The current membership of the AC

That's alright. We're only a couple of weeks into the new AC's term. However, I expect you to be able to differentiate between all the refuges, bases and council's by term's end.

 

I freely admit it, I do not post in Lit much. I visit it every couple of days. I do try and check it out, a couple of times I've even gotten as far as the post reply screen. But, like I always do, I think about my post and see if it would be beneficial to the conversation. Sometimes I post, sometimes not.

Once I again, I'll try and go in more. I got turned off of Lit for some reason, I don't know why.

Film Forums. I don't go there. I won't go there. It will be a watse of my time to spend 40 minutes to make one post in a thread. I'm not a Film Forum Person.

I think that me and Salty especially represent some of the more usual forums. He's got a great in with FanForce. I've been the first AC-er I can remeber who hung out in Fan Films, and Sites. I'm in Games. Etc.

As for this Dantooine Base Thing, it obviously can't be too big an issue since this is the first time I've heard of it, ever. I never even knew there was an Official Drama Club, always thought it was kinda slang for AIM chats and soforth.

Thanks for all the kind and semi-kind words also.

If you think I'm slacking in some apsect, ot not knowledgeable (I love learning) pm me! You can IM me too, but I can't always guarentee I'll ahve time to talk.

¤Night

 

As a member with absolutely no e-power anywhere, but a MASSIVE ego, I also announce that I am leaving the Base, in support of my old colleagues on AC3.

I will have to find another offshoot message board to which I can switch, and prepare my plans for taking over the world, via a Star Wars message Board!



UKS

 

Once I again, I'll try and go in more. I got turned off of Lit for some reason, I don't know why.

I think the point should more be you shouldn't HAVE to try and go into Lit more. You're a fantastic member to represent the Games (and likely other) areas on the AC. Why should you be shoehorned into a "representing" a Forum that you have to "try" to go into more?

EDIT: I will have to find another offshoot message board to which I can switch, and prepare my plans for taking over the world, via a Star Wars message Board!

Come join the boards in my head... the weather's fine!

 

99.9% of the problems brought up in the Advisory council are "people" or "human problems".

Being knowledgable about EU does not help this. Being a good member with good communication skills and is reasonable and mature, is what is important.

A viewpoint of the issues of some of the major forums is useful, but it just happens ,this time, we have a high concentration of Comms/Community with a nice spread of the more unusual forums.

Any form of quota or demand for a "Good long EU poster" would be pointless and unfair on both the poster and the person they would nudge out, IMHO.

UKS

 

Being knowledgable about EU does not help this. Being a good member with good communication skills and is reasonable and mature, is what is important.

And you don't think that, say, someone who's a "good long-time poster" in EU Lit is a very different creature than a "good long-time poster" from 3SA? Obviously, you will find the occasional person who posts in both but that's extremely rare in my opinion.

Why don't we want "good long-time posters" from several of the main Forums as counter-balancing voices of reason. What works in one Forum MAY NOT work in another -- but you won't even get that idea brought up if no one even knows about it in the first place.

 

I think the point should more be you shouldn't HAVE to try and go into Lit more. You're a fantastic member to represent the Games (and likely other) areas on the AC. Why should you be shoehorned into a "representing" a Forum that you have to "try" to go into more?

Why should I be shoehorned? Because I accept the responsability to be on the AC. I remeber Lit as it was when I joined (after all, that's the only place I posted at then). It's a little bit the same, but not entirely. Part of this responsability is now to make myself more knowledgable about the forum, so that I can deal with a situation, should it arise, better.

¤Night

 

The AC is obligated to make no effort to represent any members other than themselves.

So the AC is really meant to be nothing more than a bridge between themselves and the administration? If this is the case then it certainly shouldn't claim to represent the membership as a whole, and the issue of "what boards they represent" really becomes a non-issue.

Anyway, going back to the question I posed early in this thread, "Why is the AC necessary?" The following is the somewhat vague answer I've been able to deduce from the posts in this thread. I would love it if someone could correct any inaccuracies in this.

1. Because the Communications forum contains "chatter", "negative opinions", "trolls", and "drama mongerers". Therefore, a private forum is needed so that a select group of members can discuss JC issues away from these things. By this logic, apparently the more diversity of opinion you have in a discussion the less can be accomplished.

