How do YOU see the board?

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

Can anyone here hoenstly say that they didn't (prior to the Senate) see the moderators as comprising a seperate and senior group of users?

Yeah I did, and that meant I felt I was entitled to hold them to certain standards, and complain if they strayed. That’s impossible with 50+ people in the senate who elect there own members and cause as much trouble as they deal with. I’ve said it before, we’ve spread out power to much to be efficient or controlled, but not so much that everyone has a say and can feel involved. It doesn’t work. Maybe it would be better if senators set proper examples, but they just don’t, not on a consistent basis and far too many polls have been decided on users popularity. The senate effectively does have power, but no responsibility .

The bureaucracy of the Senate may strike some folks as unneccessarry but I'd like to ask them how they would do it differently? If you don't have rules then the complaint is arbitrary decision making, if you don't have the discussion publicly viewable then you suffer the potential accusation of secret bias or vendetta, if you have policy disucssions open to the entire membership of the board (as with the old ban polls) then there is a very real and present risk of groupthink clouding the judgement process and the bandwagon carrying away toward poor decisions. The Senate, like any legislature, is a neccesarry evil and I'd rather have it well structured than a loose conglomerate based on good will amongst the Senators and "common sense" rules.

A necessary evil? How did you reach that conclusion? I know of no other forum which has anything like the senate and I’ve seen so much larger forums which still managed to have perfectly good moderation.

Decisions of the moderator staff can be made decently transparent by simply requiring that when a punishment is awarded, a thread is created, or a post made in a dedicated thread which simply states what rule was violated, what the punishment is and where the offense took place. We got by just fine before the senate, indeed I scratched my head at its creation and ignored it for a long time, and I wasn’t even that happy with certain moderators back then. I don’t see why we need it now and I do not see what we have gained from it. If users feel a specific moderator is acting out of line, then this can be discussed by anyone, and if the moderators themselves see a problem then they can expel the relevant moderator, or demote them to modding some minor forum.

[Bounty]

The problem I have with the Senate is that it fails at doing what it's supposed to do in the most obnoxious way imaginable.

I respect moderators and admins. Not because they can ban me, but because they have taken on the duty of policing this board and put a great deal of time and effort into it. If a mod says a behaviour is unacceptable, then I now that statement is backed up by years of sifting through threads and seeing the board's dynamic at work. I also know that if a mod sticks his or her neck out on an issue, I can be damn sure they know what they are talking about.

Mods have perks ordinary users don't have, but they have those powers for a very good reason. It's a mod's job to be able to discuss matters privately and have extended editing tools; they don't get extra powers thrown at them unless they're part of the toolset they need to make the board tick.

The Senate seems to offer all the perks with none of the responsibilities. Yes, they debate matters; so do regular users, and the ability to have your voice is heard is not something I'd count as a duty. Yes, they vote, occasionally, on matters; but again, I think it's highly inappropriate to point at a Senator's ability to influence board policy and pretend it's some sort of burden. And we, the lowly peons, are told to respect the Senate and be grateful it exists, because... why?

Because they have to suffer the burden of getting to discuss board policy? Regular users are more than happy to do so - hence this very subforum.

Because they get to vote on bans? Regular users were happy to do so - hence the popularity of ban polls in the past.

Because they are valued members? I respect members for their contributions, not because they have a Senate badge. The requirements for a Senator position are nebulous enough to make the supposed prestige that comes with the title meaningless. Are Senators elevated because they are good debators? Because they have shown a commitment to the board? Because they are level-headed? All of the above? None of the above?

Because they offer transparent punishments? Please. Most of the cases thrown at the senate are open-and-shut, and the ones that aren't drag on for weeks. And the ones actually getting a resolution - well, sometimes they are acted upon. Sometimes they're just forgotten. Forgotten. Can anyone point me to a Senate thread in the last two years that resulted in something that wasn't an obvious permban?

Policing on this board has become two-tiered - the old informal moderating still exists, thank god, and there are a few mods out there who still do their jobs. Once something escalates to the Senate, though, all common sense goes out the window and we get either a flaccid discussion on title or temp bans that goes nowhere, or a show trial followed by three pages of supposedly enlightened Senators clamouring for blood and hangings.

If there really is a pool of fifty-plus posters who deserve to get power thrown at them, why haven't any senators been elevated to mod positions? If they're such great assets to the board, why aren't any of them working for it? I know about the new mods thread, but that's only been started two years after the Senate kicked off.

