JCC [Senate?] Do you like serious discussion, but not having to go to another subforum for it?

Arlon

 

If his God allows it to be, then sure.

 

Two forums: 1. Star Wars. 2. Not Star Wars.

 

To throw in my 2 cents, I think New Senate is probably a good idea.

The only thing that matters in regards to "Senate" is that some serious discussion can be had, with folks on either side of whatever topic is being discussed accurately detailing their opinions and using evidence to back them up.

This change would just make that more accessible and open it up to more users, which should always be the priority of a forum.

 

What about the spoiler/non-spoiler divide, japes?

 

There are only six people or so who would end up posting in 1.

 

This. x10.

 

I'd post in both to up my posting count because I'm a posting whore for meaningful discussions.

 

I will actually give you a serious response this time, because I actually don't view this as a Wocky/Ender thing. Even if I did, at least the two of you combined makes a good egg sometimes, so that's not bad.

But this is actually a logistical issue (and a hubris issue for the people who wanted their own Man Cave and didn't want to share with the other guys and gals). When Arena/Amph/JCC were merged -- you don't have multiple threads. Period. All sports threads are marked "Arena" (and was not the case when on old boards and two forums). All movies, TV, etc. are marked "Amph" (and was not the case when on old forums). Et cetera.

Under the previous rules (two forums) like what we have now, we can have a light-hearted discussion, JCC-style, in the JCC on, say, Trayvon Martin. Or you could have a Senate-style discussion in the Senate. When the two forums were together there wasn't necessarily a hard and fast rule as to which thread was tagged which way, but I actually liked the Trayvon Martin thread (though not the thread subject obv) because I thought that's how a lot of that interaction should go in a JCC-marked thread with Senate regulars participating.

However, what you're asking for -- since we're in a two forum system like the old boards -- is to have duplicated threads (one in JCC, one in Senate) but have the JCC version arbitrarily decided between who posts the thread and tag it Senate/JCC, because you wouldn't have a third thread (one Senate-tagged in JCC, one JCC-tagged in JCC and one in the Senate) as that's never been done / allowed in the history of the boards.

That's why this is a clusterfluff. You either have to crap or get off the pot. Either Senate goes away, in total, or it doesn't. There is no half-assed compromise to be had here.

 

Then down with the senate.

 

dp, what would be the objection to that Trayvon thread being tagged Senate, but nothing else changing?

 

Most of that thread would never pass muster with Senate rules, even slightly relaxed ones. But the Senate "regulars" who were in there and contributing didn't have an issue with the deviation.

 

Spoiler

Spoilers posted like this

 

Yes, we know that. We aren't proposing Senate rules in the JCC. We are proposing a legacy "Senate" tag on threads that have serious discussions. But ideally they would run much like the Trayvon Martin thread did.

 

That sounds like having a tag for having a tag. If that went fine under JCC tag and you don't want to be in the Senate... don't be in the Senate and post in threads here?

What's the goal you're looking for?

 

I'm fairly certain the goal at this point is to remove Kim Jong SuperWatto from power in his insular/isolated forum.

 

How is that different from the Amph or Arena tags?

The merged Community forum saw a greater number and quality of serious discussions through the synergy of Senate and JCC regulars interacting. This is exactly the quality you highlighted that works so well in the Trayvon Martin thread. Long posts were counter-balanced with briefer insights. The informality coaxes serious contributions out of people that rarely speak up, and the rare, fresh perspectives pushed Senate posters used to arguing endlessly with the same three people to make new considerations. That's the sort of vitality worth recapturing.

We lost it in splitting the forums, and both have been poorer since.

 

jp's ideas are simple, elegant, and sublime.

Mods, make them so!

 

love is patient; love is kind

 

So, the problem then is that the word Senate has a fixed meaning in people's minds; a negative meaning at that too.

I posted in Comms a list of what I'd see to be bare bones requirements for a Senate tag in the JC: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/senate-proposed-rules-revision.50013899/#post-51181035

Thoughts?

 

To be honest, I really don't care about this kind of stuff anymore. Better things to spend time/energy on. Que sera sera.

 

Dude. Was talking to dp, not jp! Wrong p-series former mod droid. Sheesh.

 

I get mixed up. Am I the jew?

 

Yep. dp is the Kiwi drunk.

 

"I'm trying like hell to care."


Although I agree with/am on the Ender/Wocky/harps/Bacon side of this debate, I just don't see the absolute necessity of all this happening right now, and the absolute need for there to be a New Senate legacy tag. If it happens? Great, fine, a win for the Community. If it doesn't? Life goes on here without missing that much of a beat.. from my point of view, anyway.