Constitution to make the board into a democracy

[RedImperator]

An exercise in futility.

This is an internet website not a UN agency. The last thing this website needs is even more top heavy bureaucracy. There is a saying in my native land that when kicked an empty vase will ring louder than one filled with water. That's pretty much what SDN is becoming with the pompous bureaucratic nonsense. Where are the interesting 10+ page long threads that can highhandedly persuade people to sign up and participate ? Instead are people here to play some Forum based Strategy / RPG game with factions like Senate and Testingstan ? If someone wants to experiment with "virtual society" let them play sim city or something. The board itself needs less drama, whining and more discussion and debates. It's all up to the users themselves to post thoughtfully. It's easy to blame the senate or mods or flying monkeys. But it does not speak highly of SDnet posters when some of the best threads of late had been Zor's RARs.

<grits teeth, remembers we're trying to be nice and calm and not blow our fucking stacks> Perhaps if you'd read the OP more closely, you would have noticed this is a thought experiment for fun and not a serious proposal.

[Anguirus]

ARTICLE I: The administration

Section 1: The Emperor

Every democracy's constitution should start this way. XD

[ray245]

I would like to bring up the idea of holding a referendum once again, in regards to board policy issues.

While I believe the Senate should have full power over the decision to ban someone, board policy, such as imposing new rules and creation of new forum section should hold a referendum instead.

The board community should have a chance to voice and decide what direction the board should take.

[Ace Pace]

I would like to bring up the idea of holding a referendum once again, in regards to board policy issues.

While I believe the Senate should have full power over the decision to ban someone, board policy, such as imposing new rules and creation of new forum section should hold a referendum instead.

The board community should have a chance to voice and decide what direction the board should take.

Fuck no. Thats about as equivilent to the old public ban polls, which were a complete farce.

[Hotfoot]

For all intents and purposes, this is your referendum. This is where all board members can get together to discuss matters related to the board in general. You don't get to override the Senate, but if we like ideas presented here, we'll bring them up. We'll also take discussion of existing votes or matters into consideration, for those of us that will peruse this forum. Needless to say, I'll be perusing it a lot.

You have your voice now, so if you've got suggestions, please make them.

[Stormbringer]

Having been a mod in the old days of public ban polls and other such actions, I have to say hell no to the idea of making SD.net a democracy. I think the Senate already has enough dysfunction and adding every board member to that is asking for a return of that sort of chaos. It was a nightmare which resulted in a lot of flame wars, public vendettas, and generally a lot of drama for nothing.

There's nothing to be gained by returning to that sort of atmosphere when this board already suffering from an excess of stupid drama and chest thumping egotism.

[Hotfoot]

It should be noted that Ray did not say anything about public ban polls, but rather that the public should be in control over board policy while the Senate should retain ban poll rights.

[Coyote]

Actually, I was thinking about it this morning and perhaps a annual, or bi-annual feedback review from the citizens about the performance of the Senators, Governors, etc would be useful. After all, we were appointed, not elected, and many complaints revolve around us not taking things seriously or taking other things TOO seriously.

While feedback is great, what's to prevent them from just ignoring it? With election cycles, there is the threat of losing one's job if he ignores the feedback, which can help keep him in line.

Well, I also was thinking that Senators should "represent" forums they haunt the most and serve as mods or minimods of those forums, and they could be recalled with no-confidence votes in the face of poor performance. But then, of course, we'd have vote pandering and favoritism, etc. We could finally invent 'full participation democratic corruption' as a civic!

In the few years since the board has been created, we have gone from Despotism to a sort of Magna Carta style lordship to a quasi-democracy... we have recreated much of human history in just a few years. I feel like I'm playing "Sid Meier's Civilisation".

[irishmick79]

It might be useful for Governors to serve as kind of an administrative board, kind of like cabinet officials. Appointed by the Emperor, confirmed by the senate. They should have full moderator powers, with the expectation that they utilize them within their designated areas. However, Governors would have the ability to moderate across all forums as coverage needs warrant - issuing bans, full editing powers, the whole nine yards. If the senators refuse to confirm a nominee for Governor, the Governor would still serve, however would not be granted full moderator powers.

