[Discussion]Chancellor

[RedImperator]

Over the last day, we've been soliciting opinions from the plebes about the state of the board, and one theme that's repeated over and over is that the Senate has become a joke. Too much hysterical overreaction, too many public slapfights, too many good ideas left to die. And I'm inclined to agree.

I think the Senate needs adult supervision again. In the Senate rules, only Mike, the administrators, and the Chancellor have authority here. Supermods have mod powers, but not the authority to enforce the rules. And our Chancellor has been gone for over a year. I suspect he's off saving the world somewhere, given his previous job and the mysterious nature by which he vanished. At any rate, that leaves Mike--who seems inclined to let Senate debates spool out however they spool out--and one active admin, who is also a participant in discussions and votes and also seems disinclined to exercise his authority (no criticism; if I were an admin, I'd probably not want to take it upon myself to mod the Senate either). And the result has been the Senate has run off the rails, with the flamewar in the N&P reform thread a few months ago being the absolute nadir. That thread, incidentally, is a microcosm of everything that's gone wrong with the board in general--leaping into a civil discussion with guns blazing, increasingly vicious personal insults, the original point lost in the cloud of flying shit. That thread should have been brought to heel on Page 2, but there was nobody with the authority and the willingness to exercise it.

So I'm going to suggest we take one of two courses of action. Either Mike replace Rob Wilson as Chancellor (and as far as I can tell, only Mike can do that; the Chancellor is not elected), or we revive an old proposal of mine and create the post of Deputy Chancellor, which would combine the functions of the Chancellor and the Whip. Ideally, I'd like to see the Deputy Chancellor or the new Chancellor elected, the same way we elect the Whip. I think everyone knows who would win. At any rate, the new Chancellor would have the power and the responsibility to tell Senators when to shut their damn mouths, prod the administration to take action on proposals, handle the general moderating chores like splitting, merging, moving, and locking threads (not much of that in this thread, but I've noticed things are a lot more likely to get done when there's one person specifically in charge of doing something, rather than a dozen with vague authority), and maybe most importantly, give Senators a spanking when they act like children.

Putting someone in charge of the Senate will not fix everything, and I am not advocating someone to be an arbiter of what's a good proposal or what can and can't be discussed or anything like that--the Senators are on their own for that one. But I think it's clear we need a voice of reason and authority in here.

[Hotfoot]

We spank ourselves regularly enough, I think.

The Senate being a joke comes from people in this position of so-called power acting like they are in a position of so-called power. The Senate is essentially an old boys club that gets to prance around from time to time, and occasionally make some enlightened comments among all the garbage.

The best use of the Senate as I see it right now is more structured and civilized discussion, when it's being used properly. Ideally the people involved, being the old guard as it were, are able to engage in actual discussion free of the me-too spam and other nonsense that can populate a public forum. Think of us as the mini-collesium. But what we're getting now is people with inflated heads (and more importantly, inflated egos) going at each other with airs that could lift my flabby ass into orbit.

We have had senators pursuing vendettas, behaving badly, and so on. I myself have maybe gone off on people over my time at SDN, even unfairly at times, but I've at least made efforts to not use my status as a weapon. Even in that, I may have failed, in which case I apologize to those I've dueled with in the past.

So the question is do we want to give the Senate actual teeth, and someone to reign us in? I'm inclined to say "no". Maybe a small group of mediators to intervene when people get out of hand, though I think the general board populace is a good indicator of when things start getting especially retarded.

Now this is where my "devil's advocate" idea generator starts going off, so let's let it run.

How about a "House of Commons". A sister forum to the Senate where regular users can spout off about such things. Why, we could even use such a forum as the proving ground for more senators. They can officially tell us we're full of shit, and maybe even hold votes. We'd have to ratify them, so nonsensical crap like, "neuter X" isn't taken seriously, but there you go.

[fgalkin]

I emphatically support the idea of a House of Commons, where anyone can speak their mind, and if a Senator likes what he or she sees, can pick up the subject for discussion in the Senate itself.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

We spank ourselves regularly enough, I think.

The Senate being a joke comes from people in this position of so-called power acting like they are in a position of so-called power. The Senate is essentially an old boys club that gets to prance around from time to time, and occasionally make some enlightened comments among all the garbage.

