Feb 25, 2013 at 09:52AM EST
Feb 25, 2013 at 09:22AM EST
Quote

So the laissez-faire approach allows for more cheeto threads and threads that can now find stars. However, it comes at the price of most of the “good” threads getting buried.

I think a lot of dumb threads should be combined into one “dumb crap general” thread. That way it can’t bury more serious threads (like forum games, and cheetos).

I can’t believe I’m suggesting that we make a /b/, but maybe we should have a /b/.

Feb 25, 2013 at 10:02AM EST
Quote

Ivan wrote:

also, the idea that we have too many mods was brought up, we have too many mods, not enough content to mod, and that few mods should be removed, interestingly enough few mods supported that idea and said that makes perfect sense. Either mods want to control the JFF for whatever reason or are bored because there is no work. Less mods, more work for the mods that remain. Believe it or not, I originally refused to post this out of fear of being censored/banned/deleted. But decided to do so, when a mod said if I don’t post this, he or she will.

Mods are nazis: Confirmed

Wanna know why it’s a good thing to have some extra mods? For starters, the point you brought up of sharing the load. Moderating is a volunteer job, we don’t get paid for doing this, there is no real reward. Giving only a few mods the responsibilty to moderate the entire forum is makes it more like a chore, and doesn’t support us to moderate. In the past, before we got more Forum Mods, Chris was basically the only mod with Forum powers we could reach. Not only was this a chore to him at times, but it also made it very easy to start shit by picking a moment he wasn’t online.

Which brings me to the second point: Moderation around the clock. Our users come from all areas of the world. But that goes the same for the Mods, I’m Europe, Verbose is USA, Cyber6x is ’STRALIA. By having some more mods, we can stay active even when several of us are asleep or busy with our lives (yes, we actually have those).


But let’s go back to a point of your previous post Ivan.

Surprisingly, JFF hasn’t become a complete hellhole since moderation has become more relaxed on JFF.

Given, I am suprised as well. But I’m not convinced yet. Entropy tells us that disorder is simply a more natural occurance than order, and has a higher chance of occuring. So we’ll see in time.

But wanna know what also increased? Annoyance, complaints, and anger. Also counting mod opinions in this, because at our core we’re still users participating in the same threads as users. The last time I saw so much annoyance come from JFF was before moderation became more regular. Besides moderating, mods also worked towards creating a balans in JFF. Disallow some stuff so annoyance would lower, creating an overall more pleasant atmosphere for users to post in.

Last edited Feb 25, 2013 at 03:41PM EST
Feb 25, 2013 at 10:17AM EST
Quote

^ @RM

You’re right bro. Nevermind what I said. Act as if I never posted that. We need mods to moderate the hell out of JFF. There is simply too much anger and frustration in the JFF. Everything was fine before this crazy idea of not moderating JFF. So we should just get everything to be the way it was. So many stupid threads, so many duplicate threads. This is not necessary.

Rules are rules, the should apply to the entire site with no exceptions.

(Holy hell, that sounds condescending – Im actually being serious here)

Mfw i’ve actually used the JFF before this crazy idea of not moderating.

Unfortunately the community cannot moderate itself and it needs to be moderated. Its become too open and it needs to be controlled.

JFF as of right now: Watch the entire vid, its only 1 min



Last edited Feb 25, 2013 at 12:09PM EST
Feb 25, 2013 at 11:48AM EST
Quote

This thread is getting dangerously close to an internet fight. See to it that this remains a civil and rational conversation.


Allow me to submit the descrition of JFF: Forum Games, Participatory Projects and other such craziness.

The board was never intended to be random. It’s not like we’re saying threads can’t be funny. We’re saying threads have to have a clear topic. Duplicate threads should not be allowed.

I’d like to point out while the Cheeto thread originated from randomness, it’s basically just a Photoshop thread; we’ve seen plenty of those that start with a clear topic. The Internet Can Find Stars was also a thread that had a clear topic.

Quite frankly, you’re all being rather silly. All we have to do is lock threads that don’t have a topic. We shouldn’t care what the topic is so long as it’s appropriate and not a dupe.
There was an initial wave of shitposting, which originated because someone had the bright idea to tell the users we were flat out not moderating JFF. That wave has mostly subsided.

