Unfair Rules...

[Lehteb]

To all:

I apologize in advance that I'm having to create a blacklist against the Toon Zone moderators, but I feel that I sould speak up about what's been going on lately.

I bring up this topic, because over at the Disney Animation Forum, Delia97 has inexplicably gained an allergic reaction to discussions involving the 65-episode limit. Just recently, he/she closed a topic that was actually more focused on the cancellation of Kim Possible, even when there were no signs of flaming or arguing. Now, talks of 65 are considered a "warnable" offense.

I would defend talks of the 65-episode rule as having a major effect on all of Disney's present and future TV shows, especially the animated ones. There are already too many encroachments among animated shows from unyielding corporations.

There was another incident where I began a topic on the Cartoon Network forums concerning how I liked the older programs in comparision to the newer programs. I tried my best NOT to offend any new-age fans in particular. But I still got a message from CookieS in the manner that expressing even lenient hatred towards new programs is forbidden. That dually suggests that talks of old age animation is slowly being unwelcomed at the CN forums. It should be reminded that Cartoon Network was all about the classics when it began in 1992.

I understand that some rules need to be established in order to maintain peace among these forums. However, I feel that the banishment of the 65-episode limit, and backlashes in old v. new program debates are two steps too far. There's one member I met last month, I can't remember her name, but she was a 70's Hanna-Barbera junkie. She now no longer hangs out on these forums anymore, because it's becoming more and more difficult to bring up an old-age show without being scorned by a handful of new-age fans.

Finally, I have begun a few fan art topics, which I admit are a little too edgy for some. But given how I very rarely use swearing, and am wary of major adult themes, I don't feel that they warrant an immediate closure and link removal, as has been the case recently. That's censorship at its worst.

Pretty soon, it'll come to the point where the moderators create so many annoying rules, that they'll systematically drive out most of the current regulars. I don't want every other topic to end like this:

"You know the rules: NO [insert rule].
THREAD CLOSED!"

Again, I apologize if this appears to be a blacklist, but I feel that there are getting to be TOO MANY rules on these forums. I made this topic, not to attack the aforementioned moderators, but to help prevent any potential clashes between forum moderators and forum members. I DO want friendly and sensible discussions among my fellow members, but at the same time, I DON'T want a "Big Brother" assigned to EVERY topic.

Sincerely,
Letheb

[Yash]

There's one member I met last month, I can't remember her name, but she was a 70's Hanna-Barbera junkie. She now no longer hangs out on these forums anymore, because it's becoming more and more difficult to bring up an old-age show without being scorned by a handful of new-age fans.

If you're referring to who I think you're referring to (I don't remember her name either), I'd like to say something in my defense, because I myself got in an argument with her.

I have no problem with her expressing her opinion, but there's a line that should be drawn between "People disagree with me" and "People hate me because of my opinion". She didn't see that line, and understood the "Don't say all ___ is bad" comments as the second one, and exploded at us because our opinions differed.

About the 65 rule. It's there for a reason. Perhaps you didn't notice the topic that's solely devoted to ranting and raving about it? You can't miss it, it was pretty popular last time I checked, and I believe it's even been stickied in the Disney forum. And for the old cartoons? There are places to post that. If you just said "I like older cartoons over new ones", then I'd see that as an unfair topic closing, but if it was an all-out "New cartoons suck!" rant, then again, there's a place to post that. It's called Termite Terrace Trading Forum.

[Lehteb]

About the 65 rule. It's there for a reason. Perhaps you didn't notice the topic that's solely devoted to ranting and raving about it? You can't miss it, it was pretty popular last time I checked, and I believe it's even been stickied in the Disney forum.
Well, for some reason, the 65-episode topics have been banned altogether in the past two weeks. Even that designated topic you brought up has been closed.
I brought that up, again because we were talking about Kim Possible's cancellation, which highly involves the 65 limit. Just for that, it got closed, which I think is ridiculous.

As for the old v. new toons debate, they didn't make an official rule against defending old toons on the CN forum, but it's getting there. Even so, old-age cartoon tlak shouldn't be limited to just a few forums. Cartoon Network wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the old cartoons.

[William C. Maune]

I do not know what the specific posts you are referring to from the Cartoon Network Forum are, but I do not know of any rule against defending old school Cartoon Network shows as long as it is done in a respectful manner (as would be expected of any other topic).

[Harley]

If you post this thread again in any of the other forums, I will block you from the forums until you're able to resolve your issues with the moderators. Do not spam the forums.

[James]

As for the Drawing Board Closure. We have an FAQ stuck to the Drawing Board forum to cover such issues:


Art is art, but we are on a family board and some people aren't as liberally minded as others, so if you feel your pic is not family material and unsure whether it's too graphic, speak to the staff.

Any explicit nudity or profane images posted without speaking to staff before hand will be removed and the member in question may be officially warned.
Now the moderator did his job. The details are there in the FAQ. You weren't warned for posting the material but the rules for posting at the Drawing Board are on the board itself.

We have made it clear what we feel is acceptable and if we do feel a drawing crosses the line we will shut down the link.

This is a family board, and while the Drawing Board will try and bend the general TZ mandate on non family orientated material for artistic reasons, we would ask - as we make it clear - that you simply PM us before hand so we can decide whether there is fair grounds.

You must remember, this is a family board. From my personal perspective. the owners (those people who pay money for this community) ask for a certain standard to be kept. They want a board which offers a family enviroment and that's what we try and maintain. Your picture just crossed the line, not so much we felt that you needed to be officially warned, but enough that it should be removed. Blue Falcon explained the reason, and a quick look at the Drawing Board FAQ would have explained the decision in more detail if required.

