| Author |
Topic:
What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 6:08pm
Subject:
What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
At this point, I think we ought to develop for ourselves a good definition, if possible, of what makes a Senate thread. Reason being is simple; if we know what makes a typical Senate thread we can better serve the interests of both forums.
YJCC Mods, and rightly so, were concerned about their forum becoming simply a collection of poop jokes and that O RLY owl (the person responsible for that needs to be lined up against a wall and shot). Serious discussions were suggested as possibly being allowed to grow as a way of giving the forum some new life. Senate mods were concerned that this positive development could and possibly would affect the Senate. This is, of course, the connundrum which brought us here.
In order to resolve the inevitable overlap that will occur in some threads, what I think might be a good idea to do is develop a flexible line which, if crossed, changes the thread entirely. Now of course, as we already touched upon, not all users want to commit to Senate discussions but I guess I'm saying if it's already a Senate discussion in all but name, then maybe that's when we should consider a redirect.
However, what constitutes a Senate discussion, even "in all but name"? I realise, for example, I could tell you instantly, as could Mr44 or KW. However, I'm more interested in a user feedback on this particular issue...
E_S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Quixotic-Sith
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Jun '01
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 6:28pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
|
I would argue that a Senate thread is one in which citation and evidence are rules, not exceptions, which is the antithesis of a YJCC thread. Senate threads have expectations of internal consistency of argument, deductive or inductive reasoning, evidence to support claims, and fairly linear structure (they may branch into different areas, but they tend to follow a consistent path of argumentation). These are, I think, necessary but not comprehensive criteria, and they rule out most of the threads in YJCC and rule in most of the threads of the Senate.
-----signature-----
 Cressbeckler 2008!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
J-Rod
Registered:
Jul '04
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 6:47pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Yup, Quix nailed it. Ironically those are also the reasons the YJCC and The Senate rarely mix, IMO.
But ya know, if The YJCC members read a few of my posts they may not be so intimidated. While I certainly have YJCC characteristics, I love a good debate.
On the flip side, alot of the YJCC'ers can be as mean as playground bullies. That, more than anything else, keeps me from posting there more often. There is a meanness there that isn't allowed in The Senate.
And, while I understand that I'm new to posting in general, I've also noticed that most of my posts go ignored in the YJCC unless I step on someone's toes. Am I doing something wrong?
-----signature-----
God bless George Bush John McCain 2008 Darth_wanderguard :"Maybe you're not quite as crazy as people say you are" 
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Captain_Typho
Registered:
Jul '03
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 8:17pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
|
I think QS is hitting pretty close to home here. We've already determined that typical redirects for well established threads in YJCC isn't going to do anything because users from YJCC aren't typically going to follow the convo to the senate. Even if the YJCC thread becomes like a senate thread in nature, people are still not going to be inclined to go to Senate when the thread is redirected. One of the solutions I've seen already mentioned several times is the linking of two threads together. For instance, the very successful Tookie thread in YJCC being linked to a further in depth discussion on the death penalty in Senate.
-----signature-----
This is my favorite smiley because it looks funny------------->  Are you fired up and ready to go? Barack Obama 08
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth Mischievous
Registered:
Oct '99
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 9:18pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Certain YJCC threads that have popped up lately are more appropriate for the Senate Floor venue, such as the 'Athesism' thread and others.
I suggest that threads that involve the philosophical, the religious, politics, or debate be moved from the YJCC to the Senate in the future or that members be directed to the appropriate discussion already taking place. The Senate is the perfect venue for such material.
This would give the Senate more relevance to YJCC members who will see that not only are such threads moved there, but that they may be interested in taking a look at what's been going on in the Senate.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 9:58pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
I agree with the above assessments. However, for me, I think what 'makes' a Senate thread is very much the focus given to it by the thread author in the opening post. In the Senate, there tends to be more than just a "discuss" challenge thrown out to the forum.
Take for example the "Being annoying is now illegal" threads in both the Senate and the YJCC.
Senate:
http://boards.theforce.net/the_senate_floor/b10320/22830977/p1/?29
YJCC:
http://boards.theforce.net/your_jedi_council_community/b10008/22829245/p1/?59
Also take the Atheism thread in both forums.
