StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Gonna kick this up to OT, because I can.

Again why is this in testing?
I give up, fine go ahead and post here. I promise from now on that unless you post this in Off-Topic or HoS or something with auto delete I will from this point in not only actively ignore your viewpoints on the ongoing culture debate I will begin spending what little free time I have thwarting you.
Don't think I'm not kidding. Testing is not a refugee from the mean old moderators, it's a place for worthless useless posts and will be treated as such.

Mr Bean wrote:Again why is this in testing?
I give up, fine go ahead and post here. I promise from now on that unless you post this in Off-Topic or HoS or something with auto delete I will from this point in not only actively ignore your viewpoints on the ongoing culture debate I will begin spending what little free time I have thwarting you.
Don't think I'm not kidding. Testing is not a refugee from the mean old moderators, it's a place for worthless useless posts and will be treated as such.

I don't think that's really necessary. We had what, two threads in Testing because that was where people were discussing the Senate by default? And then this. Seeing as I do the overwhelming majority of the moderating in Testing, you can trust me when I say that it's not a huge burden on the staff to kick up worthwhile threads into other forums if need be.

EDIT: Edited for tone.

Destructionator XIII wrote:ARTICLE III: Usergroups

The Mess shall be first among usergroups. All bow to our greatness.

On a more serious note:

ARTICLE I: The administration

Section 3: The Governors

3. The Governors are nominated by the Plebes who are frequent posters in the forum they are to be tasked with moderating.

How would one determine who is a "frequent poster" in a given forum? In a manner that is fair, consistent and transparent, rather than someone saying "well I feel they are so they are"?

I'd just as well have anyone who wants to vote for any governor in any forum. I don't think there's any workable scheme to determine who is and isn't "active" in a forum without rewarding +1 posts. In fact, I'm iffy on the whole idea of subjecting Governors to recall by anyone except the Senate.

As for the Senate, I think the best way to select it would be to have it elected at-large by the entire board. I haven't decided on a voting method yet. Have Senators serve 1 year terms, with three Senate "classes" so there's an election once every four months. No term limits, for the same reason I oppose term limits in real life; it would put most power effectively in the hands of governors and administrators.

The Senate itself should be directly answerable to the Emperor and the Emperor alone. Under this constitution, the governors, supermods, and administrators have no authority over the Senate. Under this scheme, the Administrators would be something like the police commissioner, rather than the Emperor's deputy (their de facto role now).

And I think the Senate should have a hand in selecting Administrators; maybe elect them from the ranks of the supermods, subject to a veto from the Emperor.

This isn't a democracy- it is a absolute monarchy with a meritocratic civil service and regional control by election. Not bad, just a little deceptive. Of course, SD.net will always be an autocracy under the beneficent hand of our glorious emperor

As for how things work, how many posts do we need to fill out? I know we need mods to ensure the rules are followed and senators to discuss changes- what are the roles of the other posts?

Less federalized, more unitarian. The mods should be appointed by the Senate, who are in turn elected by a universal, popular vote. Regarding the popular votes, they should be held from a time on x date until b time on y date. Quorum is likely to be impossible, as would any meaningful census on active members.

I would also suggest that usergroups be granted almost complete autonomy.

May I suggest we nominate people who can remain extremely calm even in a personal and flame fest thread as moderators without power?

They are not there to ban people or anything, they are basically there to cool things down. Banning long time helpful members is not going to help people to cool down. They are basically the fire-fighters as compared to the police enforcer. When a thread is going out of control, these people will step in to cool down the sistuation and ensure the following post will be meaningful.

ray245 wrote:May I suggest we nominate people who can remain extremely calm even in a personal and flame fest thread as moderators without power?

They are not there to ban people or anything, they are basically there to cool things down. Banning long time helpful members is not going to help people to cool down. They are basically the fire-fighters as compared to the police enforcer. When a thread is going out of control, these people will step in to cool down the sistuation and ensure the following post will be meaningful.

I've considered that as a serious reform, but 1) you don't want to add too many layers of bureaucracy, and 2) a mod with no powers is a mod you can ignore. If I go to break up a dogpile and nobody listens, I can slap people with warnings, I can split off posts, I can lock the thread, I can even issue temp bans (at least theoretically; I'm not actually authorized to do that). Without mod powers, there's a delay until I can flag down a real mod and get him to do it.

RedImperator wrote:

ray245 wrote:May I suggest we nominate people who can remain extremely calm even in a personal and flame fest thread as moderators without power?

They are not there to ban people or anything, they are basically there to cool things down. Banning long time helpful members is not going to help people to cool down. They are basically the fire-fighters as compared to the police enforcer. When a thread is going out of control, these people will step in to cool down the sistuation and ensure the following post will be meaningful.

I've considered that as a serious reform, but 1) you don't want to add too many layers of bureaucracy, and 2) a mod with no powers is a mod you can ignore. If I go to break up a dogpile and nobody listens, I can slap people with warnings, I can split off posts, I can lock the thread, I can even issue temp bans (at least theoretically; I'm not actually authorized to do that). Without mod powers, there's a delay until I can flag down a real mod and get him to do it.

