HawkNC posted:Aside from that being an unfair representation of JCC mods, it's irrelevant to the discussion. We never started that thread with the intent of encroaching on Senate territory, only to stop the JCC from degenerating into mindless rubbish. We worked on the principle that serious discussion can exist in both forums in different ways, a principle which I still believe in. As much as I appreciate Mr44's attempt to illustrate a point (I'll admit, I missed it at first as well), it was exaggerated and took what we were trying to do out of proportion. If we're done discussing private board threads, however, we should get back on topic.
KnightWriter posted:That was a major point of contention, and no Senate mods were contacted about it for several months after the policy decisions were made (both are true, factual statements). No policy decisions were made. None whatsoever.
Ender_Sai posted:Do you think people from either forum would bother to see what the other is saying? Are attitudes towards the other (Senate's too heavy/YJCC is too light) too ingrained to prevent people from even trying?
Kavic_Toth posted:Part of my concern, actually, is in moving a thread of this nature, at what point do the posts that have been allowed to be made in JCC sort of dilute the discussion in relation to Senate?
KK posted:While you will find longer posts on average in the Senate, they usually aren't too long. In many threads, posts only go about 3-5 paragraphs (with about 2-3 sentences per paragraph). I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be long, or even essay-like.
KK posted:Yet another misconception is that we have no sense of humor, and eat babies for breakfast. This is utterly false. I would never eat a baby for breakfast. They are much better roasted (just a pinch of garlic), with some au gratin potatoes and broccoli, for dinner. [quote=KK]These and other misconceptions help create a barrier between the Senate and the JCC, and that barrier has been growing stronger in recent months.
HawcNC posted:I've been mentally throwing around the idea of a "sampler" Senate thread in JCC to showcase what the forum is all about.
MariahJSkywalker posted:That sounds like a good idea, but still even the traveling social thread failed in the JCC.
J-Rod posted:I keep remembering my "debate" with that Tie Pilot guy in the YJCC. I had made a comment like,"This is what I get for wading into the kiddie pool." And for the most part, it is like a kiddie pool when compared to The Senate.
Obi-Wan McCartney posted:One thing I think needs to be relaxed is the idea that you can't call someones position, oh say, BIGOTED. I agree, its a problem when you say YOU ARE A BIGOT, but to say that an idea is bigoted, that's another thing. This gets on to my whole "thought police" problem with the Senate. You are attempting to control expression through language by eliminating certain language. This sort of thing always gets lopsided and is hard to enforce fairly in any situation.
KnightWriter posted:It's for that same sort of reason that Evolution/Creationism was specifically outlawed in the Senate for well over 2 years (from before my time as a mod, I believe going all the way back to Lord Bane). Actually, I outlawed it myself in the fall of 2002.
VoijaRisa posted:However, what I don't like about serious threads in the JCC is people that don't back their statements up, have no authority on the matter, and still expect to be taken seriously because they read a heavily biased website or two and are suddenly experts on everything pertaining to science/religion/history. Generally I agree with you but don't make broad assumptions. The Tookie thread in YJCC had people from different sides of the arguement and they tried to back up their arguements based on past history, religious faith, and factusl information about the case and other cases in the past. I clearly remember someone bringing up the whole "They're killing him cause he's black" thing and there were a few people who posted statisitcal information to support their claims on one side of the arguement or the other. That said, I'm not saying the Tookie thread remained 100% serious in the way it would have been in the senate. There was a lot of smaller posts where people would post their opinion or even crack a joke (I recall someone posting a picture of Arnold as the terminator and someone had photoshopped Tookie's face onto this guy Arnold was killing. [quote=AnakinsGirl]Yeah in the JCC people tend to throw in their two cents and not really carry a solid debate, because that is not the purpose of the JCC, and the people there are typically not used to doing so. Every other thread in the JCC usually requires a user to throw in their opinion and not really support it. That's why I like the Senate: it is controlled, the people know what to expect, and we don't come across any poop jokes when we really want to discuss something.
VoijaRisa posted:While I agree with this, at the same time, the senate does have its own problems. In trying to keep things from getting out of hand, often times it feels like there's too much emphasis on "staying on topic". While I understand the need for this (otherwise I have a feeling every thread would either turn in to Christians vs the world or Liberals vs. Conservatives), it does sometimes restrict the conversation and prevent it from going into realms that could otherwise give a better understanding of the whole.
