[Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

[Stuart]

If the overall size of the Senate is indeed considered to be a problem, then what is the size that does not constitute a problem? I understand that the current membership is 55 people. If that is believed to be an acceptable size, then the problem becomes how to keep it there. If 55 is considered too large, then the problem becomes how can it be reduced to the selected size?

In this context, I believe that blindly voting against any new member is the worst of all possible actions. It might acheive the desired result but does so at the cost of making the Senate an old-boys club, inaccessible to the evolving membership and thus increasingly irrelevent to it. A better solution should be found.

I propose the following. The membership list of the Senate includes the date on which each member joined. They can, therefore, be ranked by duration of membership. If several were elevated on the same day, they can be listed in alphabetical order for that day. Then, when a new member is proposed for elevation, each new member is paired with the longest-serving existing member and the Senate gets to chose between them (the "Nobody" vote being eliminated since it duplicates the effect of voting for the existing member). If the proposed new member wins, he takes the existing member's seat. If the existing member wins, then no change.

If it is desired to whittle down the number of members, then this can be done by simply facing off the two longest-serving members against one proposed new member. This would quickly whittle down the number to any desired level.

This system would require a certain level of administrative paperwork (and the details of the existing member's voting and posting record would have to be made public) but the basic problem would be solved.

This, of course, does not address the problem of why the Senate exists at all. Here, I agree with Red Imperator that disciplinary problems should be referred to the Senate for final disposition (subject only to Mike's Veto of course). It seems to me that the loss of this power is a retrograde step and one that should be reversed.

[Thanas]

I find Stuart's solution for the new members to be an excellent idea.

[Simplicius]

That is an interesting method. I'm not convinced that "The Senate is too big" or "The Senate could become too big" are even 'problems' that demand attention, though. As originally designed, a big Senate would have just meant more voices in the discussions - not necessarily a bad thing, certainly not a crisis.

Right now, with uncertainty whether a Senate of any size has a reason for existing, it's a solution in search of a problem.

[Hotfoot]

If the overall size of the Senate is indeed considered to be a problem, then what is the size that does not constitute a problem? I understand that the current membership is 55 people. If that is believed to be an acceptable size, then the problem becomes how to keep it there. If 55 is considered too large, then the problem becomes how can it be reduced to the selected size?

I don't think size is the problem, I think the problem is that of utility. Even if the Senate were a smaller, more manageable body, it would still lack a useful purpose. A fancy method of getting rid of the dead weight which is bound to add more drama thanks to the nature of social dynamics, to say nothing of the additional busywork needed to maintain the system, well, you get the idea. No sir, I don't like it.

This, of course, does not address the problem of why the Senate exists at all. Here, I agree with Red Imperator that disciplinary problems should be referred to the Senate for final disposition (subject only to Mike's Veto of course). It seems to me that the loss of this power is a retrograde step and one that should be reversed.

Again, what loss of power? Do you actually want me to go through the list of banned individuals who have been banned without official resolved votes from the Senate from the time the Senate was created? We have NEVER, EVER acted as a body that has stopped an admin or supermod from banning someone who deserves banning. At most, we've only dragged it out long enough to give them more rope to hang themselves with.

[Steve]

Again, what loss of power? Do you actually want me to go through the list of banned individuals who have been banned without official resolved votes from the Senate from the time the Senate was created? We have NEVER, EVER acted as a body that has stopped an admin or supermod from banning someone who deserves banning. At most, we've only dragged it out long enough to give them more rope to hang themselves with.

Why don't you do that? I know I've seen threads where banning someone was debated and voted upon and I would be interested in seeing if there were any who didn't get such hearings and who they were, what their offenses were.

Then, once those facts are determined, we can debate whether the Senate being ignored is a good thing, or whether the banning of a poster should be decided upon here, in a publicly-viewable discussion - or "trial", if you will - within the Senate, or in the private forums of Mods and Admins where there is no transparency.