If unsure, feel free to PM me and we will speak about this privately. I'm happy to address any concerns you have, but the rules are there and the moderator - IMO - acted fairly.

SJJ
Drawing Board Administrator/Webmaster.

[Ben]

If you post this thread again in any of the other forums, I will block you from the forums until you're able to resolve your issues with the moderators. Do not spam the forums.

As a clarification, Harley is referring to duplicates of this thread that Lehteb posted on several other boards within Toon Zone, not this thread. Feedback & Suggestions is the right place for this kind of general complaint, but it shouldn't be posted over and over on different forums.

[Fone Bone]

Talk about unfair rules! Both my Bird Boy and Amazing Spidey Appreciation Threads were closed! Where else are people supposed to gush over them?

(Psst, don't tell zmanjz. I started another monkey thread in Fun and Games. He's no fun.):p

[Duke]

Well, for some reason, the 65-episode topics have been banned altogether in the past two weeks. Even that designated topic you brought up has been closed.
I brought that up, again because we were talking about Kim Possible's cancellation, which highly involves the 65 limit. Just for that, it got closed, which I think is ridiculous.
It was closed because every time this topic is brought up there, it hijacks the thread and eventually becomes little more than a flame war. Both Mods and regular users were sick and tired of dealing with the mess and decided to act against it. Same reason political threads are banned from the Cafe. It got way too messy every time it appeared.


As for the old v. new toons debate, they didn't make an official rule against defending old toons on the CN forum, but it's getting there. Even so, old-age cartoon tlak shouldn't be limited to just a few forums. Cartoon Network wouldn't be where it is today had it not been for the old cartoons.
o.O What forum are you viewing? There is no ban on "old vs. new" debate in the CN Forum, and I don't believe the Mods are even considering the idea. The only actions I can see being done to those types of threads are a) being closed due to hostility or b) being moved to the Boomerang forum if it involves that channel.

[Lehteb]

It was closed because every time this topic is brought up there, it hijacks the thread and eventually becomes little more than a flame war. Both Mods and regular users were sick and tired of dealing with the mess and decided to act against it. Same reason political threads are banned from the Cafe. It got way too messy every time it appeared.

Nobody told me. I honestly didn't think that the 65-episode rule was going to be THAT big of a problem.

The problem I'm having is that the mods are throwing all these new rules at us without some of us knowing about it. A lot of stuff they didn't start telling me until I spoke up about it. Up until recently, I couldn't even write what I wanted in my own signature or profile, which I consider an invasion of privacy. In turn, it feels like they're going power mad.


o.O What forum are you viewing? There is no ban on "old vs. new" debate in the CN Forum, and I don't believe the Mods are even considering the idea. The only actions I can see being done to those types of threads are a) being closed due to hostility or b) being moved to the Boomerang forum if it involves that channel

Okay, I admit I'm might've exaggerated with that.

The thing is, yesterday was certainly not one of my better days. I even got my first formal warning, which proves that retaliation isn't always the answer. :(

Again, it was never my intention to form a schism between mods and members. I just get really annoyed and upset when I'm being forced to follow a long set of rules. It doesn't seem fair. All I've wanted since I signed up was to have friendly conversations with my fellow cartoon fans.

[James]

The problem I'm having is that the mods are throwing all these new rules at us without some of us knowing about it.

Nothing new, all the rules are in the Terms Of Service which can be seen up in the FAQ (blue header bar).



A lot of stuff they didn't start telling me until I spoke up about it.

As with all forums, we expect you to review the rules. We cannot be expected to explain the rules of membership to each individual. If you've not read the rules, don't be surprised when we do our jobs on the basis that you have. We ask you to read through them and we are ALWAYS available for any queries you have on those rules. PM any mod privately or ask in this forum, I don't think you are being hard done by at all.



Up until recently, I couldn't even write what I wanted in my own signature or profile, which I consider an invasion of privacy. In turn, it feels like they're going power mad.

Notice how no one else gets their signature changed, or complains about it? Could it be that you keep adding signatures or profiles which are inappropriate to the forum and the image it wants to reflect?

We ask for family material - this is a family board - this is in the rules which have been there since the year dot. There is no conspiracy, no invasion of privacy. We are all on a free board, those who pay the hundreds of dollars to run this place ask you simply respect your fellow poster, don't spam and keep your output "family orientated". Overt and gratuitous sexual comments or links to items that are deemed inappropriate for this forum are not welcome and we will remove them. Again, this is in the rules.



The thing is, yesterday was certainly not one of my better days. I even got my first formal warning, which proves that retaliation isn't always the answer. :(
As I say, we are a community and the rules of community are there to be abided by if you want to remain part of it. That goes for members and mods. We are all subject to those guidelines. No one is above the law and everyone is treated equally. The way your issue has been dealt with is the same as it would have been dealt with if I had been in your place. Nothing personal, the mods just try and enforce the rules equally as possible.



Again, it was never my intention to form a schism between mods and members. I just get really annoyed and upset when I'm being forced to follow a long set of rules. It doesn't seem fair. All I've wanted since I signed up was to have friendly conversations with my fellow cartoon fans.
Well they aren't long. I've never had an issue with them. Keep language and content family orientated, be nice to your fellow members, don't spam and abide by any moderator requests. If you are unhappy or unsure of any action you can always speak to those moderators privately, that's what we're here for, however the moderators merely follow the mandate set by the owners, it's their rules and one should respect that.

