[Discussion]Chancellor

[K. A. Pital]

The Senate gave us History Subforum. That's enough for me to think it did not fail.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Well, alright then. Let's make Wilkens the Chancellor and Stas the Deputy Chancellor and call it a night.

[K. A. Pital]

I will do any duty before the Senate if called upon, nominated and elected. I have 8 out of 24 internet access minimum due to my job requirements, 5 days a week. That is unlikely to change with the current economic crisis until next summer.

However, I'm not sure I could efficiently moderate the Senate given my interests on the board are rather specialized.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I will do any duty before the Senate if called upon, nominated and elected. I have 8 out of 24 internet access minimum due to my job requirements, 5 days a week. That is unlikely to change with the current economic crisis until next summer.

However, I'm not sure I could efficiently moderate the Senate given my interests on the board are rather specialized.

On the contrary, Stas, I'd submit that lends you a detached air from most of the concerns which lets you perform in an impartial fashion.

[RedImperator]

Has anyone noticed a gun control thread in N&P has hit nine pages without degenerating into total shit? I would say that right there is proof the Senate is effective, whatever it's flaws: talking about all this in the open (and soliciting honest opinions from the entire board membership) seems to be having an effect even without any official actions taken yet.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And, from Mr. Coffee:

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.

Actually, no. One of the two reason I heckle the senate so much is because all the Senate ever really does is TALK. Not much action, and by the time the Senate actually resolves to do something the matter's either settled itself or it's become largely irrelevant. I can understand the need for discussion and deliberation, but most of the time you guys get a little to into the discussion and don't actually do anything.

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

Exactly. Less talking and more doing would help impress on us "plebes" that the Senate isn't just another private forum that somehow gets to be seen by the public.

Therefore, the Senate is in fact working.

No, it's not. If it was working then we'd see action. When was the last time the Senate actually passed a resolution that became board policy? The last vote completed vote the Senate had was on Sept 23rd, and that was to ban polls in N&P, which as far as I can tell, is about the only meaningful action to come out of the Senate in regards to taking care of the massive asshattery in N&P.

To me, work means action, and so far the Senate sems to be all talk. My $0.02.

Just saying...

[K. A. Pital]

The Subforums and re-structuring of SDN were a Senate job too, with a lot of talk and a lot of action as well.

But yeah, Coffee's right on one thing - in the recent year or so, we hadn't done much - aside from the occasional ban polls, which are just the "law and order" function of Senate, but can't compense for inaction in other sectors.

The bogged down discussions about N&P "embettering", History moderatorial are just two examples of large talking threads which went almost nowhere (I remember those two well because both had myself proposed for a moderating position). And the whole list would be larger even: the current 4-page discussion about a registration question seems to get bogged down as well, DEATH's title revokation has either been in limbo.

What about the "wiki commendation"? The Senate can't put some positive stuff out for posters who really do their job aside from making a 1-post thread which immediately died?

Testing discussion spent several threads and caused a lot of talk but ended in nothing too, as I understand. So did Fanfic Moderation...

Hell, now that I think of it and go through the threads... every recent issue lifted up ended in some sort of standstill.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is why I want Wilkens in charge of the Senate and with at least supermod powers, so that he can not merely provide some guidance but immediately implement decisions of the Senate that are properly enacted. I'd seriously consider saying the Chancellor should be an Admin, at that, and yes, I'd still want Wilkens in the top spot. His conduct is exemplary and downright heroic to the point where I wouldn't freak out Mike said "Screw this" and tossed the board to Wilkens one day, even though I would if he chose pretty much anyone else, myself included.

[Sea Skimmer]

The senate takes too long to deal with important issues as far as I’m concerned. Things that everyone would have otherwise forgotten about in a day or two end up being debated for a week which just drives up hostility. Bad behavior has defiantly made this place a joke, and we need people to act better not only in the senate, but any time they post. I’m not very convinced that different leadership will address either issue.

[K. A. Pital]

So what do we need?

A more efficient Senate bureaucracy that would have a time limit on votes and a time limit on discussions whereupon a vote should be enacted?

More efficient moderators which operate routinely, swiftly crushing vulturing and large flamewars like a rolling cog, outside of Senate discretion, only reporting the cases to Senate in some sort of a weekly/monthly report?

Personally "shaping up" the Senate doesn't seem to be much of an option since the flow of discussion here should not suddenly become demanding to many people who have time constraints - but increased moderation and summary, say, monthly reports on it before the Senate? Definetely is possible.

[Hotfoot]

A few things:
1. Nobody looks at stickies these days. I know I sure don't. I look at them even less than I do sub-forums. So why not make a sub-forum based off of the Senate where regular people can post legitimate concerns. Bullshit is flushed to HoS or Testing as needed, and we go from there. Simple, takes only a few seconds, and it's something where people feel their voices are being heard. Sure, it's not likely to be a very active forum, but then how many sub-forums are actually all that active?

2. Wilkens with the ability to kick Senators square in the nuts when they misbehave is fine by me, if he wants it. Less sure about Stas, but that's because I don't know him as well. Nothing personal, we just don't cross paths often.