Agreed.

So the question is do we want to give the Senate actual teeth, and someone to reign us in? I'm inclined to say "no". Maybe a small group of mediators to intervene when people get out of hand, though I think the general board populace is a good indicator of when things start getting especially retarded.

The Senate has enough teeth as it is. What it needs is moderation. If we wanted to minimize the Senate's less-savory tendencies, a possible idea could be to impose some manner of limit to how long someone can be a Senator. After X number of months, Jim Bob the Senator goes back to being a plebe and he can't be nominated again for Y number of months. It might dispel this feeling among the plebes that the Senate is just a "Good Ol' Boys' Club" with an overinflated sense of self-importance.

How about a "House of Commons". A sister forum to the Senate where regular users can spout off about such things. Why, we could even use such a forum as the proving ground for more senators. They can officially tell us we're full of shit, and maybe even hold votes. We'd have to ratify them, so nonsensical crap like, "neuter X" isn't taken seriously, but there you go.

Part of our overall problem is that there are too many forums and domains of responsibility, and not enough mods willing or able to act the part of firm all-fathers/mothers to keep the populace from rioting. We don't need to create a Senate Jr. where the board's dirty laundry can be aired by the plebes. The Senate does a good job of that as it is. We do, however, need to have an active mod for the Senate.

So I'm seconding the notion that we need to have an active Chancellor here. I'd also be for the idea of possibly give the Whip moderating powers as well, and give the office some real teeth for whipping the Senate into order.

[Coyote]

A House of Commons, or just a weekly Sticky thread in OT for plebes to sound off in, is an excellent idea.

[Simplicius]

The comparison I use for my own purposes is to a neighborhood association or a neighborhood watch. The Senate keeps its eyes out for trouble or thinks up policies that might improve the board, and keeps in communication with the mods and admins about this. But like a neighborhood association, the position invites Mrs. Grundy-ism because with no real power comes no real responsibility. Between Senators overzealously fulfilling our charter and getting carried away when we are playing government, opportunities for us to be officious abound, and that degrades the credibility of the body, its decisions, and its members.

I think we probably need both an overseeing figure and some sort of at-large place where the Senate can be discussed. We have outstanding issues and unresolved debates - removing DEATH's custom title, and coming to a conclusion about the moderatorship of History - and honestly I don't see those matters ever being resolved without a single leadership figure, since they aren't intrinsically urgent. Hell, Coyote was nagging on about DEATH's title after we decided it was no longer deserved, and that thread still sank out of sight.

At the same time, current disapproval of the Senate recommends a place where at-large members can air their disagreements and have them taken seriously, provided such airing is conducted in an orderly fashion. Testing takes the piss out of us all the time, but since a number of Senators apparently don't like Testing or even browse it - and since pisstakes and serious criticism do rather different things - those posts go unread or unconsidered. If the Senate as seen as elite and aloof, we could stand to offer a step up for everyone else to better have a say.

[Beowulf]

Comment from the peanut gallery.

Why not make a subforum under the Senate if you're worried about anyone just making up discussion points willy nilly? It could be like the HoS where only people who can post in the Senate itself can create a topic. Surely the forum software allows subforum creation? I've seen it everywhere.

As to the why, well PMs can be a slow and unwieldy way to convey information as it is. Sometimes some suggestions can be made from outside the Senate to make an idea better or more palatable (or simply more reasonable/able to implement). Plus, for something like what Starglider is doing, it'd probably be easier to have that in a dedicated Senate Discussion forum than it getting lost in G&C, particulary if times passes between work on a project.

If people wish to remain anonymous, they can always PM a Senator directly as the usual method (like Zaia, I think this is a good option to have too*). But this also makes things easier as it can take time between when someone sends a PM, to when a Senator notices it, and when said Senator than posts it. So it just make representitve discussion easier, and if the conversations get out of hand, the Mods can do their thing (and this also avoids the stigma that Testing apparently has).

* As an example, I do have faith that DEATH can have plenty of good ideas, but if he posts them directly, how many people around here (among the board as a whole, not just the Senate/Mods) would simply dismiss because hey, it's only DEATH?

