Senate I Want to Believe-The Senate's Social Thread and Secret Society Roundtable

E_S and I are saying the same thing, so I agree with his post?

 

The Senate-tagged social thread embedded in the JC community is such an oddity that I hope this becomes the dominant venue for our most serious and heartfelt discussions.

 

Simply put, this is it. I mean, the Senate forum does have an origin, and to discount it completely simply because "it's 2012" is a bit silly. I mean, why not have a giant tabbed-fueled single forum?

For an idea of what I mean, go over to the music forum and look at Boba's "Alien's/Prometheus theme" thread. That's a pretty heavy forum, because the level of discourse in that thread sits at a higher level. Having said that, most of the posts are comprised of 1 or 2 sentences, and still uphold a more detailed discussion. The more casual fan would be at home discussing Prometheus in a different forum. The music forum is about as specialized and busy as the Senate is, why don't we just start discussing all instances of the Prometheus theme in Amph? Well, because the music forum offers a more in-depth and specialized discussion regarding the mechanics of the soundtrack that Amph ever could. Neither is "better" or "worse" than the other, because operate within their own spheres of purpose.The half a dozen regulars within music find value to the forum, as do the casual users who simply may drive by the music forum for a specific instance and then leave. But I have no doubt that Boba would take action if someone came into the middle of that thread and dropped a post which amounted to nothing but a "Prometheus sucks!" statement in determent to the overall forum. Is there any doubt as to the role that the thread occupies within the music forum, as opposed to the other Prometheus threads that exist in other forums?

But for some reason, whenever this comes up, people get a mental block when in comes to the Senate. But the idea of having a forum set up around the principle of a master's level dissertation is not going to appeal to everyone, just like the idea of having a dedicated, in-depth music forum is not going to appeal to the casual pop culture fan.

 

To be brutally honest, of all the individual banners I miss, I miss that bastion of absolutely nothing Lucasfilm related most of all.

 

Yeah, I feel the same way about the JCC non LucasFilm related banners. We've been stuck with this one since the temp board... definitely gotten old.

 

However, to be too wedded to what the Senate was as a result of it's origins isn't the answer either.

I don't agree that the Senate should use the "Master's level" yardstick anymore. When we were posting at our heydey, really from 2002 up until 2006/07, we were younger and often had more time. We also didn't have social media or the volumes of places to express opinions.

The online world, in short, has changed dramatically since then. The Senate, really, hasn't.

I'm not suggesting you dumb it down to crude homoeroticism, or memes, I am suggesting you relax your expectations. Community members will police the content well enough to keep it Senate-y but what Senate-y in 2012 means, I don't think is established.

The mods also need to play a role. I opened a thread on the temp boards about the 2012 Formula 1 season with a JC tag because I remain of the view the Arena is as legitimate as the Kardashian's fame or Scientology. Darth McClain promptly claimed it for the Arena. If he can get away with that act of naked piracy then Senate mods can too .

Interestingly non-Arena people posted in the thread because they could see the subject line. The "forum" tag didn't matter as much. Well, it did to me, and still does. Down with the Arena!

The Senate needs to function in a similar way to the Arena in this example. Forget the old way of thinking where the Senate was a unique forum. It's not anymore. That's simply a fact and a reality.

My suggestion is to make conversation interesting enough to attract people to want to partake, but serious enough that it's not really appropriate to just troll with meme pictures. Relax the standards from what they were, but not to the point where there's no lines between the JC and the Senate.

Otherwise, all you are doing it keeping an elitist club of diehards that find it increasingly hard to justify their existence to the broader community.

The Senate can have a very valuable place in the JC. It just needs to let go of what the Senate was, and define what the Senate will be.

 

I think the Senate in 2012 is just a place for anyone who wants to start a thread or respond to a post where there is an expectation that the thread topic or post won't be mocked with "tl;dr" or other such replies (as it might be in the JCC) if it is lenghty or calls for some thought or analysis on topics which are not specifically intended for chat type dialogue. I mean, look at the first page of all JCC tagged thread topics and compare and contrast with the first page of all Senate tagged topics. the Senate is effectively a sanctuary for people who want to actually discuss or engage with other people on a more thoughtful level, ie, beyond "post a picture of genital shaped pot plants here! lol". That's not to say that the JCC lacks thoughtful discussion or thoughtful people, but I would consider the Senate to be the destination for people who wish to engage in that kind of discourse.

