Discussion: public defender

[ray245]

This isn't useful. If someone posts a stupid idea, call it a stupid idea and explain why it is stupid (which you did in later posts, snipped out of the above quotes), then leave it at that. There is no need to call for anyone's silence like this and it is more than likely counter-productive.

I've explained why this thread's concept is a bad idea. Then I've re-explained it to people that didn't get it the first time I explained why it's a dumb fucking idea. Now I'm having to be super obvious about it and use small words because some fuckers around here were to dense to get it the first two times I explained it.

Yeah. If somebody wants to call my idea stupid, I'm cool with that. Just explain to me why, and I'll go back and work on it. Frankly, I thought the whole point was to brainstorm ideas to make this place better/more entertaining. Shouldn't be a surprise if some of them suck.

I did explain why this was a bad idea. Then you come up with the EXACT SAME IDEA only slightly reworded. When I pointed out again why it was a bad idea, you decided to play movable goal posts and invent some retarded shit about it being about creating horseman fodder and going back to what is essentially public ban polls.

Also, if the point of this sub-forum is to figure out ways to improve the board, then why is it that the bulk of ideas offered so far either increase drama (bad thing), increase bureaucracy (bad thing), or are just woo-woo populist bullshit? This thread is a perfect example of all three.

Coffee, I'd like to hear your ideas-- not just some general "how to improve the board" stuff but what you think may be problematic-- or if it really is nothing more serious than a band of people being overly dramatic over nothing of real importance.

It's pretty goddamned obvious what needs to be done (more mods, a return to enforcing the board rules, and the use of temp-bands instead of straight to perma-ban), and those ideas have been brought up, solotions have been pointed out, and now we're pretty much just waiting for the Senate to get off it's duff and re-discuss what's been discussed or for a couple of Mods to just go ahead and make it happen...

Problem is, the good ideas in this sub-forum are rapidly drowning in a sea of bullshit like this thread. So once again, can we knock it off with the ideas that just make the problem worse. Before you post a proposal, think about it.

Here's a helpful set of questions people can ask before wasting our time with Bad Ideas:

1. Does the proposal add another layer of bureaucracy? If yes, then it's a Bad Idea. If no, go to #2.

2. Will the proposal create more drama just for the sake of entertainment? If yes, then it's a Bad Idea. In no, go to #3.

3. Will the proposal actually help streamline any processes, stimulate fresh debate without creating drama, and/or ease the burden of running the board? If no, then it's not useful. If yes, go ahead and post your idea.

See how easy that is? Fuck, I could come up with shit like that all day long. But since people seem to loves them some drama around here, no one will listen. So instead of posting my ideas, I've instead decided that every time someone posts a Bad Idea here, I'm going to point out why it's a Bad Idea. if they don't listen the first time, I'll explain it again, only a little more forcefully. If they still don't get it, I'll explain it again along with why I think that person is the most retarded thing to hit the internet since YTMND. Just doing my part to make the board a cleaner, friendly, less drama shitting place for all of use to come together and debate things.

Sure, we always need an opposition around in policy making areas and etc. Perhaps you should be nominated into the Senate. ( I am not joking.)

Although Coffee, you could point out what existing problem the board have, besides what you have said just now. I am not asking you create of draft a new policy. Instead, I am asking you to bring forward any other problem that we did not pay attention to.

[Coyote]

Dude, he just laid everything out all plain and in the open-like!

[ray245]

Dude, he just laid everything out all plain and in the open-like!

I'm asking about any OTHER problem the board has.

[Coyote]

I feel like you're over-thinking it, but be my guest. Things here are a lot more obvious and easily accessable than folks believe.

People want to feel important, so drama is invented. Sometimes, even, opposition is created for the sake of making a voice. Molehills become mountains. Mountains become soapboxes, which become (possibly) redundant forums, subforums, and so on to fill preceived needs-- well, at least here, in our environment. One of th ereasons I want to have all this out here is... to get it all out. And put some, hopefully most, of it to rest so we can get ready for the next round of drama.

Since Mr. Coffee already laid out what he thinks is needed-- and since it already jives with what is being done here, ie, more mods, more usage of temp bans to permbans, and so on (for example), then let's concentrate energies on that for now while considering the other courses of action under consideration.

[Starglider]

Coffee is making sense here. Mechanisms like this are just ludicrously inappropriate for a moderately popular Internet message board.

