The Imperial Senate Commentary Thread

[ray245]

I almost feel tempted to be in the senate, to tell other senators, reach a decision by a deadline, if not, locked this thread.

Chop, chop, get things done. The Senate needs someone daring enough to tell them off, an angry boss. You either made a decision by this date or your proposal will fall.

The senate needs an 'enforcer' or the excutive body. A moderator in the senate to ensure the senate can actually made a decision.

Deadlines is one very useful tool I guess. If anyone can be the 'enforcer' or the excutive body that the senate needs, I think ghost rider can do that job well.

Bully people into making a conclusion.

The Famous Threads subforum lay empty for a long period, and only recently had threads moved there (and if I may be excused for injecting my two cents, I believe that the three threads in there are poor choices for it, as they all deal with the 2008 US Election, a dated topic.). There are other subforums which have only a small handful of threads as well. Therefore, I think it presumes too much to place the creation of the subforums entirely in the win column for the Senate.

I think the election threads should end up in the history forum instead. Reason being, the internet can be used as an archive and let future generation have first hand infomation what the general public feels as a whole during the 08 elections.

[Coyote]

I'll remind folks that many times, what the Senate works on, is banning miscreants in a way that is transparent to all. Typically, someone acts up, the Senate has it brought to our attention, we review the case, give a chance for someone to advocate for the poster if they see fit, and then the troublemaker is banned.

So usually the reason the Senate appears to "not do anything" is because the people we deal with are gone within a few days. So most of the people directly affected by the Senate aren't around anymore to raise the issue.

[ray245]

Banning people is much easier than getting things like rules, regulation and an active debate in the coliseum.

When it comes to orgainsation, this is the time where the Senate can't reach a decision easily. Again, acting as the policeman is an easy part, the policy making process is the issue that many members are concerned about.

[Coyote]

Well, we were really convened to do two things-- add transparency to the punishment process, and serve as a board of advisors for board issues; rules, regulations, etc. Really, being policement or enforcers or whatever wasn't necessarily part of the mandate, so I think calls that the Senate isn't doing much won't make much sense. We weren't supposed to do much, and with people complaining about intimidation or heavy-handedness or other things, is a truly powerful Senate really what they want?

Basically, instead of Mike making a decree and the citizens nodding agreement and saying "so say we all", the Senate gave an opportunity for a rule to be discussed and dissected first, modified or shot down, before implementation. We discuss things like editing of topics, allowing video embedding, the subforums, and of course what constitutes an offense worthy of booting. We've also voted back in a handful of previously booted people after discussing the merits of their case.

None of this is major, earth-shaking stuff, but I don't think we were ever supposed to be shaking the earth every week. I think it's actually best that we don't shake the earth on a regular basis. One of my history professors once joked that you can tell when a country has become successful because it's history becomes dull. A Senate with nothing to do is probably better than a militant, interfering nanny Senate, IMO.

[ray245]

Well, we were really convened to do two things-- add transparency to the punishment process, and serve as a board of advisors for board issues; rules, regulations, etc. Really, being policement or enforcers or whatever wasn't necessarily part of the mandate, so I think calls that the Senate isn't doing much won't make much sense. We weren't supposed to do much, and with people complaining about intimidation or heavy-handedness or other things, is a truly powerful Senate really what they want?

Basically, instead of Mike making a decree and the citizens nodding agreement and saying "so say we all", the Senate gave an opportunity for a rule to be discussed and dissected first, modified or shot down, before implementation. We discuss things like editing of topics, allowing video embedding, the subforums, and of course what constitutes an offense worthy of booting. We've also voted back in a handful of previously booted people after discussing the merits of their case.

None of this is major, earth-shaking stuff, but I don't think we were ever supposed to be shaking the earth every week. I think it's actually best that we don't shake the earth on a regular basis. One of my history professors once joked that you can tell when a country has become successful because it's history becomes dull. A Senate with nothing to do is probably better than a militant, interfering nanny Senate, IMO.

That's what I will want. Ensure the immaturity can be stopped.

[Coyote]

The thing I would change is... I would build a link of responsibility, ownership almost, between Senators and certain forums. Whenever a person come to me with a PM, I see that person as my "constituent", and I want to get what I can for my constituent.

I still think that having Senators represent certain forums they tend to inhabit th emost, and being responsible for the smooth running of those forums (which would entail some mod responsibility, I think, at least to some extent) and representing the main posters there, would be kinda cool, and reflect a real Senate in a modern democracy.

Of course, citizens would have to determine which forum is their "main" or "home" forum... there's advantages and disadvantages. But there'd be a reason for a Senator and a citizen to interact, hear petitions, etc.