I don't have an issue with the current tabs set-up because I simply click on the 'Senate' tab anyway and all of the Senate threads appear in a list just like the old board, all that is missing is the banner. The essence of the Senate is not the trappings or the fact that it is a separate forum, but rather, it is simply defined by the people who regularly post in it and the kinds of topics which are thrown up for discussion. That was the point of my earlier post, it was not intended as an euology as such, just a lament that the well is becoming dry with respect to the kinds of topics which promote active discussion. You can only recycle the same old topics and the same old arguments for so long before people lose interest.

 

FYI - this thread should be a Senate tagged thread:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/reactions-u-s-presidential-election-day-2012.50005575/page-9

I'd ask why people reflect upon the reason it's not before I explain why I think it ought be.

 

Well, my own thought mirrors LOH here. I'm not wedded to semantics. What I called "masters level discourse," LOH called "in depth discussion and analysis." In my mind, they're the same thing without getting bogged down in specific terms. To repeat, the Senate is effectively a sanctuary for people who want to actually discuss or engage with other people on a more thoughtful level.

E_S, that's the problem with the one sized fits all approach. If you don't filter out the "tl;dr" posts, then the overall discussion does become less interesting and less rich. If you relax standards, then one person's gential shaped pot plant picture is interesting discussion to them, but it doesn't meet the forum standard. Again, look at the music forum, or games, or fan films, or costuming and props, or FanFic... All of those forums occupy a narrow band of the overall user base of the boards here, even factoring in the declining overall "viewership" of the forums. FanFic writers are some of the most dedicated, proud, but closed group of users here. But just try going into Fanfic and suggesting that the entire forum has to change because it's 2012, and there are other ways to put fanfic out there, and you would get a riot. If you don't meet the standards of the forum, they will tell you. If you go into the costume forum and start screwing around, you will not last long in that forum. Taken together, each of these narrow forums add to the overall richness of the boards. Because multiple forums don't exist to be all inclusive, but to offer varied interests within their own framework. Because what you won't ever find is anyone in fan films, for example, suggesting that the standards be relaxed just to get more people in who don't share the same passion about independent film making. In fact, the fan film regulars go to that forum as a way to escape the posers in the first place. It's no different than the limited user base of fanfilms who are passionate about their craft. Or the costuming forum regular who grins at the idea of a whip stitch, but which causes everyone else's eyes to glace over. You wouldn't go into costumes and suggest that someone like Miana Kenobi be less technical because it's alienating the casual user in that forum. (and believe me, I think she knows everything about sewing..) The Senate shouldn't either.

The Senate isn't a less unique forum, it's a more unique forum for precisely the reasons you outlined. Yeah, casual users can express their opinion on facebook, or Twitter, or numerous other soundbite based social media. So we agree the environment where a message board existed 10 years ago isn't the same as it is now. However, do we really need another casual level outlet in a sea of generic casual level outlets? The Senate doesn't have to become more like facebook. It's exactly what LOH said the Senate is effectively a sanctuary for people who want to actually discuss or engage with other people on a more thoughtful level. That "thoughtful level" doesn't have to represent 5 paragraph long posts for every reply, but the higher level engagement is what is unique and gives it its purpose.

 

Okay... Mr44 what is the genitalia shaped marijuana leaf that you speak of? I have never seen such a thing. Did this actually happen?

 

We schmoked it already Harps, soz.

44, after all of that you've neither addressed my point nor addressed how the Senate's going to change.

I never said the Senate should become more like Facebook. What I said was that social media etc has changed the way in which people share their opinions. Basically, consider it as a form of conditioning; the new crop of users who might want to partake here aren't going to care for essay length post debates. I appreciate you said that's not required, but they're also not likely to want to be held to essay-level standards either (in terms of sourcing, in terms of the robustness of the argument process, etc). This is not the point at which you take away from my comments, "let's be more like Twitter or the JC"; it's where we accept that a new crop of users are coming and the crotchety old users of the Senate will likely drive them off (because they can't adapt and change) and thus, in the process, kill off the Senate's raison d'etre.

I firmly believe that the Reaction thread should have been a Senate one. Nothing about it would have changed; you guys might just have to relax a bit. It's had some great posts, some light hearted posts, and some insightful posts. In a way, you're missing a party because you insist everyone wear evening wear and the music be a muted, sedated mix of Western chamber music.

Noone is saying up the memes and penis jokes. They are saying the Senate needs to figure out how it's going to change and adapt in the new Community world. Otherwise, the Senate's just going to sign it's own death warrant.

EDIT: Oops; I also meant to say the reason that people aren't likely to create Senate tagged threads is not that there's no market for serious discussion here. It's that the Senate users have unrivalled capacity to scare people off.