[Hotfoot]

There are 188 threads in the parting shots forum, which by no means is a purely accurate measure of how many people have been banned, but just as an off the cuff number, it's a good basis to work on. On the first page, only about 12 out of the 50 threads listed are polls from the Senate. Page 2 has 8, page 3 has 9, and page 4 has 15. It should be noted that I'm only counting the poll type threads, and not any of the others, because, you know, I'm not wasting my time to prove something that should be readily apparent. It should be noted that on page 3 and 4, the bannings predate the Senate itself.

This means that, at most, the roughly 200 bannings in the parting shots forum had...20 contributions from the Senate. About 10% overall, let's say 25% of the bannings since its inception to be generous.

If you want an example of a higher authority overriding an existing Senate discussion, you need look no further than the banning of Elite Pwnage AKA Colfax. Now I'm going on record here as saying I'm glad he's gone and I think GR did the right thing. Thanas came in with a new piece of evidence and instead of the matter going to the Senate for a second time under this light, GR banned him on the spot for good, instead of the temp ban the Senate had decided on.

This is not new, this is not some shocking revelation. The Senate never had any power at all, save what the Admins and now Supermods allowed us. And if they got tired of sitting on their thumbs waiting for us to come to a decision after days or weeks of deliberation, they would act, because it was in the board's best interest to do so. And do so they should, because it works and it keeps things running smoothly.

That this is an issue that even requires clarification just shows how far down the rabbit hole we've really gone.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Senate is proactive and busy, result: Massive shitstorm over the Senate being a site for continuous unending drama.
The Senate is reactive and quiet, result: People declare the Senate to be useless and that it doesn't do anything.


The obvious conclusion is that people just hate the Senate no matter what it does, and that this thread is therefore entirely irrelevant. We have tried pandering to this certain clique which engineers most of the board drama out of their own boredom and amusement at the results, who have no real personal investment in the community, and as we can see they will never be satisfied, and this issue should simply be dropped and further protestation ignored.

[Hotfoot]

And another one misses the plot.

No, Duchess, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Back when the Senate started, it had a point. It had a modest purpose. We could catch trolls before the staff knew they existed, and we could make suggestions for subforums, private forums, and maybe discuss other bits of board policy. And it's not unsuccessful. However, the idea that we need a special forum of self-chosen elite to do this is shown now to be a flawed idea, since the House of Commons has actually been doing a pretty darn good job.

So let's drop this idiotic air of self-importance we have from being "selected" for "service" in the Senate and look at things logically and reasonably. Let's not pass the buck to some supposed scapegoat and look just at the facts. You know, the sorts of things we were supposed to do. Let's end this Senate with at least some decorum and show that we actually possess the qualities we were supposedly elevated above the plebians for.

[Stark]

Define 'busy'. At what period was the Senate 'busy' and 'busy' doing what?

Flailing around about 'hate' when Hotfoot just demonstrated how little it does of it's only real power is just childish. Contrary to what the raw stats suggest, I think that the Senate tended to look at borderline cases or those requiring arbitration and the majority will always be on-the-spot bans of obvious trolls, but getting butthurt about public opinion regarding a bunch of self-aggrandising pompous gits is meaningless to the discussion.

The idea that people are 'engineering board drama' for their 'own boredom and amusement' is absolutely hilarious. The Zeon Solution is to immediately stop discussing the issue because... she doesn't like the people raising the issue? It's actually fantastic that the only people actually looking at facts are those interested in reform, the implications of which should be obvious.

EDIT - What the hell is 'personal investment in the community' and why should it be important? Are you saying we should ignore someone if they don't come to the sunday mixer?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

My point was that nothing is actually going wrong on the board, so why are we discussing changes?

[Stark]

Are you fucking serious? Your response to this discussion is 'there is no problem'?

BTW, that isn't what you said. You complained that people are just agitating because they don't care and get a kick out of it, in an attempt to paint any reformers as 'bad people'.