As for 'publicly viewable discussion' - one, what is the point of a publicly viewable discussion when it's being held by people who have no real credentials to deal with the matter; two, what is the point if onlookers have no ability to intervene in the discussion, except perhaps by the grace of a Senator or through a proxy thread; three, wouldn't this be better served by requiring the mods to start a publicly-viewable thread detailing the charges? Like there used to be, in the HoS?

Look at the trouble, the resentment, the questions the Senate has stirred up, then hold that up against what it has achieved. The board now has a caste of ineffectual blowhards who seem to have slipped into spending most of their time justifying their existence while achieving jack and shit, and we still don't have an expanded moderating staff. Is that what the board needs?

[Ender]

I'll set aside the contradiction of complaining that Marina has not been reprimanded for her actions and then saying you aren't asking for her to be reprimanded.

Frankly, thejester's suggestion to get rid of the senate may not be something you (the senate) wants to hear, but he has a point. You all don't really serve a purpose - whatever Rob Wilson's original vision was for the senate, it's completely gone now, and you've simply become the focus of people's irritation because of the (overall) behavior of senators.

See, this is where I disagree - I don't think there is a point here. Eliminate the Senate. Well, ok, it means I have more typos in my posts now because I can't edit. Whoop-de-doo. But it doesn't change anything that is overall wrong with the board. It is a completely useless subforum, whose members are largely engrossed in self indulgent naval gazing and in group preening? Ok, so are HAB, BOTM, GALE, SOS, etc.

No, my objection to eliminating it comes out of the fact that I'm yet to see a good argument for it. I think it serves a purpose. It seems like far and away the bulk of the "eliminate the Senate" calls are a direct response to Marina's "eliminate Testing" idiocy. I see it as a bunch of you going "WAH! WAH! They tried to take away our special place, now we should take away theirs! WAH!" On that basis alone I'm not inclined to agree with it. The others make extremely weak arguments for it. Most of those are centered around the fact that the Senate, what was it, "airs dirty laundry", by making some of the more behind the scenes visible. The remainder are things like Bounty's post.

The Senate seems to offer all the perks with none of the responsibilities. Yes, they debate matters; so do regular users, and the ability to have your voice is heard is not something I'd count as a duty. Yes, they vote, occasionally, on matters; but again, I think it's highly inappropriate to point at a Senator's ability to influence board policy and pretend it's some sort of burden. And we, the lowly peons, are told to respect the Senate and be grateful it exists, because... why?

Skimmer also gave voice to this sentiment, that we have "power, but no responsibility." Really? "power"? Why do so many come back to the point that the Senate is ineffectual then? Power is the ability to get things done. "All the perks and none of the responsibilities?" These are the grand perks of having a larger sig available and being able to edit in slightly more places then you for a longer time. Firstly, that isn't even close to "all the perks" mods have. Secondly, are those differences really enough to get you upset here? I don't think any of the senators even make use of the longer sig, and I almost never see an "edited by..." footnote. Go ahead and eliminate them, but if you want to act like these are massive benefits or examples of power on the board I would hope you are joking.

Because they have to suffer the burden of getting to discuss board policy? Regular users are more than happy to do so - hence this very subforum.

...

Because they offer transparent punishments? Please. Most of the cases thrown at the senate are open-and-shut, and the ones that aren't drag on for weeks. And the ones actually getting a resolution - well, sometimes they are acted upon. Sometimes they're just forgotten. Forgotten. Can anyone point me to a Senate thread in the last two years that resulted in something that wasn't an obvious permban?

So your objection is that discussion in the Senate goes no where, but think that the HoC will be radically different? The reasons things go no where is because after all is said and done the Senate consists of us asking the mods, who are already buried under the load, to go ahead and do some more. To answer your question, there was the topic of revoking Death's title, which was voted on and passed. And it didn't happen because the mods were utterly swamped and didn't get around to it.

The inability to transform thought into action will not disappear because the subforum name and participant list changes.

Umm... does an obvious solution to ineffective an insufficient moderation not jump out at you? How about Mike appoint some new moderators - hell, pull from the senators, I really don't care - and have them actually moderate? What other "solutions" are you looking for?

And do you have a good method for selecting new mods? When the board first opened Mike handed them out to the earliest volunteers. Some of those worked out well, a fair number did not.

If there really is a pool of fifty-plus posters who deserve to get power thrown at them, why haven't any senators been elevated to mod positions? If they're such great assets to the board, why aren't any of them working for it?

And what would you like us to do to, keep pestering Mike about it? Send him a daily PM? Dig out the phonebook and give him a ring?