If you don't like the rules, find the unfair or simply just confusing, either ask for clarification here or find a board more suitable. I'm not saying you should leave, just that the rules are as they are - there is no point kicking and screaming because you don't like them when it's not your call as to what the rules are. If you really don't like them, no one is forcing you to stay. :)

Anyhow, I hope you're cool with everything now and you continue to enjoy your time here. As I said, any queries, ask a mod. :)

[Jave]

Nobody told me. I honestly didn't think that the 65-episode rule was going to be THAT big of a problem.It wasn't that big of a problem until some months ago.

When the Disney Board first opened, there wasn't that much of a problem, but as the board grew popular, a lot (and I do mean a lot) threads got hijacked to talk about this rule. This included talkback threads that got completely out of reach because of discussion of stuff that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The mods then decided to ban the rule and leave it to a couple of big threads, since a lot of the forum regulars complained because it was annoying. Since after that threads were STILL being hijacked, the 65-episode discussion was banned for good.

But there's no need for the 65-episode discussion to be allowed anyway. It shouldn't affect your enjoyment of a show. Everything else is like SJJ and Duke said, but I reiterate, this is a family board.

[Scythemantis]

I have no problem with her expressing her opinion, but there's a line that should be drawn between "People disagree with me" and "People hate me because of my opinion". She didn't see that line, and understood the "Don't say all ___ is bad" comments as the second one, and exploded at us because our opinions differed.

EXACTLY. Even the most politely worded opinion against "the classics" was taken as "bashing" by her, and she thought that this justified her own constant bashing of newer animation. Many of her comments were personally insulting to my own artistic and writing style, and I find it hard to believe that she really didn't mean to upset anyone, because she sure came off as trying.

[Fone Bone]

EXACTLY. Even the most politely worded opinion against "the classics" was taken as "bashing" by her, and she thought that this justified her own constant bashing of newer animation. Many of her comments were personally insulting to my own artistic and writing style, and I find it hard to believe that she really didn't mean to upset anyone, because she sure came off as trying.Merilee is funny, whether intentionally or not. I PMed her a birthday wish and she told me she was taking a break from the forums because she felt the members didn't like her. I liked her fine but I wish she would realize that if you push something hard enough someone is going to push back.







It wasn't that big of a problem until some months ago.

When the Disney Board first opened, there wasn't that much of a problem, but as the board grew popular, a lot (and I do mean a lot) threads got hijacked to talk about this rule. This included talkback threads that got completely out of reach because of discussion of stuff that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

The mods then decided to ban the rule and leave it to a couple of big threads, since a lot of the forum regulars complained because it was annoying. Since after that threads were STILL being hijacked, the 65-episode discussion was banned for good.

But there's no need for the 65-episode discussion to be allowed anyway. It shouldn't affect your enjoyment of a show. Everything else is like SJJ and Duke said, but I reiterate, this is a family board. The Disney boards are unbearable and have been for some time. Every time people want to talk about cartoons tusconcoyote starts talking smack about Eisner (who I could personally care less about) and hijacking threads with the 65 episode rule tirades. Now that the rules have changed I will probably check in a little more regularly but I'm still leery of the board.

[SSJPabs]

Having had a few run ins with the TZ rules and the moderators in the past I can only say this:

They will never come around to your point of view.
You will never win.

Your best course I think, will be to either follow the new rules and push on them a little to find out the defined limits. You may want to start your own discussion group like a yahoo group or something among those who would want to do things against the rules.

[James]

Having had a few run ins with the TZ rules and the moderators in the past I can only say this:

They will never come around to your point of view.
You will never win.

Not entirely true. If there has been a decision which was on the line, I have seen staff back down if in hindsight it seemed wrong or unfair. It rarely happens since the rules are pretty clear cut - there isn't much ambiguity there, but nevertheless, I've seen it happen.

Generally we don't "come round" to a members POV because the member has broken a rule, it's pretty clear cut in that respect. Break a defined rule you've done something wrong in the context of the community.

That's the point which creates contention. People think it's a "silly rule", nevertheless it's a clear rule that the forum has issued. Any issue breaking that rule creates is on the basis of forum policy and not whether it's fair compared to another forum/lifestyle/ideology. Sometimes that's a problem a member has and will get upset when the mod won't bent. "I can do that at x forum/all my other forums". So what? You can't do it here. We don't run by x forums rules we run TZ rules and we post them publically so you can see what we do expect. If you want to have x forums rule, go to x forums. No one will stop you. :)

We do monitor behaviour closely, but we do it as fairly and broadly as possible. It's maintaining that family, non flame orientated community which attracts those animation industry professionals who come here. They feel safe they don't have to deal with fanboy flaming and that sort of stress, so the rules have benefits for the members. You want input from Joe Alaskey/Bruce Timm/Dan Slott etc? You won't see them hanging round a stressful "free for all" forum. They frequent places which are honest family orientated and friendly. Around people who respect cartoons and each other. A place which is fun and not a snarky rude idiot lurking in each thread.

Smaller forums can perhaps be less strict. They don't have the industry connections, they don't have a large membership. Once you have a large membership and industry peeps on your board you have to make sure it doesn't descend into anarchy. Small forum communities allow more freedom of expression, but they are often more volitile as a result. This is the most stress free forum I've been on, and I've been on a few - so we're doing something right. :)

[William C. Maune]

Having had a few run ins with the TZ rules and the moderators in the past I can only say this:

They will never come around to your point of view.
You will never win.

In addition to what SJJ said, in many (if not most all) cases, rules are to an extent in effect because of the point of view of members. No matter what rule, there will be some members who support it and some members who have a different point of view. It is rarely possible to please all the people, especially at a place the size of Toon Zone.

