[Senate] Proposed Rules Revision

Honestly, I will feel comfortable going anywhere. I can't recall if I was around when it actually happened. I vaguely recall having to flip around a bit to find it again, but I've had enough history with the boards to know how to do that. Perhaps I was reacquainting myself with the site and didn't realize what was going on.

As I said, my bigger issue is that I appreciate some of the rules of posting. I think that it can be modified, but I'd like more thoughtful discussion on that. People that post there regularly seem to appreciate what it is about. Wayward posters occasionally strayed in there, didn't quite get the culture, and eventually left. That is always going to happen.

 

I don't believe you're really sorry.

 

My regret is proportional to the severity of the situation.

 

Perhaps its just in the modding, but I did like that a person in the Senate who was just being belligerent and not really contributing to the discussion would be booted.

I think part of the problem with quantity of posts in the senate is the depth of knowledge a person needs to feel like they can contribute to a specific thread. There are many subjects there I really don't know much about and I'm not really interested in researching so I don't bother to post. Maybe there is a way to change this, or maybe it is just the nature of the beast.

 

Alpha-Red
anakinsfansince1983
Arawn_Fenn
beezel26
Blithe
Chewgumma
Condition2SQ
ConeUncleOwen
CT-867-5309
danmcken
Darth Geist
DarthArsenal6
DarthBoba
darth-calvin - is flexible, but thinks some of the current Senate Floor rules are good
Ender Sai - wants a merger and modified rules for the serious discussion tag
epic
Fire_Ice_Death - opposes a merger
Game3525
Ghost
Heavy Isotope
Jabbadabbado - supports a merger, but doesn't want to abandon the Senate Floor holdouts absent a real and demonstrable consensus.
Jedi Ben
Jedi Merkurian
JediSmuggler
J-Rod
Katana_Geldar
Lord Vivec
LostOnHoth
Mr44 - opposes a merger
PiettsHat
Rogue1-and-a-half
Saintheart
Sarge
ShaneP
shino_jedi
Skywalker8921
SuperWatto - resigned to the merger and supports a serious discussion tag with new rules
SWBob
The Star Wars Archivist
themetresgained
timmoishere
V-2
Vaapad Master Daeg Tynan
Vaderize03
VadersLaMent
Valairy Scot
VanishingReality
Violent Violet Menace

 

I don't oppose Ender's proposal to introduce some kind of 'serious discussion' tag with more relaxed posting rules into the JCC (in fact, I think it's a good idea), but I don't believe that closing the Senate down is necessary for that proposal to be implemented succesfully. At the end of the day Ender's proposal can be implemented independent of the Senate. It may be desirable or sensible to consolidate 'serious discussion' into one merged forum but it is not an essential condition precedent. I would also suggest that there is no reason why 'serious disccusion' cannot happen in two forums under the umbrella of two different sets of rules. Again, it may be desirable or seem sensible to consolidate 'serious discussion' into one forum with one rule set but it is not essential. Similar themed threads have co-existed in both forums in years gone past. This insistence on purging the very concept of 'the Senate' just smacks of a vendetta.

In support of Ender's proposal I would say that the quality of any kind of discussion or forum depends on the people who read and participate in that forum. In my opinion, the best years of the Senate were simply a product of having a much larger pool of people to draw on to participate. In years past, even a very specific thread topic would most likely inspire discussion because of the size and diversity of the group reading that topic. I believe that size and diversity is now lacking, which is why the Senate is pretty much dead.

I believe a simple compromise would be to immediately implement a 'serious discussion' tag with more relaxed posting rules into the JCC and leave the Senate as is. If in future the Senate falls into a category of 'unused' forum which would justify its dissolution and removal then so be it, that will be up the people who own and run this site.

edit: perhaps we can implement an 'ignore forum' function for those who are offended by the sight of a particular forum co-existing with the rest?

 

And Jabba has covered the issue that I asked about last time but it wasn't really answered. There are more specialized forums, that have less traffic than the Senate, but this same issue never seems to come up and up and up and up... with them. Why not?

Like any other forum, instead of always calling for change, why don't those people who are interested in posting more in depth, serious discussion just go to the Senate? It's open to all, and the resistance to just click there doesn't make sense to me. If you want to discuss sports, then you go to the Arena. If you want to discuss the expanded universe in detail, you go to the Lit forum. If you want to discuss the latest digital audio, then you go to Fan Activities. If you want to have a serious political discussion, you go to the Senate. What is the big deal?

Imagine if this same discussion was being had about Lit? "Man, the Lit forum would be really cool except for all the in-depth discussion about the EU. Let's just combine it with the films forum, and those people who want to discuss the books can just fit their post in among the discussion about the film world. Traffic would be that much more!" Except the entire reason why there is a Lit forum in the first place is not to have the most traffic, but it is so those who want to can have a concentrated exchange without the distraction of a broader topic. It's no different than any other specialized forum. Despite JW arbitrarily placing me on some sort of list without even asking me , I'm not opposed to re-merging the Senate. That is, if it fulfills some defined goal and brings a benefit. My questions are this:

1)What purpose would it serve? If there are those people who want to post in the Senate, they can just post in it now. What is suddenly going to change?