The obvious conclusion is that people just hate the Senate no matter what it does, and that this thread is therefore entirely irrelevant. We have tried pandering to this certain clique which engineers most of the board drama out of their own boredom and amusement at the results, who have no real personal investment in the community, and as we can see they will never be satisfied, and this issue should simply be dropped and further protestation ignored.

[Hotfoot]

My point was that nothing is actually going wrong on the board, so why are we discussing changes?

Duchess never takes her car to the shop unless it's got bits falling off, I see. Or goes to the doctor unless a lung is coming out.

The Senate is stagnating, not due to size or responsibilities or any of that, but because it's been effectively replaced. Rather than keep a failed organ attached, I'm saying we lop it off and put it in a jar before it gets so badly infected that it spreads. There's no more need for a Senate, why keep it? So far, nobody in or out of the Senate has provided any sort of justification for its continued existence beyond "Um, because" or "we can make simple and quick tasks long and needlessly complex!"

I'll put this simply, as I alluded to before:

SENATE! YOU HAVE NO CLOTHES ON! WE ALL SEE YOUR GIBLETS! PLEASE COVER UP!*


*For those of you who don't get the reference, please read as: Senate, we are useless. Everyone with eyes can see it. Please stop hiding the fact by pretending it's caused by some other factor, like size, or imagined powers that were lost, or that some group of people you don't like are at the cause of this. It's really not anyone's fault, the nature of the board has changed from the inception of the Senate to a point where we don't really need it anymore. Why should we keep around a useless thing? How many times have forums and subforums been voted down here because they don't get enough traffic and/or use? Why can't we apply that to ourselves?

[Stark]

As others have said repeatedly, the very inclusion of software changes like the report button seriously reduced the Senate's role at a stroke. That's not due to evil agitators, that's just functionality.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

If you think the Senate is useless, are you willing to resign from it?

[Hotfoot]

If you think the Senate is useless, are you willing to resign from it?

That doesn't solve the problem, now does it? Think for a second. I'm calling for shutting the whole thing down. By that very act, I would be resigning as a Senator along with everyone else. What I am unwilling to do, however, is simply run away and let the inmates run the asylum. I have long held the view that if you CAN make a change, you should, even if it's not easy. That's why I never joined the "Emigrate to Canada/Europe" crowd in 2000, 2004, or 2008, and why I took a job in one of the toughest damn districts in the nation to try and give the kids there the sort of education they deserved!

Don't you dare try to turn this into a "Like it or Leave it" scenario. I refuse to let this sort of crass manipulation and deception interfere with honest debate. Shit like that may fly in the RNC, but we're not really politicians and I resent this asinine comment at the face of it.

The very NATURE of this discussion involves NOBODY being a Senator anymore, and that all of us can talk equally about these things without these stupid airs of pretense and undeserved elitism.

I invite you to think a bit more carefully before your next response.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I invite you to think a bit more carefully before your next response.

Do whatever you want, then. If I wake up one day and the Senate isn't here, I won't give a fuck. My only concern is that Greg gets the supermodship he deserves if this place disappears.

[Hotfoot]

I invite you to think a bit more carefully before your next response.

Do whatever you want, then. If I wake up one day and the Senate isn't here, I won't give a fuck. My only concern is that Greg gets the supermodship he deserves if this place disappears.

Greg being a supermod would certainly be a bonus, if the admins allow it.

[Stark]

So, what exactly IS this 'certain clique' that 'engineers board drama', exactly?

[Thanas]

I invite you to think a bit more carefully before your next response.

Do whatever you want, then. If I wake up one day and the Senate isn't here, I won't give a fuck. My only concern is that Greg gets the supermodship he deserves if this place disappears.

While I have no objections to Wilkens being made a mod, I do not really think that this is any valid argument that has a place in this thread. I mean, this is not the end of an empire where various princes haggle over positions.

Now, I for one am not ready to abolish the senate yet. I am not convinced that we do need to stop to exist. So why don't we call for a vote and let the senators have their say?

In fact, I'll go flat out and make the motion to have a simple yes/no vote on whether to abolish the senate right here, right now. Do I have a second?

