[Senate] Proposed Rules Revision

It didn't work, Boba, because you guys didn't change. You didn't embrace the opportunity to define how the Senate should function in a new world; you stuck to your old model, and made people loathe to try the tag. It worked better on the temp boards, or at least that's how it appeared.

Being hidebound and conservative and being a community leader are positions fundamentally at odds with each other. Have a look on page 1 at my proposal. That will work better than a head in the sand, "if you want to use our tag you must jump through the following hoops" approach.

 

No, there's literally nothing stopping you. Go ahead and ask the people who actually visit how "imperious" I am. Cause, you know, I'm not.

As for b) literally everyone who voted in Mod Squad on the split?

 

You can't assume they voted for it "because it didn't work. " The few who have commented publicly indicated they were giving strong deference to the views of Senate moderators. I don't see how that represents anything. Especially when none of the mods--yourself included--have really tried to defend your decision in anyway outside of reiterating that it was the one you took.

 

Yeah sorry Boba, that MS voted for it is not indicative of anything. MS was always indifferent to "Senate Problems" and whenever it came to a vote, i.e. on mods, if the person wasn't known outside Senate the vote would be a case of mods following the majority.

Now that a clear consensus against the decision has emerged (see also: JCC thread) MS has to reassess, surely? They did with Arena, and that got through based on user demand.

I appreciate you may be sick of it, but my advice would be to consult more widely before making a decision.

 

For all these accusations of us being arrogant, this "unfair, why do you get to have your own club?" attitude you're displaying doesn't reflect very favourably on you either. The issue can be summarised by you being frustrated by us keeping to ourselves, and then in a misguided attempt at inclusivity, basically trying to force us to play with you. When I was a kid, I didn't make new friends by yelling at them "hey, come hang with me, right now!". You claim to have our best interest in mind, but actually come off as control freaks. It's all very weird, frankly.

 

Let's take that then. WHY do you get to have your own club? No one has provided a justifiable reason prior to the split and they've yet to do so now. Instead, they have responded with snide comments and acted like those in favor of dissolving the Senate as a forum are invaders and their input should not matter: "Oh, sure. I'll be glad to keep up with goings-on in my forum caused by people who don't actually post there"

What we are frustrated with is: First, The way the split decision was made. Second, the fact that the reasons given were poor and remain poor to justify the Senate's special treatment. Third, the fact that both members and moderators have not followed their own rules and guidelines which apparently was one of the reasons a split was necessary in the first place. Fourth: The whole idea that this would somehow benefit the Senate or the Community has also proven to be a failure. But rather than acknowledge that, instead heels are being dug in and requests for actual discussion to move forward are being met with hostility.

Let me put this another way. When the board was finally migrated, the old topics didn't come back and were instead locked and left in archives. We made new topics. That means many of the topics tagged senate were made in that new Community forum. When the Senate mods decided to split, they took those topics with them. If this were a custody battle, one could argue that those within the community had a right to those topics as well. But we are pretty much told if we want to participate, we have to go to the Senate for visitation rights. The Senate that cited us as the reason for the split and portrays the attitude that they don't want us, but then can't understand why we won't come and post and then accuses us of being the ones who don't want to play and are instead forcing you to play with us when you took the ball and went home.

 

We're doing no such thing. Rather, we are following up on a decision that was made to change the Community forum, without the input, and against the wishes of the majority of the posters.

 

This. VVM I think you're rather mis-characterising matters.

 

I can't say how much gratitude I have for you, Yodaminch. For all my attempts to speak on this subject, I've never managed as much eloquence, directness, force and illumination of the issues as you have for the second time in a row laid out.

 

I think the main problem at root here is that, where the other forums, including the JCC (which doesn't exist as a distinct entity more, not as it used to) managed the transition to a group forum, altering the individual identities in the process. the Senate mods and regulars always conceived of them as separate, even during the merge, as if, instead of being another part of the new community, they were in it and separate from it, in some sort of weird quantum superposition. Maybe it's just because the Senate had slightly more specific and elaborated rules than the other subforums, who knows.

Anyway, I think that's where this misunderstanding comes from.

 

where are mods

 

Well, that's a question I can't answer. Ender and I, along with the other merge supporters, have already puit their best proposals on the table for how to improve things. But there's only so much we can do. Speaking for myself, I have little idea what attracts the current Senate regulars, or what specific features of their experience they most want to preserve. It evidently isn't threads free from one line posts or the occasional joke, but I don't know what it is. I had hoped that when this topic was revived, some of them would come forward and explain, so that we could adjust to try and accommodate everyone. I still want that. But we largely seem to have gotten broad defenses of the status quo, when anyone deigns to comment at all.

 

I believe it's the perception that the JCC is seen as a black hole where ideas and discussion go to die--a sentiment I've held and continue to hold. Mostly as it's just noise for noise sake.

I think it comes down to what you value more: do you value the quality of posts or the quantity? Because when it was in the JCC we had more posts, but also a lot of useless posts. With the split off we have less posts but of better quality. I tend to like the latter as it gives way to more in-deph posts as opposed to just one line snark--even if we do occasionally get that now, but very rarely.

 

OK I'll contribute.

I don't believe it is the format of the forums which is the fundamental problem. I think the problem just boils down to the lack of people posting good threads about topics which have a broad level of appeal. I don't think there is any measure, policy or forum rule change that can fix this . If you take a glimpse at the first page of the senate you will note that there is a mixture of threads on topics which have either been around for years and so everyone has said everything they are going to say (atheism, homosexuality, christianity, obama, politics in the US, iran, palestine etc etc) or the topics are very specific and so only interest one or two people (military technology, premature births, self delusion, pearl harbour, europe, world economics etc etc) or the topics relate to a certain event or series of events which inevitably run its course over a period time (revolution thread), or they are just downright coma inducing boring and dry or are beezel threads (the balance of threads). It's like turning up to a buffet being quite hungry but there is only macaroni and cheese or cheese on toast to eat or other stuff that you have been chowing down on for years. All of the good chefs have pretty much moved on and haven't been replaced.