2)What controls in place would exist besides "with the tabs, the participants would police themselves." If the Senate is re-merged with the goal of fostering serious discussion under a tab, then there has to be a set criteria, or the entire reason for this will be lost. An effective judge of this is not to say- "Look! the JCC has a gun control thread, and it only 2 dozen poop references mixed in among the discussion, so it's serious for the JCC...." For a senate/serious tab to be effective, the participants have to forego any poop references under that tab and save them for the other social threads.

3)Are there other alternatives that will support the same goal? Again, since the JCC is one of the larger, social based forums, instead of merging the Senate into the JCC where it doesn't quite fit, why not split the JCC off on its own and merge the Senate under Amph and Arena while using the same standard that those forums use?

Or how about actually looking at increasing the Senate? Under the Senate tab, have a subforum for essay type of discussions, and another for less detailed, but still less social than the JCC type of debate- Call it the Senate---> upper house----> lower house...?

The point is if the goal is to look at reorganization, if it is actually needed, there are different ways to accomplish this goal than the same one that keeps getting mentioned over and over.

 

Mr44, we tried back in I want to say 2007 to promote cross-forum movement and posting between the JCC and the Senate. It failed. It's failed each time since. Perhaps you're too close to the Senate to see it objectively, but... nobody is ever, ever, in a million years ever, going to adhere to your suggestion of "if you want it, it's in the Senate, why not join in". The proof is in the results; people could at any time in the last 5 months just gone to the Senate, and haven't. And won't.

Part of it is that the style does not cater to the needs and wants of most posters. The market's moved, you're still peddling old wares.

Part of it is ease of access - the reason more people go into Amp threads than before is because the Amp relaxed its standards and integrated itself to the community. People like being able to go into discussions in the one forum, sometimes regardless of the tags. "The Senate will not go to the people; the people must go to the Senate." It smacks of an arrogance the posts do just justify.

We're here because we want something that the current situation can never, ever hope to deliver. So suggesting we all just come over to your place and chat within the parameters of your rules? Not viable, not tenable.

Jabbadabbado, why would we leave a forum for 5 people open when the forum's purpose is duplicated? Are't we setting precedent for other special interest offshoots?

EDIT: and sorry if I wasn't clear; nobody wants the Senate merged back in as is. It won't fit, and that's a bad thing. It speaks of a failure to modernise, to adapt. If the Senate were a company it'd be dead or bought out, which is effectively what's happening here. The New Senate tag in Community will not bear any semblance to the current, or Old Senate, save for scope of topics. The Old Senate just can't compete anymore.

 

LostOnHoth explained this. Because it will make them unhappy, and it isn't necessary to make them unhappy. The forum will die a natural death at the latest when there is no one interested left who hasn't had a turn modding it. Also, your tag rules are different from the Senate Floor rules, and the pool of potential posters will be slightly different, so it isn't completely duplicative, nor could it be.

I don't understand your opposition to having your own idea implemented in the JCC without rushing to close down the Senate Floor. Also, do you object to making a more concerted effort to find out what people want?

Perhaps in addition to you or the mods sending out PMs to all the people I listed above, SuperWatto could post an additional message/banner in the Senate Floor urging everyone who has posted in the Senate Floor in the last few months to come to this thread and tell us how they feel. A direct request.

 

There currently at least one dozen merger-era Senate posters who are unhappy with the current state of affairs, whom you seem to have no problem inconveniencing. In the same way, while DarthBoba's word is enough to establish the validity of his position, you want us to go on PM spamming spree of nearly 50 people, some of whose privacy settings make that impossible, and many of whom neither know nor are known by us. What is behind this blatant double-standard?

 

Especially when DarthBoba will not come and debate the proposal with us.

And again, Jabbadabbado, what kind of precedent does having a micro subforum for like, 5, 6 people max set?

 

My sense is that the vast majority will feel the problem is resolved if we set up a special "serious discussion" tag with Ender's rules within the JCC. Most I assume have the casual, flexible, accommodating attitude about this that darth-calvin has and which you and Ender do not.

first, take the effort to find out what that number really is, and second, it sets no kind of precedent. Everyone understands that the Senate Floor exists for historical reasons for the accommodation of a few older, longstanding members. They're grandfathered in, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

On what basis do you make this assumption? There's an even longer discussion of this issue in the Community forum, and all of them are pretty clear that merely adding a tag wouldn't be worthwhile. They are, as a whole, much warmer to welcoming the re-merged Senate back into the fold with a relaxed rule set. Probably because unlike your proposal, closing the Senate will actually have an impact on our community. Let alone the fact that the people you are citing weren't the ones complaining about a problem in the first place.

