StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I thought Sea Skimmer's action plan was very good, and worth a poll to see if people support it (I hope he doesn't mind). It's an approval poll, so check all the options you agree with. Quoted from here;

Sea Skimmer wrote:I’ve been against the senate for a while, everything I’ve seen in the last couple weeks was reaffirmed my opinion. It was an experiment, and it failed for a number of reasons (like the fact that it’s a self appointing representative body, which makes no sense), and I think it’s only accelerated to brain drain we have going on. I propose the following as an incomplete policy.

1) Eliminate the Senate entirely
2) Maintain a House of Commons open to all for discussions of board policy and behavior but with absolutely no actual power, just a place for questions and suggestions
3) Place inactive or rarely active moderators on a ‘reserve list’, they can keep their power but people should understand they are seldom around
4) Add sufficient moderators to ensure we have at least 12, possibly 15 reasonably active and empowered to cover the main forums. We have more then enough reasonable people to cover this.
5) Employ short temporary bans of 72 hours-1 week on a regular basis, awarded rapidly by the agreement of 3 moderators or more. I can’t help but feel that this would avoid a lot of permbans by awarding minor punishments quickly instead of taking days or weeks to decide on bans during which all manner of shit is stirred up. A lot of forums almost never use permbans, we seem to hardly ever avoid them anymore
6) Be more open; stop treating every question as a battle… because no one has all the answers. If your post is nothing but an excuse to curse at people, just don’t make it or come up with something better. At least be creative with the insults.

I voted for 'all of the above'.

You know its always a good poll when you don't include an option for "none."

CmdrWilkens wrote:You know its always a good poll when you don't include an option for "none."

Actually I just assumed that you could vote without checking any boxes, because that's what I did when I made a mod for multi-voting on the old board.

Then again, the count is 'number of votes', not 'number of voters', so that wouldn't work anyway.

Unfortunately I can't edit the post but perhaps a mod could add a 'none of the above' option.

You can go that route sure. Keep in mind all the Mods are in the Senate to begin with as Governors. Also, the probability that Mike would probably go to ex-senators at this point, would be rather high, in making new mods. Not a done deal, but not an unreasonable assumption.

End result, same guys doing the same thing behind closed doors and with more power. Besides the much needed bump in Mods, I fail to see the change in closing the Senate so some aren't butt hurt by the very notion of the Senate. Won't it just now be people butt hurt at what every happens in the mod forum they can't even see?

Edit: not just because I can; I for one would be in favor of putting down my title and dissolving the Senate along with a couple other useless forums if we can get a large and active mod staff to kick some people and this forum in general out of it's funk. But the weak ass suggestions here aren't going to do that and sound more like people scoring zingers for old scores.

This could, after all, very easily turn into a "watch what you wish for; it just may come true" sort of proposal. All the Senators who debated fates openly could very easily end up as a secret KGB type squad with axes to grind.

But, hey, as long as folks refuse to openly declare who has pissed them off and why, backed by evidence, and continue to blame "the Senate" as a whole, then response options will in fact be limited.

Knife wrote:End result, same guys doing the same thing behind closed doors and with more power.

If it genuinely needs to be secret, then it has to go in the mod forum anyway, the current senate forum does not suffice.
If it does not need to be secret, then it can go in this forum.
I can't see any case where it helps to have a thread that people can see, but not participate in.

I suppose if you were that worried about drive-by trolling you could slap a 'must have been here a couple of months' or 'must have at least 100 posts' minimum threshold on this forum. Frankly though, surely you can just ignore the odd troll post?

I voted for 3 and 4, mainly due to past experience (come to think of it, I should have voted for 5 as well) - those measures might not do too much for day-to-day operations, but they allow a rapid and effective lockdown in the case of a major troll attack; I've seen it happen where the only active Mods have no power in the boards being attacked, and are forced to do nothing but tear hair out in frustration.

As for the rest... I think the Senate has a roll to play, and both myself and the House of Commons are too new for me to pass judgment on it.

I won't comment on #6, because it's far more subjective than the other options, and depending on interpretation (and enforcement), it could change the whole board character.

Starglider wrote:I can't see any case where it helps to have a thread that people can see, but not participate in.

The intent was to cut down on vote threads being spammed, becoming argumentive circuses, etc. The votes in the Senate are "vote, post your prescence, and move on without comment". Debating the merits has, presumably, already happened beforehand.

And too much childish drama in Senate discussions? Seriously-- 50 people's potentially childish drama, or 3,000 people's potentially childish drama? What will really be easier to deal with?