3. Someone brought up Coffee, Havokeff, and Duchess as new Horsemen. Let's throw in Stark for good measure to get the number up to four.

4. Normally I'd advocate letting everyone get their say in, but fuck it, let's get these things done. I'm sick of going through the motions, let's just get these things on the table.

[Coyote]

Oohh, Stark would make a good Horseman. I dig that idea.

[CmdrWilkens]

Some thoughts based on a couple of the points we've been narrowing down:

I would be happy to serve as a Mod of the Senate/SuperMod/Admin whatever as it naturally advances my secret plans for board domination . On a serious note I'd say that I don't know the specific limitation on control that can be handed out with the various positions but I woudl be very wary against asking for, or receiving, powers over a larger scope of the board. While I find myself with much more consistently free time thanks to a job with hours that are approaching normalacy I definiately by personality am not good at hitting the entire spectrum of the board. I've always sort of seen the Senate as the playground (aside from the P of N&P) where I am best suited to play so my prediliciton is to ask for no more power than is neccesarry to do the job of effectively running this little corner.

As to effectiveness I think Red made an excellent point with regards to "Soft Power." The N&P discusion thread may have led to 3 votes (of which 2 passed) but the more important point is that the open discussion, and the "plebe" input, made a lot of folks stop and take notice. Sometime talk is an accomplishment, the goal of that long and winding thread was not to come up with every solution to the problem but rather to make sure a solution happened and if it did so simply by generating greater awareness then it served its purpose. Likewise with several of the other dangling threads they may not yet have served their purpose but the fact that they haven't produced a vote or any firm policy stance does not mean that the discussions are a failure. I would say the biggest standout is DEATH's CT but that is, again, a matter of who has the power to enact the change which the consensus has built which the Senate does not have.

On a pure policy note I will offer this:
We aleady have the rules in palce for the existence of a Chancellor and a Whip so I think it would be foolish to create a new post when it would be far easier to simply allow for slightly greater leeway for the Whip to do his/her job whether that means Mod powers or Mod powers only when the Chancellor is on hiatus could be discussed but I don't think we need to create a "Deputy Chancellor" unles we want to rename the Whip to have that title. As to filling the roles I've mentioned that I would love the Chancellorship but that said I won't take it without a) A popular vote after we establish rules for an election and b) Mike's OK to boot Rob from the spot. On the Whip/Deputy spot we already have rules in place for nomination and election (including the fact that my current term runs until May), I won't express a preference for one candidate or another mostly so I'm not accused of setting up a power bloc and because there are several candidates I think could do just fine so I'd rather not weight anyone's opinion other than my own should this come to a vote.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I say we do recommend to Mike that he make the Chancellor, oh, a Supermod, since Supermods can now ban. The Chancellor would then have the authority to ban people instantly after the conclusion of ban polls in the Senate, but could not ban anyone under any other circumstances. I'd say we hold a vote, if Mike agrees, to replace Rob as Chancellor with Wilkens, and then we hold a special election for Board Whip, which will now be a mini-mod post having moderatorial powers over the Senate only, and that we basically run it as a yes/no on Stas unless someone can think of someone they really believe is more suited for the job than he is.

[Ghost Rider]

I would like to point out the sheer uselessness of making the Chancellor beyond anything but a post, maybe a moderator with specfic powers.

1. Mike has allowed Supermods the ban powers. All of them. This is enough to stamp out 99% of troubles.

2. Admins have a LOT more buttons. Many of which can fuck over the board. Beyond a few things to allow moderators better access or clean up messes, or check up on IDs on past trangessors no other role is needed. In fact because of less registration, another admin is more for back up.

3. If you cannot wait for Mike or the admin to come on and handle, then that makes less of a case. Where things are and how much they can affect are not small and hard to repair.

Making the Chancellor have some moderation powers is a good step. Going all the way to admin powers? That is giving a fucking nuke to handle what a baseball bat does.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Making the Chancellor have some moderation powers is a good step. Going all the way to admin powers? That is giving a fucking nuke to handle what a baseball bat does.

I'd already retracted the idea in favour of just supermodship, of course.

[CmdrWilkens]

I say we do recommend to Mike that he make the Chancellor, oh, a Supermod, since Supermods can now ban. The Chancellor would then have the authority to ban people instantly after the conclusion of ban polls in the Senate, but could not ban anyone under any other circumstances. I'd say we hold a vote, if Mike agrees, to replace Rob as Chancellor with Wilkens, and then we hold a special election for Board Whip, which will now be a mini-mod post having moderatorial powers over the Senate only, and that we basically run it as a yes/no on Stas unless someone can think of someone they really believe is more suited for the job than he is.

Marina, I'll say this as the current Whip, if I am gonna be replaced we do it by the numbers: A vacancy exists, an election is called, members nominate and vote according to a category C voter per the existing rules, the winner is enshrined and I hand over the Voter Tracking Sheet of Doom (TM). I know you want to move quick but even if we agree to do this it needs to be done deliberately and according to the rules so that there is no question now, or ever, in regards to the legitimacy of the vote and the person who holds the office. The other issue here being that the Senate (and Mike) have not, as of yet approved any of this.

