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

I'm not limiting the Senate to those fields, Watto. I'm using it as an example.

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.

Again, I find myself stating that the Senate should not dumb itself down. It's not a "smrt/dumb" thing; it's about relaxing enough that you aren't just going to find the 1 in 100 users with sufficiently tough epidermises to last.

If the scale goes from 1 - 10, 10 being current Senate standards now, you're acting like I'm talking about a 2 or 3 by comparison. I'm talking between 6 and 8, actually.

 

^ I support this.

To be honest, I hardly think my input in Senate-tagged threads have been 10-rated in the first place.

 

I want it to go to eleven.

 

Of course, this forum always goes to 11!

But seriously, the problem with articulating a numerical "senate-y" scale, is that you will always be lost trying to define what that scale is. What would you say the numeric value of the JCC is? A 5? Except if you define the JCC as a 5, then you have to accept variations of that unless the mods become iron-fisted dictators and the numeric value is specifically defined. What I'm saying is that if the JCC is a 5, then it encompasses posts all the way down to a 2, and maybe some posts up to an 7. Consequently, what do you think would be the immediate effect if the mods made the announcement that the Senate standard is now relaxed, and "level 6" posts are the standard? You'd get an influx of people sure...and traffic would increase, but you would also have to wade through endless amounts of people trying to test the standard, and you'd get a bunch of crap posts. What's the difference between a 6 and a 4? Between an 8 and a 6?

The other problem is that if the JCC standard is a 5, and the Senate standard become a 6, why even have different forums? Personally, I think that even if the Senate standard was reduced, any gain would be temporary, because those JCC regulars who weren't interested would try the new relaxed standard as a novelty, but then default back to the JCC anyway. The Senate has always allowed pun/ice-breaker/tension reducing posts among a larger serious discussion. If there is a line of in-depth posts, then a ice breaker post actually serves a purpose, and keeps the discussion alive. However, if the thread is nothing but less serious posts, then the discussion is lost.

However, my main point is that if you describe the perfect Senate standard as being a 10, then the users through voluntary compliance, and the mods, through official action, can still allow slight variations down to an 8 or so. No mod has ever enforced a rigid, non-moving scale. The closest we may have come was the long ago "zero tolerance policy," but that was a specific event for a specific time, and not at all what we are talking about now. Even the most recent examples here-Lowbacca warned a user not to post just a single, large image.....and then he admonished us for getting off topic with gun banter in the election thread, were examples of effective modding. We were off topic in that thread, and yet, we were still able to bust each others chops, before rightly moving back on topic. Again, in my mind, say the in-depth music discussion about "resonance and dissonant" sound in the music forum represents a 10 for that forum even though it doesn't appeal to a wide audience. But not every post there is a 10 even though that is the standard. What it does is set a benchmark.

(it's a rather difficult concept to define, so I think you originally used, and I'm trying to continue, the numeric value representing level of discourse.)

 

Let's put it this way: the JCC at its best should be the Senate standard. If the JCC normal/average is the same as the Senate average, there's no point in separating them. That means that the Senate's highest aspiration is more ambitious than the JCC's highest aspiration, or should be.

 

44 you seem to think there's no need for the Senate to change anything. I mean, when it's stripped down to it, your argument seems to hint at that...

 

And you are missing the point that was so aptly summed up by Violent Violet Menace:

That, to me, is the core of the nature of the Senate. If you start reducing that standard, you destroy the fundamentals that make the Senate what it is.

Even if (to continue the numerical analogy) you say that JCC covers from 2-7 with an average of around 5, the Senate is supposed to set the high end of that as its standard, giving it more of a 6-10 range. Your argument seems to be that we should lower that to be more like 5-10, or 4-10. I strongly disagree with that. Once you reduce the lowest standards of the Senate to match the average in the JCC, you will severely dilute the Senate until it becomes indistinguishable from the JCC.

The purpose of the Senate is to encourage people to reach for that higher level, not to drag that higher level down to a lower one. Not every post will be a 9, or 10, but the average post should at least be aiming for a 7-8. A large part of the Senate's culture is that we expect people to bring their JCC "A game" every day, rather than hoping to sift the occaasional 7 out of a sea of posts at the 4-5 level.

 

I've been away for a while as I felt I needed to take a step back and consider my arguments. And I've come to the conclusion that while I still hate the tabs and feel they should go, I can ultimately live with it if there's guarantees that the Senate will remain its own thing and in-depth discussion isn't squelched by random pic posting or arguments that are just 'lol Republicans/DemoRATS'. I still think this place has lost a little of its identity with the tabs, though. Specifically because it is so open to users who do not wish to discuss things and instead wish to annoy as well as it being swallowed up by areas that are much quicker and responsive than the Senate itself. But if the moderators who are so inflexible to change it back then so be it.