VoijaRisa posted:Quite honestly, I'd say about 1% would follow a discussion redirected from the JCC to the Senate. Having participated in a good number of the threads that should be redirected, several have had the link to the corresponding Senate thread posted very early in, but I can't think of a single person I've noticed that joined a Senate thread as a direct result of a similar thread in the JCC. Thus, the first step would be getting them to go there. Most people simply don't care enough to go into another forum (dispite the fact that they're all really part of the same forum). The second step is to be able to keep such users that do cross over active instead of them posting some "half-assed" remark and then running away. Really, both of these parts are a huge challange, imo. The Senate is a scary place. The threads are almost always over 10 pages at 50ppp, and posts rarely consist of anything less than a full paragraph. The good discussions have been going for quite a long time and trying to jump in half way is likely to get people responding by saying "I already answered that several pages ago." While it's certainly frustrating for new posters to the Senate, it's also completely understandable. Those that did answer the questions don't want to type out a seven paragraph response from scratch for someone that's just jumping in, nor do they feel terribly inclined to do the newbie's reading for them and hunt it down. Again, imo, justifiably so. When I first joined the senate I found it extremely overwhelming. I originally came from a JCC thread that got redirected on politics. farraday made the claim that I couldn't handle the Senate and me wanting to prove a pompous bitter ex-mod wrong was part of the reason I did stay. However, few other users have such motivation. This is why I don't really have a problem with having threads in both the JCC and the Senate. I know many people just don't want to have to make the transition.
Darth_Guy posted:I don't think the JCC is necessarily a "dumbed-down" Senate when it comes to serious topics; posters on the JCC are just lazier. There are people who make intelligent points using humor, sarcasm and poop jokes (well, maybe not the latter so much) rather than many long paragraphs citing reputable sources. Both methods are equally valid in my eyes, it's just that there's a "JCC-style" post and a "Senate-style" post, and I believe neither forum will be able to distance itself from its "style" without a change that would ruin its purpose. There is no line to cross when it comes to JCC/Senate topics, but thread starters should not be surprised by "JCC-style" posts when they start a serious topic. Many who go to the JCC don't want to think over long posts, which is exactly why they stay away from the Senate. The only way to make the Senate... er, friendlier to the average JCC'er is to make it more like the JCC, which is exactly what (I assume) we want to avoid. Perhaps an advertising campaign is in order?
Ender_Sai posted:How do you think, then, a co-hosted discussion would go? Let me give you an example; let's say KW and I create a thread called "Reflections on 9/11". Maybe we have one copy in the Senate, on in YJCC. YJCC discusses a more personal aspect of it, Senate covers more of a policy based aspect of it. In the opening post, we linked to the other thread and said, "please visit XXX to discuss this aspect, and here we discuss that aspect of it."
Quixotic-Sith posted:Third, and this may sound cheesy, but what about an exchange program between YJCC regulars and Senate regulars? To encourage user participation, the admins have the perogative to award titles and colors, which have historically increased participation. These individuals could be ambassadors of a sort, describing how a particular topic would be addressed in the respective forum, how others might change their posting to be more empirical or more social, etc. This is just off the top of my head, so it's not a fully developed concept, but I think it could meet the needs of exposing new users to the different forums (we could rotate participants every month or three).
LostOnHoth posted:For me personally, posting is a time issue as I post at work and not at home and I'm a busy guy who has budgets to meet and who should really just give this place up altogether but can't! So I originally stayed away from the Senate and mainly just lurked. After a while I started to post but still find it hard to maintain quality posts because of lack of time & life pressures etc. Having said that, I find the Senate to be a good read generally because of those members who do have more time to post great posts - some of the threads in the Senate could be condensed into a curriculum!
KK posted:Similarly, another misconception is that the Senate requires essay-length posts all the time. While you will find longer posts on average in the Senate, they usually aren't too long. In many threads, posts only go about 3-5 paragraphs (with about 2-3 sentences per paragraph). I'm sorry, but I don't consider that to be long, or even essay-like. That would barely qualify as an essay in middle school English classes, let alone high school or college. If anything, what tends to make posts seem long in the Senate is the quote/response style that many posts use. (In fact, in some discussions, you only need to read every other post, because the other posts are quoted in their entirety).
KK posted:A variation that might work would be to have a "serious" thread that gets started in one forum, and move it back and forth between the forums once a day for a week.
HawkNC posted:I've been mentally throwing around the idea of a "sampler" Senate thread in JCC to showcase what the forum is all about. The major problem I see with the Senate's participation levels is one of perception, and something like this might be able to show the larger audience of the JCC what can and cannot be done in the Senate. Basically what I'm thinking of is just a thread - preferably on a topic that isn't drawn obviously down political lines or alienates a section of the community - that follows the Senate guidelines but lives in JCC. It allows the JCC populace to participate in a debate in a familiar setting with familiar people, but with the more structured setting of a Senate debate. Those that feel that style of thread has appeal for them might then be more willing to venture into the Senate, armed with a slightly better knowledge of how to survive in there.
