Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by SuperWatto, Jul 24, 2013.
So what makes the Senate posting style so unique that it should be preserved?
So long as we're slinging questions that've already been answered:
-Focus on substance, not 'lol'
-Impossibility to police Senate-style posting when integrated with JCC
We're still waiting on the elitism thing, btw.
Well, I think there's a respectfulness to opposing points of view in here that you don't find in the JCC, where it's more , shall we say, in your face. Like the discussion between you and Vivec on Mandela. I don't really care much about what you're discussing, but if I did, I wouldn't get into it the way you two are replying to each other. You're constantly insulting each other's intelligence. What's up with that? Calm down. I think if that happened here, moderators would have stopped it.
Honestly, while I find hard to believe the claim that people would be intimidated from posting here, I think that if there is anything that is intimidating people from posting here, it's you.
Are you trying to tell me the example I shared was some sort of deeply considered response? Because I'm pretty sure it was a fairly quick, silly reply.
That said, your argument is a poor one. The JCC boasts plenty of threads that stay consistently on topic, go inactive for several weeks to months, but perk back up when there's a relevant issue. For instance, the gun control thread doesn't seriously derail, but no one feels pressure to post in it rapidly, often, or at all. That said, whenever a serious gun-related issue arises in the US, that thread floats back to the top for renewed debate. Similarly, multiple film threads (Iron Man, Captain America, etc) stay very quiet for long periods, ramp up as people discuss a new film, and then go quiet until there is news of the next one. Where are you getting this notion that the JCC can't operate in this fashion? And if your points in favor of the Senate are true, why can't you defend them with specific examples, like I just did as it regards the JCC?
So how would that be a problem now? Every single time you've asked, you keep telling us about issues of posting rate rather than content. How can the styles be so divergent that it's impossible to moderate the two of them, but also such that you can't even point to any distinctions?
EDIT: The best evidence of Senate elitism is probably the continued protests that it would be intolerable to have to share a thread with JCers, despite posting exactly like them much of the time. This is an argument about attitude. The Senate's is off-putting, unjustified, and more than a little condescending. It has nothing to do with the substance of what the Senate is because attitudes often don't.
It really isn't necessary to police threads and tell people how to talk.
Ender made an excellent post in the comms thread. I'd like to hear your thoughts on what he had to say.
Look, Wocky, the other subforums merged because the users of those forums wanted to. There were internal disagreements, sure, but the people who favored merging were higher in number. So they did. In this subforum, the people who actually use it haven't expressed any desire to merge, except Ender and you (but you almost never post here either). So we have people who never use the Senate, who want to make decisions for people who do. Why? Tell me why. If there are so many examples of the JCC being perfectly capable of doing the same thing as the Senate, then let them. Let them do it. Why can't both exist? Why must this subforum justify its existence? Are you worried about server bandwidth or something? We like it this way, let us have it.
I mean you keep telling us that the Senate isn't needed. Yet you seem to have a very deep rooted need to have the Senate, but to have it your way. What gives? Is it the name Senate? Take it. We'll call this place Joe's Steak House from now on, or something. Fine?
I don't think that's really a fair assessment. Yes, only people that wanted to split still post here, but that's a reflection of the fact that no one else wanted to split. When the actual thread came up, there were a number of Senate posters who quite vocally opposed this move, and they in fact outnumbered the voices in support. In fact, going back to the first page of this thread, you'll find that the moderators took this decision unilaterally, without consulting the opinions of any actual users, and received a great deal of complaints about their proposal.
I was a long time Senate poster. I still love reading and participating in serious discussions. But I don't do it here, because I feel that the attitude of this forum is terrible, and that the specific decision to create is one that harmed both the JCC and the newly recreated "Senate." I want things to change because I think they would work better another way. For the most part, I just feel like I'm getting nostalgia-based push back without anyone articulating why the status quo is desirable or even functional, let alone superior to the new idea on the table.
Look at the title of the thread. It's a statement of fact, not a question, or even an invitation to discussion. Of course those who complain would outnumber the supporters. The supporters would look at the title of the thread and think "ok". Why waste time arguing? Their will is already in motion. That's common sense.
Furthermore, by your own admission you still love reading and participating in serious discussions, but not here. In the JCC. Then clearly you don't need this place to have serious discussions, nor does the JCC need a specific tag to separate out the serious discussions. They have very serious discussions without need of moderating, under the JCC tag, as you have yourself provided such great examples of. Then what do you need the Senate for? I don't understand. You keep presenting examples of how the JCC doesn't need the Senate, yet you're engaging in a campaign to bring the Senate into the JCC, to give the JCC something it doesn't need. For what?
I don't think that reading of events is accurate. Maybe initially. But the discussion raged for several days, and there were clear calls from both sides to reference the number of people that did and didn't support the move. The "will" of supporters was being very aggressively challenged, to the point that there were several accusations that it had no support at all outside of Superwatto's personal whim. In that environment, it would make sense for supporters to speak up--as they in fact did.
Secondly, my issue is not that the JCC can't have serious discussion absent the Senate. It is that the serious discussions on the forum are better in a merged environment. They were more frequent, and they were more lively. They were more free-flowing, yes, but they were also a lot broader and more diverse. We got people weighing in I never expected to hear from, and bringing out points I might not have thought of myself. That's what these discussions are supposed to be about, and they are far superior to what has succeeded them in either of the separated forums.
Then let them come to the Senate and we'll all be happy. We'll have this place and you'll get better discussions. It's not our fault that they don't come here.
Your reasoning can be interpreted in two ways: either the discussions are improved because of the fact that Senate regulars join the JCC, or it is improved because new people join Senate discussions. If it is the former, then that is kind of douchey to move us against our will because you want better discussions. If its because of the latter, then, I agree with you, and as I've said numerous times, let them come here. They are more than welcome.