[SSJPabs]

Can I mod you for the triple post SJJ?:p

Seriously though, there seems to be no true proccess for changing the rules other than a kind of mass feedback. I mean, nothing systematic. If there IS a more systematic proccess, please point it out to me on the TOS.

Personally, the most stress free forum I've been on is one where nothing was moderated at all. 100% trainwreck 24/7! But to each their own.

[Scythemantis]

Why does discussing whatever that episode limit is lead to flamewars? Lots of networks limit the episodes they order for their series, what's there for people to disagree on?

[William C. Maune]

Why does discussing whatever that episode limit is lead to flamewars? Lots of networks limit the episodes they order for their series, what's there for people to disagree on?

As for why it happens, I'm not sure anyone really knows. However, it's just happened that way in the Disney Forum where threads intended for other discussion get hijacked into continuous discussion of the episode limit instead. Dunno why it happens, wish it didn't happen, but it did happen, and kept happening, so something was done about it.

[N310DA]

I am VERY glad Lehteb brought up the issue with the 65-episode rule being banned. First off, I think the rule is completely unfair and is the result of extreme overreaction. To say it seemed like even most threads were hijacked is an overreaction to say the least, most of the people stuck to the designated thread.



Second of all, there were only a few members I can remember who posted anything that really broke rules such as keeping the language clean and the conversation civil and the worst offender I saw was banned. Problem solved right?



Lastly, the way the moderators handled it (especially Delia97) was IMO rude and aggressive. They should have at least explained the rule in a polite manner and explained the reason(s) why those rules have come into effect.



I don't have a problem with toonzone in general though. I do agree that members should keep themselves civilized, but I have never thought it was fair to punish many for the actions of a few. I am just a bit upset with this rule and the way enforcing it was handled.

[Lehteb]

Lastly, the way the moderators handled it (especially Delia97) was IMO rude and aggressive. They should have at least explained the rule in a polite manner and explained the reason(s) why those rules have come into effect.

Yeah, that's pretty much what set me off in the first place. And you're right; the following link is the recent closure of a topic due to a failure to communicate: http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?p=1641252#post1641252

Even before the new rule was enforced, I was barely involved in those "hijacked" discussions, and had no way of knowing that they were creating a problem. It's kinda like how a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. :crying:

Next time, the moderators should take the time to explain to everyone their new rules before throwing them at us.

[Scythemantis]

Small forum communities allow more freedom of expression, but they are often more volitile as a result. This is the most stress free forum I've been on, and I've been on a few - so we're doing something right.

Really? My experience has always been the exact opposite. Smaller, more lenient boards I go to are utterly devoid of conflict, almost to the point of being too quiet. There are two that I spend a bit more time on than TZ and while they do have a couple hundred members, they have literally never witnessed a single flamewar or banning in their entire history. Everyone just likes everyone else or doesn't take anything seriously enough to disagree.

[Kury Wagner]

It's kinda like how a few bad eggs ruin it for everyone. :crying: The "bad eggs" stop you from bashing Disney? Just had to ask.
Next time, the moderators should take the time to explain to everyone their new rules before throwing them at us.Like SJJ said, you're expected to read the rules. There aren't many rules on TZ and the ones that are here are reasonable.

And seriously dude, say that thread was left open, what else would you have to discuss? *crickets chirp* I thought as much.

[Lehteb]

The "bad eggs" stop you from bashing Disney? Just had to ask.
In Toon Zone's case, yes.

And seriously dude, say that thread was left open, what else would you have to discuss? *crickets chirp* I thought as much.

The topic would've eventually died down, but I'd rather have THAT than an abrupt end to an otherwise harmless conversation.

[Ajax]

Lastly, the way the moderators handled it (especially Delia97) was IMO rude and aggressive. They should have at least explained the rule in a polite manner and explained the reason(s) why those rules have come into effect. I've read her post and it was in no way rude or offensive. Trust me, in my early days I had my run in with a rude and offensive mod. What she said was not out of line. If there is any overreaction going on here its from Lehteb. Anyways, the Mods shouldn't have to explain themselves in these types of cases. Every forum has its own rules in which the Mods in a polite manner explain the reasons why those rules have come into effect. I mean really, go to the Disney Forum, its a sticky thread with the title New Disney Animation Forum Rule - EVERYONE READ!!!!! So you shouldn't really be saying "They should have at least explained the rule."



Next time, the moderators should take the time to explain to everyone their new rules before throwing them at us. The rule has been there for at least two weeks, so they didn't throw anything at you. Its not like this rule just popped up two days ago, and if that would of been the case then you would of had a point.



The topic would've eventually died down, but I'd rather have THAT than an abrupt end to an otherwise harmless conversation. Apparently the mods would rather have an abrupt end to an otherwise harmless conversation !:p Really whats the difference, people were just saying bye to Kim Possible. What more could of been said without deivating from the main topic?

[Lehteb]

I've read her post and it was in no way rude or offensive. Trust me, in my early days I had my run in with a rude and offensive mod. What she said was not out of line. If there is any overreaction going on here its from Lehteb. Anyways, the Mods shouldn't have to explain themselves in these types of cases. Every forum has its own rules in which the Mods in a polite manner explain the reasons why those rules have come into effect. I mean really, go to the Disney Forum, its a sticky thread with the title New Disney Animation Forum Rule - EVERYONE READ!!!!! So you shouldn't really be saying "They should have at least explained the rule."