That being said I'm gonna start putting together some language for electing a Chancellor from amongst the membership, so we can at least get that out of the way, and for re-defining the roles/powers/term of the Chancellor.

[Sea Skimmer]

So what do we need?

A more efficient Senate bureaucracy that would have a time limit on votes and a time limit on discussions whereupon a vote should be enacted?

That might help to prevent issues from being dragged out for useless periods of time, but it’s not too realistic since not everyone can expect to check the senate every single day. I see more bureaucracy as a dead end, and probably something that will prove actively harmful.

More efficient moderators which operate routinely, swiftly crushing vulturing and large flamewars like a rolling cog, outside of Senate discretion, only reporting the cases to Senate in some sort of a weekly/monthly report?

That’s more what I’m thinking. The senate should be mainly a place for appeals, and for setting general policy. Having the senate vote on the individual fates of users as a matter of routine has not proven equitable nor set a coherent standard for acceptable behavior. Its too big to be effective at that, but not nearly big enough to give everyone a voice.

[CmdrWilkens]

Quick note, all votes are limited to 7 days so there is already that mechanism to ensure a quick answer. The length of discussions is one which, and I do believe, an active Chancellor could help ameliorate.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Quick note, all votes are limited to 7 days so there is already that mechanism to ensure a quick answer. The length of discussions is one which, and I do believe, an active Chancellor could help ameliorate.

Would it be feasable to reduce poll lengths? For example designate Friday, Saturday, and Sunday as weekend days and the others as weekdays, and specify that a poll must fall on at least two weekend days and two weekdays? That would make any poll at most 6 days in duration and at least 4 days in duration, and should still give everyone enough time to vote.

[Sea Skimmer]

Quick note, all votes are limited to 7 days so there is already that mechanism to ensure a quick answer. The length of discussions is one which, and I do believe, an active Chancellor could help ameliorate.

I don’t consider an entire week quick by any standard. Like I’ve said before, a lot of problems the senate ends up debating for days and days would have just been forgotten if such debate didn’t take place. We drag bullshit around too much and just make things worse because of it. All else aside, Rules and punishment will always be more effective if they are delivered quickly.

[RedImperator]

The Senate was intended to give some transparency to the disciplinary process. It did that, but at the cost of efficiency. Perhaps we need to find a hybrid model, where the Senate still does titling and permanent bans, but supermods can issue punishments for minor offenses directly--including, perhaps, temp bans.

[Connor MacLeod]

I have to admit I'm not exactly happy with the prospect of replacing Rob. Mainly because he was something of a unique individual he was both logical and a good debator, but also quite cheerful and charasmatic and could really bring more than just smarts to a debate. And those qualities really tend to shine when he was Chancellor. I do agree we're suffering from his lack of presence, but not just because he was Chancellor, but because it was Rob as Chancellor. I do believe putting another chancellor in his place would not really "fix" things per se, but it would more likely change the nature of the Senate - and its already been changing (Its alot less lighthearted than it was. Where's the corruption??)

I am fine with the idea of adding a Deputy chancellor though, and Stas would be a good choice there. I am also against the idea of making it a moderating position. If there's somehow a lag or delay in executing decision, then we can be adding more mods/supermods (I knwo at least we were INTENDING to add mods..)

[CmdrWilkens]

The Senate was intended to give some transparency to the disciplinary process. It did that, but at the cost of efficiency. Perhaps we need to find a hybrid model, where the Senate still does titling and permanent bans, but supermods can issue punishments for minor offenses directly--including, perhaps, temp bans.

We already have the option for a temp ban during permaban votes and nothing in the Senate constrains the Admins (or sueprmods if Mike grants that authority) from banning without a poll. The Senate is the exclusive authority on ban polls, CTs, and usergroups but nothing in that charter stops the Admins from enacting immediate retribution.

In my mind its always been the Senate's roll to be more deliberative and take up cases that aren't cut and dried. If we need to cut down the time for polling to maybe 3 business days (Fri-Tues would be the longest poll duration) I'd be fine with that but I still think its a feature not a flaw that we sometimes take longer.

[Connor MacLeod]

The Senate was intended to give some transparency to the disciplinary process. It did that, but at the cost of efficiency. Perhaps we need to find a hybrid model, where the Senate still does titling and permanent bans, but supermods can issue punishments for minor offenses directly--including, perhaps, temp bans.

If streamlining it is desirable then have the Mods/Supermods able to exert more of their discretion (at least over some/minor matters like you mentioned) on their own without the Senate. MAybe even some moderate ones. If there's doubt or concern. or if the Mod/Supermod/Admin wants feedback or has doubts about a dilemma, they can always consult with their fellows, or go to the Senate if they feel it would be worthwhile.

And the rush thing is pretty much absurd. If therea er decisions that require snap judgements, ,thats probably not something the Senate should be deciding on then. And as discussed before, rushing things always runs the risk of a minority of Senators making all the choices, even with a Whip to remind everyone when to vote (Voting does not guarantee people will pay attention to an issue, of course, but they should be allowed to take the time to consider an issue or fit it into their lives as need be, rather than deciding it just becuase someone wants a decision NOW.)