Senate:
http://boards.theforce.net/the_senate_floor/b10320/15812769/p1
YJCC:
http://boards.theforce.net/your_jedi_council_community/b10008/22720641/p1/?425
You can see there is a different standard from the outset. If the opening post does not have enough to promote discussion/debate then it is either locked or suggestions are made to give the the topic some focus. This requirement is missing from YJCC threads.
The need for some focus or a point of view to be argued signifies a 'traditonal' Senate thread.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 10:05pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
|
As a further example, see this thread from tonight. The opening post was clearly Senate-oriented, and I redirected it after first seeing it.
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women."--Sarah Palin
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 10:14pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
The only concern I have with this practice of redirecting threads is ensuring that there is some link in the JJCC to the relocated Senate thread, simply because it was clearly the author's intention to discuss something serious with fellow YJCCers and not necessarily with Senate dwellers.
If a thread is to be started in the Senate by a YJCCer (at the direction of the Mods) there should be some way of inviting YJCCers from the YJCC forum to post in that Senate thread. In this regard, some sort link thread should be allowed.
I imagine the thread author may be disappointed that his/her thread will not continue in his/her chosen forum.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/11/06 11:28pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
That was a point I raised in the ModSquad, Lost. See, people, that's why you have Aussies!
I wonder.. would having something "fun" like an "Embassy" in each JCC subforum be a good idea? It would serve to both promote the other forum and act as an index for redirected threads or "flagship" threads to attract the attention of other users...
Just an idea, what do you think?
E+S
-----signature-----
In this truth he knew himself to be.
From sinking sands he stepped into light's embrace.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
RICHARDSON/Forum Feud Champion
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 4:45am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
you can have a serious minded thread in jcc and people are free to be as serious or as lighthearted as they like; they can joke in it. that's the difference.
ie: atheism thread
1st reply: *intellectual argument*
2nd reply: god isn't there, he skipped universes years ago.
3rd reply: i was hungry so i killed him, lol
4th reply: *reply to 1st*
... soooort of thing.
i could even argue that KW's thread that he closed could have remained open and linked to an existing thread purely for the possibility of this sort of thing. the thread creator, in that thread, even said something along the lines of, 'why'd you all turn this into a debate'.
i don't see anything wrong with similar threads existing in both forums.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 5:41am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
A lot of the posts so far have been very good at describing the initial differences between JCC threads and Senate threads, but they seem to have missed the second part of the question.
Can a JCC thread "become" a Senate thread?
I would say to answer this, you have to look at not just what makes a "Senate thread" or a "JCC thread", but also what makes a Senate or JCC post.
KW has often described the JCC-style posts as "hit and run", which is an apt description. The Senate, on the other hand, tends to lean towards a more in-depth look at matters in a single post. You can find examples of both types of posts in both forums, so it is not something exclusive to either forum, but in general, each forum leans a different way.
Just like a Senate thread, started with a clear focus and direction, can devolve into a thread lacking that focus and direction (i.e. go from being a Senate thread to a JCC thread), a JCC thread can evolve into something with a focus and direction. (Please note, the terms evolve and devolve are not meant to be derrogatory.) When that starts to happen, either way, is when moderators need to step in and start redirecting things (either individual users or the entire thread, as the situation warrants).
If they don't, you wind up with a situation like what is currently being discussed in Comms here about the overlap between LFP and the new SFF forums. Admittedly, it is not a perfect comparison, but it shows some of the same issues that required this FG. Different forums having different focuses only works if the moderators cooperate in keeping threads within their area of focus.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
RICHARDSON/Forum Feud Champion
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 6:19am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
but at what point can a jcc mod say, "foxi, you're starting to get too serious in this thread. please refrain from posting to that level of intelligence and go to [link]this[/link] thread. meanwhile, everyone else carry on with your one liners. thankyou"
yes i'm using hyperbole but you know what i mean, it can't be done. you can't dictate what level of seriousness a user can post in the jcc like you can dictate the level of silliness in the Senate -- it isn't a workable comparison.
i guess in this sort of instance, as has already been said, a mod could post a link to the Senate thread if people want to discuss the issue but it gets back to the fact that if they wanted to discuss the issue in the Senate they would have. they already know it exists. and mods or users butting into a conversation with this insistent "you know, you could actually talk about this [link]here[/link]!", as i said in the other thread, doesn't come across well, either.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kimball_Kinnison
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 7:02am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
epic posted:
but at what point can a jcc mod say, "foxi, you're starting to get too serious in this thread. please refrain from posting to that level of intelligence and go to [link]this[/link] thread. meanwhile, everyone else carry on with your one liners. thankyou"
yes i'm using hyperbole but you know what i mean, it can't be done. you can't dictate what level of seriousness a user can post in the jcc like you can dictate the level of silliness in the Senate -- it isn't a workable comparison.
