The current membership of the AC

I can tell you that I took a lot of your(the whole AC's) thoughts on the JCC stuff to heart. It helped to mold my opinion of what needs to be done.

I feel that as long as the members aren't trying to form a "coup" on the boards, there isn't any problem with a group of members of a spin-off board being members of the AC.

Also, I don't know who said that the AC was more for one-on-one conversations/discussions with the administration, but I'd say that they are wrong. There were a few instances where AC members brought problems to the attention to the admins, from other members, through the AC.

If the AC members aren't willing to speak for the community, as much as possible, then it defeats the purpose of the group.

I don't know if the format should be restructured, or not. That'll have to be discussed.

 

If I recall way back before the third AC there was a whole AC reform movement, however several of what I feel were the better ideas were subsequently ignored.

 

hay, this thread rates big "tl,dr".

As for some AC members and mods belonging to a spinoff ezboard, this doesn't concern me at all. Whether they be Dark Lords, SobeSiders, or DB'ers.

 

These are some more of my thoughts. Take them for what they are.

So far I've brought up the topics about alcohol and drug discussion on the JC, and clarification on the bootleg policy. I've given my insight on ex-mod contributions, JCC reform, and people with ban histories being treated differently. I bring an outspoken, experienced, and common sense approach to the AC and I'm not afraid to admit when I don't know something. I also bring an ability to relate to normal users that don't give a rat's ass about JC politics and I can relate to people that want to see this place made better. A lot of people are afraid to speak up because they don't want to be labeled as a "drama whore" or accused of "taking this site too seriously." That's complete BS in my opinion. There are some who will argue that I've been unnecessarily harsh towards some people who bring up issues that concern them. The only thing I can say to that is when common sense and thick skin are absent, I get a little irritated.

This ability to actually relate to users is something the ENTIRE administration could use more of. I think the JC should be headed more towards a user friendly enviroment where the ENTIRE adminstration gets down in the trenches with the regular users. The separation doesn't stop with the colors. It seems attitudes change and they shouldn't. This doesn't apply to all Mods but the ENTIRE administration should be on the same page. I think some of the rules on the JC are slowly choking the life out of this place.

 

I feel that as long as the members aren't trying to form a "coup" on the boards, there isn't any problem with a group of members of a spin-off board being members of the AC.

I agree with this, but it isn't the issue.
You'd be hard pressed to find a caring, contributing member of the JC who isn't also a member of a spin-off board, and the caring, contributing ones are the ones the AC needs. But...
It becomes questionable when almost all (or all) of the AC is from the same spin-off board.

 

Also, I don't know who said that the AC was more for one-on-one conversations/discussions with the administration, but I'd say that they are wrong. There were a few instances where AC members brought problems to the attention to the admins, from other members, through the AC.


Erik, those quotes were made in an AIM chat by a permanent member of the AC, earlier this week.

If the AC members aren't willing to speak for the community, as much as possible, then it defeats the purpose of the group.

that was one of the concerns that prompted this thread in the first place...

 

Well a few rabble-rousers will have a problem with a the DB because of a certain member or members.

Just like you would do when it comes to black people, don't judge a whole group of people on the actions of a select few.



MrMarcus up in the hizzzouse, tonight

 

Maybe it would be a good idea if we could just start at the beginning here with a simple question:

Why is the AC necessary?

Seriously, what's the point? If it's a group of members that really care about the JC, want to do what they can to make this place better, want to help the "regular members", act as go-betweens, etc... then that's GREAT. But why on Earth do they need a private forum to do this? It seems to me that it would be much more productive if these discussions were taking place in public where every member who has an interest or who cares to contribute could let their voice be heard. Why do we need a "select group" of people who care about this place? Don't we all? Why can't we all be AC members?

 

Ironically enough, someone in the CT forum PM'd me and asked about the AC. This was my response. Keep in mind, these are MY words in the PM.

As an AC member, it's perceived that I'm supposed to bring issues to the Mods that regular users are either afraid to bring to the Mods or because they wish to remain anonymous. I'm not sure how much sway we actually have as the AC.

 

"Why can't we all be AC members? "

I'm an AC member, and so's my wife!

 

Well, that's fine Salty, although I don't know how often that actually takes place, if ever. But I still don't see why a private forum would be necessary or desired.

 

That is true.

Another consideration is the mdos might wnat to use the AC as a sounding board.

Of course I would ask the AC members how well they thought the mods were using them.

 

We've been used as a sounding board a few times since we started, but it's generally the same mods that participate. As far as the private forum goes, it wouldn't matter to me if we didn't have it.


You know...I seem to be the only current AC member in this thread.

 

Salty, it's a bit late for many people right now. I know you're on EST, but I'd say the majority of AC members are asleep or otherwise not on the JC at the moment. Tomorrow will bring more input.

I'm not sure how much sway we actually have as the AC.