Hopefully I managed to get my point across clearly. Another benefit to a public venue, because it'd be easier to clear up any confusion/misunderstanding that this post may well generate, because well sometimes I suck at this.

As mentioned above, letting only Senators and Mods start a topic in this forum allows control over what new discussions get raised; they still have to convince one of those who can do so to start the topic, both there and in the Senate. As to some mechanics, I'd think whoever starts a Senate [Discussion] thread should be the one to make the crosspost into the public forum area, probably with little more than the same title and a link.

And I think, if it does go ahead, there should probably be rules against flames and heated debate in there. Perhaps an enforced rule that, in the public forum, you can't discuss other's points directly, only make your own. Let the Senate deconstruct it if they wish. Mostly because, as I'm sure you all have seen, flamewars can easily ballon into multi-page affairs where the original reason for the topic becomes quickly lost in the ensuing argument. Something I think we'd like to avoid.

I think it should mostly be clarified that while you can amplify or further a point made by a member in the public comment area, you can't directly attack the posts in there. And the Mods would just have to use their discretion I guess on how much leeway to give such conversations before a split into Testing or whatever.

Peanut Gallery would be a good name for such a forum.

[Knife]

A House of Commons, or just a weekly Sticky thread in OT for plebes to sound off in, is an excellent idea.

Doesn't testing pretty much already serve that function? Albeit not intentionally but...

Edit; actually didn't get the RogueIce's PM by the time I wrote my post. A Senate subforum available for the rank and file members of the board could be an acceptable solution. Election for a new Supreme Councilor would be good too, so I second the motion.

[fgalkin]

A House of Commons, or just a weekly Sticky thread in OT for plebes to sound off in, is an excellent idea.

Doesn't testing pretty much already serve that function? Albeit not intentionally but...

The fact that TESTING serves that function is part of the problem. Any real points get buried under a torrent of 'lul wot?" posts and image macros and get ignored by the Senators.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Knife]

A House of Commons, or just a weekly Sticky thread in OT for plebes to sound off in, is an excellent idea.

Doesn't testing pretty much already serve that function? Albeit not intentionally but...

The fact that TESTING serves that function is part of the problem. Any real points get buried under a torrent of 'lul wot?" posts and image macros and get ignored by the Senators.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

True enough, I hardly ever go to testing.

[RedImperator]

A House of Commons, or just a weekly Sticky thread in OT for plebes to sound off in, is an excellent idea.

Doesn't testing pretty much already serve that function? Albeit not intentionally but...

The fact that TESTING serves that function is part of the problem. Any real points get buried under a torrent of 'lul wot?" posts and image macros and get ignored by the Senators.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I think Testing is doing the board a service by playing the role of court jester. Nevertheless, I agree that if we want regular plebe input, a thread in OT would be better, because of the low signal-to-noise ratio to Testing.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

A House of Commons, or just a weekly Sticky thread in OT for plebes to sound off in, is an excellent idea.

Doesn't testing pretty much already serve that function? Albeit not intentionally but...

The fact that TESTING serves that function is part of the problem. Any real points get buried under a torrent of 'lul wot?" posts and image macros and get ignored by the Senators.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I've found the Testingstanis have a really crooked definition of "safe for work," and, thus, I'm hesitant to go there. With that being said, I noticed a whole slew of threads that were moved to the HoS and hereby withdraw my remark that we don't need a House of Commons. There ought to be somewhere other than Testing for such complaints to be aired, where they won't be buried under the posting volume of OT, or ignored like stickies tend to be. Maybe a Testing-type forum without the "LOL WUT" spam, image macros, and the lulz, where threads are periodically closed and pruned.

[Connor MacLeod]

The Senate is rare (unique) in the sense ist not really "moderated" the way other parts of the forum are. OR maybe its jsut self-moderated. Which may indeed by why its gone the way it has. On the other hand, we've tended to adopt the idea that the Senate is very informal and laid back - that we don't need alot of rules and regulations (or indeed oversight beyond what we actually have) because it would become needlessly bureacracitc or cumbersome.