 

Who really makes those kinds of posts, though? You're making a whole lot of assumptions about people, and it's kind of obnoxious. Also, I think the mods were pretty flexible in agreeing with the majority who wanted forums merged. I think you're projecting a little bit, here... it appears that those who are upset by the changes are the ones who are inflexible.

I don't know... you can go on with posting in your threads, adapt a little and enjoy yourself, or you can continue to be upset that things aren't the way they were. The former would lead to a more enjoyable experience, though But if you like being pissed off and miserable, by all means, continue to resist change and make assumptions about the intellect of people you don't know--seems like a waste of time and energy, though.

 

I believe I just said I can deal with it. So I have no idea what your reply was to, except to see your own words.

 

That's not it at all. It's just that the reason for this change is undefined, or to quote another famous Senate saying- "It's a solution in search of a problem." Well, that's not entirely accurate. What it would probably do is bring in more people, true, but the "more people" part in and of itself is the aspect that is in search of a problem. Why is the number of participants suddenly the be all, end all? When the the fact that the JCC is the largest forum become the standard for others? There might be a person who only posts but once a year in the Senate if the topic comes up. There might be a person who only posts in the Senate, and ventures over to JCC but once a year. That's the strength of having multiple forums. I just don't see the point having 2 JCC's for the sake of change, when right now, we already have a JCC if one feels like that forum, and we have a Senate if one feels like that. Any single person can post in either forum, both, neither, whatever they want.

What you haven't answered is that the boards here contain probably half a dozen...ten.. twelve or so, highly specialized forums which all address specific interests. Again, I probably sound like a broken record, but go over to fanfic and ask them if they want to reduce the standard there just to get more people to participate in the forum. Or alternately, go over to that forum and tell them "there are people in the JCC who want to participate in this forum, but only if it becomes less technical, and more free-form like the JCC is".... If you could send blank stares over the internet, you'd get them is spades... The point isn't to have the most people possible participating, it's to provide a high level of discussion for those who want that. Music, fanfic, fanfilms, role playing, art, collecting, etc... All are "smaller" in participation that the JCC, but none are less rich because of it. It's a given for those forums, but for some reason, people seem to think the Senate is an exception, or that it's lacking because it is just as specialized.

Let me use another colorful illustration. I'm not a huge sports guy, but I'd probably say my favorite sport is baseball. But what if you answered back, "baseball is my favorite sport too...It's just that instead of a grass field, I like it in a ring with rope around it. And instead of standardized uniforms, I think the players should wear colorful costumes. And instead of hitting a ball with a bat, they should jump around and hit each other with chairs..." Except what you described isn't baseball at all, it's wrestling, and the least important factor that defines each is that we both call each one "baseball." Changing things like hitting a bat and ball transforms the the game of baseball at the fundamental level.

In a nutshell, the 2 platforms that I also agree with have already been outlined:

1) the Senate is effectively a sanctuary for people who want to actually discuss or engage with other people on a more thoughtful level.
2) the JCC at its best should be the Senate standard. If the JCC normal/average is the same as the Senate average, there's no point in separating them. That means that the Senate's highest aspiration is more ambitious than the JCC's highest aspiration, or should be.

You can't have either of those while at the same time reducing the basic level of discourse. Interestingly, this is where I agree with FID. If there is change that needs to happen, then I think the fact that the Senate is now a JCC "tab" is what accounts for a lot of the current issues you're describing. Like FID, I don't care very much either way, but instead of reducing the standard of the Senate, it would be an interesting experiment to break it away and put it in its own area. Maybe the JCC, census, and games need to be the only forums in the Community tab, while the Senate, Amph, and the Arena could be put in a new "academic" or similar area. The Senate was "merged," but there is no reason why it can't be "unmerged."

 

This argument has made for a strange mix. I never agree with 44 on anything. And this is the kind of discussion I didn't see on that temp. board.

 

Most people just aren't interested in traditional Senate type discussions. That's all there is to it. That has always been the case. The difference between the distant past and now is that there were more people in general, and even with most people not being interested in said discussion, there were still enough to make for a decently populated forum with a variety of ongoing discussions. That is no longer the case.

You are a master of obfuscating, 44, but it cannot obscure the reality I've stated.

 

The senate isn't a JCC tab--it's a community tab... just like JCC is a community tag. You are not in the JCC, you are in Community.

 

Except what you're focusing on in isolation was only a general term. JCC stand for "jedi Council Community" after all. It's kind of like calling every escalator by that term out of ease, instead of saying "Escalator brand moveable walkway.." It also why I said this in the very same post:

" Maybe the JCC, census, and games need to be the only forums in the Community tab, while the Senate, Amph, and the Arena could be put in a new "academic" or similar area. The Senate was "merged," but there is no reason why it can't be "unmerged."

