Senate Official Forum Rules and Policy Feedback Thread

You guys are getting ridiculous around here, and members are noticing it.

I made it clear in my post in the 'Bush isolated thread' that both Parties were behaving badly.

Singled out yet again, I see.

avoid all posts or points like DM

What a bunch of nonsense, and obviously intended as a personal swipe at me to dismiss valid posts with a broad swipe en masse using moderator colors.

I guess you forgot about the 'dig' I gave the Republicans, too, in that very post that was edited. I said the Republicans were running from their own decisions, and the Democrats were being hypocrites because they are saying one thing and did another.

Tim Russert on Meet the Press addressed the very same concerns with the DNC Chair Howard Dean this past weekend and with Ken Mehlman, the GOP chair. I merely echoed that sentiment.

In the following posts, I also addressed both Parties.

How about moderating fairly, which is the reason I left in the first place?

 

Forum policies are always subject to review, providing that people are willing to make their ideas known. I was never completely comfortable with the idea of direct public warnings. Singling someone out and warning in the thread "don't be like so and so" was never my cup of tea. I personally think it goes too far in stiffling discussion, and generates the reaction I thought it would. But a lot of people in the last focus group wanted it because some thought it would decrease the perception of bias, so we agreed to try it.

If it's not working, we need to know that as well.

This is why it's important for everyone to actually discuss the matter instead of simply complaining in the thread. It's not enough to say "people are noticing," but at the same time not reveal who these people are, how many there are, or what views they hold. These people need to step up and voice their concerns to the foum administration.

In this case, I personally didn't see anything wrong with the deleted phrase. It looked like it was exploring both sides of the issue. But without user input, we don't know what the concerns are.

 

I'm sorry, you think that between a full time job, preparing exams, private tution gigs, having a life, learning a second language that's so difficult you have no idea how much time it takes, you're claiming I have a personal vendetta agaist you?



DM, I normally would reserve this for private but it seems you want (or need) this addressed in public.

I don't care enough about being petty to pursue a private vendetta against you even if I had the time to, and the sheer volume of supportive PM's I recieve tells me "users have noticed" extends to you and possibly one or two others.

The reason you were singled out is precisely the same reason any other user would have been singled out; you did something that illustrated a point and we need to make it clear that was unacceptable. Your GOP comments did not provoke a defensive response; your Democrat comments did. We said, explicitly and unambiguously, in the Focus Group report that posts or points which exist solely to snipe at parties and would provoke a defensive, emotive response were counter-productive and discouraged.

I made a comment about neoconservatism which Mr44 believed violated this, so I edited it.

If you look around, you'll see you're not singled out; rather that you simply wish to believe you are.

If you felt like being honest, you might admit you've gotten off lighter than some.

DM, you left and then came back, wanting to make things better. This drama serves nobody. If you wish to avoid it, and make the Senate better, then stop assuming there's one set of rules for you, and one for others. The Senate Floor Rules and Regulations, and the Report from the Third Senate Floor Focus Group contain all the official Senate guidelines you could possibly want. Simply, if you do something against them, we will act accordingly. You have done things against them, we have acted accordingly.

I have applied an even standard throughout, and you can ask people like DARTH_SHREDDER, FIDo or OWM if I've not held them to the same standard I hold you to.

E_S

 

This is true, and it was mostly myself and the regular FG users who wanted this most, and I think it's fair - as did they.

E_S

 

So, the forum rule now is that if a statement about political parties, and it warrants a response from another member, then that statement is subject to edit?

How absurd.

I made a relevant statement on the issue at hand and an issue that was a direct echo on every news analysis program in this country.

If members cannot discuss the various positives and negatives of current political party actions within politics because someone might get offended, then what is the point of this forum? It has kowtowed to Political Correctness, an absurdity plainly ludicrous in a Forum involving open and honest discussions of all things political.

There is a huge difference between members saying: "Democrats are dumb, dope smoking hippies."/"Republicans are extremist warmongering freaks, who love to drop bombs at the slightest provocation."

...and someone saying:

"The Democratic Party is acting in a hypocritical fashion in their current criticism of the Iraq War."/"The Republican Party is abandoning the President and running for cover, even though their sentiment was not such in the past."

If an individual can't discern that simple and plain difference and wish to over moderate and stifle discussion in the forum, then what can I say?

If done in a tactful fashion, you can't expect Democrats in this forum not to criticize Republican Party policy, statement, and direction, and you can't expect Republicans to criticize the same concerning the Democrats. You also can't expect Independents to do the same for either party. You also can't expect non-Americans not to weigh in on their opinions of the political parties or ideologies involved, and you can't expect Americans not to criticize International opinion they disagree with.