What happened was that the mod just stuck the new rule up without saying why. That further explains that one topic about Kim Possible's cancellation, because those guys probably weren't fully aware of the issue either. If you read the actual message: http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=133886, you'll find that Delia97 NEVER said anything about how the 65-episode rule was causing trouble at the time. As I said before, I had no way of knowing, because I was barely involved in those "hijacked" discussions to begin with. If she had explained everything in the first place, instead of giving out vague orders, there wouldn't be a problem.


The rule has been there for at least two weeks, so they didn't throw anything at you. Its not like this rule just popped up two days ago, and if that would of been the case then you would of had a point.
In a way, I feel it was. The Kim Possible topic was merely a peaceful discussion on the recent cancellation of the series. Again, it's possible the person who began the topic also had little knowledge of what trouble the 65-rule topics had caused. Therefore, the way the topic was closed was rather insensitive.

[krazymed]

I personally never understood the banning of political discussions in the Cafe right after one of the most talked about US elections in recent memory, but then there really was no explanation. I mean, what do us international members do for politics now? I know I'd be happy if there were that many people talking about world peace instead of how much Bush sucks or how it's Un-American to not vote for him.

Then again, maybe it was a good thing. But that's the nature of the board. The moderators know what is best for their forum. Best way to avoid troble is to stay away from it. As for this whole 65-episode thing, I get the basic message, but that's Disney's decision to make. What's allowed on a Disney Forum, that's the moderators' decision to make.

[James]

Really? My experience has always been the exact opposite. Smaller, more lenient boards I go to are utterly devoid of conflict, almost to the point of being too quiet. There are two that I spend a bit more time on than TZ and while they do have a couple hundred members, they have literally never witnessed a single flamewar or banning in their entire history. Everyone just likes everyone else or doesn't take anything seriously enough to disagree.
That's because you are comparing small contained groups of "friends" instead of a smaller "free for all" community forum. There was one similar forum to this one which was relatively new, which people would compare to TZ - "well they ain't Nazi's!" was an infrequent and unfair comment. But as they grew from beyond a small public board and a more diverse range of people entered, their policies became more stringent.

When you have less people, statistically, you have less problem people. The more people you have, the more types of members you attract and then you have to be a little more wary as amongst a larger group to regulate, it's easier for things to go out of control. It's called system instability - the more variables you have the easier it is for things to spin out of control.

I've seen other boards which are far more strict than this, and like Toon Zone, the rules only come into place on the basis of past situations. No one says "ooo, that would be a fun rule to enforce", it's because x happened causing a hell of an issue, which has meant to prevent it from hurting members/causing more staff issues the rule is put it place.


I personally never understood the banning of political discussions in the Cafe right after one of the most talked about US elections in recent memory, but then there really was no explanation. I mean, what do us international members do for politics now? I know I'd be happy if there were that many people talking about world peace instead of how much Bush sucks or how it's Un-American to not vote for him.
Again, the action was taken on the basis of experience - not ideology. It wasn't "we think it's probably going to cause problems talking about politics" it was simply whenever politics raises it's ugly head, in whatever field - be it entertainment, world news, US news - it all came back to political soapboxing for or against Bush. Then it would go through the same arguments and the same people would leap in and jump on their soapbox.. it was just so recursive. It was driving people away from the Cafe. The Cafe was meant to be fun and Toon Zone about cartoons. Politics was neither fun anymore or about cartoons.

Non politics was actually a policy that TZ was always against having and it wasn't until the World's Finest general topics board split into what is now Cafe and Entertainment that the mods decided people were mature enough to lax the rule. 9/11 then made politics too sensitive for people to just occasionally talk about - it just became, well, a boring repeatative cloud.


If you read the actual message: http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=133886 (showthread.php?t=133886), you'll find that Delia97 NEVER said anything about how the 65-episode rule was causing trouble at the time. As I said before, I had no way of knowing, because I was barely involved in those "hijacked" discussions to begin with. If she had explained everything in the first place, instead of giving out vague orders, there wouldn't be a problem.
Then why didn't you PM her personally and talk to her like an adult? Or talk to another mod of the same board. I appreciate this forum is for feedback, but if this is really just about how you didn't like how one mod dealt with you breaking the rules (which you had not read), then surely this is a private matter between her or the forum in particular. You broke the rules, deal with it - if you have concerns about how that was handled that's hardly anything that anyone else needs to be concerned about aside from that specific forum mods.



Can I mod you for the triple post SJJ?:p
Yes you can, I've removed the duplicates, sir. Sorry about that. :)

[Fone Bone]

I personally never understood the banning of political discussions in the Cafe right after one of the most talked about US elections in recent memory, but then there really was no explanation. I mean, what do us international members do for politics now? I know I'd be happy if there were that many people talking about world peace instead of how much Bush sucks or how it's Un-American to not vote for him. I used to be all for the political threads but a couple of people made it very stressful for me to participate in them. A lot of sarcasm and condescention went into their posts and I realized that smileys don't forgive everything.


Then again, maybe it was a good thing. But that's the nature of the board. The moderators know what is best for their forum. Best way to avoid troble is to stay away from it. As for this whole 65-episode thing, I get the basic message, but that's Disney's decision to make. What's allowed on a Disney Forum, that's the moderators' decision to make.I think the no Eisner smack or 65 episode rule complaining is a good move. The Disney boards were so stifling the only thread I felt comfortable participating in was the Gemstone Disney Comics talkback. Unfortunately other members rarely post in that thread so I often feel that my reviews are read by no-one.

[SSJPabs]

I used to be all for the political threads but a couple of people made it very stressful for me to participate in them. A lot of sarcasm and condescention went into their posts and I realized that smileys don't forgive everything.Properly used, Smileys are there to drive the knife in a little bit deeper.