Starglider wrote:I thought Sea Skimmer's action plan was very good, and worth a poll to see if people support it (I hope he doesn't mind). It's an approval poll, so check all the options you agree with. Quoted from here;

Sea Skimmer wrote:I’ve been against the senate for a while, everything I’ve seen in the last couple weeks was reaffirmed my opinion. It was an experiment, and it failed for a number of reasons (like the fact that it’s a self appointing representative body, which makes no sense), and I think it’s only accelerated to brain drain we have going on. I propose the following as an incomplete policy.

1) Eliminate the Senate entirely

I'm torn on this idea. On one hand, the Senate has its utility, and for all the complaining done about it, having it around (I don't think) doesn't actually hurt the board. On the other hand, the bulk of the Senate's activity involves spinning its wheels and providing a target for the board's malcontents to bitch about. And, as for the Senate's other principle role; i.e. providing a sounding-board for the board's moderating and administrative staff, the House of Commons seems to have made this largely redundant. I, however, didn't vote for this one.

2) Maintain a House of Commons open to all for discussions of board policy and behavior but with absolutely no actual power, just a place for questions and suggestions

The House of Commons has turned out to be a very good idea. I agree with this.

3) Place inactive or rarely active moderators on a ‘reserve list’, they can keep their power but people should understand they are seldom around

This idea has very little that would be considered 'value-added.' The only thing this does is add overhead to keep track of the list. If you're going to go through the trouble of having a list of inactive moderators, you'd might as well just inactivate them and make them moderators emeriti. I selected this one, but on further thought, I wish I hadn't.

4) Add sufficient moderators to ensure we have at least 12, possibly 15 reasonably active and empowered to cover the main forums. We have more then enough reasonable people to cover this.

Yes, we need more moderators. Definitely voted 'yes.'

5) Employ short temporary bans of 72 hours-1 week on a regular basis, awarded rapidly by the agreement of 3 moderators or more. I can’t help but feel that this would avoid a lot of permbans by awarding minor punishments quickly instead of taking days or weeks to decide on bans during which all manner of shit is stirred up. A lot of forums almost never use permbans, we seem to hardly ever avoid them anymore

This sounds a lot like "enforce the rules that are already there." According to the rules, we should be going from moderator warning to title to temp-ban to permaban. Although, it could be said that by the time someone comes before the Senate for punishment, they tend to have done enough that a permaban is usually the appropriate course of action to take. The obvious 'pro' to this idea is that the fast temp-ban might give someone a clue before they wind up on the chopping block. On the other hand, the 'con' is that this removes the measure of transparency that Senate discussions have, and there's the possibility (and I've seen too many people bitch about seemingly arbitrary temp-bans that happen on other boards to discount it,) that someone will be temp-banned just for pissing off a mod, and a couple of his or her friends. Even if the possibility is actually remote, the fact that someone will make that very accusation is about as certain as death and taxes. I didn't vote for this one.

6) Be more open; stop treating every question as a battle… because no one has all the answers. If your post is nothing but an excuse to curse at people, just don’t make it or come up with something better. At least be creative with the insults.

This harkens back to the discussions on conduct and board culture in the Senate. One would think it's a no-brainer to tell people this, and I happen to agree with that particular sentiment enough to not vote for this one.

Oh yeah, and you really should have added an option for "None of the above."

Starglider wrote:
If it genuinely needs to be secret, then it has to go in the mod forum anyway, the current senate forum does not suffice.

The very notion of the Senate was transperacy. As soon as it all goes behind closed doors, what do you propose to put in place to stop the bitching of that?

If it does not need to be secret, then it can go in this forum.

Lol, now we can go in circles. Wheeee! Mods create Senate for transperency. Rank and file bitch Senate is to closed so Senate creates HoC. HoC can bitch as well as Senate, so do away with Senate. Mods have all their stuff behind closed doors and HoC is just another bitch threat/forum, might as well put it back into HoS or OT. Mods get bitched at that there is not enough transperency. Mods create Senate....

I can't see any case where it helps to have a thread that people can see, but not participate in.

Really, we do it all the time. Member pic threads where you aren't supposed to post comments, just pictures. Large debates specifically between a set group, Coliseum in particular. Hell, to a lesser degree, HoS and ARSE are only visible to registered members and unregistered lurkers can't access them. There's plenty of reasons to have forums restricted to see only and not to post, if for nothing else to cut down on the chatter.