 

Ok, but my issue with your post is that it doesn't address the point of the Senate at all. Look, I'm going to repeat it over and over because I think it captures this issue perfectly, so I'll probably have to pay LOH a dime each instance, but here it is again: " the Senate is effectively a sanctuary for people who want to actually discuss or engage with other people on a more thoughtful level. That's why the Senate exists.

The problem I have is that you are not applying your "standard of change" to any other forum. Again, go to Fanfilms and try and tell the regulars there that their discussion is too technical, and could they please reduce their standards in order to attract new users who might not have a background in film making? Go to costuming/props and try and tell them that they are too specialized, so could they tone it down so as to not scare off the rest of the boards? Go to the music/soundtrack forum and try and suggest that they not focus so much on the technical aspect of music because it is alienating the casual music listener? Go to fanfic and try to suggest that their ongoing fiction is too long, could each creation please be limited to 2 paragraphs so more people could contribute? In every example, such suggestions would destroy the reasons for the forums in the first place. But more importantly, the forums exist to elevate the knowledge base of the participants. The regulars in each of those forums take something away because the standard is so high, and anyone who participates in them is forced to meet the standards, not the other way around. It's called challenge. In any other forum, this very discussion would never happen.

So my question to you is why is the Senate any different? The Senate is where it is now, not because of its own unique and/or lofty standard, but because its very identity has been allowed to be diluted. If any change has to occur, then such change shouldn't be focused on abandoning its unique raison d'etre, but to define it and uphold it within the new board structure.

And for the record, I think the "reaction" vs "in depth" discussion separations were handled perfectly. The JCC reaction thread had dozens and dozens of "snapshot" posts supplied rapid fire by the users there. The Senate's in depth thread had a slower, and more deliberate pace, but with a more thoughtful, outward looking focus. With those 2 threads, you just perfectly described the JCC vs the Senate. The JCC is a more emotional, inward focused forum, while the Senate is a more outward, academic focused one. This is precisely why each sits under its own tab.

 

Well, firstly - I don't give a damn about any of those other boards, Mr44. I didn't put in a few years of my life moderating those ones - so that would be a crucial difference here.

But more importantly, the forums exist to elevate the knowledge base of the participants. The regulars in each of those forums take something away because the standard is so high, and anyone who participates in them is forced to meet the standards, not the other way around. It's called challenge. In any other forum, this very discussion would never happen.

Yes and I am sure the knowledge base of the seven remaining Senate users is huge by now.

Again; nobody is saying drop your standards. They're saying, maybe relax them enough that you're no longer seen as a slightly stuffy, elitist clique. You and I were in ModSquad together, you know I know about how people saw us and how often we had to explain what made us unique to an audience that just didn't (or in Senny/Strilo's case, wouldn't) get it.

So my question to you is why is the Senate any different? The Senate is where it is now, not because of its own unique and/or lofty standard, but because its very identity has been allowed to be diluted. If any change has to occur, then such change shouldn't be focused on abandoning its unique raison d'etre, but to define it and uphold it within the new board structure.

Yes and no. You don't have to agree with me on this, it's no loss to me either way but you're talking as if it's still 2006. By rights, any political discussion should hold a Senate tag. The reasons it doesn't are twofold, but intertwined;

1) the user base doesn't really want to be in the Senate, and
2) The Senate users drive so much traffic away from them

I remember in 2010 participating in Gabe's Formula 1 thread in the JCC. I started a JC tagged F1 thread, and it was moved to Arena. G-FETT joined in the discussion because he saw it on the main page; the tag wasn't a turnoff for him.

A [Senate] tag is very much a turnoff for a lot of users. Saying the reason for this is that they can't meet the Senate's standards would be inaccurate, in my view. I've seen good posts in the JC from a lot of people; the difference is that they don't want to be in the Senate. In my view, this is something that you need to question if you expect the Senate to continue.

Again, I really think any serious political discussion, be it snapshot or otherwise, should fall under the Senate tag and that the Senate regulars need to adapt to the new world. To borrow from GB Shaw; "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself".

Except, in this case, progress won't depend on the unreasonable man.

Incidentally, I think it will be the best thing for the forum since a dream team of two Yanks and one convict moderated it.

 

Well, I don't know about the wisdom of not caring about other forums if one hasn't modded those forums. Each represents a principle that is unique to their forum, and no other forum is reducing their own fabric of being just to chase additional users. Besides that, I disagree with the major platform of your post. I wouldn't say that "By rights, any political discussion should hold a Senate tag..." This is where you and I diverge, and to me, your sentence is the 2006-era view.