Although my personal views on political threads are probably known, I'd still like to create a seperate board for the TZ regulars but haven't really had much time to do a lot of work on the subject. Maybe this summer.

[Fone Bone]

Properly used, Smileys are there to drive the knife in a little bit deeper.I always thought they were supposed to be used to let someone know you were kidding. I only realized in the political threads how condescending and aggravating they could be.

Although my personal views on political threads are probably known, I'd still like to create a seperate board for the TZ regulars but haven't really had much time to do a lot of work on the subject. Maybe this summer.I'll think about joining. But honestly, if one of the members here (who I will not name) posts there I won't bother.

[Scythemantis]

I expect people to see sarcasm in my posts without the aid of smileys. Despite it being one of the internet's big "rules", I firmly believe sarcasm can be just as easily "read" as "heard", and can read it myself just fine. I believe the golden rule should be that if you aren't sure, all posts should be assumed sarcastic/lighthearted first.


That's because you are comparing small contained groups of "friends" instead of a smaller "free for all" community forum. There was one similar forum to this one which was relatively new, which people would compare to TZ - "well they ain't Nazi's!" was an infrequent and unfair comment. But as they grew from beyond a small public board and a more diverse range of people entered, their policies became more stringent.

What happened with one was that they became tightly knit enough when "small" that anyone with a drastically different attitude who joined up would end up leaving, and it continues to work even as it's gotten very large. Not the same as a "clique" or what you're describing, though - the members happily welcome EVERYONE, but people lose interest on their own. They've had a few trolls, but they always wound up turning into regular members when they got bored.

The other board works because it's the exact opposite. Everyone is equally hateful, belligerent, and goes out of their way to be tasteless as offensive on a regular basis...so we all get along great and anyone who comes by taking ANYTHING seriously is either desensitized and assimilated or driven out.

[N310DA]

I've read her post and it was in no way rude or offensive. Trust me, in my early days I had my run in with a rude and offensive mod. What she said was not out of line. If there is any overreaction going on here its from Lehteb. Anyways, the Mods shouldn't have to explain themselves in these types of cases. Every forum has its own rules in which the Mods in a polite manner explain the reasons why those rules have come into effect. I mean really, go to the Disney Forum, its a sticky thread with the title New Disney Animation Forum Rule - EVERYONE READ!!!!! So you shouldn't really be saying "They should have at least explained the rule." I understand what your saying, but the fact is that Delia97 did not explain the reasoning behind the rule. I'm not saying she was "out of line", but she was certainly not polite about it IMO. She basically just said "This is the new rule and breaking it will have consequences, period." I agree that sometimes people of authority should not have to explain why the rule is in place, but in this case, it couldn't have hurt and in fact it would have been very considerate of her to explain the reasoning behind it.

Besides, I really don't understand why people think there was so much of a hijacking problem in the forum. To me, hijacking a thread is when someone mentions something off-topic and there are several posts pertaining to the off-topic post following. I have only seen this happen a few times and even if it does, just ignore the posts and just continue discussing the orignal topic, it's that simple.

Listen, I am not one of those "rebel" people who defies authority at every turn, I respect most people in authority positions (my parents, the police ect), but I still feel that this was an overreaction to a problem that was not nearly as huge as some folks made it out to be.

I'm not trying to offend anyone either, this is just my opinion and to all those who read it, I thank you for "hearing me out" weather you agree or not.

[James]

I understand what your saying, but the fact is that Delia97 did not explain the reasoning behind the rule. I'm not saying she was "out of line", but she was certainly not polite about it IMO. She basically just said "This is the new rule and breaking it will have consequences, period." I agree that sometimes people of authority should not have to explain why the rule is in place, but in this case, it couldn't have hurt and in fact it would have been very considerate of her to explain the reasoning behind it.
She did. She linked to the thread with the details. Sometimes we don't want to explain rules again, sometimes we are busy or have had a bad day. Explaining what we assume people have read is pretty fruitless. If there wasn't a thread stuck to the forum that says "EVERYBODY READ" I could sympathise, but it's there and I really don't see any reason why a mod should have to explain what is already on the forum.

A link I would think is pretty necessary, but I don't think a personal explanation as to the actions beyond that. Afterall, the mod's actions are supported by details on that very forum. Why should she have to defend or explain her closure beyond a link to those very rules?



Besides, I really don't understand why people think there was so much of a hijacking problem in the forum. To me, hijacking a thread is when someone mentions something off-topic and there are several posts pertaining to the off-topic post following. I have only seen this happen a few times and even if it does, just ignore the posts and just continue discussing the orignal topic, it's that simple.
Well again, the mods for that forum deemed it necessary. If they did, there is a reason. It's happened enough times for themselves to deem it appropriate. You may have not noticed it, but then you aren't overseeing every issue in the forum day in day out. :) It's extra work to maintain a new rule. As I said, we have lives, it will only be there because it was deemed the best course of action.


... but I still feel that this was an overreaction to a problem that was not nearly as huge as some folks made it out to be.

Considering the closed thread had a link to the rules it was closed for, had the rules set at the top of the forum under a header "EVERYBODY READ!!" and that the thread was in contrevention of those rules, I must admit I feel this thread has been blown way out of proportion.

When you throw a BIIIG sticky on a forum saying "Rules - EVERYBODY READ!", one can sort of understand why the mods close threads with the bear minimum ettiquette. EVERYONE should know the 65 episode rule who posts there since EVERYONE should have read the rules. Ergo, there should have been no need to have even closed the thread in the first place as EVERYONE in the thread shouldn't have gone off topic.