I suppose if you were that worried about drive-by trolling you could slap a 'must have been here a couple of months' or 'must have at least 100 posts' minimum threshold on this forum. Frankly though, surely you can just ignore the odd troll post?

Oh, that sounds like undeserved perks to me. Isn't that supposed to be bad?

Knife wrote:The very notion of the Senate was transperacy. As soon as it all goes behind closed doors, what do you propose to put in place to stop the bitching of that?

Why would anything discussed in the senate need to go into the mod forum instead of here? It obviously doesn't need to be secret, otherwise it wouldn't be in the senate.

Mods have all their stuff behind closed doors and HoC is just another bitch threat/forum, might as well put it back into HoS or OT.

I don't see why this is a foregone conclusion. It could happen, but if the senate was worth a couple of years trial, then an open 'board issues' forum should be. There is in fact a much stronger precedent for an open 'board issues' forum, because many other successful Internet message boards have that. I don't know of any others that have a 'forum that everyone can see but only moderators and non-moderators that the moderators like can post in'. If you know of any successful examples of that model, please do link them.

Member pic threads where you aren't supposed to post comments, just pictures.

That's a single thread and people stay on topic without needing any technological assistance.

Large debates specifically between a set group, Coliseum in particular.

Again, a single thread (to date). Both of these are red herrings anyway, because they're special cases completely unrelated to the issue of dealing with trolls and board policy.

Hell, to a lesser degree, HoS and ARSE are only visible to registered members and unregistered lurkers can't access them.

Completely restricted like the mod forum, not read-only like the senate. Was that supposed to help your case?

There's plenty of reasons to have forums restricted to see only and not to post, if for nothing else to cut down on the chatter.

You're seriously saying that if you had the same threads the senate has in this forum people would stop reading them in disgust because of a torrent of 'chatter' ? Do you have any support for that notion?

I suppose if you were that worried about drive-by trolling you could slap a 'must have been here a couple of months' or 'must have at least 100 posts' minimum threshold on this forum. Frankly though, surely you can just ignore the odd troll post?

Oh, that sounds like undeserved perks to me. Isn't that supposed to be bad?

I can only assume that was an attempt at sarcasm, but I'm afraid it's just a non-sequitur.

Starglider wrote:

Knife wrote:The very notion of the Senate was transperacy. As soon as it all goes behind closed doors, what do you propose to put in place to stop the bitching of that?

Why would anything discussed in the senate need to go into the mod forum instead of here? It obviously doesn't need to be secret, otherwise it wouldn't be in the senate.

Teh Senate was put in place to discuss ban polls and board policy by those Mike appointed (and then who self selected additional members) to vote and enact such measures. If you disband the Senate then the regional Governors will have direct control over the bureacracy...oh wait that's a quote. Anyway the point is that while the HoC may, and likely would, get open discussion threads on potential bans or board policy the actual folks with the power to make the choice would be talking in the mod forum...and we would never see any comments they didn't also post on the HoC forum. I don't doubt that it happens now with some of the Senate dicussions that a seperate discussion is going on in the private forums including the mod forum, however with Senators (excepting Governors) unable to communicate with each other effectively outside of the Senate it forces the majority of the conversation out into the public. If you take away the Senate then those who will implement policy are no longer forced to have the majority of their comments out in the open. Yes some Governors will post in the HoC but they don't have to and those who aren't governors will never know who is saying what outside the bounds of the HoC.

Take Ban Poll discussions for instance. Right now Senators are charged with executing all ban POLLS (not all bans just those where the admins don't feel they have a right of unilateral action) and in turn this means when a member is brought before them all the discussion has to be public almost as a requirement, thopugh certainly the ability to mass PM in php3 means we could conduct such discussions by that means but its unlikely at best. In turn this means that the user in question is made fully aware of the conduct for which they are being discussed and has time to respond or improve.

Now lets eliminate the Senate and have the HoC discuss bannings..only they won't have power to enact them so the discussion in the Mod forum will be the one amongst those who have the power to ban. So we could have 10 pages of discussion in the HoC, two or three conclusive votes and the enitre time if the Mod staff feels differently then they can (and will) discuss the matter amongst themselves and act amongst themselves.

I will happily admit that the Senate is far from the perfect solution BUT I think calls to eliminate it are not based on consideration of anything it does or doesn't do but rather personal distaste with the actions outside of the Senate by its members.

CmdrWilkens wrote:Now lets eliminate the Senate and have the HoC discuss bannings..only they won't have power to enact them so the discussion in the Mod forum will be the one amongst those who have the power to ban.