I'm still of the mind that the latter is more appropraite for the Senate, because to be blunt, alot of us tend not to actively participate (save for votes that Wilkens has called.). If there is correction to be taken amongst some of the members for one reason or another, I guess we just need to slap those people down harder (I'm welcome to ideas there - maybe we do need supervision.)

That said, I doubt we'll ever get rid of the "complaints" or general bitching about the Senate no matter HOW respectable we make it. Someone is always going to bitch about it, and I'm certainly not going to waste any more thought on it than I have to.

[CmdrWilkens]

Couple thoughts:

How Rob envisioned the forum I know is VERY far away from where we are now (and it light years from my bureacractically inclined machinations as Whip) and I truly think that we are missing an awful lot by not having a guiding hand. Whether it would be seen poisitvely or not by the board at large I think not having a person who is actually first amongst equals within this forum means that there is no real direction or leadership except that which we consent to. It gives us all the problems of pure democracy with the added bonus that since we are a self selecting group the percetion of a sort of politburo attitude on our part is almsot as natural as the Sun rising in the East.

In other words no matter the fact that, and I don't want to sound conceited, that I would certainly run and have a damn good shot at becoming Chancellor or Deputy chancellor w/ Mod powers or whatever, I think we need someone in that role. Hell even if I were to recuse myself right now and leave the board I would still think that the Senate needs a guiding hand.

We've brought up the idea of a dedicated forum for user comment and, as with so many other issues, it deos seem to keep getting booted down the road. That aside I don't see the need, right now, for a full forum. A sticky thread in OT would be sufficient for starters. If that thread suddenly turns into 4 different 50 page threads in the next few months then maybe we could reconsider a seperate sub forum but I'd rather take a limited step and see how it works than ask Mike to go through creating a new sub-forum just for this.

As to the Senate in general, we are the adviosry board for policy essentially. Naturally folks are going to be pissed at what we do and I don't think that will go away but all of us getting off of our high horse would help. Honestly I think I've been rather forward as possible with admitting that I've got a fancy title which amounts to less than a warm bucket of spit. I may be a bit officious in here but that's mostly because I'd rather see this run as almost a sort of Student Government body: We have just as much power as the real authority lets us have (Mike) but at the same time it shouldn't stop us from doing things the right way (though I'm fairly certain many folks think my idea of the right way is ridiculous).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Whip needs to be very aggressive, the Chancellor should be wise and controlling--the Whip should be his (or her) tightly leashed attack dog. That's the best combination for keeping the forum in control. I'd also suggest a deputy Chancellor. And in fact I think that Wilkins is the right man to be Chancellor, that Stas Bush should be the deputy Chancellor (instead of a mod), and that the Chancellor should be a supermod (Yes, I think Wilkins is fully deserving and capable of being an immediate addition to the supermod roles, and he's proved it in how he has run the Senate despite having no real authority at all), while the Deputy Mod should have full mod powers in just the Senate itself--and that would be a perfect job for Stas.

The Whip, I'm less sure about. He/she needs to be aggressive about insuring that the Senators show up for votes and that order is maintained in discussion threads, basically, Wilkins' current job except with a bit more "nip" to it, like I said, the Chancellor and Deputy Chancellor's attack dog.

[RedImperator]

With a body this small, I don't think we need that much bureaucracy. With the ability to send PMs to multiple recipients, the job of Whip and Chancellor ought to be doable by one person.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

With a body this small, I don't think we need that much bureaucracy. With the ability to send PMs to multiple recipients, the job of Whip and Chancellor ought to be doable by one person.

On the other hand, the Senate does have about fifty people, and the idea of such a heavily organized bureaucracy for it, in my humble opinion, would make it possible for us to present a cleaner and more respectable face to the rest of the board.

[Lagmonster]

Over the last day, we've been soliciting opinions from the plebes about the state of the board, and one theme that's repeated over and over is that the Senate has become a joke. Too much hysterical overreaction, too many public slapfights, too many good ideas left to die. And I'm inclined to agree.