I'm not being condescending here. It just seems the frustration here seems to stem more from the tone of the closure than the rules themselves.

But in the end, I think the small hint of frustration in the mods post is understandable since all the rules are present so there was no need for the closure in the first place. Just read the rules guys.. it just makes it easier for all. :)

I just think this thread was going around in circles a little and everyone needed to actually face the facts here and the facts are getting lost a little IMO...

Peace everyone.

[Ajax]

As I said before, I had no way of knowing, because I was barely involved in those "hijacked" discussions to begin with. I think you just made their point for them. You say you have barely been involved in those "hijacked" discussions, so obviously you have no way of knowing what apparently was a really big problem. I seen the threads at the Disney Fourm in the past, and most of them (ones dealing with KP and Gargolyes, apparently the only cartoons worth dicussing) always had a bit about the 65 ep. thing.



you'll find that Delia97 NEVER said anything about how the 65-episode rule was causing trouble at the time I now know what you meant, but I think the mods have gone past the point of having to explain "don't do this, or that or the thread will be closed." I think Delia97 was probably sending a message, don't mention the 65 ep. rule thing or your thread will get close. Now those guys who weren't fully aware of the issue...are now. (Maybe not but that's the way I viewed it anyways)

[N310DA]

SJJ: Okay, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. The thread I was referring to where I was disatisfied with Delia97 was the sticky thread that had "EVERYONE READ" in the title. Here is what it said:



New Disney Animation Forum Rule - EVERYONE READ!!!!!

New Disney Animation Forum Rule

Effective immediately, the focus of the Disney Animation Forum will be just that: Disney Animation. The discussion of Michael Eisner, The Disney Corporation, and the “65 Episode Limit” is no longer acceptable on this forum and will be considered warnable behavior.

We hope you'll take this opportunity to engage in the discussion of Disney animated features, shows and shorts both old and new.

For more Disney discussion, including that involving the corporation itself, please visit the following sites:
Savedisney.com
JimHillMedia.com
Disneysites.com
Talkdisney.com

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
At least this was polite, but she never explained why they put this rule into place. Thinking back though, I can understand why the mods where a bit upset that people kept posting topics even after the rule was posted.

But one thing though, the people keep saying the mods shouldn't have to explain the reasoning behind a new rule such as this one, why not? I'm not saying explain the reasoning behind all the rules, just new ones that may be controversial. I can understand that all the mods have lives, but it would have only taken one extra minute to just write something like "This rule is in place to prevent the numerous hijackings of unrelated threads". Again, I'm not saying every rule needs an explanations, but rules that may anger people should be IMO.


I can't speak for everyone, but I am MUCH more upset about the rule itself then the way it was handled. Most of the hijackings I noticed were caused by a select few memebers, why were they just not banned? I think the mods blew the problem way out of proportion and I think that because I see people do it all the time, heck my old school did it on a daily basis. One of my good friends does it all the time too. I would trust the mods judgement more if I didn't go to the forums every day and not see what they are talking about.

Edit: Sorry about this bottom part being bold, I can't figure out why it's doing that, I didn't type it in bold.

[Wanted]

I expect people to see sarcasm in my posts without the aid of smileys. I firmly believe sarcasm can be just as easily "read" as "heard", and can read it myself just fine.I completely agree with you, which is why I either italicize or bolden my text to get the feel of sarcasm as an alternative to smilies. (or sometimes, even skewing a poster's text could come off as sarcasm)

Point being, smilies annoy me, but I'm not going to stop anyone from using them (not that I could).

On another note, pretty interesting topic you got here. First one in a while I've read from top to bottom.

I really don't see why anyone should want to talk about the 65 episode prompt, because in the Cartoon Network Forums, the 52 episode prompt is hardly, if at all, a problem. I'm a frequenter there, and I see no reason to talk about why Samurai Jack should be extended for 26 more episodes, or even why Dexter was extended.

If the forumgoers at Cartoon Network can deal with Samurai Jack being 52 episodes, then I think that the people at the Disney Animation Forum can deal with Kim Possible being 65. It's not like the show has a continuity that's in stake of being breached.

[Czar Gato]

Really? My experience has always been the exact opposite. Smaller, more lenient boards I go to are utterly devoid of conflict, almost to the point of being too quiet. There are two that I spend a bit more time on than TZ and while they do have a couple hundred members, they have literally never witnessed a single flamewar or banning in their entire history. Everyone just likes everyone else or doesn't take anything seriously enough to disagree. I guess it depends on what kind of board you're on. I belong to a ethics debate forum with about 20 regular members and little or no modding. We all know each other there, but sometimes (actually, a lot, considering the topics discussed there) things turn ugly and flames and personal attacks start. I agree with you, though, concerning a cartoon forum, where the topics on hand are by nature less volatile.

I think it just comes down to the bigger your forum, the more diverse the membership is, and that can lead to misunderstandings and arguments.

[Lehteb]

One last thing:

I'm glad that SJJ has gotten to the root of the problem, and I understand if the mods have more to do with their lives than moderate a single discussion forum.

But they should still consider the members' feelings as well. Like N310DA is saying, we're all human beings, and it shouldn't be that we ALL have to suffer for something a few troublemakers did.

[Jave]

One last thing:

I'm glad that SJJ has gotten to the root of the problem, and I understand if the mods have more to do with their lives than moderate a single discussion forum.