2. Because the administration needs a "sounding board" for their ideas. Apparently, the Communications forum is inadequate for this purpose as well, as there would certainly be much difference of opinion and too many people might try to get involved. The discussions would inevitably "lose their focus" so it's better if the vast majority of the JC membership is just left out of them.

3. Because the administration is perceived to be unapproachable by the regular membership. If this is true, then it is something the administration really needs to take steps to correct, and the AC is certainly not the answer. In fact, I think they only serve to affirm that distance between the MS and us "regular members".

And that's it. Did I miss anything, or make any mistakes. I certainly hope so.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

Deltron, you dont like the AC, so it doesnt matter what anyone says, it wont satisy you, will it?

 

I don't think that's true, Reaper. I think deltron's a reasonable person, and if a good explanation is made, another point of view will at least be seen and understood, even if not agreed with.

 

...members Tessa invited have become mods and AC'ers, is more to do with the type of people she chose, rather then the fact that they are now members of an offshoot board. This is why I was rather confused at why she decided to make this point, when I thought that her above all would realise the outcome.

you know as well as every other base member that people are VOTED in by ALL base members (that would include you), not handpicked by tessa.

That being said, I think we all know what the Dantooine Base was originally created for. It has been with much toil and not the least amount of resistance that some of us have tried to drag it kicking and screaming from the Drama! base that was its original purpose.

please refer to my last post in order to educate yourself on the history and purpose of teh Base.

And so we see the crux of the issue. You can't control it, therefore it should be disbanded. That's what this is all about, isn't it? Turns out that the people who were invited tot he DB were a little too smart, a little too independent. I can tell you off-hand that there are members at the DB that I would never want on the AC. None of the ones serving on the AC are on that list. You make it sound as if the DB were some monolithic cult that all believe and think the same way.

your personal pride and initial shock no doubt made you automatically think this thread was a personal attack. that is not the case no matter what you choose to think is really happening. however, YOU have now CLEARLY made it into something personal on your part.

For the record, the quoted comments in the first post were all mine, and I stand by them. I made them in a semi-private chat where both current and former ACers were present. My remarks were never meant to be more than my own personal opinion.

and there was no doubt about what you meant by those remarks.....

 

Wow, if anyone is quick to judge here it seems that it's you ReapeFett.

I like to think I'm a reasonable person as Knight said. I read the entire thread fairly carefully, listened to everyone's opinions then posted my conclusions. I'm sorry if it seems to you that I have some irrational bias against the AC, but I have no idea where you drew that conclusion from.

 

1. Because the Communications forum contains "chatter", "negative opinions", "trolls", and "drama mongerers". Therefore, a private forum is needed so that a select group of members can discuss JC issues away from these things. By this logic, apparently the more diversity of opinion you have in a discussion the less can be accomplished.

I think that Comms can become bogged down in discussions. It's hard to sort through everything in some of the "hot topics". We've seen this several times with issues brought by the Slackers, the Lord Bane incident, etc. The ACers are solicited for their opinions on these issues and other issues/policies that are being discussed in the ModSquad. We value the diversity of opinions. After all, not a heck of a lot is going to happen if everyone's saying, "I agree with so-and-so on this issue."

As for the privacy, it does need to happen. Members bring us issues to discuss and I don't think putting that in a public setting is appropriate while we hash through the discussion. The AC isn't some "super secret" place, it's just that by having it private, the ACers and mods can talk through issues that may be sensitive without contributing to any drama in Comms.

2. Because the administration needs a "sounding board" for their ideas. Apparently, the Communications forum is inadequate for this purpose as well, as there would certainly be much difference of opinion and too many people might try to get involved. The discussions would inevitably "lose their focus" so it's better if the vast majority of the JC membership is just left out of them.

This questions sounds like an extension of #1. The AC is also in place to hold moderators accountable. There have been many issues we've brought to discuss that relate to major concerns here on the boards. That forum allows us to all discuss them openly and honestly. There are many times we discuss issues that are brought simultaneously into Comms.

3. Because the administration is perceived to be unapproachable by the regular membership. If this is true, then it is something the administration really needs to take steps to correct this problem, and the AC is certainly not the answer. In fact, I think they only serve to affirm that distance between the MS and us "regular members".