Then make a smaller and more focused Senate. One could always narrow the Senatorial positions to those based on achievements relevant to SDN's forums - that is, a Senator who is selected as an outstanding representative of Pure Star Wars, one who is a significant and positive contributor to the History subforum, one who is a knowledgeable and level-headed political issues contributor, etc. Decide on how many seats a forum or category should have , then ask all former Senators to apply. Ask people to ask themselves why they serve the senate - what part of SDN is their community, their place on the Internet, that they take pride in the upkeep of by virtue of their positive contributions.

[fgalkin]

We already have that, sort of. It's called the "mod staff." We even have a forum that did precisely that before the Senate came along. The Senate was created to serve as an intermediary between that sort of closed decision making, and popular democracy which we had for things like ban polls. We deemed it necessary because we wanted to reward good posting habits, give the board a semblance of democracy, while reducing the plebe pile-on factor.

Obviously, it failed, but I'm not sure we should just return to the old system.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[RedImperator]

We already have that, sort of. It's called the "mod staff." We even have a forum that did precisely that before the Senate came along. The Senate was created to serve as an intermediary between that sort of closed decision making, and popular democracy which we had for things like ban polls. We deemed it necessary because we wanted to reward good posting habits, give the board a semblance of democracy, while reducing the plebe pile-on factor.

Obviously, it failed, but I'm not sure we should just return to the old system.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

It's way too early to proclaim the Senate has failed. There are any number of possible reforms to make it a more effective body, without drastically reducing it in size or dissolving it outright.

[fgalkin]

If it had not failed, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? I'm not suggesting drastic change, but it seems clear that we have things that need fixing, and the Senate and its effectiveness is one of them.

Or, on the other hand, we might just be going through a message board's equivalent of a mid-life crisis.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Senate hasn't failed. It has served its purpose exactly as intended from the start. People are complaining about it because it talks about things that they do not like.

But not a single one of those issues has ever actually passed and been implemented.

Therefore, the Senate is in fact working.

Gentlemen, the issue at hand is improving enforcement on the board, and remains such. Modifications to the Senate should be to improve its ability to respond to enforcement issues. Thus why a larger and more controlling Senate staff with the ability to police the Senate would be sufficient.

[RedImperator]

If it had not failed, we wouldn't be having this conversation now, would we? I'm not suggesting drastic change, but it seems clear that we have things that need fixing, and the Senate and its effectiveness is one of them.

Or, on the other hand, we might just be going through a message board's equivalent of a mid-life crisis.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Senate added transparency to the disciplinary process, which was one of the primary reasons Mike created the forum in the first place. So obviously it didn't fail at that.

It also was created to discuss board policy, which it has done often. It has offered a number of useful suggestions. They haven't all be implemented, but guess what? The Senate doesn't have the power to implement any of its decisions.

Where I think the Senate has gone off track is it's lost its self-discipline. That's where embarrassing episodes like the N&P cleanup thread come from, and that's why we need someone in charge in here.

The general board problems, I don't think those can really been laid at the feet of the Senate as a body. Its membership, yes, especially its moderator members, who have, on the whole, neglected their duty to be good denizens and good supervisors. We can't fix the board just by reforming the Senate. However, the open criticism we're allowing from the plebes called my attention to how dissatisfied people are with the Senate and made me realize how dysfunctional it's become.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

It's not like this is a surprise. May I observe that I previously observed that the Senate needs leadership and proposed that we replace Rob back in the spring of 2007 with someone who is constantly active, and was assured that nothing was the matter?

The Senate needs the most regulation because it has actual power, even if its members are the most respected or important on the board. This should I think be self-evident, and therefore, yes, I really do think we need a Chancellor, a Deputy Chancellor, and a Whip, all at once.

[CmdrWilkens]

While I think we do need a bit of bureacracy in order to keep things rolling I don't think 3 officers is the way to go. 2 would work and its only workign right now because there is nobody actively serving on the top spot.

At the same time I wanted to throw out something that is in the same vein as what Red and Marina just mentioned. The Senate works, it may work a bit clumsily, it may not work how everyone would want it but it works. it is accomplishing a job in full view of the board membership that previously was done in the shadows as it were. Folks may not like our decisions and they most certianly dont' like the perceived attitude of superiority amongst some fo the membership but that doesn't measure whether the Senate has been effective, it measures whether the Senate is liked.