As a group, I'd say you have some strong sway. I fought hard to keep the AC when its existence was in doubt before AC3. I believed it should be kept because it allows for a great deal of productive discussion with a minimum of drama and counterproductive posts. It does act as a sounding board for moderators, and there were many times in the term of AC3 that the Mod Squad was able to get clear discussion on important issues. It was well organized and maintained.

Communications is here, of course, and that's good. It allows for discussion for everyone, for better or worse. I like to think the AC is just the better side of things, without much of the negative. That's not to say that there isn't dissenting opinion or negative thoughts. That has existed and no doubt will continue to. However, it has almost always been in constructive form, and good conclusions can be reached. If the AC members are in touch with what's going on in the JC and its various forums, the Mod Squad can get a high amount of information with a low amount of the static that gets in the way.

I believe Communications and the Advisory Council can and do co-exist without a problem. If a member has an issue they wish to be brought up, they can do it through the Advisory Council. There, it is assured of being discussed in an environment that's certain to be constructive and thoughtful. In Communications, anyone can give their opinion, but issues can become lost amongst the general chatter and other problems that have been known to happen in Communications.

Both are beneficial and have served the JC well.

 

"As far as the private forum goes, it wouldn't matter to me if we didn't have it."
You'd have one regardless, Salty... It's called Dantooine Base...

 

I will admit to not knowing as much as other board members might about the specific inneundo sounding throughout this thread.

I realise that EP has possibly felt concerned that the DB numbers in the AC - despite what the reality may be - would leave both her organisation and the members of the AC open to attacks on their bias, agenda, abilities etc.

But in truth, such comments would (or should) be quickly sounded out as the rabble rousing and fallacy's that they would assumedly be.

If evidence was needed to prove the benevolence and fairness of our AC members, the fact that their concerns married with EmpressPalpatine's have seen them ASK the JC community if they are indeed in need of some type of reform.

I for one, would suggest that no; a reform is not required.

The AC is still a (relatively) underutilised concept and tool in the hands of both the JC plebs and the Administration: its members are all quick witted and canny members of our boards: and any other allegiance is only evidence that like-minds tend to congregate together.

Beyond that, the issue it would seem is nothing more then vague doubt.

I would ask everyone two questions:

a)Are there any SPECIFIC instances of concern with regard to the conduct or abilities of the current AC?

and furthermore:

b)Are there any SPECIFIC instances of the impracticality or detrimental effects upon the JC that are manifestations of the AC's presence and/or actions?

If the answers to both are no, then I see no problem.

 

You'd have one regardless, Salty... It's called Dantooine Base...

True



KW, I'm actually not a real person. I'm completely CGI with pretty decent AI. That would explain why it seems I never sleep.




EDIT: If the AC members are in touch with what's going on in the JC and its various forums, the Mod Squad can get a high amount of information with a low amount of the static that gets in the way.

That was one of the points I raised in one of my posts in this thread. Why should the MS depend on the AC for a gauge of how a forum is doing? They should be in the trenches with us. Sometimes I think the only difference between the AC and MS is colors and banning ability. We essentially do the same thing on the JC.

 

Are there any SPECIFIC instances of the impracticality or detrimental effects upon the JC that are manifestations of the AC's presence and/or actions?

Why would SPECIFIC examples be needed? If the JC membership feels alienated, albeit in a very GENERAL way, by the presence of an apparently elitist body that is supposedly needed as a "go-between" to effectively approach the administration then isn't that also a problem?

Anyway, I wish I could stay up for more of this discussion, as I think discussion is always healthy, but I can't... see I'm delirious.

I would like to say that I'm glad that KnightWriter stepped to the plate to defend the AC, as most of them are my friends I was hoping that someone would defend them.



But if you'll indulge me KnightWriter, I wouldn't mind a few specific examples of how and when the AC has "served the JC well" as you put it. I read almost all of the updates and it seems that discussion is pretty much the extent of what they do. What concrete policies or actions have come out of those discussions? Since it is a private forum, it's hard to know for certain.

 

The appearance of impropriety is often enough.

A group of friends, which is after all the basis for being invited to the DB, should not be the sole sounding board for the Administration.

Do you know how many non DBers are part of the current AC?

3(correct me if I'm mistaken)

If we don't want to ascribe sinister motives, then the quite obvious answer is they nominated and voted for people they knew.

However, since it is quite obvious the DB does not have a monopoly on people who care about the JC, why does it have almost a monopoly on those given the position to more directly affect the JC?

What's wrong with having over 70% of the AC come from one spin off board?

What's right about it?

 

I wish I could stay up for more of this as well, but I hope I know better. There's always tomorrow (later today).

The first example that comes to mind is something that didn't happen as a result of the AC. Originally, the JC Reform was stronger, and with a bit stricter rules than what the final product was. It was discussed in the Mod Squad, and then brought to the AC(2) for approval. The remaining active AC members at that point more or less shot it down with arguments that foreshadowed some of your own. I know you disagree with the JCC Reform in general, but I'd like to think the AC made a significant impact with the Reform in general by turning down the initial Reform and causing it to be reworked and approved.