So I don't think any manner of structural forum change or rule change will fix this fundamental and inevitable problem and I am not convinced by the arguments that the much reviled senate posters (who are generally viewed as being syphilitic cripples) somehow contributed to the betterment of the JCC during the 'merge'. But like I said in earlier versions of this discussion, it doesn't really bother me either way because a 'forum' is really just a collection of similar themed threads, whether those threads exist in the isolation of their own 'space' or exist as a collection of tags, those threads are still a 'forum' if you choose to just view those tags and nothing else.

I will post in threads on topics that interest me irrespective of whether it is associated with the senate or the JCC or whatever. I'm sure others are the same. I'm not convinced Ender's Rules or any other incarnation of forum structure is going to encourage me to post more or better without the underlying hook of a good thread topic.

 

I would submit the simplest way to attain this is to go with my suggestion on page 1. The expectations are set from the bat and despite the baseless comments from FIDo above, the JC has shown itself capable of sustaining discussion on serious topics. So long as the expectation is clear that "[New] Senate" tagged threads mean an expectation of discussion of a serious topic, then frankly I think you can trust users to self police. Will there be more instances of just a news article being linked, or drive by one-liners? Probably. Is that actually bad? No.

And for all this talk of how the quality in the Senate is innately better... no. It's not. I'm sorry, I remember what it used to be like - it was far better than now. The inherent superiority of Senate quality posts is merely an illusion.

But if I am to be frank, I would point out that the number of people who only post in the Senate and who don't support this amounts to a statistical minority when compared with the number of people who would welcome a relaxed framework to discuss serious topics.

Assuming that you cannot please everyone (you can't), then the litmus test is this - it the community is the winner? If so, and I believe it's pretty evident - then we know what we have to do here.

 

having contributed at length to the last debate we had on this matter, and not particularly interested in doing so again, i will just say that i continue to support the re-merging of Senate threads back into Community, where they belong. it was a bad idea to split at the time, and it continues to be a bad idea now.

as i said previously, if Senate regulars want their forum to themselves, all they have to do is click the Senate tag (or whatever it is changed to) and there, presto, all the vile, disgusting, lol poop Community threads are all gone (although if they bothered to participate they'd soon realise most threads aren't simply poop lol threads anyway, but whatever).

also, as others have said, it is flawed to suggest non-Senate users can't have an opinion on the fate of the forum because removing the threads, and the odd decent poster with them (although certainly not all), from community was at the time and continues to be a detriment to the community.

 

I have no issue with merging the Senate back into the Community part of the boards, I don't think it should have left. I agree also that some of the rules at times can seem a bit draconian and that is off-putting to some who might like just to give their opinion once in a concise way and not engage in lengthy discussion or post/read 5 paragraph detailed responses.

That said, it is important to make sure the discussion is still serious. The problem with "JCC rules" for Senate topics is the danger of it being derailed for a laugh by people or descending into the more usual thing of several posters with a superiority complex throwing insults at each other instead of discussing the points that were made. In the Senate that sort of thing is not tolerated, and it still shouldn't be in it moves back.

 

Well why don't we test out what Ender and Wocky have proposed? After a year or so, if it hasn't worked for the most part, then the Senate can be moved back to where it is now.

 

I'd agree with that if there was a clear set of standards for measuring success or failure. Who decides whether it has or hasn't worked, and according to what benchmarks? In what ways is the outcome expected to be different from what it was last time?

 

I think if you want a measure of success or failure, I'd look to the poll results on page 1.

Tellingly, the people voting yes are all JC regulars. The same people saying they would partake in serious discussions but found the barriers the Senate erects to discussion to be problematic.

Moreover, look at the volume of people who post in Amp and JC and Arena tagged threads - it is clear that the current JC model, for want of better wording, simply works. Giving the community the right to decide in how more serious topics are discussed, in line with the way the rest of the Community integrated, is the right thing to do.

Again, the Senate split was done on the whim of seemingly one to two people, and benefits between six and ten directly. Based on responses to this poll alone, Community regulars who feel that they lost out by this outnumbers Senate regulars who benefited by 3 to 1 to 2 to 1.

When Community came into existence, none of the other forums were precious about preserving their culture. The JC's soccer/football thread was retagged Arena and nobody cared. A new paradigm was formed, we all adapted. All but a handful of Senate regulars.

No attempt was made to reform to fit in with the new paradigm. Every effort was made at being hidebound, reactionary conservatives.

No consultation was held regarding the split, and despite Boba's slightly arrogant dismissal of the community's view it was absolutely the wider community's right to have a say. Ignoring what the users think is a disappointing sentiment to come out of ModSquad and thus far I would like to ask if the Administration endorses Boba's sentiment (I would point out thought that the Arena was the result of user lobbying and the user base developing a plan for it); or if they want to distance themselves from it?

A set of options was outlined here: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...ubforum-for-it.50016938/page-13#post-51185236

Can we get an update from MS and the Admin's view of the options above?

 

Didn't there used to be an eating popcorn emoticon? This is quite a show and I'm needing some munchies!

 

No people just used a picture of Homer or a gif of Michael Jackson from Thriller, eating popcorn. No emoticon, just plenty of buttery, salty choice.

 

why not throw back the curtain? let the People see. even FOX news reports and lets us decide