If the senate was in a particularly foul mood over a governor's performance, they could hold a vote of no-confidence and strip him/her of mod powers if it passes.

[Stormbringer]

It should be noted that Ray did not say anything about public ban polls, but rather that the public should be in control over board policy while the Senate should retain ban poll rights.

I gathered that and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

From my view of things, ban polls and insult titles were a matter of board policy. Everyone of those polls was a public debate and approval of certain standard and regulations by default. I'm bringing them up because they are the democratic heritage of SD.net and in my opinion played a big part in board culture.

And it was a very messy and disruptive way to go about it. I don't think there's any reason to try and pretend the board's democracy. I think some controlled mechanisms for feedback, like this forum, are important. But the best and least disruptive way to handle this is for Mike to run it, with any advice he chooses to seek, rather than trying to hedge it around with a lot of rules (which may only be nominally obeyed) or worse yet an endless chasing of plebiscites.

[CmdrWilkens]

It might be useful for Governors to serve as kind of an administrative board, kind of like cabinet officials. Appointed by the Emperor, confirmed by the senate. They should have full moderator powers, with the expectation that they utilize them within their designated areas. However, Governors would have the ability to moderate across all forums as coverage needs warrant - issuing bans, full editing powers, the whole nine yards. If the senators refuse to confirm a nominee for Governor, the Governor would still serve, however would not be granted full moderator powers.

If the senate was in a particularly foul mood over a governor's performance, they could hold a vote of no-confidence and strip him/her of mod powers if it passes.

Some of that is already the case. As Red pointed out in one or the Senate threads most of the Mods are actually SuperMods and can cover broad swaths of territory. There are obviously some questions as to ban authority, edit authority and such but but I think the bility for more than a few Governors to have SuperMod status actually reduces their ability to police their designated forums.

Now that said I have no problem with the idea of Governors subject to confirmation by the Senate (and veto by Mike) but the mechanism is something that we would need to look at carefully.

[Count Chocula]

I move that the current board structure stay as is. Most of the issues I've seen have been caused by poor reasoning, shitty arguments, or emotional trigger issues. Flames happen and are sometimes amusing, even when you're the target. Most of the issues I've seen can be explained with the phrase "come back when you grow a pair." The Senate, Horsemen, Mods, etc. etc. are here to help Mike - it's his house. He already explained the rules.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Rotate the moderators. Simple as that.

Clockwise or anticlockwise?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I gathered that and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

From my view of things, ban polls and insult titles were a matter of board policy. Everyone of those polls was a public debate and approval of certain standard and regulations by default. I'm bringing them up because they are the democratic heritage of SD.net and in my opinion played a big part in board culture.

And it was a very messy and disruptive way to go about it. I don't think there's any reason to try and pretend the board's democracy. I think some controlled mechanisms for feedback, like this forum, are important. But the best and least disruptive way to handle this is for Mike to run it, with any advice he chooses to seek, rather than trying to hedge it around with a lot of rules (which may only be nominally obeyed) or worse yet an endless chasing of plebiscites.

As possibly the only person on the board to not get titled during a titling poll, I can say that the "democratic" era on SD.net was indeed the worst thing imaginable--this despite the fact I was able to charm my way out of it, when specious claims by Shep and Ted (now himself banned) brought the thing up in the first place. It was essentially a free for all in which only oratorical skill, more or less, allowed for the survival of an individual when pitted against the screaming mob. It created an atmosphere where I was actually utterly terrified while posting to Sd.net, but it was my only social network so I mostly stayed anyway.

[Rogue 9]

You know what's really funny? When I proposed this on my board, Destructionator opposed it. I wonder what his game is now.

[irishmick79]

I gathered that and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

From my view of things, ban polls and insult titles were a matter of board policy. Everyone of those polls was a public debate and approval of certain standard and regulations by default. I'm bringing them up because they are the democratic heritage of SD.net and in my opinion played a big part in board culture.

