StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Here's how it works in the Senate: in order to get a vote to pass, we must have a certain level of participation. A simple majority in some cases, a certain threshhold of participation in others that must be met. Otherwise, no business is done.

One of the reasons the Senate is "closed" is simply so we always know exactly how many people we have to count for votes. There is a fixed number, and a quorum of agreement must be reached within that number.

Now, with the HoC, we don't have that. This is open to anyone, indeed, the Elite Fitness and TK pogues could come back and have a say here. How many of the 3000+ shall need to be counted before we know what, truly, the people want?

Maybe the people should decide who will speak on their behalf, or we should decide how many votes must be had before something can be taken seriously, rather than just the growlings of a discontent minority that has a bone to pick and is unafraid to raise their voices. Or, a small group of people who simply get entertainment from trolling the system.

And for the record, I still say that most of the drama here is completely manufactured.

"For entertainment purposes only", indeed.

So, shall we determine certain Commoners to be the Voices of the Commons? They are the ones who shall vote? That would basically be a second Senate, which I'm sur eis not what folks have in mind.

By all means, discuss!

Perhaps limit posting and voting in the HoC to those over a certain postcount (500?, 1000?). The numbers would continue to increase, but at a much slower rate than the board as a whole, and it would restrict posting to those who have been around long enough, and been sufficiently active, to have an idea of how SDN works.

Would the board software support this?

Too much of a hassle, to be blunt, and it doesn't directly address the problem. Instead, we'll have people making worthless +1 posts in order to gain access to the Senate. Besides, I've seen 50 count newbies make more insightful and meaningful posts than 5,000 count "old hats". It's called the House of Commons for a reason; anyone should be able to post here and make their voice heard.

That said, you should exercise discretion when you do, because if you do nothing more than spam a bunch of useless ideas or other stupid shit, you could get banned from the forum for a period of time.

Just close the fucking place. It hasn't proved any use that couldn't have come from other parts of the board.

Like what? Testing? Yeah, a whole bunch of Senators pull ideas from there. Off-Topic isn't the place for it, and that leaves...PMing a Senator. Seriously, I get you don't like the place, but it's the best way for people to make their voices heard with regards to board policies. That a similar effect could have been achieved without it is not the point. If you're arguing that a similar effect could be achieved in a simpler, easier, and more convenient fashion, please do make the argument.

Let's face it, if people were mature, rational, and posted in accordance with the established rules, neither Senate nor HoC would have been necessary at all. But, well, people are people, eh?

I agree with havokeff that sociopath that HoC is a bit superfluous. Er, not to point fingers, but all those posts Ray made before folks told him to cool his heels are a bit indicative of this. People get too many... "ideas" and are too "enthusiastic" to "contribute" to the HoC and that's what havokeff finds irritating and stuff. We get minor quibbles that aren't worth anyone's time being brought up and stuff. Like that play-troll-acting stuff.

If the Senator is representative of the populace and the populace they represent are the mob, i.e. Rome and mob-rule, then Testing would be a better place for the mob to rule. Because Testing IS where the mob rules. Usually it's just full of shit, but the fact that the place is totally open in terms of speakingness means that the most frank opinions can be voiced there.

And the fact that it's such a silly place, without all the SRS BSNSS and decorum of places like the Senate and (maybe) the House of Commons, means that whatever opinions are voiced there won't really sting so much.

leik, in testings we could alls communicates without capitalizations and punctuations but still voice all sort of opinions via silly facetious contrived statements like how STRAK does and because of the brokeneds grammers and silliness and speeling we would alls have a fun teims doing so and there would be no hard feelings

Like that.

It is a trivial problem.

Voting by clicking a button is such a braindead activity even a script can do it. Don't take the lazy route by using the software to count votes. Instead ask people to post in favor or opposition. If their post smells like +1 nonsense ignore it. Thus all the crud would be filtered instead of zombie voters tilting a motion the wrong way.

Part of the voting process is the anonymity. If you have the voters explain why they voted for or against something, it might cause an argument.

Coyote wrote:Here's how it works in the Senate: in order to get a vote to pass, we must have a certain level of participation. A simple majority in some cases, a certain threshhold of participation in others that must be met. Otherwise, no business is done.

One of the reasons the Senate is "closed" is simply so we always know exactly how many people we have to count for votes. There is a fixed number, and a quorum of agreement must be reached within that number.

Now, with the HoC, we don't have that. This is open to anyone, indeed, the Elite Fitness and TK pogues could come back and have a say here. How many of the 3000+ shall need to be counted before we know what, truly, the people want?