You guys think that the HoC meets all the functions that the Senate does. This is not correct. It differs in one crucial regard - OT rules apply here, while the Senate has effectively no rules. The difference there allows for the actual, and in some cases harsh, criticism of board policy and moderator actions. This does not always go over well, but it is needed and thus there needs to be a safe haven for it. And yes, I think that ability to launch in on decisions from the staff should be restricted. The criteria for restricting it may need to be fixed - it is, as said, nebulous - but that does not mean it doesn't serve a purpose.

[Vendetta]

So your objection is that discussion in the Senate goes no where, but think that the HoC will be radically different?

In that it will get things done effectively? No.

In that it won't be percieved an exclusive little club for certain members of the board who comprehensively demonstrate that they are not exemplary members (see: The thread you linked, full of backbiting and acknowledgement that the problem under discussion came at least partially from senators) in any significant way to feel like they have some scrap of petty authority? Yes.

Whether that's what the Senate is or not, that's how it's percieved.

[Ender]

In that it will get things done effectively? No.

In that it won't be percieved an exclusive little club for certain members of the board who comprehensively demonstrate that they are not exemplary members (see: The thread you linked, full of backbiting and acknowledgement that the problem under discussion came at least partially from senators) in any significant way to feel like they have some scrap of petty authority? Yes.

Whether that's what the Senate is or not, that's how it's percieved.

Perception is internal, and external changes won't impact it. Abolish the Senate and the complains will become about an "Old Boys Club" instead. You will still have people who feel "intimidated" or such, who think that nonexistent power exists for these people. Mr. Coffee called this one right on the first page. Your perception comes from yourself.

Abolish the Senate - it is no skin off my nose. But it won't change a dang thing about this place except remove a safe haven to criticize staff actions. It will just change the name of the scapegoat group instead of actually fixing any problems.

[Ghost Rider]

What I think is ironic is the original intent of the Senate was to provide a place wherein people could see and participate on moderator actions. This was because too many accused the moderators of doing exactly what people are accusing the Senate of doing. People really are making mountains out of molehills given that the Senate cannot do anything except suggest. The entire Senate could be behind an action and the admins could easily go "Fuck off." for whatever reason and all the Senate can do is pester and hope for a resolution. Ender and the few others who've said so this in the past are correct. The Senate gives a couple perks but has no power.

As for abolishment? Let's go back to Star Chamber proceedings and see how fast we'll get a new set of accusations.

[Vendetta]

What I think is ironic is the original intent of the Senate was to provide a place wherein people could see and participate on moderator actions.

Except, of course, most people can't participate in discussion on moderator actions any way other than by PMing a senator and hoping they have time to raise it, and since the membership of the senate is internally decided based on no discernible set of procedures, compounded by the fact that there have been no new senate memberships since May, when the rules of the senate call for nominations monthly, it becomes the "old boy's club", with a few perks given to "people we like", which gets nothing done except giving the appearance of a little bit of exclusivity.

The Senate does not foster any improvements in the culture of this board, it's members do not act in an exemplary fashion, there is very little actual commentary on moderator activity going on within it barring ban polls which used to be board-wide anyway, and it has rapidly become a closed clique. It appears to have comprehensively failed in it's function on the board, and it's functions could be reproduced effectively by more active moderators, appointed in a fashion decided by the owner of the board, and a simple administrative suggestions and ideas board where all members can directly raise suggestions for board improvements.

[Coyote]

The reason I like the Senate, and support it, is because it offers the ability to consider reprimands or actions other than just bans; it allows for someone to speak up on behalf of those being hauled up on disciplinary considerations; and it allows some form of open contemplations before rules are just 'arbitrarily' changed.

The fact that we aren't always doing this perfectly ( ) doesn't undermine the idea of the Senate, it means that execution may be flawed sometimes... and that is a reflection of the fact that, in the long run, we're not professional, paid board admins here, we're a handful of appointees.

People complain that the Senate "airs dirty laundry". Well, sometimes dirty laundry may need to be aired, as it's the only way to start cleaning. The reason I have tried to steer this thread in the direction it's gone is because I see a lot of resentment and sordid undercurrents, and I think it should be sorted out.

Primarily, I want to know how much of this is really just personal axe-grinding. I see a lot of people saying "the Senate is [insert criticism]" and a list of greviences is given-- arrogant, hypocritical, etc. Now, when I look around, I see people such as Publius, Simplicius, Edi, Wilkins... dare I include myself?-- a lot of Senators who do not fit the criticisms.