All of these things come from the personal views of the members involved, and they can be expessed in a tactful fashion as I did concerning the matter at hand.

That means fair criticism, not throwing around personal insults towards individuals.

You plainly state that your goal is not to "drive anyone from the Senate Floor" (quoted from the 'Focus Group' thread), but you guys have done exceedingly well in doing just that and having some of the senior membership post here only very little.

More things have to change around here than simply having a Focus Group committee which hasn't solved the problems after 3 attempts at it, in fact, matters are worse now than they have ever been in this Forum.

I know you guys know the mood in here isn't what it once was, and I've seen Mr44 comment on it recently.

By the way E_S, I'm now an Independent, so the statement 'my party is better than yours' does not apply to me.

 

Really, the mood's at an all time low?

The last focus group had fresh blood and the ideas taken from that have not only lead to an increased number of new threads, but an increase in post count and a decrease in banning. That is, I can safely and honestly say, I've lead a group of people to produce quantifiable benefits for the Senate Floor.

I suspect part of the problem DM is that the Senate has changed, and you haven't. The mood seems to be quite positive, but you went away and are by and large out of touch with the Senate community, only just returning to it. Alot happened in your absense.

In terms of driving users away; I see a decent-sized bunch of '05ers regularly contributing, most of the same faces and a large number of old timers, sans 3-4 who have moved on.

In terms of partisan posts; if the partisan comment provokes an emotional response, chances are it wasn't going to contribute to the forum and was just sniping. It's the difference between saying, "this party has done this, which as resulted in this and this is my opinion" and "this typically evil/stupid/whatever party has done this typically lame act, how suxx0r"; supported by Section C of the SF Rules & Regs.

( I feel it's worth noting, in the interests of fairness, that only two people seem to have a problem with the new policies - you're one of them. And when they apply to you, it's bias.)

What we want, DM, is to have intelligent debate, not hysterical pissing contests. If a remark sparks a latter, not a former, I'll preempt the negative(s) and deal with it. That's how I mod. Given that as I said bannings are down and in some cases, users have improved their posting style, I think it works.

You mentioned "tactful style." In my judgement - which I was promoted for - your comment was not tactful. It also wasn't bannable, so at worst it was removed in the greater interests of the forum. It's not like you were given a week's vacation for it, so at best it was a minor action that you should have known better for.

Already, Senate Mod admin actions of this nature are declining, because most users (save two or three, of which I'm sorry to remind you you are one) have figured out what constitutes a good post/thread and what doesn't.

If you feel my constant application of a the standards agreed upon before your return is simply a giant ruse to get at you, I would encourage you to report your concerns to Sape or Raven, or Kimball if you feel you can trust him.

However, one thing will not change.

You accused the mods of bias and cronyism (amusing in that you charged 42 mods with "corruption" of sorts, since that's how promotions work here) for favouring users, yet in cases you've all but expected that yourself.

Here's how we have peace and harmony:

There's one set of rules. Not one for DM, and one for others; just the one set. You follow those rules and guidelines and policy, and we march down the yellow brick road of consensus. If you don't, you force the Senate Floor leadership to act.

You make intelligent and worthwhile contributions within the framework of the Senate Floor's accepted rules, and we have no issues. You try to go outside the rules, we have issues.

I frankly don't like issues.

It's your call DM. I'm totally confident that my judgement in this matter is demonstrably sound, and that I can honestly say I've made some successful changes to the forum for the better.

The question you should ask yourself, is to you want to be a forum leader, a follower or do you want to get out of the way?

E_S

 

First, I wish to make it absolutely clear (as it really is in reality) that I have never demanded any 'special rules' and definitely was never treated with any kind of special treatment. In fact, the opposite is often true, even now, for which I have been told off site by other forum members. So, I fail to see your point here.

My comment was indeed tactful, appropriate, and non-personal. It was almost verbatim from questions asked from the Tim Russert on NBC's Meet the Press, but posed as questions for the respective Party chairmen Howard Dean and Ken Mehlman. It was balanced, and it did indeed provide the opinion afterwards.

Your characterization of a 'hysterical pissing contest' is out of order in the thread involved, as no such incident occured. I characterized the political situation appropriately, without personalization or insult leveled, and no 'flame war' resulted. 'Greater interests of the forum'? That's underhanded rationale, at best.

Again, I fail to see where you're gathering your rationale, as no infringement of forum rules occured.

You continue insult me personally in your post here, as if I'm not a responsible member of this forum. I have not responded in kind.