Maybe the people should decide who will speak on their behalf, or we should decide how many votes must be had before something can be taken seriously, rather than just the growlings of a discontent minority that has a bone to pick and is unafraid to raise their voices. Or, a small group of people who simply get entertainment from trolling the system.

If people don't bother to contribute, then I'm inclined to take that to mean that they don't greatly care either way. In which case consider it an abstention. If they don't like the tone of the current House of Commons, their is a simple solution: they can take the time to post something themselves. And because so many choose just that, it is likely that the result of your suggestion would simply be that nothing ever passes, giving unneeded fuel to those who believe that the House of Commons is a waste of time.

Perhaps we could have certain people speak on the HoC's behalf, but what's the point? The HoC's purpose is questionable if its not open to everyone, and if it is, designating a few to speak on behalf of everyone strikes me as simply adding a needless middle man at this point.

And for the record, I still say that most of the drama here is completely manufactured.

"For entertainment purposes only", indeed.

I disagree. I think some valuable suggestions have been made, aside from the value of having a place where ordinary folks can vent their frusteration, rather than hold it in until it explodes.

So, shall we determine certain Commoners to be the Voices of the Commons? They are the ones who shall vote? That would basically be a second Senate, which I'm sur eis not what folks have in mind.

What is the point of having two so similar bodies? Its redundant, and runs contrary to the point of having the HoC.

By all means, discuss!

I strongly disagree with most of what you have said. With all due respect, you are suggesting simply making a second Senate. Redundant, and pointless. You might as well simply take the top twenty posters in the HoC and induct them into the Senate. The point of the House of Commons is that its a place where the common people can make suggestions, right? If some choose not to, that can't be helped.

Also, you should not diminish our achievements. The Coliseum suggestions thread and the new Senators thread have been somewhat productive, to name two examples. And frankly, the mear existence of this place will likely make the board more stable and harmonious, in that it gives everyone a place to express their ideas and complaints (rather than holding it in until it results in an unfortunate outburst), and provides a counter to accusations that this board is dominated by an "old boy's club" (I'm not volunteering an opinion either way on such claims, mearly observing that they exist).

Shroom Man 777 wrote:I agree with havokeff that sociopath that HoC is a bit superfluous. Er, not to point fingers, but all those posts Ray made before folks told him to cool his heels are a bit indicative of this. People get too many... "ideas" and are too "enthusiastic" to "contribute" to the HoC and that's what havokeff finds irritating and stuff. We get minor quibbles that aren't worth anyone's time being brought up and stuff. Like that play-troll-acting stuff.

Ray is one member of the board. His behavior should not reflect on the overall value of the House of Commons. Also, if havokeff doesn't like the content of the House at pressent, he is free to contribute something of use, besides his endless whining about how we should be shut down, of course.

If the Senator is representative of the populace and the populace they represent are the mob, i.e. Rome and mob-rule, then Testing would be a better place for the mob to rule. Because Testing IS where the mob rules. Usually it's just full of shit, but the fact that the place is totally open in terms of speakingness means that the most frank opinions can be voiced there.

Back during the last round of discussion over the state of the board which preceded the creation of the House, weren't their a bunch of threads in Testing that ended up being moved because they were deemed too useful to be deleted in a few days? In short, haven't we already tried using Testing in this way, and deemed it inadequate?

And the fact that it's such a silly place, without all the SRS BSNSS and decorum of places like the Senate and (maybe) the House of Commons, means that whatever opinions are voiced there won't really sting so much.

leik, in testings we could alls communicates without capitalizations and punctuations but still voice all sort of opinions via silly facetious contrived statements like how STRAK does and because of the brokeneds grammers and silliness and speeling we would alls have a fun teims doing so and there would be no hard feelings

Like that.

In short, you want a circus, as opposed to constructive suggestions? Well, we do have Testing for that, but to pretend that it can also serve the function of the HoC is questionable at best.

The Romulan Republic wrote:Back during the last round of discussion over the state of the board which preceded the creation of the House, weren't their a bunch of threads in Testing that ended up being moved because they were deemed too useful to be deleted in a few days? In short, haven't we already tried using Testing in this way, and deemed it inadequate?

Maybe instead of having everyone and their moms start threads in House of Commons, the threads in House of Commons could be Testing threads selected to be worthwhile and transferred to the HOC to allow the discussion to continue? It would provide a process of elimination to filter out those threads that general consensus won't find worthwhile and the threads that are actually worthwhile. Testing would serve as the selection ground for House of Commons threads? Threads that don't make the cut get auto-pruned.

It's a bit longwinded and complicated, though.

In short, you want a circus, as opposed to constructive suggestions? Well, we do have Testing for that, but to pretend that it can also serve the function of the HoC is questionable at best.