So I am theorizing that criticism of the Senate as a whole is a poorly-constructed fig leaf for ill feelings towards certain, specific people who happen to be Senators.

So again, I have to ask-- if people have a specific complaint against a specific person, and if that complaint has legitimacy, why not air it? Seriously, are we in grade school? Will you be sent to the Principal's office? If we can openly criticise George Bush without fear of reprisal, why can't folks criticise someone here who may be acting unprofessionally-- especially if that unprofessional behavior is from someone who is supposed to be setting an example?

And don't just dogpile Marina because it may seem easy to coast with the momentum of the crowd. I want to use this opportunity to seperate wheat from chaff here-- how much of these problems are just personality dislikes? How much are old vendettas or feelings of ill will, and how much is really, truly legitimate institutional criticism? If someone thinks we need more Mods, then speak up and say who you'd like to serve as mod. It's just a nomination, it's not a contract signed in blood, and the nominated person always has the ability to say "I'm honored but I decline".

Resentments left unspoken will just continue to simmer, and we go from being a really intelligent board to just another footnote entry in Encyclopedia Dramatica. Trust me, I know from experience, we're collecting enough internal politics to rival the Furries. Let's confront complaints rationally and we can hash them all out.

[Coyote]

What I think is ironic is the original intent of the Senate was to provide a place wherein people could see and participate on moderator actions.

Except, of course, most people can't participate in discussion on moderator actions any way other than by PMing a senator and hoping they have time to raise it...

Hence the push for this very forum, to include the voice of the rank and file!

I tire of the saw that the Senate is insulated and doesn't take into account the opinions of the regular posters. It is precisely because of that criticism that this forum was created. In other words, I feel that the Senate heard the complaints and acted to address those complaints, opening itself up to direct criticism in the hopes of resolving misunderstandings.

I feel that people are complaining about something that has been addressed, and we should move on to some of our other pressing complaints.

The Senate does not foster any improvements in the culture of this board, it's members do not act in an exemplary fashion, there is very little actual commentary on moderator activity going on within it barring ban polls which used to be board-wide anyway, and it has rapidly become a closed clique. It appears to have comprehensively failed in it's function on the board, and it's functions could be reproduced effectively by more active moderators, appointed in a fashion decided by the owner of the board, and a simple administrative suggestions and ideas board where all members can directly raise suggestions for board improvements.

Then what we may have here is not a "bad idea", but a good idea poorly implemented.

Again, I feel I must ask specifics-- what sort of 'exemplary' behavior is not being met, and by whom?

In the threads about regulating behavior and politeness, many actual, established board rules have been used as evidence to point out that "politeness rules" are unecessary. So if a Senator has violated rules, then by all means bring it up. But if a Senator (or even a few Senators) has made people butthurt, don't use blanket criticism of the Senate as a whole as a means to diffuse disgruntlement. No one is above the rules; it seems that the only reason people feel that "Senators are above the rules" is because people place them there, not board policy. And why do some Senators break rules and not get punished? Because no one complains.

I'll be honest here, when I read "the Senate is a bunch of [unflattering adjective-nouns]" it honestly bugs me, because I take the idea to heart that we're supposed to discuss rules and add transparency, etc. I feel that I have, on more than a couple of occassions, stuck up for people that were being singled out and called for leniency, benefit of the doubt, and lesser punishments. I've tried to be very diligent about passing on PM's I get that reflect constituents' concerns, and provide answers and reasons in the rare occassion I don't pass on a message. I believe a lot of us are very responsive to people here and we get frustrated when placed under the same blanket of criticism.

When I ask for specific criticisms, and get very little response, but more blanket condemnation, that really leaves me with the impression that these complaints may be purely specious and motivated by personal dislikes. Where else am I supposed to go, after all?

I feel I've done waht was right, and I know a number of the rest of us have, too. Remember that support for the HoC was high, so a lot of us "evil" Senators are interested in hearing the complaints. So... make specific charges, backed by rules or legitimate observations, or find out what is really bugging people and start finding ways to reconcile some of this.

[Crown]

What I think is ironic is the original intent of the Senate was to provide a place wherein people could see and participate on moderator actions.

I'm sorry mate, but that is actually entirely not true. I've said it before and I'll say it again; "Instead what (I feel) it [The Senate] has become, is a bunch of people sitting in a room talking about you as if you're not there when you are. Personally I couldn't imagine a more frustrating thing to happen in real life, can you?"