Since this whole debate was started by one user who posted threads without topic, discussion value or content getting pissed we locked his threads, and other users jumping on the bandwagon because mods are nazis (I doubt that most of them enjoyed the threads in question; it was more a matter of they wanted us to not watch so they could just do whatever they wanted) I think that we should just forget the whole matter, enforce the damn rules, and return to a status quo that left everyone content.

Feb 25, 2013 at 12:02PM EST

MDFification wrote:

I think that we should just forget the whole matter, enforce the damn rules, and return to a status quo that left everyone content.

Got my vote. The JFF functioned perfectly before all this, and everyone was happy.
Obviously, no one(mods, users, KYM, the internet, Obama, Putin, Hussie and Lauren faust) can handle the current situation.

Last edited Feb 25, 2013 at 12:23PM EST
Feb 25, 2013 at 12:20PM EST
Quote

Thanks for getting things civile again MDF, my apologies for the tone in my post. But yeah, I guess it’s best we just slowly return to the old state. One user flipping his shit shouldn’t be reason for such a drastic change.

Still, there are moments where I know we can lock (way) too quickly. And seeing the amount of users having issues with it, there are some problems that need fixing. So if you see us being too strict, please point it out to us (PM, wallpost, your choice). Moderating is at times trial and error, and feedback is a great help here. We won’t give you a disadvantage for telling us, we never did. Not telling us will do more damage, as we’ll only get the impression we did nothing wrong and will continue with that mindset.

Feb 25, 2013 at 03:28PM EST
Quote

@IvanP91v:
Thanks for the video, but I’m not really a fan of onions.

MDFification wrote:

We’re saying threads have to have a clear topic.

Why? Seriously. if JFF is Just For Fun, and there is a thread without a clear topic that users are enjoying, why lock it?

On the other hand if it’s just a couple of trolls posting garbage and being annoying, then sure, locking it makes sense.

RandomMan wrote:

So if you see us being too strict, please point it out to us (PM, wallpost, your choice). Moderating is at times trial and error, and feedback is a great help here. We won’t give you a disadvantage for telling us, we never did. Not telling us will do more damage, as we’ll only get the impression we did nothing wrong and will continue with that mindset.

I’d like to add that civility counts in such instances as well. I’ve seen a lot of users who have a thread locked, so they go to the wall of the mod they think locked it and blast them for it instead of asking questions that might clarify things.

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:12PM EST
Quote

Brucker wrote:

@IvanP91v:
Thanks for the video, but I’m not really a fan of onions.

MDFification wrote:

We’re saying threads have to have a clear topic.

Why? Seriously. if JFF is Just For Fun, and there is a thread without a clear topic that users are enjoying, why lock it?

On the other hand if it’s just a couple of trolls posting garbage and being annoying, then sure, locking it makes sense.

RandomMan wrote:

So if you see us being too strict, please point it out to us (PM, wallpost, your choice). Moderating is at times trial and error, and feedback is a great help here. We won’t give you a disadvantage for telling us, we never did. Not telling us will do more damage, as we’ll only get the impression we did nothing wrong and will continue with that mindset.

I’d like to add that civility counts in such instances as well. I’ve seen a lot of users who have a thread locked, so they go to the wall of the mod they think locked it and blast them for it instead of asking questions that might clarify things.

JFF is for the purposes of forum games, participatory projects, and other things that don’t really have relevance. It doesn’t mean you’re allowed to go around making threads without topics. That’s called spam.

Feb 25, 2013 at 08:23PM EST

MDFification wrote:

JFF is for the purposes of forum games, participatory projects, and other things that don’t really have relevance. It doesn’t mean you’re allowed to go around making threads without topics. That’s called spam.

I said I wasn’t going to contribute, but I also thought that the moderators would stay objective in this or completely out of it. Once I saw other moderators only speaking against those who were more in favor of a JFF with no rules or more lenient moderation, I felt that the purpose of this thread was actually ruined. That’s why I said to begin that I would contribute, because when RM and others began to debate instead of just giving their opinion and then lurking, I knew things were going to get a bit uncivilized.
 