There is absolutely no reason why a "snapshot" political thread can't be held in the JCC, and then a concurrent "in depth" political discussion take place in the Senate.The Senate doesn't have to be a one stop shop for everyone to remain viable, it has to be the pinnacle of its own existence. Right now, go look at the couple of election threads in the Senate here.. They're active, they're in-depth, and they represent a sanctuary for people who want to actually discuss or engage with other people on a more thoughtful level. (that's .20 cents to LOH now) They are nothing like the JCC election thread, which is comprised of more one sentence feeling posts. The two forums are different, and the two forums have different purposes. Now, obviously, the Senate election thread isn't going to have the same traffic a week after the election, but the standard will be the same. In essence, the separation between the two is what gives each forum their purpose. That's not to say that one format is better than the other. Last night, I posted in the JCC election thread, and my replies contained references to honey ale, a sentence about Paul Ryan's re-election in Wisconsin, and other single sentence, rapid fire thoughts. Yet, I can still come here to the Senate and engage in more in-depth political analysis. What's wrong with that? The rapid fire, single answer replies of the JCC would absolutely destroy the Senate, no different than limiting fanfic to mini-stories would completely destroy that forum, even if it meant that it is more "approachable."

The Senate can update itself precisely how the other forums-music/fanfic/fanfilm/costumes/even lit have updated themselves. That is to say that they've re-focused on their core purpose, and realized that as pieces within the overall board puzzle, they strengthen the whole. None of them exist to be everything to everyone in difference of their core reason for existence, and the Senate shouldn't either.


Edit-although I do disagree with one final thing-Incidentally, I think it will be the best thing for the forum since a dream team of two Yanks and one convict moderated it.

No, the two yanks and the convict were the best thing, bar none....

 

Mr44, I take cash or credit.

 

Will you take a bunch of surplus "Romney/Ryan" yard signs in trade? I think if I bundled them together, I'd come up with at least 20 cents worth....

 

Has anybody who promised to move to Canada if Obama won made good on their promise yet?

Wrong thread.

 

I haven't seen much in the way of people claiming they're going to go to Canada . . . more about mobilizing a resistance or sitting and twiddling thumbs until the End of Days.

 

So it'll be the Hard Right that believes in the Mayan prophecy of the World ending on Dec. 21 now?

 

More like some on the religious right are convinced that Obama's reelection is a sign of the End Times.

 

We should all be required to perfect the art of limiting our posts to Twitter-friendly aphorisms.


I'm looking at 44 and Kimball. They have serious work to do to get up to speed.

 

Who? Me?

 

The only problem with this is it's actually the course that will diminish the Senate in the long term. Look at the current level of discussion. It's all Senate worthy, and there is a decent level of traffic. Not because of a reduction in standards, but because the discussions are rich and interesting. Now, obviously, traffic is up because of the election, and will not stay at the same elevated level, but so what? If a handful of people stay and become regulars, it's well worth it.

I guess the core issue here is what defines a forum within the boards? If it's level of traffic, then by all means, dillute the Senate in order to get as many users as possible to click on the tab. If the point is to look at each forum as a piece of the overall board puzzle, then the Senate should keep its standard, and fulfill that niche role. For me, it just comes down to the fact that if someone wants to post in the JCC, just post in the JCC. There's no reason to make the Senate more JCC-like just to get more JCC regulars who will continue to post in the JCC anyway. The JCC snapshot election thread vs the Senate in-depth election thread are the perfect examples of each supporting the other but remaining true to their roots.

Again, the easy illustration is just go to the music forum. It probably has less traffic than the Senate, and the posts there discuss concepts like "tonal quality" and "richness in scale." It's not geared toward the casual member at all. But go there and try to suggest that everyone there should stop posting in such a technical manner because it scares the casual music fan away, and you'd get a revolt. Because that's a strength of the boards. If someone wants to post whimsical, community based thoughts on a song-they can go to the JCC, or Amph, and fire away. But the music forum is still there for the more technical minded people who want to have a richer, more in-depth discussion. There are niche forums all over the boards here, and all fulfill their own purpose.

 

The spirit of working across the aisle is always optimistic in the first few days after the election... maybe that's why I agree completely with 44.
We oughta wear accusations of textwalling with pride. And if the people who don´t dare to enter are the people who would write ´srs bizness!1!´, that´s natural selection at work in the best way possible.

Also, Ender seems to see the Senate as a singularly political venue, but I think it's more than that. It's more about the depth of the intended discussion than about any specific topic. I see topics about religion, history, science, and energy... and the only thing these topics have in common is the depth in which they're discussed.

Lastly, Senate threads don't really get buried under JCC threads. I see three Senate threads there now. That´s the number of active threads the Senate has had for years. No cause for alarm.