[Starglider]

I tire of the saw that the Senate is insulated and doesn't take into account the opinions of the regular posters. It is precisely because of that criticism that this forum was created. In other words, I feel that the Senate heard the complaints and acted to address those complaints, opening itself up to direct criticism in the hopes of resolving misunderstandings.

Frankly I don't see the point in having a senate forum if there's also a 'general board issues' forum. I really doubt the quality of the discussion threads is any better simply because only 2% of the board's population can post there. The only use for it is having vote threads that don't get invisibly spammed by random users, and a) there are technical solutions to that (e.g. visible vote logs) and b) one of the admins will have to comment on whether those polls turned out to be of any use to them anyway.

If you want to recognise good debating and reward it with slightly better editing rights, that can be done independently and without any of the drama. The senate threads are frequently entertaining, but I don't think that's worth the aggravation it's caused.

P.S. I turned Sea Skimmer's proposal into a poll.

[Vendetta]

Then what we may have here is not a "bad idea", but a good idea poorly implemented.

Again, I feel I must ask specifics-- what sort of 'exemplary' behavior is not being met, and by whom?

In the threads about regulating behavior and politeness, many actual, established board rules have been used as evidence to point out that "politeness rules" are unecessary. So if a Senator has violated rules, then by all means bring it up. But if a Senator (or even a few Senators) has made people butthurt, don't use blanket criticism of the Senate as a whole as a means to diffuse disgruntlement. No one is above the rules; it seems that the only reason people feel that "Senators are above the rules" is because people place them there, not board policy. And why do some Senators break rules and not get punished? Because no one complains.

For a start, ad-hominem attacks and vendettas are as frequently indulged in by senators as other board members. Occasionally in the senate itself. For example, when Keevan came into this senate thread waving his "I'm a mod and you're not" stick, both Ender and Knife rose to it and derailed the discussion for half a page at least. There was the recent spat between Poe and Marina, and the one between fgalkin and Mr. Coffee. Of those, two have been properly censured, and fgalkin has at least admitted that his behaviour was inappropriate, but they all show examples of senators and even some moderators completely failing to abide by the rules of the board, evidently not offering an example of the behaviour the board prefers to see. (In the last case, Mike pointed out that more rigourous enforcement of existing rules about logical fallacies would have nipped the whole thing in the bud)

Even here on this board, in a thread about being polite and improving the culture of the board, Ghost Rider evidently felt himself unable to respond to Ryan Thunder missing the point, but not by pointing out where the point was and only then mocking him for missing it, no, it was just a generic ad hominem post with no other point or content. If Ryan is a consistent offender in the manner suggested, then the correct senatorial response should, as I see it, to be raising a discussion and poll for a custom title or other mild censure, not an otherwise contentless flame.

The concept that the activities of the senate should be kept to an exclusive subset of members is only valuable if those members are exemplars of what the board should represent. Currently it is not.

When I ask for specific criticisms, and get very little response,

Another, which I've already mentioned, is that the Senate now appears to be closed to new admissions. There isn't a nomination or vote thread in it since May, when the senate rules call for one every month. This, I feel, is a symptom of nominations only coming from and occurring within the senate itself. You've already let in all the people you like, best to stop nominating (And there was no motion, discussion, or vote on whether to do so as far as I can see), so the plebs can't dirty the carpets and get fingerprints on the china. Again, that's another reason why it's seen as an Old Boy's Club. Because no-one else can get in unless the current members deign to let them, or even think of doing so. The other private member boards mentioned are not prone to this perception because outsiders can actively apply to join them, and because being a member in them garners no "perks" other than the ability to see and post on that board.

If the senate is to remain in existence in anything like it's current form and shed that insular image, then it needs to start admitting new members again, which need to be at the very least nominated by people not in the senate currently. For example, a nomination thread on this board which is then voted on in the senate itself. When the subject of new membership was last raised, not one reply pointed out the fact that there already is a rule about new senate memberships and that it was simply not being used, and all the replies suggested that senate membership nominations should only come from within, so that only "desirable" people were allowed in.

I would suggest also that senate term should be limited, as one new member is added monthly the oldest existing one is displaced and becomes eligible for re-election to the senate after, say, two or three months.

Add to that the content of the senate, which on the front page is currently around 20% consumed with it's own administration, and a further 20% with ban/title polls, and much of the rest of the content is merely suggestions for improvement which does not need to be restricted only to a clique of people (hence the existence of this board, where such threads can be commented on directly by all), and that leaves very little useful left for the senate to actually do.