It's a shame the whole 'senate' concept didn't get a similar public thrashing before it was implemented (AFAIK, I wasn't around, I just searched a little for it), but at least that has some entertainment value. This idea does not.

[Coyote]

People seriously forget/romanticize/are blissfully unaware of the way punitive decisions were made Back In The Day. The Senate really was seen as an improvement, and in truth, I thin it was and still is. People can gripe about it being "Exclusive" but I still tend to say that is sour grapes. I think the real issue is that a handful of Senators --by dint of personality, not necessarily by their positions-- have peed in some folks' Cheerios. Now, to avoid picking a fight one-on-one, that disgruntlement shows up as blanket condemnation.

But this is all rehash.

The Senate is a good idea, it just may need some tweaking. Hell, it may need "major overhaul", and that'll be another subject for dicussions once we get some of the Moderator stuff seen to. But the truth is, having a small body of invested people, dedicated to a purpose, is more efficient that having a full scale Athenian democracy every time a decision has to be made (especially when, it is noted, that many people are dedicated ot the notion of drama for drama's sake).


Nothing beats the efficiency of a small, dedicated group. That is why every single board-wide RAR scenario ends up the same way: with the MESS taking the women and leaving the rest of you to die.


Oh, shit, I wasn't supposed to say that out loud, was I?

[Rogue 9]

Darthdavid had really nice comments for mine in the past I was appreciative of but when he pulled his fake suicide stunt I wasn't about to stand up and vouch for him based on that.

[hijack] Wait. He did what? [/hijack]

Coffee is making sense here. Mechanisms like this are just ludicrously inappropriate for a moderately popular Internet message board.

It's a shame the whole 'senate' concept didn't get a similar public thrashing before it was implemented (AFAIK, I wasn't around, I just searched a little for it), but at least that has some entertainment value. This idea does not.

The Senate didn't get a public thrashing because it was just done with no public input whatsoever. We just logged onto the board one day to find that a bunch of the old hands had bars under their names that said "Senator." As I recall, they didn't even know what it was about at first. Mike acted cryptic about it for a couple days, and then the forum for it was made and it started running.

And you know what? That's okay. It's Mike's board, and if he wants to do that, he can. Besides, Coyote is right; the Show Trial days were not fun. I mean, sure, they're hugely entertaining when applied to someone who obviously needs banning but is fun to play with until an admin gets around to it, but it sure made you walk on eggshells when you realized that it could happen to anyone who annoyed enough people. As I said in the show trial thread linked to on the first page (and damn, I hate reading my posts from years ago; I make myself cringe sometimes), almost nobody came out of them unscathed; the conviction rate was even higher than the Senate's if I were to take my guesses. (Having never gone back and done a survey, I can't say with certainty.)

As for the topic of the thread, I don't think it's a bad idea at all. It doesn't add any layers of bureaucracy (it's not imposing any more steps on the punishment process), and I really don't see it adding any more drama than is already inherent in a public punishment. All it does is remove the stigma from defending an unpopular member, since it would then be a duty rather than an individual decision.

[Hotfoot]

Darthdavid had really nice comments for mine in the past I was appreciative of but when he pulled his fake suicide stunt I wasn't about to stand up and vouch for him based on that.

[hijack] Wait. He did what? [/hijack]

Damn, nearly edited again.

A few years back Darthdavid posted a false suicide note on April 1st. It did not go well.

At the end of the day, most of the people who have been brought up to the Senate for punishment have either been guilty as hell and deserved what they got, or have been exonerated. Senators are largely chosen, I believe, because they are willing to post their opinion, even if it goes against the grain. If some other Senators don't like me, oh well. I'm not doing this because I want to be bestest friends with everyone. It's the same as with my job. If something needs to be said, I damn well say it, and I expect my peers to do the same.

That we should have to create an official position to protect someone's feelings is a load of garbage, plain and simple. I said before I've defended people who later I reversed my opinion of. If I had to do it again, I'd do the same damn thing.

We're adults here, and we have differing opinions all the time, and so we express them. Is this really so hard? If you don't have the guts to defend someone you think is being wronged without hiding behind some half-assed do-nothing official position, you might as well leave, because if you can't stand up for someone who you feel is being given a raw deal, why would you visit a board where you're going to be given an even harder time in a given debate about fictional starships?