Perhaps the first warning can be more nice in nature? Like telling the members to cool down first, and let the thread rest for a while until the parties involved is much more calm. Instead of charging head on into the thread in a very direct manner (which can make people more annoyed for instance)

Adding a smilies after your post might help a person to cool down.

Like moderators can impose a rule and ask people who is very flared up to add a smilely after their post for a period of time. The momment you see a smilely in a thread, or in a post can cool down a person.

We have smilies around for a certain reason and smilies is an excellent tool to cool people down. People who is agitated will go WTF when he press a smilies after a very angry post or reply. And when he see it, he can think for a second and wonder if he is too agitated.

I experimented with something similar when I ran my own discussion board a couple years back, but the very first vote rendered the experiment moot, because the populace voted to make me God-Emperor rather than become a republic, because they didn't want to bother with it.

ray245 wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

ray245 wrote:May I suggest we nominate people who can remain extremely calm even in a personal and flame fest thread as moderators without power?

They are not there to ban people or anything, they are basically there to cool things down. Banning long time helpful members is not going to help people to cool down. They are basically the fire-fighters as compared to the police enforcer. When a thread is going out of control, these people will step in to cool down the sistuation and ensure the following post will be meaningful.

I've considered that as a serious reform, but 1) you don't want to add too many layers of bureaucracy, and 2) a mod with no powers is a mod you can ignore. If I go to break up a dogpile and nobody listens, I can slap people with warnings, I can split off posts, I can lock the thread, I can even issue temp bans (at least theoretically; I'm not actually authorized to do that). Without mod powers, there's a delay until I can flag down a real mod and get him to do it.

Perhaps the first warning can be more nice in nature? Like telling the members to cool down first, and let the thread rest for a while until the parties involved is much more calm. Instead of charging head on into the thread in a very direct manner (which can make people more annoyed for instance)

Adding a smilies after your post might help a person to cool down.

Like moderators can impose a rule and ask people who is very flared up to add a smilely after their post for a period of time. The momment you see a smilely in a thread, or in a post can cool down a person.

We have smilies around for a certain reason and smilies is an excellent tool to cool people down. People who is agitated will go WTF when he press a smilies after a very angry post or reply. And when he see it, he can think for a second and wonder if he is too agitated.

Or maybe before a moderator has to tell you that you're out of line, you, as a poster, could've read that large forum up there called Annoucements. It details rules, regulations and all sorts of nice things, in a friendly and unobtrusive manner.

More of this is caused because people do not want to simple things. If they can't no reason to baby them or coddle them.

The way things are going, we could just change the name of the "Off Topic" forum to "House of Commons"!

Actually, I was thinking about it this morning and perhaps a annual, or bi-annual feedback review from the citizens about the performance of the Senators, Governors, etc would be useful. After all, we were appointed, not elected, and many complaints revolve around us not taking things seriously or taking other things TOO seriously.

Ghost Rider wrote:
Or maybe before a moderator has to tell you that you're out of line, you, as a poster, could've read that large forum up there called Annoucements. It details rules, regulations and all sorts of nice things, in a friendly and unobtrusive manner.

More of this is caused because people do not want to simple things. If they can't no reason to baby them or coddle them.

In regards to the older forum members and some mods, in the end, even mods get flared up at times. When that happens, it is possible for those mods and older members to forget the rules themselves.

It is possible to remember the rules and regulations when you are calm. Which is why, someone needs to calm in, if possible request the flared up moderators or even Admins to post a smilies at the end of their post to cool them down.

It isn't a perfect solution, however, I believe it can help, to a certain extend.

Destructionator XIII wrote:Section 1: The Emperor

1. There shall be one and only one Emperor who is the source of all power over the board.
2. His power is not to be constrained by this document.
3. Congress shall pass no law abridging the power of the Emperor.
4. Should the need arise, the Emperor choses his own successor. This choice may need not be ratified and may not be vetoed or overridden.

In the face of 1 & 2, 3 & 4 are redundant and unnecessary.

ray245 wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:
Or maybe before a moderator has to tell you that you're out of line, you, as a poster, could've read that large forum up there called Annoucements. It details rules, regulations and all sorts of nice things, in a friendly and unobtrusive manner.

More of this is caused because people do not want to simple things. If they can't no reason to baby them or coddle them.

In regards to the older forum members and some mods, in the end, even mods get flared up at times. When that happens, it is possible for those mods and older members to forget the rules themselves.

It is possible to remember the rules and regulations when you are calm. Which is why, someone needs to calm in, if possible request the flared up moderators or even Admins to post a smilies at the end of their post to cool them down.

It isn't a perfect solution, however, I believe it can help, to a certain extend.

Your entire bit is either a non sequitor you are having with yourself, or you are not getting it. It only helps because it makes you think it's a solution.