[Big Phil]

[quote="Coyote"]Primarily, I want to kn ... 2&t=125428
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 6&start=25
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=125995
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=123452
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=123119]
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=123134

[Knife]

For a start, ad-hominem attacks and vendettas are as frequently indulged in by senators as other board members. Occasionally in the senate itself. For example, when Keevan came into this senate thread waving his "I'm a mod and you're not" stick, both Ender and Knife rose to it and derailed the discussion for half a page at least.

I'm not sure how you can say that. All those posts, while deep with nasty, still argue the point at hand and are not ad hominems. If you think the dissolution of the Senate will some how make all emotional outbursts and/or all heated discussions go away, I think you're hoping for the unreachable.

[Coyote]

EXCELLENT, IT IS STARTING TO COME AROUND!

For a start, ad-hominem attacks and vendettas are as frequently indulged in by senators as other board members. Occasionally in the senate itself. For example, when Keevan came into this senate thread waving his "I'm a mod and you're not" stick, both Ender and Knife rose to it and derailed the discussion for half a page at least. There was the recent spat between Poe and Marina, and the one between fgalkin and Mr. Coffee. Of those, two have been properly censured, and fgalkin has at least admitted that his behaviour was inappropriate, but they all show examples of senators and even some moderators completely failing to abide by the rules of the board, evidently not offering an example of the behaviour the board prefers to see. (In the last case, Mike pointed out that more rigourous enforcement of existing rules about logical fallacies would have nipped the whole thing in the bud)

Even here on this board, in a thread about being polite and improving the culture of the board, Ghost Rider evidently felt himself unable to respond to Ryan Thunder missing the point, but not by pointing out where the point was and only then mocking him for missing it, no, it was just a generic ad hominem post with no other point or content. If Ryan is a consistent offender in the manner suggested, then the correct senatorial response should, as I see it, to be raising a discussion and poll for a custom title or other mild censure, not an otherwise contentless flame.

Then finally we have begun to identify what is chafing people's shorts.

You've all seen what we do in the Senate when something like this crops up-- you have your evidence, so start a discussion thread about the people who have offended! Discuss the merits and consider what an appropriate censure would/should be!

Another, which I've already mentioned, is that the Senate now appears to be closed to new admissions. There isn't a nomination or vote thread in it since May, when the senate rules call for one every month. This, I feel, is a symptom of nominations only coming from and occurring within the senate itself. You've already let in all the people you like, best to stop nominating (And there was no motion, discussion, or vote on whether to do so as far as I can see), so the plebs can't dirty the carpets and get fingerprints on the china. Again, that's another reason why it's seen as an Old Boy's Club. Because no-one else can get in unless the current members deign to let them, or even think of doing so. The other private member boards mentioned are not prone to this perception because outsiders can actively apply to join them, and because being a member in them garners no "perks" other than the ability to see and post on that board.

If the senate is to remain in existence in anything like it's current form and shed that insular image, then it needs to start admitting new members again, which need to be at the very least nominated by people not in the senate currently. For example, a nomination thread on this board which is then voted on in the senate itself. When the subject of new membership was last raised, not one reply pointed out the fact that there already is a rule about new senate memberships and that it was simply not being used, and all the replies suggested that senate membership nominations should only come from within, so that only "desirable" people were allowed in.

I think what we have here is a serious misunderstanding about the motivations behind the cessation of nomination. To be honest, I [personally] always thought that a monthy nomination was a mistake and I have argued frequently for quarterly or bi-annual nominations instead-- precisely because I didn't want to create the impression that has, in fact, developed-- that the Senate is a reward or milestone of acceptance. It is supposed to be a non-glamorous advisory body, not a goal to measure coolness.

The reason nominations have closed is not because we don't want to tlet in "scummy people", so to speak, but because we really haven't thought about it (in other words, there hasn't been some wierd conspiracy to shut it down) and because we were rapidly going to approach the point where the board was primarily made up of Senators and a handful of Noobs (which was my concern).

So, I say we rectify that. Here in the House of Commons, why not nominate people and put forward arguments advocating why those people would be good Senators. You vote, we'll confirm, and Mike can veto or override any of us.

I would suggest also that senate term should be limited, as one new member is added monthly the oldest existing one is displaced and becomes eligible for re-election to the senate after, say, two or three months.

Sounds like a motion for discussion to me.

The House of Commons is your Senate.

Add to that the content of the senate, which on the front page is currently around 20% consumed with it's own administration, and a further 20% with ban/title polls, and much of the rest of the content is merely suggestions for improvement which does not need to be restricted only to a clique of people (hence the existence of this board, where such threads can be commented on directly by all), and that leaves very little useful left for the senate to actually do.