I am also much more in touch than you realize, E_S.

So, are we to have reasonable judgement applied on the appropriate nature of subject matter here, or is the spotlight view on my contribution going to remain?

 

My question: Why do we really need to edit out language? Even if the thread was going off topic, why not just post in the thread "let's get back on topic?"

Ender, you got promoted because of your brownnosing, because quite frankly, everyone on this board questioned your judgment. You used to me one of my favorite posters because of the biting sarcasm and wit. You would borderline flame, ridicule, and antangonize for the fun of it, and I loved it. Not that I have a problem with it now, but it's hardly the "judgment" you'd want in a mod. Now you've gone "respectable." You are an "activist" mod. Which is fine, you want to promote better discussion. That's commendable. You do what you think is right.

I just personally think that you can be a little lax with the rules. People complain when things get nasty, when people get snippy and INSULT each other. These other rules are good guidelines, but I figure you should be a little laxer with them, that's just me.

You are even handed, and I don't believe you treat people differently, bravo. So in that respect, I'd like to report Senate Mod Kimball Kinneson, who continues to insult his opponents when he gets frustrated:

These are the kinds of comments that are harmful and should be edited out. It's in the Nature of the Constitution thread. Why should such subtle PERSONAL digs be tolerated, when DM's offtopic partisan remarks are not?

No freaking way. Not a chance pal. This is my favorite game and the only fun thing we're allowed to do in the Senate anymore. You will never stop me from posting in soon to be locked threads. Never. If that's your attitude you're going to have to ban me right now, and for life, cause I'll never stop. Ever.

 

Ender, you got promoted because of your brownnosing, because quite frankly, everyone on this board questioned your judgment.


By 'everyone on this board' do you mean you and DM? Because...well, that hardly constitutes as 'everyone'. I supported his promotion. Not because he's my friend, but because I know he can be even-handed and brutally honest with people. Mods--the ones I've dealt with--have liked to BS users and such. At least he's giving you a response. Even if it's not to your liking.

 

OWM, to get promoted you need to have a majority of votes from the ModSquad. Perhaps you might be suggesting I was put forward as a candidate from brown-nosing rather than suggesting I did the mother of all suck up jobs on at least 22 moderators/managers/administrators?

"In before the lock!" posts are a ModSquad ruling mate, so we have to deal accordingly.

And actually, with respect to rulings; with things like advocating thread-author responsibility and whatnot, we've managed to stave off any hardcore flame wars, and the place has benefitted from it. Well, when I say benefitted, I mean for the 3 people who actually say they enjoy the place, not the thousands ostensibly oppressed by our rampant brutality.

//goosesteps for fun

DM; insult you personally? When? How? I've done nothing of the bloody sort.

I promise you, there's no vast Mod-Wing Conspiracy against you.

Which users have noticed how ridiculously we're singling you out (and not editing anyone else for the same infractions elsewhere)?

This has got to stop. Nobody cares enough to persecute you. If you have a problem, go and talk to Sape or Raven, and let them know there's a fascist in the Senate, out of control...

E_S

 

I'm counted among the brutally oppressed. E_S is always beating me up via IM. I'm sure if I were to meet him in person I'd lose a limb in his Aussie Hulk-like rage.

 

FIDo, say "Dr Banner, I slashed your tyres"!!!

E_S

 

Dr. Banner, I slashed your tyres.

 

Come on FID, read the thread when Ender got promoted, plenty of people questioned it, even if they didn't have a problem. Like me. I have no problem with Ender being a mod, I never had a problem with it, and I think he's a good Mod. (Even when he deletes the clever articles I post without leaving a response after.) It was an 'inspired' choice, because they 'broke out of the judicial mold' shall we say. They picked a funny guy who injected humor and biting sarcasm in his posts. And yes, I was suggesting that your brown-nosing got you nominated. Like it didn't!

And for the record, I have no problem with Ender, I like the fact that he had an exhuberant personality, if anything, I'm more sad that he has to tone it down to be more "mod like." But this is all half hearted and in jest. Just kidding around brother Ender! (Not like the thick skinned punk was worried! )

But one thing I'm not kidding around about is posting in soon to be locked threads. Let's just hope for my sake that I don't find any.

 

Come on FID, read the thread when Ender got promoted, plenty of people questioned it, even if they didn't have a problem.


You said everyone. That's not everyone, and there was only 4 or 5 members that disagreed. Or is there a secret club now?

 

The Hyperbole Police have got me beat.

 

I'm still biting, I just have to be responsible in the Senate.