Anyway, this is not the case. Much like the IRC, administration has explicitly stated what JFF should be like. Moderation enforces it as such.

What was said (contrary to the post that I beleive Twilitlord posted) meant that threads in JFF were to be locked only if they explicitly broke rules. Our judgement as moderation is only to gauge where rules are being broken. If there is no topic or little focus, then posts should apply to the topic very loosely. If it is a specific thread with a topic and someone tries to derail it, then they’d be breaking Rule 2.
 
So if you shitpost, then expect something somewhat derailing. If you post a thread with a specific topic or focus (per the description of JFF,) then no one should try to derail it.
 
The fact that JFF has that description was made irrelevant as soon as we heard that from amanda. Spam, as defined by the rules, is not as you say, MDF. It is “defined as posting of any advertisement or promotional materials” (“flooding” is ‘defined as repeated posting of redundant threads.’)

So if the topic is “Hi,” then that is different from when the topic is “Bye.” If the topic is “>Dear Alex,” then that is different from “>Dear Moargun.” If the “topic” is a .gif of two girls dancing, then it is different from when the topic a .gif of two guys dancing.

We shouldn’t lock a thread that’s being necrobumped.
We shouldn’t lock a thread that’s being invisibumped.
We shouldn’t lock a thread with no topic (unless there is another thread specifically saying that it has no topic.)
We shouldn’t lock a thread at the request of OP.
We shouldn’t intervene for a user who’s double posting (my apologies to The Stare Master.)

We should intervene on a thread with a specific topic that’s being intentionally or carelessly derailed.
We should lock a thread that is exactly the same as another thread. (Not the same in the sense that it’s shitposting. If there are two threads that aren’t exactly the same, then moderation shouldn’t intervene.)

I would even take it one step further and say that moderation (myself included) shouldn’t try to post with the intent to or carelessly undermining such a thread. If the intent is obviously to be condescending towards OP, then that is unnecessarily antagonistic if not derailing to the purpose or point of the thread…whatever it…is?


To sum, I don’t think we should go back to what we once did. That would go over administration’s heads. We don’t know how to run the site better than administration, and even if we think we do, that’s not our decision to make.

I highly dislike that the change was brought about by two users complaining about the thread in the IRC. That is what happened, and I’m not going to pretend that it didn’t. I locked a thread with no topic, Alex and Moargun bucked, talked to amanda, and amanda gave moderation a strict line that we were not to cross due to those complaints. But it seems like other users share their feelings, so the means were suspect while the ends were preferred.


tl;dr: When the rules are specifically broken, I will lock JFF threads, but I will always give a rule in the updated forum rules that I don’t think can be argued when I lock or when I unlock a thread. I will just as quickly unlock a thread as I will lock it.

And if that’s a problem, then we need to address the rules once it’s apparent to administration. As it stands in this thread, it appears that more users prefer the change than those who do not.

Last edited Feb 25, 2013 at 09:56PM EST
Feb 25, 2013 at 09:51PM EST

Reading Verbose’s post above, I realized there were a few things that I was missing in this conversation.

Perhaps it’s because I haven’t been around the forums as much lately, or perhaps it’s because I was almost never into policing JFF, but

…amanda gave moderation a strict line that we were not to cross…

and

…I will always give a rule in the updated forum rules…

suggest that this is more than just an off-the-cuff discussion, and there was something official posted somewhere that I have not seen. I don’t think this was the first time that there was an official change to moderation guidelines that I somehow missed out on (which suggests to me that there might need to be some meta-guidelines to moderation, but I always think that way) but no matter. For now, can someone point me to the official whatever that this discussion is apparently about?

Feb 26, 2013 at 01:43PM EST
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Reading Verbose’s post above, I realized there were a few things that I was missing in this conversation.