Take these resources here and make something of them, I say.

We are evolving, an ongoing process, and instead of just pointing fingers and griping, the HoC is made to hold up a mirror to help add perspective to the board administration. This is the arena for proposing change and solutions. You, Vendetta, are setting the foundation with these questions and responses.

Point out what is wrong and offer solutions.
Point out who has violated rules, offer evidence, and weigh responses.
Nominate and discuss possible changes in leadership.
Everyone has a stake in this.

[CmdrWilkens]

Another, which I've already mentioned, is that the Senate now appears to be closed to new admissions. There isn't a nomination or vote thread in it since May, when the senate rules call for one every month. This, I feel, is a symptom of nominations only coming from and occurring within the senate itself. You've already let in all the people you like, best to stop nominating (And there was no motion, discussion, or vote on whether to do so as far as I can see), so the plebs can't dirty the carpets and get fingerprints on the china.

I wanted to address solely this point with a reference to this:

Beginning on the 2nd of every month the forum shall be placed open for the nomination of prospective Senators.

There is no requirement for monthly elevation. It is, as with anything else, up to somebody to come up with a name to nominate and start the process. In other words its not some conspiracy to shut out other voices but rather the fact that nobody has thought of any names recently because we haven't been thinking about it.

Now I personally am in favor of abolishing the rule Rob had against campaigning for a seat but as of yet there has been no discussion at all in regards to that even when I tried to prompt some discussion in the Senate.

[Vendetta]

I'm not sure how you can say that. All those posts, while deep with nasty, still argue the point at hand and are not ad hominems. If you think the dissolution of the Senate will some how make all emotional outbursts and/or all heated discussions go away, I think you're hoping for the unreachable.

The idea isn't that the drama will go away, it will simply be acknowledged that the people taking part in it are just ordinary board members, and are not supposedly "Senators", our "betters".

You've all seen what we do in the Senate when something like this crops up-- you have your evidence, so start a discussion thread about the people who have offended! Discuss the merits and consider what an appropriate censure would/should be!

The issue here isn't with individuals, but with the nature of the Senate as a closed group. The only justification for it being a closed group, especially in it's role in discussing and voting on censure of board members, but including even such trivia as the language used to describe it (senate vs plebes) is that it's members of the senate represent a higher standard. When it's demonstrable that that higher standard is not being met, and nothing is being done about it within the senate, supposedly a self policing body, it becomes clear that the Senate has no value as a closed and exclusive group. There is no value in a seperate "senate" of posters discussing issues with no greater clarity than the rest of the board, and certainly individuals who are not able to behave according to the rules should not be the ones voting to censure others for transgressions.

I think what we have here is a serious misunderstanding about the motivations behind the cessation of nomination. To be honest, I [personally] always thought that a monthy nomination was a mistake and I have argued frequently for quarterly or bi-annual nominations instead-- precisely because I didn't want to create the impression that has, in fact, developed-- that the Senate is a reward or milestone of acceptance. It is supposed to be a non-glamorous advisory body, not a goal to measure coolness.

The reason nominations have closed is not because we don't want to tlet in "scummy people", so to speak, but because we really haven't thought about it (in other words, there hasn't been some wierd conspiracy to shut it down) and because we were rapidly going to approach the point where the board was primarily made up of Senators and a handful of Noobs (which was my concern).

The specifics of how frequently nominations and admissions occur is not the issue. The issue is that they are not occurring. The fact that no-one thought of it in seven months is as bad as there being a "conspiracy" in practical effect, because it looks for all the world like the current membership has simply decided that no new members are good enough. Remember, this is about how people percieve the board, not how it actually is, and if you look like an insular group, people will assume that that's what you are.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just to note, the reason why I brought up things like the dispute with Poe in the Senate is because I felt it would be impossible to actually debate him anywhere else due to the fact that every single discussion on this board turns into a dogpiled shitfest. Debating on the board has become essentially impossible anywhere except the Senate.

[Ghost Rider]

What I think is ironic is the original intent of the Senate was to provide a place wherein people could see and participate on moderator actions.

I'm sorry mate, but that is actually entirely not true. I've said it before and I'll say it again; "Instead what (I feel) it [The Senate] has become, is a bunch of people sitting in a room talking about you as if you're not there when you are. Personally I couldn't imagine a more frustrating thing to happen in real life, can you?"

Oh I agree, that is how it has become. I am merely saying the original intent was to have to board try and help with actions. What is being said and what is done are as different as chocolate and concrete. I just merely wanted to point out what it was meant to be. Not what it became .