And when you take liberties with the English Language, OWM, the Grammar Police - be it the Verb Tense Squad, the Hyperbole Police with their dogsniffers or the Joint V/S/O (Verb/Subject/Object) Agreement Task Force - will hunt you down.

E_S

 

Yes, but what about the anti-flame police and the deletion of the needlessly antagonistic post made my Kimball Kinneson in the Interpretation of the COnstitution thread?!?! [face_alien_1]

 

I would like to address a few issues here.

1) While I disagree with DM?s characterization of the Democrats, both in the cited instance and most of the time otherwise, I do not feel that what he wrote was anything close to inflammatory or inappropriate. IMO while it may have appeared to be a biting criticism, I would rather have an honest assessment that may contain harsh criticisms that are free of overly partisan rhetoric than a muted, pc response. The key of course, is rhetoric and hyperbole. Again, while I may disagree with some of DM?s statements, I find his e-personality to be a very welcome presence here. One of the main reasons for this is?

2) While I certainly appreciate the goal of encouraging intelligent debate, this shouldn?t be done at the expense of a free-flowing discussion complete with (appropriate) wisecracks, as well as the aforementioned honest-yet-direct criticism. There are certainly a lot of highly intelligent people here, and I have learned quite a bit since I started posting here?but this is a Star Wars political board, not the Yale debating club. Nor is it a tea party , hence the reason why DM?s style of posting should be allowed, as well as remarks like ShaneP made about my new homestate of California?because bottom line is those guys, among others (i.e. J-Rod), can dish it as well as take it.

3) While I believe that the moderators overall do a very good job, I do have one other point. It appears that you targeted DM and also OWM recently because they have been around a while and ?should know better? so to speak. In other words, that they should ?set an example?. If this is indeed the case, here is where I would have a minor issue with KK, for the reason OWM brought up, and Mr44 for the reasons we discussed in a recent thread, which I will use as an example.

My issue in the ?GOP thread? was that you, Mr44, were guilty of what you accuse OWM of doing?straying off topic. I believe that someone made comments on Goldwater, you flipped them around on JFK, then failed to address the topic of the thread when I asked you about it. To be fair, I am guilty of doing what I am surmising that you guys do with old-timers like OWM, which is holding you to a different standard. I am only doing so because you are certainly one of the brightest posters in here and I wouldn?t waste my time otherwise.*

The general point being that IMO it is more important to have an open, honest discussion that focuses on the topic of the thread rather than focusing on creating a unified and stringent ?code of conduct?. There certainly should be rules against flaming, trolling, baiting, etcetera?but otherwise the discussion should evolve in a natural direction. If it evolves into a boxing match (free of low-blows and ear-biting of course), so be it. We are mature enough to shake hands afterwards.

*And I still believe that Bobby Inman was never officially Secretary of Defense.

 

DS, DM's edit wasn't about disagreeing with the sentiment, it was about what frankly that point was producing in other people.

Basically, what we need to do is get tough now so that in the long term, the bad habits are broken, and we have a smoother running forum.

Yes, I expect the two of them to know better, and that they don't says to me they expect some measure of special treatment, or simply don't care.

As I said, with the exception of one or two posters who simply will not work within the rules, we've been doing very well.

Look, as I said before I'm not even aiming to be perfect, neither is KK. Mr44 is, but you know his ruthless ambition knows no bounds.

The best we can give you is honesty. I looked at KK's alleged offense that OWM referred to, and I agreed it was probably a bit much - so did he.

So I acted.

Is there anyone else who wants to doubt us, just so we can get it over and done with?

ES

 

Hey, why did I get lumped in with DM? (No offense DM!) And since when am I not "working" with you? I try to comply with your rules! I do try!

And yes, glad to see you edit out KK's flames from his post. Consistency is all I ask. Except when I break the rules, then I expect exceptions to be made. Like when I find the redundant or incomplete thread and post in it before you can shut it down!

 

Cheerfully removed, OWM.

I've never been anything but consistent as a Moderator, despite as you noted earlier an intense amount of opposition to my judgement before seeing it exercised.



E_S

 

-I would just like to say that such posts are needlessly antagonistic, and would constitute some sort of baiting or flaming.

I ask my fellow posters to refrain from such personal outbursts, lets end the politics of personal destruction!

 

It has been dealt with, and I realise this is the precursor to some drama.

Just to reiterate offical JCC board policy; we ban baiters.

And before you claim bias when you come back, OWM, remember I warned you many times. I did everything I could to save you from yourself, and I'm sorry it came to this.

E_S

 

Why was OWM banned? Assuming he was by such words as "when you come back, OWM".