Testing itself is a deranged cesspit. But some discussions there are worthwhile, and discussions can be constructive circuses!

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Maybe instead of having everyone and their moms start threads in House of Commons, the threads in House of Commons could be Testing threads selected to be worthwhile and transferred to the HOC to allow the discussion to continue? It would provide a process of elimination to filter out those threads that general consensus won't find worthwhile and the threads that are actually worthwhile. Testing would serve as the selection ground for House of Commons threads? Threads that don't make the cut get auto-pruned.

At that point it ceases to become what it should be: a place where everyone can give their suggestions and opinions on the board. And frankly, any selection process may cut some of the good stuff with the bad.

I'm going to ask the same question I always ask every time someone sugests a new rule or regulation: why is it nessissary when we can solve the problems by enforcing the existing set of rules? We have rules against trolling, spam, and going off-topic. Of course that doesn't stop dumb ideas getting through, but everyone has different concepts of what consitutes a dumb idea, and I for one feel that the HoC has been useful. Finally, the discussion arising from bad ideas may sometimes lead to good ideas.

It's a bit longwinded and complicated, though.

That is the least of my concerns. What I don't want is to essentially shut down the HoC, when one of the main complaints against it (after a very short trial period I might add) is lack of productivity. Your suggestion might cut down on bad ideas, true, but it seems likely to also cut down on any suggestions whatsoever.

Testing itself is a deranged cesspit. But some discussions there are worthwhile, and discussions can be constructive circuses!

Has it occured to you that if something is in Testing, people will be more likely to behave in a foolish manner? In short, Testing won't be a proving ground for ideas, it will be a killing ground for them, as any suggestion made their in is likely to be treated as a joke, and buried beneath a wave of stupidity.

Oh, alright. I should stop suggesting silly stuff before, eherm, bad things happen to me also.

Then if we're satisfied with the open-vote process, and we don't need to select certain representatives, we can keep things as they are, and don't need to designate certain people as, say, "Representatives" for the purpose of vote counts and the like..

I want to make a process where action is taken only when there really is a need, not just a ruckus made by a few motivated individuals for pet projects; however, at the same time I really dislike the thought of over-engineering things and adding needless complexity.

I still am inclined to feel that since you can give people a voice but you can't force them to use it, requiring a particular number for something to pass will just result in nothing being passed, unless the number is very low. This is not to say that the HoC is not useful; simply that it is inevitible that many people will not use it. But that's their choice. I say that if they choose not to participate, that should generally be counted as an abstention.

Also, I feel that it would be innapropriate to judge the HoC based on the current level of participation. The last board crisis has died down, its the holidays, and for all the big deal made over the House putting forward only a single Senate nomination last month, the House has allowed a lot of interesting and potentially useful discussion. In short, I think that it is quite possible that participation will increase in the future, and that to judge the effectiveness of the current HoC on the first month and a half or whatever of its existence is not entirely fair.

If one were to judge the Coliseum in its first few months it would have gone the way of the dodo. It really is unfair to judge something so rapidly, and with out specific complaints to air. nominating only one person for senator-ship could be seen as a vote of confidence in the current senate, not as a mark against the HoC.

My two cents

Instead of treating the HoC like a mini senate, why not just use it like a suggestion box? That way any threads started in here aren't worth a whole lot more than suggestions unless someone in the Senate thinks it's worth backing. Then the Senator in question can start a discussion or vote thread in the Senate like normal, except based off what was suggested. No need to add any kind of ridiculously extensive laundry lists of regulations or anything.

Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of the HoC but I thought that Zod's summary suggestion was what the HoC was. Just a way for the "plebes" to publicly PM the senators, thus reducing the amount of secretive bullshit that was going on behind the scenes.

The idea that there can be too many worthless suggestions in the HoC is kinda funny. Unless the whole front page is locked threads, we are at least discussing something right? Which is better than 6 months ago.

Dark Hellion wrote:Maybe I misunderstood the whole point of the HoC but I thought that Zod's summary suggestion was what the HoC was. Just a way for the "plebes" to publicly PM the senators, thus reducing the amount of secretive bullshit that was going on behind the scenes.

That's what I thought too, but apparently a lot of people think the HoC is some sort of miniature version of the Senate or something. . .although it probably didn't help that the exact purpose of the HoC in announcements is left somewhat vague.

Seems like the purposes of the HoC are unclear - Knife in particular seems to be expecting this forum to "be the plebs doing better than the Senate did, and they failed." (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=130204)

I don't personally remember volunteering for any sort of position of authority or responsibility on this board, but maybe my memory is just bad