The senate doesn't have the power to ban anyone either. AFAIK there is no requirement that the admins or mods actually do what the senate votes on. So frankly I can't see any change there. This forum works just as well for 'communicating with senators' as the senate forum does, though if the senate went away they would just be 'super platinum members with extra editing perks' (or whatever you want to call it). It might be worth asking the mods to try and remember to post stuff here unless it really should only be seen by other mods, but that's all that's required.

So we could have 10 pages of discussion in the HoC, two or three conclusive votes and the enitre time if the Mod staff feels differently then they can (and will) discuss the matter amongst themselves and act amongst themselves.

Again, no change from the current situation other than there being less drama and acrimony. Hopefully. I don't know that for sure of course, but right now it seems worth a try.

I voted for all of them except the disbandment of the Senate, which I am strongly against, as the Senate is useful for all the reasons Wilkens stated and is the fundamental vehicle for board transparency.

Starglider wrote: Why would anything discussed in the senate need to go into the mod forum instead of here? It obviously doesn't need to be secret, otherwise it wouldn't be in the senate.

I think Gregs comments covered that one nicely.

I don't see why this is a foregone conclusion. It could happen, but if the senate was worth a couple of years trial, then an open 'board issues' forum should be. There is in fact a much stronger precedent for an open 'board issues' forum, because many other successful Internet message boards have that. I don't know of any others that have a 'forum that everyone can see but only moderators and non-moderators that the moderators like can post in'. If you know of any successful examples of that model, please do link them.

I don't, nor do I have examples of other boards having a Senate analog so...

That's a single thread and people stay on topic without needing any technological assistance.


Again, a single thread (to date). Both of these are red herrings anyway, because they're special cases completely unrelated to the issue of dealing with trolls and board policy.


Completely restricted like the mod forum, not read-only like the senate. Was that supposed to help your case?

Yes, because each is an example of self regulation of access to a thread/forum. They may not be perfect analogies to the Senate, but the concept is the same and thus valid. There are plenty of examples of restricted or partially restricted forums, sub forums and such and thus obviously a need for them.

You're seriously saying that if you had the same threads the senate has in this forum people would stop reading them in disgust because of a torrent of 'chatter' ? Do you have any support for that notion?

I'll dig around in the archive later for pre-senate ban polls and board suggestions. Anecdotal; I remember quite a few times where threads like these spammed up OT and other forums before HoS, Testing, Senate and other forums were available for a more appropriate place for them to be.

I suppose if you were that worried about drive-by trolling you could slap a 'must have been here a couple of months' or 'must have at least 100 posts' minimum threshold on this forum. Frankly though, surely you can just ignore the odd troll post?

I can only assume that was an attempt at sarcasm, but I'm afraid it's just a non-sequitur.

lol, not when one of the many bitches is the Senates special perks. Your answer, disolve the Senate and give new people some perks. Hardly a non-sequitur and hardly something new.

Knife wrote:I think Gregs comments covered that one nicely.

I don't. I have yet to see a single credible example of why threads in the senate are inherently superior to the equivalent thread here. Secret mod stuff is a red herring, since if it isn't suitable for here it isn't suitable for the senate either.

Completely restricted like the mod forum, not read-only like the senate. Was that supposed to help your case?

Yes, because each is an example of self regulation of access to a thread/forum. They may not be perfect analogies to the Senate, but the concept is the same and thus valid.

Excellent. Then let's make access to the senate self regulated! People will advised only to post there if they're really sage and wise and mature. This will be enforced on the honor system.

There are plenty of examples of restricted or partially restricted forums, sub forums and such and thus obviously a need for them.

The only 'look but don't touch' forum is the senate. Actually I would support making it properly restricted (i.e. hidden to non members), like the mod forum or any private usergroup. That would cut down on the acrimony by making it irrelevant to the other 98% of the board. I've seen virtually zero bitching about 'secret mod discussions' despite that actually being consequential.

I suppose if you were that worried about drive-by trolling you could slap a 'must have been here a couple of months' or 'must have at least 100 posts' minimum threshold on this forum. Frankly though, surely you can just ignore the odd troll post?

Your answer, disolve the Senate and give new people some perks. Hardly a non-sequitur and hardly something new.

Maybe you misread me. I didn't propose giving anyone any perks. I said that some minimal restrictions on newbies posting here are an option if you really do have a pathological phobia of you ban threads being trolled, but even if you did that temporarily excluding 10% of the board's population is hardly comparable to permenantly excluding 98% of it.