I perceive that it's easier to talk to someone who you know as a regular member rather than someone who is in a position of power. Mods are busy and may not be able to devote a great deal of time to handling the number of issues they get on a daily/weekly basis. By PMing an AC member, we can take it to the AC and discuss it as a group and get the opinions of many moderators rather than just one. There's nothing that says you can't PM a mod on a question or concern. We're just here to help advocate when you feel there's a problem.

 

Because when people say "Is that it?" in the way you did, that indicates to me that you've listened to all you've been given, and dislike it. You think some wonder answer will appear?


And it's not an attack on you or anything. You could flip it and say the same about me. Point is, nothing will now change your view just short of something big being pointed out.

 

1. Because the Communications forum contains "chatter", "negative opinions", "trolls", and "drama mongerers". Therefore, a private forum is needed so that a select group of members can discuss JC issues away from these things. By this logic, apparently the more diversity of opinion you have in a discussion the less can be accomplished.

I disagree with your conclusion here (the last sentence). Diversity of opinion is a good thing. However, asking the AC vs. asking the YJCC is like asking a focus group vs. shouting your question at a football game. It is generally more effective and efficient to ask a smaller group, although I think there may be good argument to increase the size of the AC (but this would be up to them).

2. Because the administration needs a "sounding board" for their ideas. Apparently, the Communications forum is inadequate for this purpose as well, as there would certainly be much difference of opinion and too many people might try to get involved. The discussions would inevitably "lose their focus" so it's better if the vast majority of the JC membership is just left out of them.

I?ll refer back to the focus group analogy. Just as a mob can be controlled/dominated by a powerful personality, so too the JC population in Comms. The AC is an excellent tool for the Mods to ask questions where they are assured that the issue will discussed in a rational, civil manner. I don?t know if it?s better than letting the whole JC in on the discussion, but I feel it is more effective.

3. Because the administration is perceived to be unapproachable by the regular membership. If this is true, then it is something the administration really needs to take steps to correct, and the AC is certainly not the answer. In fact, I think they only serve to affirm that distance between the MS and us "regular members".

I agree that mods should seek to be as approachable as possible (and some mods need to work on that more than others), but I disagree that the AC is not the answer. The hypothetical barrier between mod and user can be breached in many ways, the AC is only one of many. Some users feel comfortable contacting mods directly. Some users contact certain mods they know and trust. Some may not like any mods, and can use the AC. And of course some posters use comms. The more options users have to voice their grievances, the better, IMHO.

 

1 & 2): I love DarthJurist's analogy. The AC could discuss things in a quieter more rational manner than a huge mob. AC members are nominated for their common sense and reason. But why can't the administration poll both? They could use the AC for certain things and opinions while still asking the JC for their opinion as well.

3): Mods are just regular members who have shown the maturity to take on more responsibility when necessary. They have more power only to make the JC a better place, but other than that, they are still just regular members. Sometimes mods can lose touch with the regular members because they've either become too engrossed in their responsibility or have lost touch with those around them. The main purpose of the JC isn't to act as an intermediary although they can do that when necessary.

 

Diversity can't be sacrificed for quality. Comms gets everything from users genuinely interested in making the forums better all the way to socks of banned trolls who seek nothing more to cause damage to the forums.

When major issues hit, everyone and their brother who may have an axe to grind has come out of the woodwork and can overwhelm this place with off-topic and pointless diatribes or spam. Comms has proven this time and time again.

If Comms had a bantha poodoo filter or auto-removal function, then this concern wouldn't exist. But, it doesn't, so the effectiveness of Comms is indeed sacrificed for this "diversity."

 

Thank you for the clarification and insights Kate and DarthJurist. That really was helpful.

I'll admit that part of my "problem" with the AC is that I do feel a bit left out. I'm fairly outspoken on issues that effect this place, especially on issues that effect the forums I post in. And I don't like feeling that I'm relying on someone else to speak for me in regards to potential policies and issues that I know nothing about, especially when the AC members have no obligation to speak for anyone other than themselves. I have strong opinions, and I feel that they are valid ones. I know I'm not alone in this regard.

On the issue of privacy: I think it's possible to discuss issues that might be very personal, and effect only particular individuals without "naming names". The very rare instance where this is not possible could be dealt with sensitively on a case by case basis.

