[Senate] Proposed Rules Revision

Well, technically, if the Christian music thread was going to tagged differently, it probably would have been Amph tagged.

I still think the tags should be made more noob-friendly (sports, arts/media, debate, social, poll, etc), and that the community forum should go back to Jedi Council Community.

 

I'd be fine with general tags, but I think Community can stay named as it is. It's already under a broader category called JC Community.

 

JW, I don't have specific rules violations in mind, but your examples are honestly rather cherry picked, in my opinion. For example, I agree with Harpua that the Christian music thread should have probably been tagged under Amp under the existing structure. But it's not that big of a deal. But what you're missing is that the Senate is still up and running, and as a result, it acts as a buffer for the controversal threads. What happens if/when that buffer is taken away without any modification to the expectations under the new system?

For example, you used the "Christian music thread" as an example of a serious JCC thread. And you're correct in that it's successful. But how about a thread titled "Islam is the only true religion?" Do you see how one has less potential for personal attacks and one might have more if not supported properly? How would you react if a thread popped up that was titled "Homosexuality is wrong and those who practice it are cursed?" Do you think the current paradigm in the JCC supports the concepts of staying on topic, no matter how any one individual might personally disagree with the premise? Is there a greater potential for a flame war in a thread like that, or one which examines the song "O Holy Night?" How about sensitive topics like Zionism, or Palestinian terrorism, or racism, be it direct or reverse? Describe to me how a hypothetical free form discussion on Zionism and the Jewish situation would unfold by comparing it to how a thread on Amy Grant and Christian rock progressed?

The current Senate has extra controls in place, which while more restrictive, foster such controversial discussions. It doesn't mean that such controls can't be examined, or have become too restrictive, or that it couldn't be closed down, or whatever. But you're also ignoring the niche that the Senate filled and why it existed in the first place. You're talking about completely closing down the Senate, and putting all such serious discussion into a central location. Without the Senate's buffer, all those threads are going to be moved to a specified location which may or may not be ready for them because the expectations haven't been fully vetted.

 

The same thing that happens in serious topics now... if somebody gets out of line, a mod steps in. It happened on the last page--somebody got a little too out of line with you and a mod stepped in. After that happened, the conversation continued. I still get the impression that you perceive the majority of us as uneducated thugs who are incapable of acting civilized. That's really the farthest thing from the truth. The truth is, a lot of us (I really hate this 'you vs us' mentality, by the way) are very intelligent and completely capable of conversing about a large number of topics. Like I said on the last page, this thread is evidence that we are all--senate, jcc, ms, etc--capable of having a meaningful and productive discussion that runs smoothly. Sure, some people have been insulted and offended,(Merk, for example), but that sort of thing happens in any thread. That's what moderators are for--to step in if/when that happens.

We already tried merging with specific and enforced rules of how certain threads would go, and that failed. This proposal is different, in that we're asking to have a more free-form and less restrictive structure. If feels like you are still hung up on how things went before.

 

No, not at all. However, I do think that you guys may be advocating something that hasn't been fully explained and/or extent of which isn't understood. Even in this thread, after JW gave an example of a more-or-less successful example, I think that there is room for improvement in the execution of said example. Should the "Christian music" thread have been in Amph in the first place? Were there comments that made some feel less than welcome in the thread? These are valid questions relating to board structure and how any proposal here will work out, especially if the proposal applies to a new area where everything is going to be serious and controversial.

It has nothing to do with anyone being a thug, being incapable of change, or not be able to handle the information. It has everything to do with the dominant culture of the respective areas. For whatever kind of example JW's discussion represents, other threads, which breed passion by their very nature, will be much, much more volatile. I guess my main point is this time, things could be worked out before something is rolled out. What exactly is a "free form, less restrictive" structure, and how will controversial topics be handled by it? I guess it's easy to say those who break the rules will be dealt with, but if that 9 point list is being used as a guide (and enforceable) then A LOT of people are going to be banned, and I'm not sure how desirable that is.

 

I don't think that's a real problem, though. Haven't we seen some folks get acclimated rather easily/greatly to the Community with the pre-existing tags? It would be a shame, in my humble opinion, if we made that forum too generic.

 

Pretty much agreed. I'm not fussed about it either way, but the current 'Community' name is fine as is.

 

Das ist ein gültiger Punkt. Was, wenn Sie es durch die Annexion Österreich verwaltet? Eine einfache Lösung für das Problem.

 

Moreover, people who would not partake in the Senate-forum discussions in the Senate's current iteration, were willing and valued participants.

 

Just as important, many JCers who aren't usually inclined to make serious posts in any context had something thoughtful to add to the discussion.

 

i think we can all agree that the new tag should just say "SRS"