Senate The Senate is splitting off

FID is right about derailing this thread. Stop it.

 

The reason it derailed is because there's nothing left to say on the subject. So why not lock it and let it sink into the abyss? It'd be a nice demonstration of Senate activity post-split.

 

Goodbye.

 

...you could just not post. No need to derail a thread uselessly because you ran out of things to say. I know. A tricky option, but I believe it's a very viable one. That's pretty much why I stopped posting. That and you know...the derailment. Not only does it derail the thread, but it also adds a barrier to adding a voice when a bunch of people are posting whatever thought enters their addled brain.

 

Mondegreens have a chilling effect, I know.

 

So how's this working out for you guys? It's looking like a thread burial ground in here from where I'm sitting.

 

About eleventy billion times better, thank you.

 

Yeah... posting is a real drag. Stagnant threads are way better.

 

If you measure a good discussion by how much talking happens, rather than what is actually said, then... you're wrong. I don't know about you, but I think it's refreshing that when people don't have anything to add, they just don't say anything. I like it. I realize that's incredibly boring.

 

I agree. Quality =/= quantity.
And I'd contend that the discussions here have gone up in quality since the move.

Still, it would be nice if we had some more participation. That said, harps, it's strange of you to just post in this topic....

 

I've always been more of a senate reader. Occasionally, when inspired, I'll post something, but that doesn't happen very often. I commented because there isn't a whole lot to read anymore.

 

That's why my posting here has slowed to a crawl.

 

Me too, which is why I have so few posts relative to the length of time I have been registered here.

 

"The smaller the attendance the bigger the history. There were 12 people at the last supper. Half a dozen at Kitty Hawk. Archimedes was on his own in the bath." - Tony Wilson

 

And there were no Americans in Baghdad to watch it fall.

 

a larger quantity of quality posts is better than a smaller quantity of quality posts.

 

8 active threads in the last 2 weeks.

 

Oh come on. I didn't think you were capable of such self important drivel. I think more of you than that. The splitting off was a failure, just own it. It's a shame, really.

 

Yeah I agree with Harps. I preferred when the Senate was part of the JCC. This whole move reeks of extreme sensitivity towards the occasional snark that will happen from JCC regulars.

 

Actually it should be 7 active threads in the last 2 weeks as I counted the social one.

 

I would contend that this is a bunch of self-serving claptrap. Let's look at what the actual "quality" of the Senate threads are. How many substantive posts appear on page 68 of the Israel/Palestine thread? The longest on the whole page is only two paragraphs, and a full 80% of the posts are three sentences are less. Several are just links, and some posts are more humorous than anything.

How does any part of this meet the much vaunted standard for Senate posts? How wouldn't it slot neatly into the JCC? Senate moderators were not only aware of this discussion, but contributing silly, one-line, off-topic posts themselves. It's stunning hypocrisy. But it also makes the point of those who were arguing against the split. For all those faults, I don't think that anyone's posts were necessarily terrible, or that no worthwhile discussion happened. Rather, I think the often brief and sometimes informal nature was net neutral, or perhaps arguably facilitated discussion by encouraging more voices with unique viewpoints to chime in.

Lest you think that's a one-off event caused by the relative speed of that discussion, consider the slower-paced Arab Spring thread. Stretching through the entirety of this fall, only two posts were more than three sentences. They were by a single poster, who in one instance managed four sentences and in his other still stayed well below ten. Many of the others were single line responses or news article links with minimal commentary. Others are filled with light, joking remarks.

It's this way in thread after thread, by Senate "regulars." Objectively, the way the Senate has discussions is not different the way that the JCC does. We established years ago that their topic coverage isn't difference. The loudest advocates for separating are some of the most inactive. This move has not proved to be about anything legitimate. It is a few personalities segregating themselves from everyone else in a terrible, inactive forum. I wish you all would end the charade.

Ridiculous. Not only is this quote irrelevant to the topic at hand (and contradictory to your claim that "Still, it would be nice if we had some more participation"), it's also flat out incorrect. It's easy to cherry pick three hugely impacting historical events and point out "Look, it had only a small group of people." But then you're forgetting a lot of events. How many people were involved in the Apollo 11 mission? How many in the formation of the US? The French Revolution? The Russian Revolution? Other major events?

 

Sorry, have to agree with Vivec here and as you will recall Watto I had strong views on this when we met up.

The Senate didn't need to split off; it needed to adapt to the new JC as a whole and be a part of it.

Instead of being progressive, compromising on what it means to be the Senate and generally being a part of a community you instead regressed into a tiny world where denial is the order of the day. You may see it as some elite gentleman's club; in truth it's closer to North Korea in terms of the isolationism and abject terror at the outside world.

What should happen is this; the old Senate rules? Gone. THe requirement to have long posts, explain opinions and all of that? Dropped entirely. Senate goes back into JC and any serious topics that relate to religion, politics, sexuality and gender, race, etc all get tagged Senate. Senate is the tag for serious discussions, and if you want to post an essay you go right ahead. If you don't, you don't have to.

Is it a compromise of Senate ideals and JC norms? Yes.
Is it really necessary? Come on. You damn well know it is.

JC'ers will hate the idea of Senate being the tag for serious discussions, but so long as it's a tag and not a snobbish mentality they'll come around, and it'll work.

 

The quote was sarcastic, it came from a comedy.

The choice you all envision, between a Senate in and out of the JCC, is imaginary. It was either this or no Senate at all. There was nobody who wanted to mod a JCC Senate anymore. So if anybody wants to mod a JCC Senate, I'd say: you know where to apply.

 

OK, so basically when Porsche began to make wider market appeal vehicles like the entry level Boxter, the mid-level Cayman (aka the Palindrome, according to Jeremy Clarkson) and the stupidly successful Cayenne, it did so because the brand required it to survived. It removed some of the elitism from the brand but did so in order to survive.

BMW did something similar with the X1 and 1-series (as did Audi with the A1, and Mercedes with the A-Klasse). They softened their exclusivity for greater market share and thrived.

The Senate is much like Rolls Royce, except without BMW buyout. It's unsustainable. The current model does not warrant a separate subforum nor two mods. So with respect, if the mods are putting their foot down about it, then arguably the issue is with the mods.

The Community (as in, the rest of the groups who can co-exist under the Community banner) deserve a say in this too. The big problem with serious topics in the JC is that the serious discussion can be sidetracked. Fine. Offer to have a tag for serious discussion but remove the rest of the pretentious elitism the Senate has and they could be happy. Only, why does the Senate still exist?

Let's have a focus group! But seriously, this should be in Community again or Comms.

 

I'm not putting my foot down, I was just lifting it.