Yes it is. It entirely is. That's why I don't come here. It's why harpua doesn't. It's why Recession Spending said he wouldn't. This is a matter of record. People said this move would drive them away, and it did. The atmosphere of this place is not welcoming, nor is it conducive to vigorous, widely-shared debates. Your response is basically that all those other people should get over it, because there's no reason they shouldn't consider the Senate welcoming. I don't see how that's fair or reasonable. The fact is, a sizable number of people are turned off by this place. Might the problem at least partly lie with you?
Also, can I reverse the question? What is so valuable to you about the Senate as separate from the JCC?
Who the **** is Recesssion Spending? I've wanted to ask this question for some time, and now seems the opportune time since we are all in here belly aching.
Some mod favorite.
I have already articulated what I find valuable about the Senate, and honestly, the status quo shouldn't have to justify itself. Those wanting to change the established are the ones who have to make their case. Also, we can't be held responsible for something so nebulous as the place's "atmosphere" and how it makes you feel unless you give an example of what you're referring to. I have given an example of the harshness that I find unwelcoming, or to use your word, off-putting, in the serious JCC discussions. The person who is arguing alongside you for this move is the ultimate contributor of that harshness, so merging the Senate into the JCC would in no way fix that. It would likely make it even worse. At least he's somewhat constrained by his own rules when he's here. Also, he recently made the case that it's impossible to give insult, only possible to take it, so good luck convincing him that this place gives bad feelings and that we should be held accountable for those feelings. He'd likely tell you to piss off, if it weren't for the fact that he has a mutual interest with you in this case.
Furthermore, if this place has such a bad atmosphere, one has to assume that we are the ones who are making it, so your solution is to then expose us and our alleged obnoxiousness onto the JCC? You don't seem to think very highly of your fellow JCers to subject them to that. Or it could be that we're not as bad as you say.
Firstly, I was harsh here first.
You don't have to assume it's personal commentary at all. A large part of what makes the Senate hostile are its rules. That's why the major element of what we've proposed is a rules revision. The other part is a structural problem that doesn't exist with you as individuals.Groups are often perceived differently than its individual members would be if judged separately.
While I understand your concerns about the nature of some JCC threads, I don't think that has anything to do with the forum. Those two posters have some sharp personal disagreements that have flared from time to time in multiple settings, not just the JCC and not just in serious discussions. I'm not sure it's fair to globalize a problem like that, just like it would be unfair of me to talk about a problem that is global to the Senate and try to pin the blame on one or two individual Senate posters. They are two separate categories.
The emphasis on 'posting style' was always the sticking point here. I get that some regulars didn't like one line posts and less serious posts, but many users posted perfectly thought out, detailed responses and simple ignored the others until they either left or contributed something of more substance. In my view, the increase in discussion outweighed the users who attempted to derail topics. This insistence, this mandate that posts must follow a certain style is why users perceive the senate to be 'snooty' and it is a large reason why they are so hostile. And yet, as pointed out, users and moderators are not always following that model even in this forum. As wocky pointed out, plenty of JCC topics go dark for long periods and then surge with posts when there is something to talk about. I was one of those opposed to the move back and that stemmed mostly with the unilateral decision involved. As a result of that attitude, I've actively avoided this forum until now. I asked then what would happen when this plan failed, and I ask it again.
You got your way. And you have a forum that is a few more inactive topics away from being put on life support. You've done this yourselves by alienating users in the JCC who were happy to post in topics and offer valid, on topic feedback but were both surprised and upset when the Senate decided to cut and run and cited posts by the JCC as the reason-despite the fact not all users considered themselves to be part of the JCC. So I don't quite see how some can say "let them come to us" when frankly, users were doing that already and you rebuked us. We were cited as the reason for leaving. That's not exactly rolling out the welcome mat. Plenty of other forums were merged into one. It wasn't just the JCC. Amph, SFF, Arena, Census. These weren't all just JCC users. And those users from these other forums went into Senate threads and followed your rules and contributed to discussions. You left them. Not the other way around. And this two click business has nothing to do with it. You created your own castle and dug a moat around it. Is it any wonder why users didn't follow?
In my experience, the example I gave is indicative of a more general trend, i.e. it's not only between those two users. That was just the latest example that came to mind. I also find it unfair that you want to move against our wishes because of how we as a group are perceived as unwelcoming, as opposed to actual examples of us being unwelcoming. As for the rules being too strict, you have yourself provided several examples of us breaking our own rules, so clearly we don't take them that seriously as to be a big problem. If you read the current guidelines, they're not even that strict to begin with, and a lot of JCC threads follow those naturally on their own accord. I mean they seem like bare-bones conditions you would need for a discussion to even form. I don't see how you could relax the rules beyond that, but I'm certainly open to the idea.
Please provide an example of us being unwelcoming, and also please show me how the guidelines can be relaxed adequately.
VVM, if I may counter for a moment;
All the forums became one community with tags for various topics. The Senate decided it wanted out. What kind of message do you think that sent?
That The Hoff needs you to focus. Also, you're again talking about messages being sent, in effect, perception. They would do well to try posting and see the reality, which is not the horror they imagine.
Plus, wasn't a major part of the reasoning that the mods felt overworked, so they wanted a slower forum? If you want to move, maybe you should find replacement mods to support those duties?
Look peeps, the Senate is not used to this frantic level of posting, the elastic band that runs this thing is about to snap.
Why not lock this thread and direct everyone to the thread in Comms?
I think we would be more than glad to accept the resignation of the current Senate mods, close the forum, and reassign their duties to those willing to do the work.
Who is willing?
The JCC mods helped police the threads in the combined community and didn't seem to have any problem with it.
Very well. Irrespective of this latest point, my requests of you in my earlier post still stand.