Jedi Merkurian: If you're stepping out of this thread, I don't expect you to respond to this immediately (or necessarily at all). But I want to be clear about what happened. I don't think anyone has necessarily accused you of of consciously doing anything. As I said earlier, though, sometimes we all act contrary to our best intentions. The fact is that until yesterday--in a separate thread, and never cross-posted here, for whatever reason--we had never received a single announcement about a time we could expect to hear an update on Senate situation. We just kept hearing "soon." For someone to suggest that something else was the case--that perhaps we just didn't like the answer we received--was incorrect. I needn't speculate about why they made that mistake in order to recognize it, and the main point was to identify the factual oversight, not to attack the person who made it. On the broader issue of trustworthiness, I think that it's generally the case the most people find you a good guy. I certainly do. But I think what's happening here is an object lesson. Up until yesterday, the validity of this process was staked largely on the personal reputation of moderators. Rather than sharing information that would allow us to see that the process was moving forward or that it was fair, you simply kept asking us to trust you. As the process dragged out and people became frustrated, the only real alternative in this situation was to lose faith in the people who had staked their reputation on it. We couldn't point to any understandable hiccups in the process, because no one had bothered to tell us about them until long after the fact. Clamping down is the wrong instinct. I think that more openness about this process is the way to both a better final outcome and better MS-user relations. See you around. I don't see why you think this is such a stunning hypothetical. The JCC has repeatedly proved its capacity. It can certainly handle the volume of threads, and can also take on their content. Take the recent discussion on Christian music, for instance. While there were some jokes initially, it is an overwhelmingly serious thread. Beyond usual posters who engage in threads about religious topics, or those who enjoy these sorts of discussions, we got meaningful contributions from the likes of halibut, Even, Chorus of Disapproval, mrsvos, and solojones. We learned all sorts of interesting back stories about both musical artists and our users. There were encyclopedia length posts and there were some that were nothing but a Youtube link. We had meaningful debates on the importance of authorial intention, the value of self-criticism, and whether putting to much emphasis on ideological content can skew in favor of simplified lyrics/composition. Along the way, a lot of people discovered great new music they hadn't encountered before but greatly enjoyed. The thread crested at over 100 posts in under a week. Can you explain which Senate thread had succeeded in having such rich discussion, with such a wide array of users from such diverse backgrounds, accommodating so many different posting styles while not degenerating into something that generated hurt feelings or required moderator intervention? Because I still see Merkurian over in the Christianity thread making purple posts to pull timmo/Vivec/Someone and [generic Christian conservative] off one anothers' throats. That's the thing that's so bizarre about this whole debate. Most of the hesitancy about a merger seems to date back about 2005. Guess what? Not only is the Senate not what it used to be. The "Community" forum isn't either. It has proven several times that it can do serious discussion well, and there's scant acknowledgment of that fact. Instead, people trot out the same "concerns" over and over again, even when, as in this case, they are literally thread topics that the Community has just successfully completed. That's why I ask, as I ever have, if any anti-merger people would actually like to give a reason they think the forums should stay separate? Because if they can't we ought to move forward.