[Discussion] House of Commons

[Hotfoot]

Frankly, I'd like to see this as a subforum of the Senate where all users can post on matters of significance related to the board itself. It would be like a more informal version of the senate which would be used by users who are interested in having a say.

We have enough PM's, Testing and OT threads dedicated towards the public voice of Senatorial matters, let's just make it easier for people to speak up and have it all be in one easy to access place.

I personally don't think a single thread is sufficient. Single threads are for long-running topics that have singularly similar responses, NOT something as varied in topic as the numerous issues that can come to the Senate. In the past several days, there have been close to a half dozen threads that talk about current events in the Senate by non-Senators. They deserve a place where they can go. The traffic is just perfect for a sub-forum, and frankly would seem to me to be a better use of database space than some other forums, private or sub, that currently exist.

[CmdrWilkens]

By the same measure, however, the Senate has been unusually active. is the interest in the proceedings of the Senate a function of base level interest or is the level of non-Senator participation tied in direct relationship to the amount of activity in the Senate? That's the $10,000 question because if it is tied to the activity level in the Senate then its highly likely we could see long stretches of inactivity in the sub-forum.

I don't know mostly because I essentially never venture into HoS or testing but I rarely before have seen much in OT so I can't speak to whether past interest in Senate matters is cyclical with the Senate's activity level.

[Hotfoot]

So what if it is? Subforums don't have to be super active. Some are just showcases of past threads of note. This just makes it easier for the population to have a voice that we can easily track. I'm sick and tired of dealing with PMs, IM proddings, and other such nonsense. Testing is largely ignored, OT isn't the place, a single thread isn't enough and can easily be ignored, and making a full forum is wasteful.

[Hotfoot]

Well? I know I had some support for this when I first brought it up, I'd rather not see this fall to the wayside so quickly.

If need be, I'll collect a list of people who support the idea and post their handles here.

[Imperial Overlord]

I think it's a good idea.

[LadyTevar]

It may work.

It may even get some of the mass deluge of Senate threads to dry up.

[K. A. Pital]

I will also throw my hat here. It's a good idea. And it will stop "Senate commentary" threads from spawning in either OT or Testing, which would be good - they are really out of place there.

[Surlethe]

Not only are "Senate Commentary Threads" out of place in OT or Testing, they also grow old and fall down the page; a "House of Commons" subforum would permit us to preserve those threads and commentary in a less-active, more-relevant setting. It's not a big deal if the subforum's not very active, either; if it gets a flurry of helpful suggestions every two years when things blow up like this, it'll have served its purpose.

[Patrick Degan]

I can see no harm in this proposal and would be willing to support it in a senate vote should it come to the floor.

[Coyote]

I am very much in favor of this idea.

[Hotfoot]

Excellent. I was getting a little worried when the topic was up for a while with no responses, but it would seem my concerns were unfounded. I move that we put this motion to vote:

Shall we create a House of Commons subforum for the Senate, moving all relevant threads to said subforum and allowing general access to the board population to create new topics and post replies?

[RedImperator]

Technical question: can we allow members who can't access the Senate to access a subforum of the Senate?

[Hotfoot]

Technical question: can we allow members who can't access the Senate to access a subforum of the Senate?

Shouldn't be a problem, I would think. phpBB has traditionally been very flexible in terms of who it allows to access any given forum, though I haven't seen the new control panel yet. I suppose we'll have to find out from Mike if the vote passes and he decides to set it up.

[RedImperator]

From AcePace:

AS far as I know, the senate is just a forum with permissions set up in a specific manner. A sub forum has it's own permission set.

If a subforum has its own permissions set, then there shouldn't be any problem.

[Surlethe]

Shall we create a House of Commons subforum for the Senate, moving all relevant threads to said subforum and allowing general access to the board population to create new topics and post replies?

Motion seconded.

[Spyder]

I favor this, save me having to purge my inbox every six weeks.

[Coyote]

A lot of votes 'against', I see... apparantly, a lot of Senators don't get PM'd by constituents very much!!

[The Yosemite Bear]

A lot of votes 'against', I see... apparantly, a lot of Senators don't get PM'd by constituents very much!!

nope many of us don't

[RedImperator]

I do think this is a good idea. Plainly, there was a lot of built up frustration that got vented last week. I think the House of Commons could serve as a useful safety valve. I mean, it's either that, or unending mockery from Testing (well, we're probably stuck with the mockery, but it would be helpful to hear more detailed opinions). As for PM inboxes, I went from 75% full to 98% full in a week, so some of us are getting swamped.

[Coyote]

But it looks like we aren't going to get the 2/3rd majority needed.

I think it's a good way to hear the voices of dissent without resorting to shadowy, anonymous PMs (especially since some folks openly admit they're intimidated), or having to wade through Testing sarcasm & mockery to see what real concerns are at the root.

Plus, I think shooting down a House of Commons might add impetus to the claims that the Senate marginalizes those who are affected by our policy decision. My two pfennigs, at least.

[The Wookiee]

Good points, Coyote...but I'm still on the fence about it. My fear is that it will become quite busy very fast, and what sort of mechanism would we use to select viable topics for Senate discussion?

[RedImperator]

Good points, Coyote...but I'm still on the fence about it. My fear is that it will become quite busy very fast, and what sort of mechanism would we use to select viable topics for Senate discussion?

I'd just trust Senators' judgment on this one. If there is a House of Commons, I plan on participating in it. If a discussion is active and full of good points, then I'll take it up to the Senate (or the mods, if it's outside the Senate's reach). I'd hope other Senators would do the same.

[Coyote]

Irishmick has sent me a PM:

I think in response to The Wookie's questioning during this thread, it might be a good idea to appoint someone as a sort of 'House Clerk'. If you could establish a thread in the Senate, like a Senate Docket thread, the Clerk could nominate threads in the Commons to fill the docket. Senators could then pull whichever threads in the docket onto the Senate floor for discussion.

An excellent idea. Just as the Senate has the Chancellor, so too shall the HoC have a Clerk.

[Hotfoot]

As it stands, we are on the cusp of pulling through with a majority, and I would urge my fellow senators yet to vote to give this idea a chance. It's hardly anything to set up a new forum, and only a little more to take it down. This would allow for a better pressure valve than what we have had previously, while encouraging regular board members to take part in the discussions that ultimately will affect them. We have since the inception of the Senate allowed the voices of members to be heard with some moderation, and frankly we do end up hearing it anyway from Testing, be it serious or mocking.

We already have from this latest situation a half-dozen threads that are immediately relevant, and more are sure to come. None of the Commons discussions hold any power unless we Senators see fit to let them, so if you ignored PMs before, you can continue to do so now. I'm with Red in that I plan on being very active in the House of Commons, and while I can't dedicate a large amount of time each day towards it, I would not object to taking on the responsibility of managing it, since I suggested this boondoggle.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Uh, the vote is currently 26/12, so it's going to handily get the necessary majority.

Remember that the percentiles in the vote thread are irrelevant per Senate rules--abstentions only count toward the threshold for the minimum number of votes required to make the poll valid. When calculating the actual result, only the other options are considered.