[Starglider]

Debating on the board has become essentially impossible anywhere except the Senate.

The solution to that is obvious; close every forum except the Senate!

Seriously, this is a ludicrous statement. There are plenty of perfectly good debates on this board; people wouldn't be here otherwise. A disproportionately high fraction of the debates you personally have been involved in seem to have blown up, but even there it can't be more than one, maybe two percent of them.

[thejester]

See, this is where I disagree - I don't think there is a point here. Eliminate the Senate. Well, ok, it means I have more typos in my posts now because I can't edit. Whoop-de-doo. But it doesn't change anything that is overall wrong with the board. It is a completely useless subforum, whose members are largely engrossed in self indulgent naval gazing and in group preening? Ok, so are HAB, BOTM, GALE, SOS, etc.

C'mon, that comparison is obviously ridiculous. Those groups aren't public, don't have a say over board policy, and probably spend considerably less time navel gazing than the Senate. Eliminating the Senate won't change all of the boards problems, but as it stands it serves no useful function that couldn't (shouldn't?) be handled in other areas and generates a tremendous amount of bad blood amongst the board membership.

No, my objection to eliminating it comes out of the fact that I'm yet to see a good argument for it. I think it serves a purpose. It seems like far and away the bulk of the "eliminate the Senate" calls are a direct response to Marina's "eliminate Testing" idiocy. I see it as a bunch of you going "WAH! WAH! They tried to take away our special place, now we should take away theirs! WAH!" On that basis alone I'm not inclined to agree with it. The others make extremely weak arguments for it. Most of those are centered around the fact that the Senate, what was it, "airs dirty laundry", by making some of the more behind the scenes visible. The remainder are things like Bounty's post.

I'm not arguing that it should be gone because I think it's threatening my non-existant Testingstan way of life; I'm arguing against it because I think it's pointless and is doing more harm than good. I actually thought the MESS prank was the first clear demonstration of what a total waste of time it was; the Testing debacle just confirmed it. And I take quite the opposite stance to Bounty - the Senate is a joke not because it has power but because it has none. It's a pseudo-mod staff that can throw accusations, mud and stupidity at will but can't actually do anything. I know the natural response then is 'So? Who can it hurt?', but if it can't actually do anything what's the point of having it? The creation of the House of Commons surely underlines the point - the plebes now have a place where they can voice their grievances, to the Senate, who will then bump them to the Admins. So why have the Senate? As recent events show, they're clearly no better at judgement on board policy than the plebes.

[Vendetta]

Just to note, the reason why I brought up things like the dispute with Poe in the Senate is because I felt it would be impossible to actually debate him anywhere else due to the fact that every single discussion on this board turns into a dogpiled shitfest. Debating on the board has become essentially impossible anywhere except the Senate.

I thought that was what the coliseum was for, though in that case it may have needed several steps back from both parties in order to actually debate the issue raised without the personal impact seeping in.

[Coyote]

Well, we've been experimenting with the Senate for a couple years now, and clearly the creation of the Senate itself has raised as many, or more, questions than it has solved. So now we're trying the House of Commons. And we're debating mod staff changes, a rolling Senate membership, and other things.

Nothing here is set in stone; what can be done can be undone, or added to. I'm a "glass-half-full" type, myself, I see the HoC as evidence that concerns are being addressed and taken seriously.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just to note, the reason why I brought up things like the dispute with Poe in the Senate is because I felt it would be impossible to actually debate him anywhere else due to the fact that every single discussion on this board turns into a dogpiled shitfest. Debating on the board has become essentially impossible anywhere except the Senate.

I thought that was what the coliseum was for, though in that case it may have needed several steps back from both parties in order to actually debate the issue raised without the personal impact seeping in.

That use for the Coliseum was proposed after the events with Poe took place.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Debating on the board has become essentially impossible anywhere except the Senate.

The solution to that is obvious; close every forum except the Senate!

Seriously, this is a ludicrous statement. There are plenty of perfectly good debates on this board; people wouldn't be here otherwise. A disproportionately high fraction of the debates you personally have been involved in seem to have blown up, but even there it can't be more than one, maybe two percent of them.

Well, the title of this thread is "how do you see the board", and that's how I see it, as a place where anything and everything I say can and will be attacked by multiple people simultaneously without the slightest respite. If we do get the Coliseum set up properly so that people can demand to settle debates in it, I suspect I will start posting on issues of substance much more often since it means I can take it out of the mosh pit and actually get some kind of sane responses and coherent arguments out of it.