 

I would very much agree with that. Though I haven't completely avoided the forum since its inception, it's one that seems difficult/a bit off putting to become immersed in.

 

I've been posting mostly in the election thread. Now that the election is over, I will most likely be posting more in other Senate threads. I thoroughly enjoy the level of discourse in this forum. Most of the posts are researched well and very informative for those of us who can't spend hours and hours every day on the internet.

So, if I am asked to vote on whether this forum should stay on the Community tab or be placed on a different tab, I'd have to vote for the different tab.

 

KW, just because the majority of people don't want to debate in a way where you have to have substance in what you say and back up your posts with citations doesn't mean we shouldn't be holding them up to that standard. Or do you prefer posts to resemble nancyallen in an atheism thread?

 

If traffic and/or a complete impossibility to mod the Senate and uphold its special ruleset warrant it, of course it will get unmerged and moved back to its special corner. In my expert opinion, though, it's too early to decide. I will say that the number of complaints, that's, formal complaints, we've been getting about "JCCing of the Senate" since the merge is less than five, and they've all been dealed with. I suspect the perception of the situation can be distorted by the personal opinions of two posters that have been posting in this thread and the Comms one, and I wouldn't want that.

Let's see where it goes. I'm sure no one thinks we'll continue a situation that ends up being insustainable just for the sake of it.

 

nancyallen was the worst. She's what springs to mind when I think of JCCification of the Senate.

 

Yes, I get it... you assume that people who frequent the jcc are incapable of engaging in in-depth discussion, and should, therefore, be kept separate from everybody else. You make a lot of assumptions and judgments about people you are very unfamiliar with.

Academic sports discussion... okay.

The truth is, this was thoroughly discussed by the community and moderators, and a decision was made. I'm sorry that you chose to not take part... I guess it's equivalent to somebody choosing not to vote and complaining about who gets elected, after the fact. For the most part, the collective community have adjusted and are running quite smoothly. It's unfortunate that you were late to the party and are unhappy about how it was organized, but really, you can choose to take part, or you can continue to make the same identical complaint, day after day. You are trying take part in a discussion that happened several months ago. My advice to you is to let it go and try to enjoy yourself. Why come online in your free time, only to complain and bicker?

 

Yes, this is what you and E_S have been saying, but why does that matter? Again, why in your mind is the sheer number of people the only controlling factor for a forum? Especially if the the determining factor to get more people is to reduce the standard of that forum? Sami J's post above this one is the perfect example of what I've been saying. Yes, there is an influx of people for the election. Even if a couple of those stay on while keeping the Senate's essence, the forum is ahead, as Sami J brings her own, unique skill set and finds value in the forum.

Now, also take Tunick's post, which also illustrates my point. Tunick, as an individual, isn't immersed in the Senate, although he has posted in it in the past. That's fine. But what if Tunick said:

Though I haven't completely avoided Fanfic since its inception, it's one that seems difficult/a bit off putting to become immersed in.

Though I haven't completely avoided costuming/props since its inception, it's one that seems difficult/a bit off putting to become immersed in.

Though I haven't completely avoided music/soundtrack since its inception, it's one that seems difficult/a bit off putting to become immersed in.

No offense to Tunick, but the solution to get Tunick to become immersed in a forum like fanfic, isn't to make it more like the JCC simply because he feels more of a sense of community there. The JCC is already there for Tunick, as are other forums, including the Senate.

 

Traffic seems paramount if your company is rather small and you need that traffic to boost it. But in this case it just strikes me as a popularity contest that the Senate was on the losing side of and with former regulars bashing what came before simply because what it once was is seen as less popular. So, I guess that makes sense if you want popularity or notoriety, but I don't think this was ever meant to be popular in that sense and was more for info and political junkies.

 

I was wondering why JCC'ers were posting in here.

Anyway, the biggest reason I don't like the "stricter" moderation of the Senate tag is that there usually aren't JCC alternatives, and two threads on the same topic usually have trouble surviving. For a long time (on the temp and permanent boards) the "Senate" election thread was the only one, so there'd be warnings to "be more srs guyz" periodically 'cause JCC'ers didn't have other places to go. The only reason two election threads can exist right now (barely) is that the election just happened. Also, the idea that the traditional Senate is necessarily "more intelligent" or "serious" because the posts are longer and the sticks are farther up the rectums is funny (as are faux-academic citations). I'd be fine with re-segregating the Senate if it comes to that; if the regulars want their own de-populated asylum, let them have it.