And it was a very messy and disruptive way to go about it. I don't think there's any reason to try and pretend the board's democracy. I think some controlled mechanisms for feedback, like this forum, are important. But the best and least disruptive way to handle this is for Mike to run it, with any advice he chooses to seek, rather than trying to hedge it around with a lot of rules (which may only be nominally obeyed) or worse yet an endless chasing of plebiscites.

As possibly the only person on the board to not get titled during a titling poll, I can say that the "democratic" era on SD.net was indeed the worst thing imaginable--this despite the fact I was able to charm my way out of it, when specious claims by Shep and Ted (now himself banned) brought the thing up in the first place. It was essentially a free for all in which only oratorical skill, more or less, allowed for the survival of an individual when pitted against the screaming mob. It created an atmosphere where I was actually utterly terrified while posting to Sd.net, but it was my only social network so I mostly stayed anyway.

I didn't get titled either, but I think that's largely because I went into self imposed exile and sought political asylum on other forums. Not good times, shit times.

It might be useful for Governors to serve as kind of an administrative board, kind of like cabinet officials. Appointed by the Emperor, confirmed by the senate. They should have full moderator powers, with the expectation that they utilize them within their designated areas. However, Governors would have the ability to moderate across all forums as coverage needs warrant - issuing bans, full editing powers, the whole nine yards. If the senators refuse to confirm a nominee for Governor, the Governor would still serve, however would not be granted full moderator powers.

If the senate was in a particularly foul mood over a governor's performance, they could hold a vote of no-confidence and strip him/her of mod powers if it passes.

Some of that is already the case. As Red pointed out in one or the Senate threads most of the Mods are actually SuperMods and can cover broad swaths of territory. There are obviously some questions as to ban authority, edit authority and such but but I think the bility for more than a few Governors to have SuperMod status actually reduces their ability to police their designated forums.

Now that said I have no problem with the idea of Governors subject to confirmation by the Senate (and veto by Mike) but the mechanism is something that we would need to look at carefully.

So, would be a good idea to develop some sort of tiered system to mod powers, ranging from the most basic and rudimentary mod powers all the way up to supermod status? That way, when candidates are proposed for certain positions, they can be cleared for a certain tier of power. Somethinglike like the US government's security clearance system. And the senate could have the option to confirm a nominee at a different tier than the one for which they were nominated, to make it interesting.

[Coyote]

I think we may be over-thinking the whole thing, though, really. In the long run, it's not as if real money or resources are being divided up, or as if what resources that exist (basically, access to free speech) are in limited amounts that need to be carefully doled out.

A few Mods and Supermods/Governors to police the forums; a Senate to help add transparency to proposed rules & bans; and the House of Commons to provide those affected by those rules a chance to voice their concerns to make sure things don't roll out of control.

Beyond that, we risk getting mired in redundancies, bueracracies, and eventually jockeying for recognition becomes the goal rather than the byproduct of organization.

[Coyote]

It shows that there has been so much drama here lately I took this perfectly seriously.

Face it, there's been more drama here lately than at a Lindsey Lohan party.

[Samuel]

You know what's really funny? When I proposed this on my board, Destructionator opposed it. I wonder what his game is now.

I'd oppose it here too. Again, this thread isn't a serious suggestion, but rather a place to have some fun making up government like documents for the board. Some good ideas and serious discussion might come out of it, but a real ratification won't and shouldn't.

No, we ratify the document... then elections are suspended "for the duration of the emergency", with the emergency being people not donating money. With the required donation being set equal to the worlds GDP.

[ray245]

You know what's really funny? When I proposed this on my board, Destructionator opposed it. I wonder what his game is now.

I'd oppose it here too. Again, this thread isn't a serious suggestion, but rather a place to have some fun making up government like documents for the board. Some good ideas and serious discussion might come out of it, but a real ratification won't and shouldn't.

No, we ratify the document... then elections are suspended "for the duration of the emergency", with the emergency being people not donating money. With the required donation being set equal to the worlds GDP.

That will just make Darth Wong extremely rich, and everyone else poor!

[Coyote]

That will just make Darth Wong extremely rich, and everyone else poor!

Are you calling Darth Wong a Republican!?

That's fightin' words, son!