On the issue of keeping discussions "rational and civil": I think this very thread is proof that it can happen, yes even in comms. If people are coming into comms and blatantly violating the TOS then obviously they should be banned. If they're only guilty of a little "chatter" then that can be easily ignored and isn't really worth worrying about, though maybe they could be told to stay on topic.

On the issue of the AC acting as a go-between between the administation and the members who might not feel comfortable approaching them: I'll stand by my claim that it's not the answer. The idea that a middle man is needed to effectively communicate with or voice concerns to the administration only magnifies any alienation that might exist between the membership and the administration themselves.

 

I was thinking the same thing.

It seems the Base is becoming Refuge v2.0.

For those who don't know, the Refuge was a spinoff board that most of the mods at the time were members of, and most new mods came from the Refuge. Drama eventually forced their withdrawl from JC politics, and now only a few are still mods, or evne post here anymore.

And now the same thing is happening with the Ac and the Base.

I admire EP for bringing this up, and trying ot head off any drama that could spring from this situation.

I also find it funny that every leader of the Dark Lords was modded after they stepped down from that position.

"You make it sound as if the DB were some monolithic cult that all believe and think the same way."

Actually to me it looks like she's doing the opposite, trying to avoid the Base becoming another behind-the-scenes cabal, ala the Refuge.

"I will have to find another offshoot message board to which I can switch, and prepare my plans for taking over the world, via a Star Wars message Board!"

Just stay the hell away from the SC.

 

It strikes me as odd that during the debate over my dismisal one of my arguements was that as a ex mod member my job was to give you my opinion and I was not there to represent anyone.

I was rebuffed strongly by the members of AC3, some even going so far as to question how many of the threads I'd started were as a result of communications from other members.

That my actions had hurt the regular members views of the AC and as such were interfereing with the AC's job.

Now however they seem to be ignoring that and blindly accepting AYBABTU claims he has no responsibility to anyone.

Could my esteemed ex peers in the 3rd AC explain this seeming contradiction to me?

Go ahead reveal the reasons for my removal, as wellington said, publish and be damned, I'm still here to turn around any attempts to blatently spin it.

 

AB and Night are better than anyone in Lit barring POSSIBLY 2 or 3 posters. And this is from someone who spends nearly all his time in Lit. Now, I dont know about you, but Id rather we had AB and Night over two poorer choices, but get there because they're from Lit.

I?m not going to say that any of the new AC members was a bad choice. I think that most, if not all, are all good choices on their own merits, when taken alone. When taken as group, they do Literature and EU Community, Fan Fiction, RPG?s, Collecting, Fan Art, and the movie forums about as much good as Underwater Basket Weaving forum regulars. Yes, they?re all upstanding, intelligent, and (occasionally ) witty members of Community who post in Communications on a regular or semi-regular basis. But their focus is on Community. How well do they represent Literature, or AOTC, or CT forum issues? Personally speaking, I wouldn?t bother PM?ing them to complain about Genghis locking a thread or Gandolf setting random policies.



Would you prefer to be represented by Night or by Bib Fortuna, Twiek?

That?s dodging the question. For all his posts, Bib is not the Literature forum. Personally, I?d rather be represented by dp4m, Mastadge, or Knight1192.

 

And now the same thing is happening with the Ac and the Base.

I think the point that's trying to be made by others in this thread is that it's not happening and never has happened.

I don't understand how people can make statements about the internal workings of the AC that have not served on the AC with the members of AC3 or AC4. Assumption and conjecture make poor justifications for an argument.

 

Deltron, I think the three points you gleaned from this discussion were quite astute and are more than enough to allow for the AC's continuance. I'm not sure from your posts whether or not you agree with that those tenets carry the necessary weight to justify the AC's existence, but I certainly do.

YOU have now CLEARLY made it into something personal on your part.

If you attack the integrity of the group, you attack the integrity of any and all persons within that group. You of all people should know that. No matter how that post is played, it is in the end an attack on the integrity of the members (or former members as the case may be) of the DB that populate the Advisory Council.

Until I came around here I had no idea that friendships were thrown away so casually.

 

Everyone, let's try to keep this a rational discussion wherein we can debate without attacking.