Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Is it cold in here?]

In the old archives, there's been at least one attempt to ask how the moderators make decisions. This strikes me as a fair question, and though I can only answer for myself I'll offer a summary, regrettably but necessarily incomplete.

At the root of it all is the goal of making this subforum a place where Jeph is willing to visit. This means trying to head off discussions and new threads that are going into territory that makes Jeph sad.

Other things, for example fun offtopic digressions, I'll be pretty relaxed about. That said, if a thread is offtopic, it's got no redeeming features to weigh against a rules violation. There was one weekly discussion thread which wandered into a discussion of the US Civil War, and when the first uncivil posts appeared I was on the edge of locking it before another moderator beat me to it.

Questionable Content is an intelligent strip which attracts intelligent people. I'll try to appeal to people's intelligence and good nature as a first resort. It's been working so far. If you get a PM from me, then please assume, even if I write it hastily and clumsily, that it's in the spirit of respecting your ability and intent to keep the subforum a good place.

Threads will get locked if they're in bad places. This will be a judgment call and hard to define in advance, but I'll make an effort to cite chapter and verse when I lock something so that new people can more easily pick up the culture here by observation.

I'll leave this thread open for a while to accommodate suggestions and questions.

[AnAverageWriter]

Something that's bugged me...

Who is testguy, and why is he moderating "fffffFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF"?

[Eris]

testguy was an account that est made to test when making people mods for certain boards.

[pwhodges]

It's perhaps worth noting that moderators generally make decisions individually - not least, at the time a decision needs to be made, there is no particular likelihood that any other moderator is around to discuss it with anyway.  Of course, we hope that we agree sufficiently on how things should be handled that our decisions are reasonably consistent, even if at times it may turn out that our styles are different; we were probably chosen as moderators with that consistency in mind. 

Also, I am certainly aware that every time I interfere with a thread or a post, I am touching on matters which concern freedom of speech and censorship, and so take care that I am sure in my own mind that the action I take is justified by my understanding of the forum rules.

[Nick and Marla]

It's assumed that testguy could kick your ass.

[cyro]

Also, I am certainly aware that every time I interfere with a thread or a post, I am touching on matters which concern freedom of speech and censorship, and so take care that I am sure in my own mind that the action I take is justified by my understanding of the forum rules.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but legally, doesn't Free Speech only cover public property? In a private forum* doesn't Jeph pretty much get final say what happens here?

*That was actually meant to forum in the wider context but either way works.

P.S. I'm not even American, if I'm completely wrong please don't blugeon me with spoons. Thank you.

[pwhodges]

In the United Stated, the 1st amendment only says (I am told) that the authorities may not restrict your speech.  But I also found the following remark "some states have recognized certain circumstances where state constitutions force private citizens to allow for dissenting views on their property", which could apply to forums (there is applicable case law, if you go hunting). 

Worldwide, Freedom of Speech is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and enshrined in more local Human Rights laws.  These are usually discussed in terms of the rights being limited by authorities, and I haven't yet found any discussion of their applicability to privately run forums.

Given that the forum owner has an undeniable right to simply close the forum, it's hard to see how they could be denied the right to control what is written there; but in the interests of friendliness, we wouldn't want to appear heavy-handed about it - hence my remark.

[cyro]

Fair enough. 2 points.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself isn't leaglly binding (though several of it's provisions are in other documents that are, to UN member states anyway). I don't know International Law, but I do know Modern History. Second point, Britian has serveral laws that infringe on Free Speech. Mostly dealing with hate speech.

Right, shutting up now.

[pwhodges]

Britian has serveral laws that infringe on Free Speech. Mostly dealing with hate speech.

Of course, and with good reason.  (You do realise that, unlike any other moderator here, I'm in Britain?)

[cyro]

Britian has serveral laws that infringe on Free Speech. Mostly dealing with hate speech.

Of course, and with good reason.  (You do realise that, unlike any other moderator here, I'm in Britain?)

I did not know that, no. I offer no opinion on that due to the rules advisement against politics here.

 

[Is it cold in here?]

There don't seem to be any questions about how the forum will be moderated.

[Is it cold in here?]

Reopened, since people in the weekly comic thread were curious about moderation, and this thread is a better place for the discussion.

I'd rather head off problems when they're small, or before they start, than let a fire get established and then react in Wrath of God mode. I do worry about the risk that's been pointed out of desensitizing people to moderator feedback. Fortunately there's been more and more peer-to-peer feedback lately, a healthy phenomenon that saves me from looking like a petty nag.

As time goes by I expect the forum will _mostly_ run itself. There have been long stretches in the past where it worked OK with no local moderators and with the global moderators absent. The fact is that people here have a common goal and the brains to implement it.