Perhaps it’s because I haven’t been around the forums as much lately, or perhaps it’s because I was almost never into policing JFF, but

…amanda gave moderation a strict line that we were not to cross…

and

…I will always give a rule in the updated forum rules…

suggest that this is more than just an off-the-cuff discussion, and there was something official posted somewhere that I have not seen. I don’t think this was the first time that there was an official change to moderation guidelines that I somehow missed out on (which suggests to me that there might need to be some meta-guidelines to moderation, but I always think that way) but no matter. For now, can someone point me to the official whatever that this discussion is apparently about?

See, that’s the thing. I haven’t seen any official word, either, even in Alex’s thread that started this. All we have is secondhand information from Verbose and RandomMan. I know that several people, me included, would appreciate if Amanda, Don, or another staff member could step in and give a first-hand explanation of what is supposed to be going on and why.

Please? It’s not that hard…

Feb 26, 2013 at 01:47PM EST
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Reading Verbose’s post above, I realized there were a few things that I was missing in this conversation.

Perhaps it’s because I haven’t been around the forums as much lately, or perhaps it’s because I was almost never into policing JFF, but

…amanda gave moderation a strict line that we were not to cross…

and

…I will always give a rule in the updated forum rules…

suggest that this is more than just an off-the-cuff discussion, and there was something official posted somewhere that I have not seen. I don’t think this was the first time that there was an official change to moderation guidelines that I somehow missed out on (which suggests to me that there might need to be some meta-guidelines to moderation, but I always think that way) but no matter. For now, can someone point me to the official whatever that this discussion is apparently about?

I heard it from other moderators who were in the IRC when the word came down. The official word was to not intervene in JFF unless a forum rule was being explicitly broken. So on paper, there was no change. But in effect, we moderate JFF differently from the other boards.

I think more thought is going into it now, but I’m holding to what I’ve been told at the moment.

Feb 26, 2013 at 01:54PM EST

Verbose wrote:

I heard it from other moderators who were in the IRC when the word came down. The official word was to not intervene in JFF unless a forum rule was being explicitly broken. So on paper, there was no change. But in effect, we moderate JFF differently from the other boards.

I think more thought is going into it now, but I’m holding to what I’ve been told at the moment.

I heard it from Random. Never saw an official memo.

Feb 26, 2013 at 02:50PM EST

There probably should be “an official memo” as MDFification puts it. If there are policy changes in the way mods should be behaving, it would be good for mods to actually be informed about it.

RandomMan opened the discussion with

So most of you are probably aware of the recent change regarding moderation on the JFF board.

but I wonder if that’s true? I would have never known about it if I hadn’t happened to peek into Site-Related a couple days ago, and I get the impression that not many members look into Site-Related at all. (Not to mention how many who now know might not have known if this thread didn’t exist.)

I don’t know how feasible it would be for the admins--or if anyone really feels a need for it--but many forums I’ve been a moderator on in the past have had an “Administration” sub-forum that only mods could see. It seems to me that whatever solution anyone may come up with, it would be a good idea to have a place where policy changes would be consistently posted and/or discussed. (Or maybe I’m derailing this thread and should start another?)

Feb 26, 2013 at 03:33PM EST
Quote

Amanda said it in the admin/mods IRC channel. I can probably get a chat log when I get home, if people are curious.

Feb 26, 2013 at 03:49PM EST
Quote

opspe wrote:

Amanda said it in the admin/mods IRC channel. I can probably get a chat log when I get home, if people are curious.

I’d appreciate it, but I’d rather hear it from Amanda or another staff member first-hand right here or in the Rules thread.

Feb 26, 2013 at 04:24PM EST
Quote

opspe wrote:

Amanda said it in the admin/mods IRC channel. I can probably get a chat log when I get home, if people are curious.

Do all the mods go on IRC regularly? Do all the mods know there is an admin channel? The answer for me personally on both of these is “No.”

Feb 26, 2013 at 04:48PM EST
Quote

Brucker wrote:

Do all the mods go on IRC regularly? Do all the mods know there is an admin channel? The answer for me personally on both of these is “No.”

Doesn’t really matter at this point. Amanda agreed it might’ve been a bit too sudden, and more thought and discussion should’ve been put in it first. So yeah, I’d hold back on any conclusions for the time being.