Also, please answer Ender's question. I am requesting a Christianity discussion forum for myself, SkywalkerNumbers and Sarge. Or attempts to discuss issues of our common faith are otherwise too often interrupted by atheist mocking, which occurs far more frequently than any harassment the Senate regulars supposedly faced. Why couldn't we have our own forum, by your logic? We're no smaller and have at least as legitimate a rationale.

 

E_S, your opening paragraph is absolutely correct. But why? The why itself has never been addressed. The reason why it didn't work in 2007 is because both forums were allowed to have parallel discussions, and it was perhaps the worst outcome for both forums. There was this strange unofficial rule that allowed serious discussion to start in JCC, but if there were too many poop references, the thread was closed down and moved to the Senate. But paradoxally, if the discussion got "serious," then it too was closed down and moved to the Senate as well. As a result, the Senate turned into the place were bad JCC threads went for punishment, and the results are still being felt. There was the entire wasted debate over the meaning of "lite vs "light" and such things.... But as you said, this isn't 2007, so what issue applies in 2013? What exactly is broken, if anything? What solution would be achieved? Again, the point is that there isn't a plethora of people waiting for some unfulfilled desire to have serious, in-depth discussions that the Senate isn't addressing, because right now, those people are posting in the Senate if they choose to.

You summed it up with your Arena example when you said that X thread was shut down and moved to the Arena from the JCC because it was more appropriate there, and the thread actually thrived. Those JCCer who wanted to continue to discuss that topic did so in the Arena, and those who had no interest in sports wouldn't go there anyway. But there wasn't a choice given. 2 rugby threads, for example, would never be allowed to cross exist and poach off of each other, because the Arena is the place for such discussion. This is what has never happened with the Senate. Why is there a JCC gun control thread as well as a Senate gun control thread, when the JCC one alternates between serious posts and poop jokes? Any thread on gun control should be in the Senate and the entire community should be posting in it, not working against it. Simply reducing the Senate to a tab will do nothing to foster serious discussion on its own.

If you want to have a serious discussion about pop culture, you go to Amph. If you want to have a serious discussion about sports, you go to the Arena. However, if you want to have a serious discussion about political issues, you don't have to go to the Senate, because there is some backlash against it from some in the JCC, so the JCC is allowed to have its own political discussions. Neither Amph nor Arena have essay-length posts, but neither does one have to wade through poop jokes and such in either one. The Senate should be the political version of Amph and Arena, and coexist among the others in the same manner. But instead, it's singled out as some sort of anomaly, when it isn't any different than a number of such forums.

 

I don't think you're reading that Community thread very closely if that seems clear to you. If the JCC wants a serious discussion tag, it should have one regardless of what happens to the Senate Floor. And the Senate Floor posters should be consulted about whether or not they want the Senate Floor closed. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, but it seems to me that you have no interest in finding out what anyone really wants.

Are you guys really arguing that no one will post in a "serious discussion" tagged JCC thread unless and until the Senate Floor is purged from the JC? It's irrational, and you should both be ashamed.

 

Thank you for making it clear you've never been to the Amphitheater. They do almost nothing but alternate between single line jokes about Kate Beckinsale and posts that would take up multiple single-spaced pages in Microsoft Word about whether the most recent Superman film has captured the true nature of heroism.

We have opened three separate simultaneous threads on this topic. Two remain open. In every one, I continue to specifically invite defenders of the status quo to speak up. We are making very reasonable outreach efforts. Tasking me personally with tracking down the opinion of every single person who has ever posted in the Senate is unreasonable. Those who are interested enough to have a stake in the outcome should be interested enough to make a single post or at least click two buttons to make their preferences known in a poll.

Where do you see that this is the case? The only one calling for this is you.

 

I think the two people who are most interested in making a change should assist the mods in finding out what actual user preferences are, instead of just guessing and assuming that what they want is what everyone should want.

I did not propose creating a new senate tag in the JCC. That was Ender Sai. I did not propose launching that while keeping the Senate Floor open. That was AaylaSecurOWNED. I believe Violent Violet Menace supports it, as does LostOnHoth a few posts back in this very thread.

What is clear is that there are a variety of opinions on this subject, and to just impose a change without making a better effort to find out if there's a clear consensus is irrational and unnecessary.

 

I agree, it sets no precedent. The Senate has been around for years and has simply dwindled. Circumstances might change which will increase traffic or it might not. In any case, comparing a long standing forum which has dwindled to a handful of people to setting up a brand new forum for a handful of people is silly. This seems to be more about purging the Senate for backslapping purposes than any genuine desire to foster 'serious discussion' in the JCC. That is how it seems to me anyway.

edit: These are special interest internet discussion forums we are talking about not corporate entitites operating in a market environment with shareholders and stakeholders. There is no market and no commercial considerations - if theforce.net don't want to host a forum because it doesn't get much traffic that is a decision for them as the owners of the site.