This thread is a good place for questions whose answers will be of general interest. PMs are welcome for generic feedback.

[bunnyThor]

There seems to be a bit of a controversy about the whole 'shipping thing. Let me try to sum it up:

It is okay to talk about a character's past and present romances, but talking about their future romances is forbidden.

Is that about it?

[pwhodges]

This has been gone through a number of times, including in the "Conduct" sticky at the top of this forum - this bit, here (NB, "cold" wasn't a moderator at the time he contributed to that thread).  If you haven't read that thread yet, please take the trouble to now.

We use the term "shipping" in general to describe the introduction or discussion of pairings for their own sake, unrelated to any coherent plot development.

The case of Hanners is slightly more particular.  Jeph has said on various occasions (like just two days ago) things to the effect that he does not want any kind of sexual speculation about her; so it would clearly be inappropriate to allow his own forum to be used to upset him.

[gprimr1]

In a discussion forum, the person who owns the board and pays the bills gets to decide how much free speech you have. The right isn't protected in a private forum owned by a private citizen.

I am on several forums, some have extremely tight moderation and it results in a lot of topics dying quickly because the scope is too narrow, and some have almost no moderation, and good conversations get turned into degenerate matter and good people stop coming back.

I usually think of the forum as someone's house.

[Tergon]

I think on the topic of shipping, it simply boils down to letting Jeph be the storyteller.  If two characters are canonically linked romantically, then obviously discussion and speculation is okay.  And, if you can make a decent argument that the plot is hinting at two characters hooking up, that's suitable speculation, as long as you don't grab the idiot ball and run screaming into R-Rated territory with it.  This is, after all, a subforum about discussing QC and its characters, and if the plot is actually headed in a certain direction, there is absolutely no harm in talking about it.
But there is an extremely clear difference between this, and people who say that "A and B should hook up because they would be sooooo cute together!" or "A needs to get laid to overcome their problems, and B shoud be the one to do it!".  Let alone the extreme examples of "Hurrr durrr A and B need to have sweaty sex because boobies durrr."  And we all know perfectly well that examples of these have popped up many, many times before.  There's no plot-related reason for it to happen, nothing in the comic that suggests it ought to happen, no reason to think it's likely to happen.  It is, as pwhodges said, shipping merely for the sake of shipping.

In the Marten-Hannelore example?  They're close, they spend a lot of time together, they talk about personal topics - but these are all things that very close friends would do anyway.  Hannelore, however, has not actually shown anything resembling romantic interest in Marten unless her initial "stalker" phase could be considered that.  And Marten became openly disgusted at the suggestion he views Hannelore in a sexual light when Dora and Faye asked him which of his female friends he fantasizes about.
There is less canonical evidence to suggest a romantic link between Hannelore and Marten than there is between Marten and Steve - the two guys share a relationship just as close as Marten and Hannelore do, but they have also been mistaken for a couple, and have canonically had drunken makeouts.  But I don't think anyone here is insane enough to suggest that Marten and Steve are likely to hook up soon, are they?  Even without Jeph putting the Kai-bosh on speculation of Hannelore's love life, the pairing makes exactly zero sense anyway in the context of the story.

Shipping for the sake of shipping is non-canonical discussion, which is off-topic on the WCT anyway.  It's also trying to control Jeph's story, which is pretty rude and understandably irritating for the guy.  But most importantly, since he's very specifically said he doesn't want it here... asking why is a completely irrelevant question.  Maybe he has a good excuse.  Maybe he has a bad one.  Maybe it's an insane reason that involves turnips, squirrels, and a beret.  The reason does not change the fact that we've been told not to do it, and around here, he has the authority to make that rule.  So, if you actually respect the guy as a writer, that's what you do.

[Kugai]

On that, as always, I think Jeph will somehow wind up surprising us.

[Carl-E]

<Tergon> I give up.

Never.

Give. 

Up. 


At least, not the Tergon we've come to know.  He'd grab that useless broom made entirely of dicks in both hands, and beat the shipping lanes in that ocean of fanboys into submission! 

Which sounds wayyyyy  more obscene than most shipping. 

[Blackjoker]

This is more a question on an act of moderation that happened, part of why I ask is simple morbid curiosity but also some confusion.

Back during the whole breakup thing the posts tended to...shall we say balloon in number and were a bit more testy if memory serves but I did sort of wonder where all the locks came from. For that matter I sort of wondered what caused Jeph to bomb the forums with B and apparently rename the forums either in an act of anger against the people posting here or something similar.

[Kugai]

<Tergon> I give up.

Never.

Give.  

Up.  