For the record, I think a lot of my problems are from how I responded to the pre-Senate era where you had to stage manage things to avoid from getting banned in a popularity contest. I've had a hard time getting out of the mindset that if you're not always playing to the crowd, then you're going to get banned. Back in the day Sd.net was damn near close to my only social interaction, period, and so I couldn't leave it but I was also in constant fear of banning and titling polls, one of which came to fruition and I more or less grandstanded my way out of it (brought against me by Shep and Ted (the banned one) ironically).

Which doesn't excuse some of the ways I act now, gods, I know, but do you really want the board to go back to the way it was then, where people acting like me was the norm? I don't see how anyone can say the board has more drama now--it is less well-managed, certainly--but the drama level is much lower than in 2002, 2003, when the ATJ leadership explosions happened and led to the first dissolution of a private group we've had, where there were constant invasions, and shit like Kelly's endless whining manipulations of the board (and Fey doing the same thing, also in the pre-Senate days), and Raoul Duke Junior playing games and fucking everyone over, or kojikun getting away with so much right up until he went into paedophilia advocacy... Have people completely forgotten that this place was like Deadwood or something back in those days?

The past is romanticised. The old ways a ban was done was the Mods pretty much just convened in secret, the public was given a few cryptic messages about "it's being dealt with", and then after the incense cleared and the Ouija board spoke, the questionable person was gone.

The Senate did add a great deal of transparancy to the process, but it was, apparantly, not enough of a devolution. So now we're here.

I voted for the last four. I remain conflicted and undecided on the first two.

I voted for the last three. I'd vote for the temp bans twice over if I could, it's been a while IIRC since they've been used and perhaps some of the perma banned members could have been improved with a temp ban.

I voted for everything but the first one, don't feel like writing a justification, just noting that's what I did.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:I've had a hard time getting out of the mindset that if you're not always playing to the crowd, then you're going to get banned. Back in the day Sd.net was damn near close to my only social interaction, period, and so I couldn't leave it but I was also in constant fear of banning and titling polls, one of which came to fruition and I more or less grandstanded my way out of it (brought against me by Shep and Ted (the banned one) ironically).

After quite a bit of searching, I found the relevant thread. I dare say your perception of that events is faulty.

It seems to me that there was no interest in titling you because you were perceived to be intelligent, articulate, and level-headed. Despite almost everyone disagreeing with your politics and beliefs, they thought you were entitled to state your opinion because you did so in a well thought out manner. The whole thing almost played out as if someone had tried to title Publius, right down to the aloof attitude you adopted toward it. That's now quite what I would call grandstanding.

The thread that precipitated it is different; it mostly consists of a few right wingers eating each other alive over minor differences for no apparent reason. The key thing is that the crowd wasn't siding with Shep and Ted against you, and neither did you play it against them. What you did do was present all of your arguments in a carefully reasoned manner. That's not grandstanding either, it is what I would expect any cool and intelligent person to do. It was also exactly what you were doing for the several pages before the title thread started.

Your behaviour in the entire incident was one of a true intellectual who approaches everything with their emotions firmly in check. That is not quite how you have behaved over the past several months, for better or worse. Marina, I'm afraid to say that if there is a connection between your fear of being banned or titled then and your problems now, it is that you stopped stage managing.

2, 4, 6.

Starglider wrote:

Knife wrote:Your answer, disolve the Senate and give new people some perks. Hardly a non-sequitur and hardly something new.

Maybe you misread me. I didn't propose giving anyone any perks. I said that some minimal restrictions on newbies posting here are an option if you really do have a pathological phobia of you ban threads being trolled, but even if you did that temporarily excluding 10% of the board's population is hardly comparable to permenantly excluding 98% of it.

At the same time what is your standard? That's the real question. You can have either the "we toss out 'obvious' troll comment" and let everyone have access at which point there is the huge judgement gap on what is trolling in vote threads or you have some sort of limit to distinguish who can participate in the threads. It comes back to what is your standard and does it make any more sense than the Moderators selecting a group and then asking them to expand with time?

1. Against. The Senate fulfils an important purpose; granted, personal politics look to be seeping in more than is needed, but the old saying about curing a headache by cutting off your head comes to mind.

2. Kind of needless since we already have that, but I agree.

3. Agree, but I think that "inactive" moderators should be deducted from the total number of moderators. Otherwise, we could end up with plenty of moderators, but without many of them doing things.

4. Agree, definitely.

5. Too much potential for abuse with this, although I think it'd benefit the board if speedier temp bans could be handed out.

6. Agree.