 

JW--No, that's not what I mean. What I am saying is that there are different ways to address the issues being raised here. So far, suggestions have come from one direction. Instead of reducing the standards of the Senate and plugging it into the JCC so people there can finally have serious discussion within the JCC, look at how all the forums interact. Why do forums like Amph and Arena exist, and what needs do they fill in relation to the Senate's purpose in the same manner? Or instead of reducing the Senate, what would be wrong with increasing the JCC?

E_S and his knowledge of James Bond is the perfect example. He has no problem popping over to Amph to discuss James Bond in a detailed manner, but then popping back to JCC for more social interaction. It's because Amph is the place for such things, even though James Bond can still be mentioned in the JCC under a different focus. E_S simply would not get the same level of discussion in JCC regarding James Bond than he would in Amph. Until that reality is addressed, then this Senate issue is rather pointless. Yet, recently, he's just about refusing to do the same with the Senate. The Senate hasn't had 5 paragraph posts for years now. It's actually quite like Amph or Arena now and can sit in the same position. The Senate has an unfortunate history, but that's in the past. (Arena did have some controversy in its creation, but has moved past that.) Everyone keeps saying to move forward, but the single option being proposed still uses the old assumptions about the Senate. The issue isn't (or rather, it shouldn't) be pitting one forum against the other. It's about fulfilling a purpose for everyone on the boards.

No one is saying "let's keep the Senate stuck in time." But I think different solutions exist than just reducing it under some undefined criteria. There's no reason to put a "serious" tag in the JCC just so there can be serious discussion, but then ignore all other options like what already exist with forums like Amph, Arena, and the Senate.

 

What are you talking about "popping over to Amph?" It's not a separate forum. It appears on the same page as the JCC threads. That's exactly what we are proposing for the Senate.

It's extremely difficult to have a discussion when you can't seem to recall the most basic facts, and instead act as if we are still in a situation that hasn't existed for over a year.

 

What Wocky said, and why my not wanting to leave that forum to go to another is I think an issue others experience.

Jabbadabbado - would the "gauging sentiment" suggestion encompass the 15 page thread in the JC I started? I feel it would.

We can ask Senate regulars their thoughts, but how many regulars have we missed? I think it's telling that they haven't come here yet.

What more do you want?

 

Mr44 Why do you keep referring to the Amph as if it's a separate forum that Ender_Sai switches back and forth to? It doesn't exist like that anymore. It's just a discussion-focusing tag inside the Community forum.

Jabba-wocky I think this mentality is actually at the root of the difficulty that people opposed to the merge have: They have this idea of the Senate as being a concrete, immutable object that will have to coexist with a bunch of different forums if it's merged together. That wouldn't be the case, never will be, and shouldn't have been the case in the first place. Maybe it was a consequences of the divisions and animosities that grew between the different forums on the old boards, but where every other forum swept up into the new Community Forum, YJCC included, let a little bit of its distinct identity go to make a new merged forum. The Senate mods and regulars, on the other hand, seemed to have conceived of the merge as everything being hoovered up by YJCC, and rather than becoming a part of a new Community forum tried to exist awkwardly within in it as if it were still a separate forum. This was probably a result of a lack of understanding of what the merge was at the time it was happening.

Jabbadabbado Mr44 I think then that the reason that some call for the Senate being disbanded as a separate forum (with the old Senate threads presumably merged into the JCC), which I'm certainly not opposed to, stems from the fact that the Senate that exists now, as much as it is a continuation of the Senate on the old boards, also exists as a split off from the merged forum, dragging a chunk of the newly established community, in the form of threads created during the merge, with it in the process. Really, this whole situation is the result of a poor understanding of how to integrate the Senate into the Community forum, which led to certain people viewing the new forum as an amalgamation of simultaneous separate forums rather than as a gestalt entity synthesized from the old forums.

As it happens, what we currently have a forum that exists as a small side forum for six people to have conversations that are currently perfectly covered by the other Community forum, or soon can be, simply because they don't like the way some of the members in the Community post, or rather how some of them think they post. It's not really comparable to the smaller specialty forums Mr44 likes to cite, because The Senate isn't really a specialty forum beyond which users post there. Maybe that's not important to some of you, but it's not in keeping with how the boards are currently organized, and the way the situation was created was kind of a spit in the face to some of the members of the new Community forum.

 

Moreover, why are Old Senate users so unable to lead by example?

 

I have some advice for those who would think the relocation of a subforum in the non-Star Wars part of a Star Wars message board is a slap in the face.

 

Yet you had no such insights for yourself and the other Senate mods when you first started down this course?