Yes, it can be done.
For example, if two users start really going at each other (in a non-flaming manner), posting senate-style posts and heavily debating several points, they should be redirected to the appropriate Senate thread. Senate mods do that all the time with people who start derailing senate threads (as opposed to the occasional lighthearted posts).
Threads can both evolve and devolve. Consider the longstanding concerns of the JCC mods relating to threads devolving into social threads (instituting the social thread cap and waiting list in JCC Rule II.E.). They warn users when they start a thread along that path, and they will lock and redirect threads that do devolve into social threads. If they are willing to do that as threads devolve into something that exceeds the rules in one direction, why not in the other direction.
To use one specific example from the JCC rules, rule II.A. states:A. Religious threads: While religious debate (exampe: Does God exist? Creation vs Evolution, etc.) is not allowed in the JCC, we will allow religious themed threads and, on occasion, light discussion on a religious topic. These types of threads will be examined on a case-by-case basis. Look carefully at the part I marked in blue. Religious debate (some of which was happening in the Atheism thread), and discussion that goes beyond "light discussion" would be exceeding the JCC rules.
Those rules don't just apply to starting a thread (otherwise the limit would only be on starting social threads, and they would have no basis to lock threads that devolve into social threads), but throughout the life of the threads. If threads that "evolve" into social threads should be locked and redirected to the appropriate social thread, then why shouldn't religious threads that "evolve" into something beyond "light discussion", or that turn into a debate, similarly be locked and redirected?
It's the same principle.
Kimball Kinnison
-----signature-----
You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM
Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW
I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
HawkNC
Title: FanForce RSA
Oceania
Registered:
Oct '01
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 7:03am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
but at what point can a jcc mod say, "foxi, you're starting to get too serious in this thread. please refrain from posting to that level of intelligence and go to [link]this[/link] thread. meanwhile, everyone else carry on with your one liners. thankyou"
When hell freezes over, most likely. 
There is a point at which threads simply get too in-depth or heated. It happens less nowadays because most people who would post in such a manner have already gone to the Senate and simply take discussion there instead for the most part. A Senate mod will come in here and say that Senate posts don't have to be all serious or thesis length, at which point I say that if that's the case, we need to work on changing the perception most users have of Senate-level posting.
-----signature-----
Use dp/dt
--
Come now, do you really expect me to do coordinate substitution in my head while strapped to a centrifuge?
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
AnakinsGirl
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 9:33am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Have we all seen This thread?
I think the JCCers really address what they think about the Senate and it was very informative for me. I think maybe Michievous posted this link already, so sorry if he did.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/12/06 9:43am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
All that talk in the thread about where the thread belongs is inappropriate, and should have been taken up with us privately.
Look carefully at the part I marked in blue. Religious debate (some of which was happening in the Atheism thread), and discussion that goes beyond "light discussion" would be exceeding the JCC rules.
That word (and the wording in general) should and hopefully will be changed. Instead of "light", it should be "lite". Similar, yet different.
. If threads that "evolve" into social threads should be locked and redirected to the appropriate social thread, then why shouldn't religious threads that "evolve" into something beyond "light discussion", or that turn into a debate, similarly be locked and redirected?
It's a case by case thing, dependent on circumstance and what seems to make the most sense (not by what follows someone's precise definition of a given rule).
If a thread is going along nicely, without any trouble, and gradually becomes a heavier discussion, I don't see a need for it to be automatically moved away. There's no certainty that participants will move with it, and it seems nonsensical to move threads that are doing well simply on the basis that the discussion has reached some sort of imaginary line that says "too heavy now".
-----signature-----
"May you live all the days of your life"
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't support other women."--Sarah Palin
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