But they should still consider the members' feelings as well. Like N310DA is saying, we're all human beings, and it shouldn't be that we ALL have to suffer for something a few troublemakers did.The rule is there for a reason that has already been explained numerous times through the thread. Plus, don't you think that making the rule work only for the people who have caused trouble is a lot more unfair? I mean seriously, do you see any fairness in the logic "I-get-to-post-about-this-yet-you-don't?"

For the record, some of the troublemakers were warned (with only one banning for being extremely rude). The reason why they weren't banned is because back then the rule wasn't effective yet, and hijacking threads isn't an "instant ban" violation. The problem relied in the fact that many regular members complained about the hijacking, and they need to be listened too.

I'm still curious to know why do you feel that you need to talk about this stuff anyway. It's sad going into a Disney board where everyone is going "Eisner this" or "65 that", and you hardly hear people saying "Enjoy this" or "Donald that". (Couldn't resist :p )

[Dee]

I want to step in and mention this. When a rule is added to a particular forum, such as the Disney Forum, it's not the random act of one moderator. We have a large discussions over such additions and changes. We discuss issues, and how to resolve, and what has and has not worked. We look at options and come to an agreement over what will be done.

Just because I posted the new rule, doesn't mean it was my work alone, and it does not mean the rule was carelessly crafted. We talk things over and come to a choice of what we do.

If you have a problem with an added rule, and really want to know why it was put in place and was being enforced, then always feel free to ask a mod of the particular forum.

[James]

SJJ: Okay, I think there has been a misunderstanding here. The thread I was referring to where I was disatisfied with Delia97 was the sticky thread that had "EVERYONE READ" in the title. Here is what it said:
Okay, gotcha, I misread what you meant there, my apologies.

Generally. the reason some moderators are very formal with new rule threads like that is because the rules are not open for discussion. As Del says, these rules are discussed not only by forum staff, but often the whole mod staff - including the bosses. When the decision is made, we don't want to debate it with members. It may sound rude, but once the staff and owners have made a rational and agreed call, we don't want to then fight over a decision with members.

This is a private message board and if some of the rules pop up with little explanation, we just hope you can trust our judgement. As I said, feedback is utterly cool, but there is no mandatory need to have to explain all our actions or debate them. Trust us. :) Okay, we're not perfect (who is?), but we don't take any rule making lightly. There are reasons behind our madness and sometimes we can't or won't disclose them totally.


I'm glad that SJJ has gotten to the root of the problem, and I understand if the mods have more to do with their lives than moderate a single discussion forum.

But they should still consider the members' feelings as well. Like N310DA is saying, we're all human beings, and it shouldn't be that we ALL have to suffer for something a few troublemakers did.
Appreciated Lehteb, but I'm not seeing any examples where people haven't been treated like human beings. What it stems down to is people not reading the rules - or not liking having no reason offered behind rules.

As I've just said, the rules are there and when we feel it's relevant we will explain them. I think in the Disney Forum's 65 rule, the reasons were fairly self evident; threads were going off topic on the same rant and not really making the threads a condusive place to generate postive chat about ones favourite programs. A list of alternative sites were offered.

You may disagree with that ruling - that's your perogative, but it was an issue discussed by the staff (not just something Delia decided to throw up :)) and then actioned. After that call's been made, the staff shouldn't have to feel that hard decision is going to rear itself in dissention and member debate.

The rule is made, clear, concise and official. I think that's being misread as being rude.

[N310DA]

Okay, this my last post on this thread, I promise.;)

Delia97: It seems as though I am guilty of "shooting the messenger". I apologize for singling you out and I hope you didn't take too much offense.

SJJ: I understand. Thank you for explaining the reasoning to me. Maybe I didn't see many hijackings because I coincidentally happened to be reading different threads (the ones that were not hijacked).

About trusting the judgement of the mods, I'll admit I should have been more trusting and I will be in the future. I think the reason I didn't trust the mods' judgement at first was because I am used to mods from another website who are abusive and one-sided. The mods here have heard me out and replied politley, so you all have my trust now. I suppose I should have not assumed anything about the mods here in the first place simply based on my experiences on another site. Once again, my appologies. I am not usually one to question authority.

[James]

.
SJJ: I understand. Thank you for explaining the reasoning to me. Maybe I didn't see many hijackings because I coincidentally happened to be reading different threads (the ones that were not hijacked).

About trusting the judgement of the mods, I'll admit I should have been more trusting and I will be in the future. I think the reason I didn't trust the mods' judgement at first was because I am used to mods from another website who are abusive and one-sided. The mods here have heard me out and replied politley, so you all have my trust now. I suppose I should have not assumed anything about the mods here in the first place simply based on my experiences on another site. Once again, my appologies. I am not usually one to question authority.
No problem, that's what this forum is here for. Feedback.

We do have a wide range of characters in our mods, but mod selection is taken very seriously and all our actions are monitored and recorded so we don't have any abuse of the system.

I'm not a massive forum guy - believe it or not - and I certainly wouldn't hang around a place if I thought it was crooked and run by egos. No time for that. I hand around here because it's a fair, interesting and diverse community. I definately wouldn't have clocked up 10,000 posts any other way. :)

[krazymed]

When the decision is made, we don't want to debate it with members. It may sound rude, but once the staff and owners have made a rational and agreed call, we don't want to then fight over a decision with members.

This is a private message board and if some of the rules pop up with little explanation, we just hope you can trust our judgement. As I said, feedback is utterly cool, but there is no mandatory need to have to explain all our actions or debate them. Trust us.
I understand now. Thanks.

[Yash]

At least this was polite, but she never explained why they put this rule into place.
Thing is, she doesn't need to. "The episode limit discussion is banned." Simple as that. It's a rule now, whatever meaning's behind it, you follow it.