[Senate] Proposed Rules Revision

The extra traffic is nice, but let's be fair - a couple of, err, 'new users' have entered into the political topics with old chestnuts such as 'US is a Christian nation' and the like which has stirred the old Senate warriors out of their hidey-holes, unfurling their banners and waving their swords. It's been an entertaining read but it's unlikely to be sustainable.

I still support Jabbadabbado's proposal (new 'Serious' tag for Community, Senate forum stays as is) but if they were to go with that option I'd hope it would be because they feel the Senate still has some value remaining as an indivdual forum, and not just because there was a sudden spike in traffic because a handful of users went in and kicked the hornet's nest.

Besides, if they did that, I'd give it 3 months before the traffic was back down again, and then we'd get another Wocky thread about it. And no one wants that.

On a separate note ...

Pfft, that's nothing. Go check out the Lucasfilm forum - scroll down just as many threads and you're finding topics from 1.5 months ago. Same could be said for SW & Film Music etc.

I guess what I'm leading into is, with the earlier closure of the TOR forum as well as the likely removal of the Senate, are TPTB perhaps going to embark on some spring cleaning of the forums and review their use? Seems as good a time as any.

 

COTF has given insight; I know from experience MS generally is apathetic to Senate doings so I assume that the appropriate context is being given to the numbers, i.e. a qualitative rather than quantitative analysis is being done?

 

a seperate issue, but regarding this whole MS vote thing, i'm not quite sure i understand why the vote of a moderator who has nothing to do with Community or the Senate should have any real say in the decision making process at all. surely it's more meaningful to utilise the thoughts and opinions of the people it actually effects, as opposed to some Star Wars costume and RPG mod? or is this "vote" more just to gauge opinions?

 

With all due respect, when was this ever said, and by whom? I can't even figure out a way that it's true. The MS is the only one that had input in the process last time. You'll recall that the first several days of complaints were dismissed out of hand because "the vote was unanimous." I appreciate that several mods apparently came to regret their vote (as they ought) or have otherwise indicated they were just deferring to the Senate mods. But making a bad decision isn't the same thing as lacking a voice in the process.

What does this statement mean? I don't see that anyone argued it should be excluded. Rather, the real question is what it means, in context. The unanimous view from this thread, from supporters and opponents of a merge alike, has been that it is a short term blip that doesn't alter the long term dynamics we are using to make policy. It also seems to be pretty widely held that this is just Community posters participating in the style of the Community forum. Does the MS have some alternate read on these points? What is it or why? Taking a wide, diverse sampling of opinions is always good. But there should be no harm in explaining the line of logic you ultimately accept in coming to a decision. Protecting bizarre and poorly reasoned minority views from scrutiny by refusing to acknowledge that they are being seriously considered doesn't really help anything, as ample historical examples from the real world demonstrate. In fact, it very much undermines the spirit of openness and careful consideration that one otherwise seeks to create.

 

im not entirely certain of the definition of the term "snowjob" but im pretty sure that's whats going on here

 

I believe it means that since the care factor for Senate stuff hovers between half and twice the value of zero at any given time, consensus was "Meh, don't care. Do whatever the mods in there think is right".

 

Merk do you want to set up a PM conversation between me and however many mods you feel can add value to the discussion? I'm ex-ModSquad, I know how the process works, and I had the framework that's still being mooted as the one we go with (by the advocates at least).

I figure we can probably, with minimum interference, get a vote-able package together in a short space of time if we go this way.

I'm happy to help, and I would point to the Creationism debate as a perfect example of what can happen when users set the standards of themselves and others, without mod input. That is, even if you factor in more posts that are meme pictures or drive by one liners, the core discussion is driven by the users because they are engaged in the topic. As a result, they set the standard for discussion and maintain that standard.

I'm not sure what else we would need but if you and the community mods want to chat, I can "consult" for the MS on it. Hit me up.

 

Ender, is there anything you cannot do?

 

I do not speak Turkish, sir.

 

Just close the Senate. It really isn't difficult. It takes only a few clicks to accomplish.

 

if they were going to do it they would have done it by now

 

This was a week ago. This whole thing has been the most long winded thing evahhhh

 

im sorry, i thought i was posting in comms

 

It's not unrealistic to expect the MS to be able to do something simple, and not waste two months umm'ing and ahh'ing about it. I'm sorry if this is inconvenient to you, Chorus, but that begs the question of why you accepted a promotion if you're unwilling to work for it?

JoinTheSchwarz, Ramza, LAJ_FETT, can you guys give some insight into why MS is unable to act?

 

You will, very soon.

 

Pretty sure we discussed, approved, launched and appointed mods for the SFF Films and SFF Lit forums in less time than this.

Just saying.

 

When? You guys have been saying "soon" for weeks at a time now. The word has lost all meaning.

Why are you so allergic to actually communicating with the users? You can give updates without pinning yourself down to a date certain for a final decision, let alone painting yourself into a corner about what that decision is. So why can't you guys manage to actually do something? The present course looks for all the world like maintaining the status quo by telling everyone to shut up and go away when they try to raise an alternative.

If it's being worked on, what are you doing? And when can we expect it to end?

 

It could be something as simple as "some of the people involved haven't been online as much as they'd like to, partly because of Christmas, partly because they've moved to a new ****ing country", don't you think? But no, the real reason is-- no, wait, it's exactly that. Mostly.

"Mostly", he said in a probably fructiferous attempt to annoy.

 

Ah. Well, seeing as how both Christmas and international relocations are completely unpredictable events, I can now see why it would've been impossible to say from the outset "In light of circumstances X, Y and Z we anticipate a longer than usual 5 week timeline to come to a conclusion on this. We'll keep you updated throughout, and certainly inform you if any new developments significantly alter that schedule."

Oh, wait. I actually still don't. At all.

 

Does anyone know who invented the "Oh, wait" post? Wocky has certainly perfected it.

 

Your idea of perfection sounds quite German, 1940s era, to be precise.

As I said before: you'll have an answer, soon. If you want a deadline, you won't have it today. Sorry.

 

I'm going to assume you're referencing the Marshall Plan and the post-war occupation? Because I know that no one in their right mind would compare asking for a progress update to being part of the Nazi regime.

. . .

As I've said before, I am perfectly willing to accept that this is not a democracy. Ultimately, the administration will make whatever choice it does. But regardless of how it comes out, this whole episode will be extraordinary for its gross mishandling of the situation at every point. I can't think of another instance when users were so ill-treated for having made a suggestion on how to improve things.