| Author |
Topic:
What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
RICHARDSON/Forum Feud Champion
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/17/06 7:02am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
okay, serious discussion is allowed. the apparent problem, it seems then, is when a serious, broad, global type subject that can apply to a lot of people on the jcc (ie athiesm, tookie, etc) is created, and through the evolution of the discussion within said thread, it then becomes too 'focused' or selective (ie it becomes a discussion that is not suited to a lot of people and would be better suited in its own thread, to be fleshed out more appropriately, refined, in the Senate).
the task then for the mods, is to let serious discussion occur, fine, but if a few people within the thread go on a tangent which specifies one aspect of the overall thread, to step in and direct it to a thread in the Senate, leaving the jcc thread to remain discussing the broad topic at hand. in theory, this makes a certain amount of sense. there are problems though.
the problems involved are that a)once the mod steps in, the segway discussion is not carried over into the Senate, resulting in a waste. to stop this, what can we do? should the mod create the segway discusson thread themselves, and thus be able to provide a link, thus make it that bit more easier for the people involved to discuss in the new thread? should the mod actively enforce/persuade/etc that the users involve do continue to discuss it in the senate moreso than merely closing the jcc thread (ie PM a user, tell them to create a thread, tell them it's a very enlightening discussion, it would be a shame for this topic to not continue, whatever)?
this may work if there is an obvious divergence in a thread to the deteriment of others within the thread who may want to discuss other aspects of the overall topic (ie atheism turns into the validity of morals but others still want to talk about their definition of athiesm, etc) -- however what if there is no obvious divergence and the entire discussion has just progressed to a particular point? should this still be redirected? i could argue no, because it hasn't 'taken over' the thread in question, as such, and, given serious discussion is allowed, and no one within the thread is being left out, it should, in theory, remain.
i see the main obstacle being when a particular topic in the jcc is re-directed and no one continues the discussion in the Senate. i've seen a few threads closed in the jcc recently (KW closed a religion thread based on a UK show recently with Richard Dawkins, to use as an example) and saying it should be in the Senate (i'm not necessarily sure it should have been though?) but if there is no active follow up to this redirection, as evidenced by the lack of that same particular topic, by the original thread creator, currently being in the Senate right now, then the end result is a loss of a possibly interesting discussion, which seems to be the case with that particular example.
there is still ambiguity in that, if we're allowing serious discusson in the jcc, why such a thread shouldn't be given a chance to survive, given the fact that it follow along with the 'global' type aspect and wasn't given the chance to possibly diverge into more refined topics which then could possibly necessitate a redirection? at the moment, all i am seeing is, using that thread as a particular example... it was closed in jcc, the discussion has not continued in the Senate, people were posting to it in the jcc... what is the net result? zero.
i think this discussion may be starting to do my head in.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/17/06 7:19am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
evidenced by the lack of that same particular topic, by the original thread creator, currently being in the Senate right now,
Just to chime in on this: The thread creator was a permanently banned member using a sock, and he was banned after he made that thread.
-----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
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/17/06 3:44pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
epic, one could have been forgiven for assuming the purpose of this thread was trying to work at if there's a magical point at which this delineation occurs.
I'm not entirely sure I believe you're following this discussion. I think if it's getting to the point in which people are arguing over the specifics of the Patriot Thread it's exceeded the YJCC mandate; and just to avoid the ambiguity, I mean the actual specifics of the law itself, not if it's "evil" or "annoying."
We're very deliberately trying to find that point in which it becomes one or the other.
ES
-----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:
1/17/06 5:57pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
We're very deliberately trying to find that point in which it becomes one or the other.
I think that we're moving in that direction - the pattern that seems to be emerging is that once we move beyond a superficial (i.e., casual) treatment, we begin shifting from a typical YJCC thread to a typical Senate thread. I think the next logical step is to try to find the "node" at which the YJCC/Senate flip occurs. I would suggest once "PPOR" type posts appearing - i.e., once contradictory evidence and/or extended argumentation appear, we have a Senate-style thread.
-----signature-----
 Cressbeckler 2008!
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/17/06 6:18pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
|
Contradictory evidence can be brought up quickly. Extended arguing takes time to develop, and I'd use that as a more accurate reflection of a thread's status.
-----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:
1/17/06 6:51pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
I would suggest once "PPOR" type posts appearing - i.e., once contradictory evidence and/or extended argumentation appear, we have a Senate-style thread.
I would agree with that. There seems to be some modicum of agreement in the FG so far that Senate style threads typically require the contributor to back up assertions with supporting material and so when the discussion gets to the point where the contributors are requiring evidence to support assetions/allegations made then that would be the "node" at which the YJCC/Senate flip occurs.
Just fixing the markups
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
RICHARDSON/Forum Feud Champion
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/18/06 3:48am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Genghis, i understand the point of the discussion, i'm just raising some problems associated with the actual closing down of serious threads that are then re-directed to the Senate but ultimately resulting in the entire discussion coming to an end. i understand the example i raised was due to the user meaning to be banned, but i've seen other instances where a similar situation occurred.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/18/06 8:05pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
epic, I believe you called me Genghis. I'm flattered. [face_blushing]
So let me get this straight; if the YJCC and Senate have demonstrably different posting styles, and people are posting in YJCC in very clear, specific, Senate style posts about a specific issue within a topic, it shouldn't be redirected to the Senate?
Or if we have someone start a YJCC thread in the Senate, it shouldn't be moved from the Senate?
