There have been others, as well. As is to be expected with a site like this, people come and go, even mods. One of the mods you mentioned, I can absolutely pinpoint the reason for their absence, but it's not my place to say, really. Truth told, the length of time Ben's moderated the chat, or even myself (about 5 years moderating) seems to be something of an abberation.

There's probably a few catch-22 reasons why we haven't added additional mods in a while. For myself, the members I'm familiar with that I think would make good mods...well...they're on when I'm able to be on. On the other hand, on the rare occasions I'm able to join the chat outside my usual times, I regularly have people ask specifically if I'm a new mod. It's understandable, because I'm unfamiliar to them.

Lots of variables running through my mind this week. Some of those entail potentially stepping on toes that I don't want to step on out of respect for the individuals involved.

ETA: That puts me in mind of another pro to integrated chat: linked moderator assignment. Currently, it's easy enough to assign mods to the chat room, but that doesn't carry over to the main site (if so desired). Any new chat mods would, by necessity, begin as mods only to the chat (assuming reopening of the IRC chat).

"I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not slyly implying that I'm in favor of improper material in chat rooms. I'm not sure about that though."

Of course not I never assume or place someone in that category. I certainly did not imply you engaged in that type of chat. If it came across like that I apologize.

Interesting comment about shared mods! As a lawyer, I have an appreciation for words and their meanings, and would feel that any unnecessary proliferation of moderators invites the turmoil of differing interpretations of the TOS. Of the three individuals I mentioned, one of them (who shall remain nameless), showed no sign of ever having read the TOS, much less conscientiously attempted to apply them. This individual simply applied their personal opinion to any issue that arose -- an opinion that was often as irrational as it was changeable with the hour of the day.

With human beings involved, I can see how that could happen. And, frankly, a certain degree of moderating comes down to judgment calls. There's certainly a level of attractiveness for shared mods. Many seem to assume that a mod in one area of this (or any other) site is universally a mod. In the case of one making inconsistent decisions, then I'd say that mod should be shown the door (as far as administration powers go, that is). Pros and cons to every aspect. It ultimately becomes a matter of choosing whether the pros or cons would have a greater impact on a site.

Under the circumstances of a live, separate chat room, open through channels outside the main site, additional moderation would be helpful to stem the tide of those posting the kinds of materials that led to the current shutdown. It's one thing to be able to log chat throughout the day and address issues long after they come up, but preferable to address them immediately.

But...lawyer, eh? I may have some private questions for you, if that's ok. As long as they're not billable hours.

JACKINCHAT WITHOUT ANY CHAT? Why cant offenders be banned? Chat is what Ive come here for for years

No chat - I guess im gone!!

Well, if you've been a member since 2005 and are 21 as your profile says, maybe that's for the best. It means that you joined as a minor, lying about your age. Either that, or you're lying about it now.

Not to mention, your profile says you "have a relationship with Dad and brothers." So, that's exactly the sort of material that led to the shutdown. You won't mind if I take your advice and ban the offender, right?

I was sensitive to the way that disagreements in principle on this topic often brings accusations or implications of an approval of improper behavior itself. But you didn't do that, and no apology is necessary.

And I'm sorry that I was unduly critical of your post. You have a right to your opinion, and should be free to express it without ridicule.

I only come here for the chat. Can anyone suggest a similar chat some place else?

I've refrained from saying anything in the last few days as it's Ben's decision, and I took the view that his decision is final and he's entitled to that.

However, as Rod has now said he's keen to hear from members, well , I've been visiting the chat for a number of years often using the chat without logging in, and via IRC. I know a lot of people do that and also join via IRC, but if it'd help keep the dodgy chatters out and also make the place more accountable for what is posted in the chatroom, then I think the requirement to signup to the site before you can chat is perfectly fair. That is of course if it could be implemented.

I've always visited JC mainly for the chatroom, some of the posts on the boards are interesting and I like to read some guys masturbation experiences and turn-ons, but it was the chatroom that really made masturbation turn from something I did as a teenage (18+ of course) guy over a magazine on my own into more of a mutual, enjoyable, and horny shared experience (before Skype and cam sites and all that).

Maybe I was naive, but growing up in a tiny town in the countryside, I didn't really know if other guys had these slightly curious thoughts about jerking off together and then JC made me realise not only was it normal, but you can share turn-ons and embrace them in mutual, agreeable, adult chat.

Since then, I find myself sometimes even visiting the chat out of habit and sometimes don't need get off in the room at all, but will talk to some guys and have really interesting, grown-up conversations. Other times dirtier ones that we both enjoy. Other times no-one of interest to talk to, but that's how it goes.

However, I've noticed the increase in dodgy requests in recent times, the sister/daughter, father/son, and "non-nude" pics stuff. It's not cool and I understand the problem. I don't know if making these people aware that what they are posting is being logged or reinforcing a "here are the rules message" on a periodic basis in the room might help? I'd be happy to use a "report this user" function but can't offer to mod I'm afraid.