Feb 26, 2013 at 05:24PM EST
Quote

All I’m going to add here is this; I like the fact that topic-less threads aren’t locked anymore. Why? Because if a thread doesn’t have a topic, posters will give it one. That’s how some of the best threads start, they begin as something completely different and snowball into something great. This Cheeto, anyone? Besides, if it doesn’t develop a topic, it dies anyway.

Basically what I’m saying is, a pointless thread will either gain a purpose or die. Either way, the problem is solved, and I like that method.

Feb 26, 2013 at 06:45PM EST
Quote

I still fondly remember this thread which started with no clear topic, got derailed, eventually developed a topic related to the OP, all while seeing some awesome input by various people, four of which are unfortunately currently deactivated. Highlights from missing posts:

POST #4 Sweatie Killer:

I had a dream where I was in bed with two girls, and than we played guitar hero, this dont sound too bad, but god I suck at guitar hero.

I think the dream was really about how god damn embarrassing guitar hero is.

Fuck that game.

POST #25 Hyperborea Odyssea Hackeron:

Recently I had a dream in which I followed a man who was challenged to travel around the world in eighty days. Somehow my mind showed his progress as an infographic with a CGI map and numbers tracking the days. When he arrived at his destination on time, a masked stranger in a fedora and greatcoat stepped out and shot him. Said stranger carried me off and took a liking to my boobs, which I was strangely receptive to.

Then I had dessert. Fried dough shaped like rabbits and covered in cinnamon.

POST #45 Sweatie Killer:

I was in a bullet proof glass room with security cameras showing a lot of different rooms, I was over watching people through the glass in a small subway structure area, it was white with cracks on the walls, and two concrete pillars holding the ceiling up, they had a lot of dust, and looks fairly warned out. Lining up, around the side of the wall, where they were going I am not sure, I could not see pass the glass window down the open hall. Just a little more upwards in the room were four tubes going into a steal pipe going to some unknown place,the pipes looked newer than the building, there was a person in each tube unconscious or dead looking, one was a kid looking no older than 12, looked alive and breathing, than a old pale bald chubby man who looks like he has been dead for awhile, followed by a beautiful black hair pale skinned girl, and than a half blood ridden corpse than I could not identify what so ever. Next to them was a pile of bodies, oddly enough non of them were soaked in blood like the the body in tube four, all looked alive and breathing. Two white male paramedics in green nurse suits were pulling people and laying them down on beds, and one a light brown paramedic who look more dead than the unconscious people, with the look he had his eyes were deep and depressed, and very serious, was examining a body.

I looked over to the tubes wondering what was happening, more so at the Dark hair girl, and than one of the bodies in the tubes started rattling, and a paramedic jump over and pressed a button almost immediately putting a clear see through glass over the people. Inside the kid and the girl woke up, and millions of little dark green leeches came out of them, the kid was being covered in them, you could not see him after a few seconds his face was horrified, you could see the swarm of leeches move up and down as he struggle for a few seconds kicking back and forth, while the girl woke up a a second later, you could see her swarmed over, till only partially her head was visble, but mostly covered in leeches, she was in extreme pain struggling and kicking, and flesh like flower popped out of her chest. In the instant she saw it, she screamed as a near dead look went over her face in terror, as it latch on to her face, and than they were sucked away in the tubes in an instant. I panicked, and than the bodies in the piles were starting to move, and leeches poured out of them, one of the paramedics was looking in shock, the light brown man who was watching it in terror, his eyes lit up to an eerie shock, almost made me feel stunned watching as a fleshy flower came out of the person next to him, and snatch his face, he was than swarmed over by leeches, the other two paramedics ran towards the end of the line screaming “RUN RUN RUN” at the people in the line, and the line of people itself did not move a muscle, for a few seconds, and started to run. I sat there watching the horrible little leech like creatures swarm over the room, and the flesh like flowers devour the bodies for at least 30 seconds, still stunned trying to understand it all, than I heard the screams of the people in the line from a distance, and I was terrified. I woke up scared as hell, vowing never to fap to tentacle porn evar again.

TL:DR dont fap to tentacle porn

Feb 26, 2013 at 08:11PM EST
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

Yo! You must login or signup first!