[Senate] Proposed Rules Revision

Then you certainly haven't been around for long.

We should have made an announcement about what was going on. That, too, got lost in the Christmas shuffle, as it happens. Volunteer staff, etc, so you (should) know how it is. We are working on this and moving on it, but we are not seeing eye to eye and we haven't had that much real time, and we don't want to make a half-assed or poorly thought choice leading to another change in six months. You'l have to take my word for it and be patient. If you can't, that's too bad.

 

Observation: Not that I care what happens to the Senate, but the longer this drags out, the consistent refusal by Mod Squad to explain what's really going on is starting to remind me of an ongoing issue from the move that has its own stickied thread here in Comms. And not in a good way.

Is it time to start looking for the "overthrow Mod Squad" button?

 

Don't get hyperbolic.

 

I guess I just don't understand the tone. At the request of MS, there was a 27-day period when no one made a single post or remark about this issue so you guys could vote and debate in peace. All we're asking for now is the occasional update on the process. I'd say we've more than met you halfway here, and can't seriously find the requests we've made unreasonable.

No one's asking you to rush to a decision. We're asking that you recognize that part of what made the last one so unworkable was the complete lack of buy-in from the actual users, itself born out of the lack communication between the decision-makers and those affected. In light of that, I'd hoped you all might be more willing to have some actual channels of dialogue opened up.

 

There's going to be a substantial announcement on the communication front. Again, personal issues held it back.

But soon.

 

God, how cute! An "overthrow the ModSquad" comment! It takes me back to 2004 or thereabouts. Users thinking they could storm a virtual rampart and take power in a coup. Adorable!

 

I'm pretty sure that's a wocky original.

 

No, we aren't. We've asked multiple times for some sort of timeline. The responses we've received are of this character.

Aside from these sort of curt, dismissive replies, we've received clarifications that what some speculated the process was is not correct (without any description of what constitutes the actual process) and told that things would happen "soon" even as they've stretched beyond historical precedent for similar board decisions.

These aren't representative of meaningful responses that we just don't like. You are literally stonewalling on the questions we've asked. There's quite evidently nothing we can do about it. But at least have the courage to admit that's what you're doing. Either start giving us deadlines and a general description of the deliberation process (not specifics, mind you, but the general format of how the issue is considered) or just admit that you have locked regular users out of much real participation or involvement in the process. This isn't an issue of perception. You are factually wrong.

 

I'm not going to accept commentary on Internet courtesy from The Master of the "Oh, Wait" Response. Sorry.

 

You are factually wrong that you have ever answered these two questions:

1. On what date can we expect to receive an update about the process? When can we anticipate the process will end?

2. What is the general shape or character of the process?

These aren't representative of us "disliking" your responses. These are instances where you simply haven't given out information. Show me where you have.

JoinTheSchwarz: I'll try to be more polite and restrained in my criticism from now on, and restrict myself to accusing those who disagree with me of supporting the Holocaust.

 

Please do that.

 

I'm at the point where I don't care what happens to the Senate one way or another. The Mods are obviously working to the best of their ability, and it's probably more difficult for them now since the two main Senate mods stepped down.

 

And let me put it to you this way: Do you honestly believe that the only reason this came up again is because you posted about it?

I understand that you guys are volunteers. I get that you are trying to figure something out. But I also understand that "trying" isn't always the same as "succeeding." When an issue of this sort stretches into the 6-week mark without any visible progress, I think it's fair to call that a failure of communication. There are basically two ways to respond to such an event. On the one hand, you could take proactive steps to try and fix the problem. This might be by implementing something like the MSU, which I would commend as a step in the right direction. It's the sort of thing we've been asking for.

The other is to bristle that anyone dared criticize you. That's silly and largely inappropriate. However, this is unfortunately most of what we've actually been getting. I think it's sad that the most public moderator involvement we've gotten at any point in the history of this debate (whether measured by number of posts, pace of posting, or number of different participants) is in defense of your own reputation. If you attacked the actual issue we're trying to resolve with half as much vigor and passion, I can't help but think it would be resolved a lot faster than the current pace suggests it will be. Why not spend less time painting yourselves as some sort of victim, and instead focus on preventing future mistakes?

 

You're not factually wrong but you're being dishonest about at least one point in there Merk.

Are you trying to tell us there's been a 2 month window in which MS members have been offline? I accept that standards have fallen since I was in ModSquad but in my day that was grounds usually to demote. We demoted Genghis12 for it, for example. Are these mods also to be demoted, for being away for 2months and unable to contribute?

I thought not.

Also, the Senate's activity is sparked by a raft of new religious types discussing religious topics which have a wonderful air of familiarity to them... largely because it's the fourth or greater time it's been debated.

And Lowie's been on a thread binge, but I wonder how much of that's related to the notion that traffic is a factor in the Senate's future and his recent special audience with the MS? It's not indicative of a revival, it's what's known as cardio-pulmonary resuscitation.

It worries me that the MS takes the recent activity into question if it's the way you present it. I'm well aware of your views on the matter and I wouldn't be surprised if mods are relying on your reports rather than independently verifying them. So if you tell them volumes are increasing and don't do any qualitative analysis, using your above post (and other posts in this thread) as a benchmark I'd suggest the MS is getting a subjective picture.

I mean, saying the Senate has traffic implies it has vitality, but like a 70 year old man conceiving a natural erection it won't last.

You understand my concerns here?

 

Mods stop liking my post. Now I look like the biggest suck up.

 

why would that make it more difficult? in my opinion that should make it easy. if no one wants to moderate the forum that is already on the chopping block, go ahead and chop away!

 

To be fair though, everything around here has been debated four or more times. Unless there is a new aspect to the JCC "guns are bad/guns are good" thread that has been missed? I can't think of any topic that hasn't been debated back and forth around here, but that's never been a criteria to prevent something from having another go around.

The issue that I hope the MS is now examining is the user created nature of the discussions. Yes, for example, the Senate has a recent run on religious themed threads. But they're not the sum total. That's the very nature of "user driven." Are those not going to be allowed in any hypothetical "serious" tab? Is the expectation that they will just be "shouted" out in the JCC? What happens if such threads are all moved there? Besides, the recent upswing in the Senate can't be explained away by simply dismissing it as Lowie's "thread binge," because most of the new topics haven't been created by him.

I guess the question that hasn't been answered yet (at least in public) is the expectations behind looking for a new outlet for serious discussion? One of the primary points that was listed for having a "serious JCC tab" was the expectation that such discussion would be user driven. Are the greater numbers of the JCC prepared if say, 5 new religious based threads pop up in the area? Or a thread on notable military campaigns throughout history? Could the nature of the discussion remain respectful, or does the original reason the Senate was created in the first place take on a new importance?

I don't know. It just seems like there is call to rush, rush, rush, to find something that hasn't even been fully explained yet.

 

Merk, I don't think anybody finds you untrustworthy (I certainly don't).

To answer 44's question... I think Dave should go ahead with his "The Temple" religious forum... all worship (and argue) all the time.... 24/7 religious ****show.

 

Ditto with Harpua, I think some people are just getting a little frustrated that there hasn't been a general announcement of sorts yet.

 

That was deep, man.