If I move a thread to YJCC, I hope that the people involved will follow it for their own enjoyment, so they might experience something other than the Senate. If it's a choice between 1 in 5 people following it elsewhere or a lock, what's better 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
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
1/19/06 2:03am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
I think Darth_Attorney called you Genghis out of force of habit...
But it is strange that you two are never in the same place at the same time, hmmmm...
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
KnightWriter
Title:
Administrator Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/19/06 6:33am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Someone either is or has recently become a Harry Potter fan  .
-----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
|
epic
Title: ex mod / rsa
RICHARDSON/Forum Feud Champion
Registered:
Jul '99
|
Date Posted:
1/19/06 6:47am
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
oops. tired, yesterday, i was, yes. tired.
Ender_Sai, if people are posting seriously (the type of posts in the Senate thread in this forum could just as easily be found in the JCC) about a specific, refined topic WITHIN a broader topic, and thus taking away from the thread itself (as KW put it, monopolising the thread), then i am fine with that being re-directed. i just think the mod doing so should actively encourage the users involved to actually go ahead and make the new threaad, as opposed to the possibility of the conversation just ending. (in the interests of creating more activity in the Senate, as then others can join in etc). If people are discussing a serious topic that fits the thread in JCC, i don't think this should be redirected.
basically i think redirection should occur when a refined topic is taking away from the overall topic, not just if the overall topic is 'too serious'. this could be a discussion on evolution, race, politics, genetics, whatever.
it's also why i don't think the thread about the Richard Dawkings documentary, using it as an example, should have been closed because it was a serious topic and, given serious discussion is allowed, and everyone was discussing the thread topic... there was no refinement.
i guess it is about the definition of 'broad', etc. you could have a 'broad' religion thread that just talks about religion in general or you could have a 'broad' thread about a documentary that pointed out one professors opinion on the church, the negative impact it has on society, etc.
the first example of a broad subject borders on being unworkable, however, and at times conversation will always focus on particular aspects of religion; the second i have the feeling people are thinking should not belong in the JCC, but i don't think the content was so refined as to require it to move... one can easily 'broadly' discuss the professors views and then, if things develop into tangents based on those views, or a monopolisation begins to occur, it can be redirected. but even then it should still remain open for the others who aren't following the tangent, in my eyes.
YJCC threads in the Senate should always be moved; one cannot use that as a direct comparison.
it is better that one person follows a link to the JCC than a lock, yes, because light hearted banter topics do not belong in the Senate (as opposed to serious discussions being allowed in the JCC)... but it isn't better if one person follows a link to the Senate from the JCC when there was previously 5 or 6 people discussing a topic already -- that, to me, is an unnecessary squashing of a good discussion for no apparent reason.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
LostOnHoth
Registered:
Feb '00
|
Date Posted:
1/19/06 6:37pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
So it would have to be a matter for the YJCC Mod to call out the individuals who are 'refining' or 'monopolising' the discussion and redirect them to an appropriate Senate thread or require them to create a Senate thread whilst the general discussuion thread in YJCC continues on?
I think this stuff is important to hammer out but let's not lose sight of the proportion that these problematic 'serious' threads bear to YJCC threads as a whole - on any given day you can scan through the thread topics on the YJCC and maybe pick one thread that may be questionable.
I think the important thing is for this FG to agree on what point discussion in the YJCC should be redirected to a new thread in the Senate or to an existing thread in the Senate and then decide on the procedure. Clearly, it would have to be assessed on a case by case basis as to whether the entire discussion is redirected or only individuals in the discussion are redirected. Whether or not any users actually follow the discussion into the Senate is irrelevent - either they do or they don't, not much anybody can do about that. Hopefully, the cross forum initiatives will foster more goodwill between the two forums.
-----signature-----
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities - Voltaire
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
TheBoogieMan
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Nov '01
|
Date Posted:
1/20/06 8:00pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
LostOnHoth posted:
I think the important thing is for this FG to agree on what point discussion in the YJCC should be redirected to a new thread in the Senate or to an existing thread in the Senate and then decide on the procedure. Clearly, it would have to be assessed on a case by case basis as to whether the entire discussion is redirected or only individuals in the discussion are redirected. Whether or not any users actually follow the discussion into the Senate is irrelevent - either they do or they don't, not much anybody can do about that. Hopefully, the cross forum initiatives will foster more goodwill between the two forums.
I couldn't agree more. Can we try and get some sort of clear direction going with this discussion
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ender_Sai
Title: Manager Emeritus
Registered:
Feb '01
|
Date Posted:
1/21/06 5:28pm
Subject:
RE: What precisely constitutes a Senate thread, and can a thread "become" one?
|
Well, really it's going to require a case-by-case judgement on behalf of you guys in YJCC.
I think though, if we hold this general standard we should be ok:
If a discussion has moved from being a general discussion to being specific and nuanced, it's probably lost the "lite" aspect and would benefit from the kind of discussion the Senate hosts. Rather than saying, "Take this to the Senate", it ends up being phrased in such a way to suggest the user(s) might get more of response from this line of thought in the Senate.
Let me give you an example; a thread is starting on the Patriot Act. People do the inevitable Bush was sent by God/Satan routine until someone starts arguing actual sections of the act. Maybe one other person chimes in, but the discussion in YJCC ends up being less general and more specific. That's the point in which you suggest the specific people head to the Senate, and try and get your lite discussion back. That way, everyone is happy, including Zoidberg!
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
|