That was just the first thing that came to mind. If anyone here follows the Fan Fiction forum, you know that there was a clarification on what's allowed and what's not. That came about as a result of a member's inquiry through an AC member. It created discussion, and ultimately, a much larger discussion in the FF forum (and its resulting conclusions).

I'll go through the past month or two of the AC tomorrow and look for other examples.

Why should the MS depend on the AC for a gauge of how a forum is doing? They should be in the trenches with us. Sometimes I think the only difference between the AC and MS is colors and banning ability. We essentially do the same thing on the JC.


As I've said before, I don't quite see why things need to be mutually exclusive. I see it as possible to have both a group of in-touch, thoughtful members who communicate directly with the administration and an administration that has people who are in touch themselves with their respective forums (and if possible, the JC).

 

I've never been a fan of the make up of the AC, primarily because it doesn't represent the forums.

The people that are supposed to be representative of the 3SA and NSA forums have posted a total of 6 posts between 4 members for the entire month of January. Compare that to a post count of about 1200 for Community.

 

a)Are there any SPECIFIC instances of concern with regard to the conduct or abilities of the current AC?

None, except that they have accomplished little more than any other AC, most likely due more to the way that the AC "works", rather than anything else.

b)Are there any SPECIFIC instances of the impracticality or detrimental effects upon the JC that are manifestations of the AC's presence and/or actions?

The impracticality is that nothing has ever come of the AC. As for detriment, it can be called a detriment when a group is elected to represent the JC as a whole to the mods, and instead regards it as "an opportunity to give the Administration my own personal advice on the way things should be done."


"The AC is not meant to be a sounding board for the masses. The masses have Comms."

If the AC was not meant to be a sounding board for the masses, they wouldn't have been picked from the masses.

 

The AC was never meant to make policy, to release policy etc. People here seem to want tangible evidence of their accomplishments.

The AC works more in the intangibles. The discussion etc.

People have to realise that.

That isnt a commentary on how good they are, or how well they can speak for the common man. Just that they cant be judged on the tangibles.

 

Forgive me farraday, but your circular logic confuses me.

You use the dichotomy of "What is wrong" and "what is right" as if the two rhetorical questions can juxtapose their way to a conclusion of AC impracticality or general detriment.

In fact, if one answers "what is wrong?" with "what is right?" I tend to feel rather perplexed.
There need not be any tangiable evidence - as Dags puts it - of any success in the "right" column of the AC for it to be seen as a worthy asset for our forums.

As long as nothing is "wrong" with their conduct, actions and contributions, they are overall contributing positively...just perhaps not overtly.

Which reinforces what I said earlier. I feel comfortable with a group who don't feel the need to blow their own trumpet or declare lists of discussions and policy suggestions to the MS. It's irrelevant to the normal functioning of the AC as a body.

 

Well, well, well.

I have always been expecting a thread of thus type, but to see it come from such an unusual quarter?

First things, first, a couple of small points I would like to pick up on. Membership of the Advisory Council has always relied on the potential member having a certain interest in "JC-politick" and so you usually find that they tend to be posters with a high posting JCC/Comms profile, and are members of quite a few offshoots. Add to this the fact that you can be well informed on a forum as a lurker, and it means you do not need to necessarily be getting 20 posts a day in NSA to be aware of there concerns.

If I remember the discussion correctly, it was felt that we need not do any form of "positive discrimination" in terms of members posting forums, but we did have access to there last 50 post locations, (Thanks, YodaJeff!), and that helped give an overview of the situation. I did vote for more "Star Wars Spoiler" people BTW, but that was a personal choice.

Myself, as someone who was invited to the Base, and post there semiregulary, and as an ex-member of the AC, I can tell you that there was:

1. Never any form of planned Masonic takeover. (ala "Red under the Bed" syndrome.

2. That of the members selected, I was personally unaware which members, (if any), belonged to which offshoot board.

I notice that some people are merely anti the idea of another e-committee, and that some think that the AC isn't "doing a good job". What you would find is that people are very different behind the scenes in private discussion, then they are in "public", and this helps move discussion along, and also gives you a level of insight, that was lacking before. However, as with a lot of "soft-skill" issues, it is very difficult to measure or set targets and metrics to show the success of the work.

I, as a former member of the AC, would like to say that I was rather proud, (if that doesn't sound too lame!), of what we accomplished in AC3, and that, if you have a problem with the make up of AC4, then PM some of the members and make YOUR suggestions for the next Advisory Council. I chose, when I voted, for the members that I had taken notice of across the forums I visit and the people I thought would be useful, and helpful and having a point of view that would assist discussion. If someone had said, "OMG! Member X has being doing great stuff in the RPG forum!" I would have taken a look and seen if they looked like a prospective member.

Also, if you have an issue, take it to a AC member, they will raise it for you in the Advisory Council.

I seem to be suffering from a raging sense of "I've heard this all before". Perhaps if we subsitute in PreacherBoy and Refugees into it all, it would all seem rather more familiar!

I'll probably add more when my boss isn't looking....

UKS