I should also say that the boards have had plenty of these topics spring up too though - pics reposted from teenage girls facebook profiles etc, and it really does make me uneasy, and will often report these posters.

Finally, the idea of taking donations has been mentioned. I would be willing to donate. You see some sites ask for contributions towards server bills etc. Of course, that might not result in a stable income, but I would donate towards any new dev costs, fully aware there would be no ongoing guarantee the site would be available etc.

It's been such an fair community overall for so long, I'm happy enough to take that in itself as an assurance that the owners/mods will try and do best by most exisiting, rule-abiding users.

Could not agree more about the potential value of additional moderators and your view of inconsistent decisions. Pros and cons to be weighed indeed! Appreciate the feedback and discussion, and the benefit of your thoughts on the matter. Have had my say at this point. Law advice from the arcane world of corporate contracts, etc, is usually of very limited value or interest in the wider world. Advice as litigator I'm afraid would be of no more value than the cost of non-billable hours.

well said my friend

well said my friend

First,


Now for the other cent of my 2 cents worth.
The chat being shut down is a bummer, now we need to act like the grown ups we preport to be and get over it. It's done, the why is pretty cut and dry. (note, pissing in the Mods Wheaties is not going to make them change their minds)
Also I am all for more Moderators but it has been mentioned the would be "interpretation" variances from Mod to Mod on the Terms Of Service. Here I have to ask how? I have read them (albeit a long time ago) but they seem pretty cut and dry. Secondly a simple standard of the application of good sense, would you say that in public (person to person conversation) or does it meet a basic generally agreed upon moral standard for your area (the US). Would be pretty reasonable standard for a Mod to use.
I have been following this for the last few days and will continue to see how it all unfolds.
What about a set of standards or code of conduct for the "new" moderators? If they ever come to be and the chat room reopens.
Also Rods right love 'em or hate 'em the calls made are valued on who made them and which side of the decision you fall on. So as I see it being a Moderator is a pretty thankless job and on top of it people get to be nasty to you, thanks to the relative anonymity of the internet.
In closing I hope the chat reopens, if there's a call for moderators, I'm willing to try. And I am really interested to see how this all works itself out.

If people are still interested in a chat room, would the staff here permit me to run one and publicise it here?

I've watched this thread with interest and feel that good opinions have been expressed. I probably have nothing much new to add, but I do have my two cents.

There are certainly plenty of adult chat rooms available on the internet, and Ben's closing of his rooms hardly seems a catastrophe. Yes, he was obviously in a snit, made the "announcement" (such as it was) inappropriately, and has shown no inclination to communicate with the membership in any meaningful way about the matter. But Rod took up the slack, has communicated responsibly, and seems very much more temperamentally suited to own and control any future chat room that might be made available via the Jackinchat website.

If a fundamental control problem existed, and if additional moderator coverage would have helped, then it was the fault of the current moderators that such assistance was not recruited from our large and active membership. The present moderators have not shown any desire to relinquish the slightest bit of control. In any event, there is no rational basis to complain about what a hard job it is to moderate the chat room, while not seeking the obviously available help.

That said, the choice of moderators is not an easy one, and the potential problem of having many moderators, each with his different idea about what the Terms of Service mean and how to enforce them, cannot be overestimated. In particular, very sensitive matters like the banning of members from the website, or the deletion or closing of threads should not be expanded beyond the present number of two moderators. And in fact one would be a better choice than two in the question of permanent bans from the website.

Georgiaguy asks how it is that there could be much of a disagreement about the Terms of Service. OH LORD, let me count the ways! From the bitterest of personal experiences involving irresponsible charges against our present moderators and myself and an inappropriately closed thread, I know, for example, that there are true fanatics among our members about the subject of underage content. People who if you disagree with them on the slightest technical point of interpretation will brand you a "PEDO" in their next sentence. These people will be standing in line offering their services, with the specific intent of reinterpreting the Terms of Service to their own liking. The most eager to “serve” should be the ones Rod shouldn’t touch with a pole in the choice of new moderators.

I also would like to know how anyone could seriously say:

“Secondly a simple standard of the application of good sense, would you say that in public (person to person conversation) or does it meet a basic generally agreed upon moral standard for your area (the US). Would be pretty reasonable standard for a Mod to use.”

Are you freekin serious? Do you understand that we’re taking about a jackoff site here? And you want to base it on a general “moral standard” involving what we’ll say "in public" to another "person" in our “area”...which you define as the "US". Shall that other person I'm talking to be my clergyman or my naked girlfriend? Shall the conversation take place in San Francisco or backwoods Georgia? God protect us from this kind of moderation, and the ones standing in line to offer their “services.”!

I agree it’s a thankless job. But the only reason anyone would take the job is to gain a bit of authority over others. So spare me your tears about how hard these people work for no pay and little gratitude. They have the job because they wanted it, and they took the job for less than admirable reasons. So if they can’t stand the heat, they should get out of the kitchen.