NEVER

SURRENDER!



*cue cheesy theme music*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFdTgHBnlxM

[pwhodges]

I did sort of wonder where all the locks came from. For that matter I sort of wondered what caused Jeph to bomb the forums with B and apparently rename the forums either in an act of anger against the people posting here or something similar.

This was gone through in the "Conduct" thread which is stickied at the top of the forum.  There is really no need to have the same discussion all over again.  Note that the worst offending threads were not merely locked but removed, so there was stuff that happened that we can no longer show you.  I also gave my take on Jeph's response in that thread, and have nothing to add to that.  Our hope is that more consistent moderation will make it easier for you to know where you stand now and in the future; the only comment I can make about the past is that if either cold or I had been moderators last November, I believe we would have stepped in far sooner to prevent things getting as bad as they did.

The forum renaming thing has happened on quite a number of occasions, and is just Jeph's whim; but he was a little sad when another admin changed his latest name for this particular forum back to its present name.  The present overall name of the forums has nothing to do with this forum at all, but concerns others lower down; there was a time when it was called "Sexydads Forum" (for one day only), and one of my avatar images was added in response to that.

[Method of Madness]

Dude, don't explain the joke >_<

[Kugai]

Shipping OK, but taking it too far is something that should be stomped on as it can end in bad feeling all round.  

And yes, I know that from personal experience here.  I haven't forgotten I wound up getting a seven day ban from here when I let my odd sense of humour go too far - not exactly a good look for a guy who is a Moderator and ex Moderator on a couple of other sites.

[pwhodges]

If it's OK we don't call it shipping; if we call it shipping, it's not OK.

[Blackjoker]

I did sort of wonder where all the locks came from. For that matter I sort of wondered what caused Jeph to bomb the forums with B and apparently rename the forums either in an act of anger against the people posting here or something similar.

This was gone through in the "Conduct" thread which is stickied at the top of the forum.

Ah, alright, I had remembered asking about it but forgot where the thread was, my apologies.

[Sorflakne]

Is it bad that I find great entertainment in people yelling at each other over who should be with who or saying A should be with B because of C?

Not that I condone such activity, but I can't help but laugh when I read it.  In the end, it's a story.  Whoever's with who has no impact on your life, and the author has the final say in how things work out.

[Method of Madness]

the author has the final say in how things work out.

Unless they (accidentally?) leave something open to interpretation.  Then there is no final say!

[Carl-E]

Or, as is the case in an ongoing comic or other series, the story is incomplete; such a situation begs for speculation! 

And that's where the problems arise. 

[SJCrew]

So, if you actually respect the guy as a writer, that's what you do.

...and if I think he's a hackjob, I get to do what I want and break the rules, right? :V

Kidding. I really don't think it's that hard to post about character relationships and the like without being a dirty rotten shipping scoundrel. Some people just make the matter way more complicated than it needs to be. Instead of tensing our shoulders and feeding into this paranoia that every talk of possible relationships is a ticking time bomb, we need to relax and use a little common sense.

EX: Jeph says Marten and Hannelore are not happening. Done. Let's discuss the comic now, okay?

[cesariojpn]

Shipping for the sake of shipping is non-canonical discussion, which is off-topic on the WCT anyway.  It's also trying to control Jeph's story, which is pretty rude and understandably irritating for the guy.  But most importantly, since he's very specifically said he doesn't want it here... asking why is a completely irrelevant question.  Maybe he has a good excuse.  Maybe he has a bad one.  Maybe it's an insane reason that involves turnips, squirrels, and a beret.  The reason does not change the fact that we've been told not to do it, and around here, he has the authority to make that rule.  So, if you actually respect the guy as a writer, that's what you do.

I need to bring this up, seeing this is relevant: Scott Adams/Dilbert mess.

[Tergon]

Are... are you accusing me of being a Straw Man for Jeph?  Is that what just happened? 

[cesariojpn]

Are... are you accusing me of being a Straw Man for Jeph?  Is that what just happened? 

No, just that the actions of a creator should be weighed on how his/her fan base will react. At least, I hope Jeph isn't involved in sock-puppetry shenanigans.

[akronnick]

Why would someone (who is not Scott Adams) design, build and implement the Useless Broom Made Entirely Out Of Dicks to get people to behave on a forum he owns when all he would have to do in reality is wield the Almighty (And Completely Not Useless) Ban Hammer Of Thor?

[pwhodges]

I need to bring this up, seeing this is relevant: Scott Adams/Dilbert mess.

It is not  relevant, and it is inappropriate to suggest that it is.

I see no purpose to this discussion, which has wandered away from the intent of the thread, so I am stopping it here.