[LadyTevar]

If the overall size of the Senate is indeed considered to be a problem, then what is the size that does not constitute a problem? I understand that the current membership is 55 people. If that is believed to be an acceptable size, then the problem becomes how to keep it there. If 55 is considered too large, then the problem becomes how can it be reduced to the selected size?

In this context, I believe that blindly voting against any new member is the worst of all possible actions. It might acheive the desired result but does so at the cost of making the Senate an old-boys club, inaccessible to the evolving membership and thus increasingly irrelevent to it. A better solution should be found.

I propose the following. The membership list of the Senate includes the date on which each member joined. They can, therefore, be ranked by duration of membership. If several were elevated on the same day, they can be listed in alphabetical order for that day. Then, when a new member is proposed for elevation, each new member is paired with the longest-serving existing member and the Senate gets to chose between them (the "Nobody" vote being eliminated since it duplicates the effect of voting for the existing member). If the proposed new member wins, he takes the existing member's seat. If the existing member wins, then no change.

If it is desired to whittle down the number of members, then this can be done by simply facing off the two longest-serving members against one proposed new member. This would quickly whittle down the number to any desired level.

This system would require a certain level of administrative paperwork (and the details of the existing member's voting and posting record would have to be made public) but the basic problem would be solved.

This, of course, does not address the problem of why the Senate exists at all. Here, I agree with Red Imperator that disciplinary problems should be referred to the Senate for final disposition (subject only to Mike's Veto of course). It seems to me that the loss of this power is a retrograde step and one that should be reversed.

This is probably one of the best Ideas I've heard in a while. Just make sure this also covers Senators Emeritous.

[LadyTevar]

In fact, I'll go flat out and make the motion to have a simple yes/no vote on whether to abolish the senate right here, right now. Do I have a second?

Second

[Stark]

Nevermind Zeon, I found them.

It's amusing to note that the HoC thread on this issue is longer and proceeded without this kind of play-acting. Some people genuinely want to answer questions around the role, duties and membership of the Senate; others are so offended their meaningless club is being rationally examined they want to take their bat and ball and go home. And we're the 'elite'?

A vote on the issue at this point would be meaningless and just be more Senate busywork. How can anyone expect a meaningful consensus when most voters haven't participated in the discussions that are not complete?

[CmdrWilkens]

In fact, I'll go flat out and make the motion to have a simple yes/no vote on whether to abolish the senate right here, right now. Do I have a second?

Second

The chair objects and the motion is out of order.


No seriously the motion is out of order, call me a bit dictatorial if you wish but I am not going to hold a vote over disbanding the Senate. If Mike and the admins think we've run our course fine but in the interim no body on holds the power to vacate itself and I interpret that to mean the Senate cannot vote itself out of existence.


Why one may ask? The Senate was created originally because criticism of board policy or mod decision was (and IS) subject to the ban hammer. The Senate was conceived of as a place where exerpeienced and reasonable members could, in the open, speak about that which was otherwise forbidden. As the creation came about the Senate was granted the pwoer to decide on lesser punishments and vote on ban polls. Since the board started there have been, and will be again, marginal cases where a user may or may not deserve the ban hammer, a CT, or some other form of punishment. The Senate's role then and now is to ADVISE the mod staff. The HOC does not serve this purpose nor do I think it should.

That being said the Senate is far from perfect. The quality of the membership is certainly of some question and I know there are more than a few individuals who have objectiosn to my paticular style of operating this forum. That I tend to be overly officious and folks find that objectionable or otherwise disagree with my methods I find well enough (hell I even gave folks a mechanism to kick me out of office).

There are plenty of low traffic forums on this board and I think it honestly would be for the best if the Senate was one of them however traffic level does not a reason for removal make and unless and until the admins come down and tell me that the Senate has served its purpose I will not open or condone a vote for us to remove ourselves.


Total aside but to Marina's point I would be honored if I got such a post BUT if I were told 5 minutes from now that the forum was closing I would happily go back to being an occasional OT/N&P poster who likes the STGOD sub forum. Board administration position would be nice but that is all and I'm not going to put a price on holding a dissolution vote.