Said person has no teeth. Said person has to get someone with teeth. Why add extra workload on a person to do absolutely nothing but go tattle tale?

And smilies? Like putting a band-aid on a bullet wound.

I motion that our first act as a democracy is to have Destructionator XIII keelhauled for acting as the catalyst for turning this into a democracy.

EDIT - Oh yes, and that I should be named dictator perpetuo

ray245 wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

ray245 wrote:May I suggest we nominate people who can remain extremely calm even in a personal and flame fest thread as moderators without power?

They are not there to ban people or anything, they are basically there to cool things down. Banning long time helpful members is not going to help people to cool down. They are basically the fire-fighters as compared to the police enforcer. When a thread is going out of control, these people will step in to cool down the sistuation and ensure the following post will be meaningful.

I've considered that as a serious reform, but 1) you don't want to add too many layers of bureaucracy, and 2) a mod with no powers is a mod you can ignore. If I go to break up a dogpile and nobody listens, I can slap people with warnings, I can split off posts, I can lock the thread, I can even issue temp bans (at least theoretically; I'm not actually authorized to do that). Without mod powers, there's a delay until I can flag down a real mod and get him to do it.

Perhaps the first warning can be more nice in nature? Like telling the members to cool down first, and let the thread rest for a while until the parties involved is much more calm. Instead of charging head on into the thread in a very direct manner (which can make people more annoyed for instance)

I agree you can be firm and direct without being an asshole (I don't do this nearly enough), but that doesn't have much bearing on the need for a moderator to be able to enforce his own decisions. It's like being a substitute teacher: you can tell the kids to sit down and do their work all you want, but you don't have any real authority and they know it. Yeah, you can call the vice-principal's office and have them enforce it, but 1) that just enforces the fact you have no real authority, and 2) while you're waiting for the cavalry to arrive, whatever it is you're trying to stop is still going on.

If the concern is that mods will use their authority in threads in which they're involved, the obvious answer to that is for the admins to enforce moderating policy. Moderators are not actually allowed to do that and have never been allowed to do that, but at some point, that stopped being enforced.

An exercise in futility.

This is an internet website not a UN agency. The last thing this website needs is even more top heavy bureaucracy. There is a saying in my native land that when kicked an empty vase will ring louder than one filled with water. That's pretty much what SDN is becoming with the pompous bureaucratic nonsense. Where are the interesting 10+ page long threads that can highhandedly persuade people to sign up and participate ? Instead are people here to play some Forum based Strategy / RPG game with factions like Senate and Testingstan ? If someone wants to experiment with "virtual society" let them play sim city or something. The board itself needs less drama, whining and more discussion and debates. It's all up to the users themselves to post thoughtfully. It's easy to blame the senate or mods or flying monkeys. But it does not speak highly of SDnet posters when some of the best threads of late had been Zor's RARs.

Rotate the moderators. Simple as that.

Sarevok wrote:An exercise in futility.

This is an internet website not a UN agency. The last thing this website needs is even more top heavy bureaucracy. There is a saying in my native land that when kicked an empty vase will ring louder than one filled with water. That's pretty much what SDN is becoming with the pompous bureaucratic nonsense. Where are the interesting 10+ page long threads that can highhandedly persuade people to sign up and participate ? Instead are people here to play some Forum based Strategy / RPG game with factions like Senate and Testingstan ? If someone wants to experiment with "virtual society" let them play sim city or something. The board itself needs less drama, whining and more discussion and debates. It's all up to the users themselves to post thoughtfully. It's easy to blame the senate or mods or flying monkeys. But it does not speak highly of SDnet posters when some of the best threads of late had been Zor's RARs.

<grits teeth, remembers we're trying to be nice and calm and not blow our fucking stacks> Perhaps if you'd read the OP more closely, you would have noticed this is a thought experiment for fun and not a serious proposal.

ARTICLE I: The administration

Section 1: The Emperor

Every democracy's constitution should start this way. XD

I would like to bring up the idea of holding a referendum once again, in regards to board policy issues.

While I believe the Senate should have full power over the decision to ban someone, board policy, such as imposing new rules and creation of new forum section should hold a referendum instead.

The board community should have a chance to voice and decide what direction the board should take.

ray245 wrote:I would like to bring up the idea of holding a referendum once again, in regards to board policy issues.

While I believe the Senate should have full power over the decision to ban someone, board policy, such as imposing new rules and creation of new forum section should hold a referendum instead.

The board community should have a chance to voice and decide what direction the board should take.

Fuck no. Thats about as equivilent to the old public ban polls, which were a complete farce.

For all intents and purposes, this is your referendum. This is where all board members can get together to discuss matters related to the board in general. You don't get to override the Senate, but if we like ideas presented here, we'll bring them up. We'll also take discussion of existing votes or matters into consideration, for those of us that will peruse this forum. Needless to say, I'll be perusing it a lot.

You have your voice now, so if you've got suggestions, please make them.