I've seen Rod close threads for various unjustified and ridiculous reasons, unrelated to any conceivable objective interpretaion of the Terms of Service. But now he's closed one in the Jackin Material Forum because the OP was "trollish."

Trolling of course is simply what happens when someone expresses an unpopular view which is otherwise totally acceptable as to content. But when Rod personally disapproves of it, you can bet it'll soon be gone. This was being dealt with very well by comments of the membership, but not to worry, Rod has once again protected us from unpopular opinion.

And Rod apparently wasn't even entirely sure that it was trolling. But he did decide it was....get this......."troll-ISH." Perhaps we will soon find a new prohibition in the Terms of Service. Something along the lines that "ishiness" will not be tolerated.

It's the way it's always been with Rod. If he doesn't personally like it, it is an opinion that is not tolerated here. But "Trollish" was a new level of absurdity even for Rod.

isn't that pretty much how every forum or chatroom is moderated though. when push comes to shove it always boils down to the whims of whoever has the power.

I've seen other sites prohibit "trolling" as well. A majority of us are willing to get along fine with each other no matter what our views are. Then there are the few that will toss out the bait to see who will bite which is usually a bunch. I've never seen a good outcome or found it fun even when just reading it.

Do I want to make the rules? No way but I do like it here even though I may not agree with some other's opinions.

Yes, that's the way it often operates. But it didn't usually operate that way here when Ben was moderating. Ben usually demanded a solid violation of the Terms of Service before he locked a thread. He never imposed his ad hoc personal opinions on what is posted here. But as soon as Rod got himself designated as "Staff" on JC, the locked threads started, and he usually doesn't make the slightest attempt at justification based on TOS. The "Trollish" term stands as a great example of unintentional self-parody.

I might add that considering it costs nothing for any of us to use this site we really are doing so at the whim and discretion of the site's owners and moderators. As such, they can operate it as they see fit. Our recourse, if we disapprove, is to go elsewhere. Simple as that. I have no problem with them exercising whatever editorial oversight they choose. It's their ball. We can choose to keep playing with it or go buy our own.

Anyone who questions even a single decision of a website moderator is always told that it's free of charge and if you don't like it you can go elsewhere. What you can say is exactly what the moderator lets you say, and the Terms of Service be damned. That sort of opinion sits very well with Rod no doubt, whose idea of the way a moderator should operate is ALL about "whim and discretion" and almost never about a rational objective application of the Terms of Service.

Trolling is not just expressing an unpopular view, and that's not why the thread was closed.

Trolling a forum is making a post where the intent is not to discuss an unpopular view, but to kick at the top of the ant hill and see how much commotion you can cause. Nobody can read the OP's mind from his post, but it had the earmarks of a troll, and "trollish" was a good description.

I've no problem with the thread being closed, personally. It is still available to read, which is probably what the thread OP did, with his pants around his ankles, reading the responses. If you start out by calling the forum members assholes, then you ARE trolling, not discussing.

Right on!

Yes, the OP may have been trolling. But the thing is, that implies that you know the INTENT of the poster, which you don't and can't. The fine point of it is that in the internet message board world, every time an opinion is expressed that is controversial, you can bet that people with different opinions will scream "TROLL" and demand that it be taken down. Good moderators ignore such things. Did you notice that the members addressed the issue of the OP very well in their replies? In fact, Rod actually felt the need to point out that what he was doing was...."not because of any of the replies." In fact, I think it was about the fact that he thought it was a repost, and he was personally pissed about it. It was a valid opinion and presented no threat to the board. It should have been ignored or answered, but it should not have been closed.

yea, the OP was stupid. The thread was a little over one page, and the other posts were dealing with it just fine. So it was also stupid to lock the thread. Just a mod wanting to show who's in charge. rod apparently doesn't have enough things to keep him busy. And the JC members who were offended need to grow up.

I found it strange when those Modern Family threads were active and every time someone mentioned Ariel Winter they would get banned and the thread would close. Fair enough she's not quite 18 yet but she's only a few months away from turning that age. Not to mention she looks like she's in her mid 20's. My point is why be so strict with chats about this celeb when there's a shit load of threads and links that feature teens that clearly look underage in some of them. But yet seem happy to leave those ones active.

According I the net Ariel Winter is only 16, so I'm glad that the mods are taking action to close threads talking about someone who is under the age of 18/21. If users are knowingly posting about someone of that age, I guess their accounts get suspended. There's plenty of attractive celebs out there of an appropriate age to discuss on here!

Well the mods want to ban all of that fucking teen shit that's lurking amongst the threads then. Some of the stuff is almost as bad as the weird shit from that cum on pics site.

Pretty sure you've actually made comment about Ariel yourself at one time on that Hamster site.

Have I?