[Stark]

Good call, Wilkens. I'm eager to see much more discussion.

In that vein, what about the HoC do you think stops it being 'advisory'? I want to say that nobody is more suprised it appears effective than me (I thought it was literally a joke), but if the decisions are made by the mods-and-up, what does it matter if the discussion includes everyone or just the 'elite' Senators? I'm sure the supermods can read a thread and deal with signal to noise.

[Hotfoot]

The chair objects and the motion is out of order.


No seriously the motion is out of order, call me a bit dictatorial if you wish but I am not going to hold a vote over disbanding the Senate. If Mike and the admins think we've run our course fine but in the interim no body on holds the power to vacate itself and I interpret that to mean the Senate cannot vote itself out of existence.

Personally, I think it would be the best chance for the Senate to show its general maturity and rationality to be allowed to end itself, to end things on a high note if you will, rather than to be shut down later on as a total broken shell of what it once was, living on life support.

I don't think the vote should be now, of course. As I said, I want to actually discuss this because it warrants discussing. Moving to vote without discussion is one of the things we're not supposed to do here. That we take time do discuss things properly is supposed to be the strength of the Senate, even if it is also our greatest weakness.

Why one may ask? The Senate was created originally because criticism of board policy or mod decision was (and IS) subject to the ban hammer. The Senate was conceived of as a place where exerpeienced and reasonable members could, in the open, speak about that which was otherwise forbidden. As the creation came about the Senate was granted the pwoer to decide on lesser punishments and vote on ban polls. Since the board started there have been, and will be again, marginal cases where a user may or may not deserve the ban hammer, a CT, or some other form of punishment. The Senate's role then and now is to ADVISE the mod staff. The HOC does not serve this purpose nor do I think it should.

Actually, I'd say it does. Mike himself made a thread in the HoC where he takes direct advisement from all members of the board. Granted, it's for a quote of the week, but previously such a thread would have been the bailiwick of the Senate almost exclusively. It's also started more discussions and movements for policy change than the Senate would ordinarily. One of the most telling examples was Strikethrough, something which had been suggested to the Senate multiple times in the past, and was always relatively easy to implement, but always seemed to meet with resistance, or at least lack of inertia in the Senate handling of the situation.

In fact, there's really nothing wrong with people making suggestions about board code, policies, or so forth in the House of Commons, as long as they are reasonable about it. Unreasonable things get locked and flushed, much like any other forum.

As far as banning, serious cases are handled directly these days as they rightly should be, we don't have the show trials like we did much earlier in the board's history, they just disappear when they go too far, and there aren't as many these days.

Titling...well, that's even less common. I can't even remember the last time the Senate handed out a title anyway.

That being said the Senate is far from perfect. The quality of the membership is certainly of some question and I know there are more than a few individuals who have objectiosn to my paticular style of operating this forum. That I tend to be overly officious and folks find that objectionable or otherwise disagree with my methods I find well enough (hell I even gave folks a mechanism to kick me out of office).

So does that mean if we kick you out, then we can vote to dissolve ourselves?

There are plenty of low traffic forums on this board and I think it honestly would be for the best if the Senate was one of them however traffic level does not a reason for removal make and unless and until the admins come down and tell me that the Senate has served its purpose I will not open or condone a vote for us to remove ourselves.

To be honest, I'd like to see SWvST, PSW, and PST locked and archived and all subsequent traffic routed to OSF, which would be re-named simply, "Science Fiction". The need for those original forums has long since passed.

See, it's not just the low level of traffic. If it was just that, I'd say keep on. In fact, before the HoC, that's exactly what I've said. The matter here is duplication of purpose. One forum does the job better than another. Why keep the forum that's not performing? If the need comes back, ever, it's the simplest thing in the world to unlock the forum and put it into active duty again. Nothing need be deleted, it would just be mothballed. Even the Senate usergroup could be altered to show the status of former Senators to show that they took part in this place.