StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Dark Hellion wrote:I understand that some people have reason to abstain. But 25% of the whole senate? If this many people felt strongly on the issue, they should have brought up points weeks ago. If they thought the Senate was too big, they should have begun a serious discussion on it. If they felt the vetting process was too lean, they should have said as much in the HoC.

You seem to be under the delusion that everytime a Senator has an inkling of a problem they make a thread out of it. IIRC, that was one of the complaints against some Senators, that they 'participate' too much. Why is it wrong to have issues brought up in a discussion or vote of other issues?

This is how adults would have handled such a situation. But waiting til the nominations are up, then bitching after the fact seems immature at best, and like they are actively sabotaging the system at worst.

Nobody here is bitch except for you. See? HoC was a success.

The issue of 'abstain' and 'none' or 'none of the above' has been brought up before, btw.

Just so you know... ACEPACE dropped out.

SO I've made a motion to close the current vote and start a new one, which will give everyone time to take a look at the ones actually receiving votes and change our minds if we chose.

This is, of course, pending Senate approval.

Dark Hellion wrote:You don't like the vetting process of the HoC? Then act like adults and come to the HoC and say as much.

Ah, and here I thought it was the responsibility of the members of the HoC to conduct themselves like adults when engaging in administrative actions. I didn't realize that being a Senator also made me playground supervisor.

This is of course ignoring that SeanRobertson called you out in the Membership thread.

Sean didn't "call me out", he advocated the promotion of Bounty to the Senate. I liked another candidate better, and had already cast my vote before he posted (I was the 3rd to do so). Sean is a big boy, he is more than capable of defending his nomination without your help, in fact your aid is more likely to be a detriment.

Now he said to do it by PM, but I would like to see people explain their abstain votes. This board is based on the premise of logic and if the Senate is being emotional about getting bad nominations and saying fuck it that is not a good sign. As the members who are supposed to represent maturity and good posting habits this is petty.

Fuck you. You aren't owed anything, much less an explanation for how people choose to vote.

As for the confrontational attitude, perhaps you missed the thread after thread last year where "The Senate doesn't answer to the plebes" meme was thrown around. You made an advisory panel with joke powers (which hotfoot has reveled in pointing out time and again) into some separate old boys club. Can you not see how this would be confrontational. When a group exists that has the attitude they are the only real posters?

No, I don't. What I do see is you screeching that we aren't obeying your whims in first voting how you want, and then justifying ourselves to you. I fail to see how not kowtowing to you is being confrontational.

Simply put, if the Senate doesn't like something the HoC does how do you, the greatest and most mature of posters act. Like little fucking children, throwing a tantrum and refusing to vote. It would be great comedy if you didn't feel so much self-righteous vindication.

Yes yes, we don't play along, therefore we are meanies. And you throw a tantrum as a result. Stop showing your ass for a second and consider who is being the child here - those taking this somewhat serious and following the conventions on vetting, or those being pissy because we aren't doing exactly as they say?

Phantasee wrote:Ender, why are you treating the HoC as a single entity?

Why is the Senate being treated as a single entity?

Consider the 'joke' nominations to be a couple people's idea of 'Hello World' in the new thread. There were plenty of serious nominations by serious people after the fact: Bounty, Thanas, and J.

None of which were conducted with any degree of seriousness - no evidence threads, no serious discussion, etc.

The reason people are unhappy is because A) This sets the precedent of every nomination being tossed out because of a couple 'joke' nominations, and B) It appears Senators don't care about any of the nominations, serious or otherwise. People seem to think that the Senators are being petty/rash (I'm not sure which, I'm just trying to figure out where everyone is on the issue) by not even considering the serious nominations.

As near as I can tell, the Senate is actually treating this whole process with a great deal more seriousness and respect then the whole of the HoC is. Even on your "serious" nominations you didn't bother to do the legwork, so I have a hard time seeing them as being very serious.

Dark Hellion wrote:I understand that some people have reason to abstain. But 25% of the whole senate? If this many people felt strongly on the issue, they should have brought up points weeks ago. If they thought the Senate was too big, they should have begun a serious discussion on it. If they felt the vetting process was too lean, they should have said as much in the HoC.

No one has a problem with the vetting process. The problem is that none of you bothered to follow it.

This is how adults would have handled such a situation. But waiting til the nominations are up, then bitching after the fact seems immature at best, and like they are actively sabotaging the system at worst.

So wait, we don't bring up problems with the process because we didn't have any problems with it. You decide not to follow the process. We have a problem with that. So clearly we are at fault for not fixing the process that you blew off anyway? And we are being childish, not the people who blew off the responsibilities that go along with selecting in this process?

Knife wrote:The issue of 'abstain' and 'none' or 'none of the above' has been brought up before, btw.

In the very last Senator thread actually.

Man, for a second there I was reading this steaming pile of shit of a thread and thought I'd gotten drunk again and started this off. Imagine my relief when I see that it wasn't me, but some other guy (coughdarkhellioncoughcough). Now, as the AWESOME guy that orginally started the "RAR! TEH SENATE SUCKS" meme I figure I'll explain how I see the HoC nominating people for the Senate.

It's a dumb idea and here's why...

While every now and then the HoC lays down the crackpipe and has a moment of clarity (usually resulting in someone posting a topic that isn't utterly pointless and childish shit), and we might toss out someone like Stark for consideration, most of the time it's going to be even more of an asshat olympics with people tossing any name in the hat just to see what happens. I thought I'd demonstrated that when I tossed Colfax's name in (sorry, little buddy, but it was for the Greater Good), but I guess some people didn't get the point (some of you did, but others I guess where taking their daily crack break or some shit). We keep doing this and the absolute worst case scenario is someone is dumb enough to put my name in the hat and the Senate has their daily crack break and I get made a senator (not no, but fuck that. Not even if you paid me).

Now, if the Senate want's to look over a list of names, use good judgement (yeah, they really do have that sometimes), and talk amongst themselves about if someone we suggest should go to a vote, that's all well and good. But let's keep one thing in mind, the HoC isn't an advisory board to the Senate, and just like the Senate, we have no actual power to tell anyone in the board administration, Mods or Admins, how to run the place. Think of SDN as a town with the Mods and Admins being various lordlings with actual power, the Senate being the Town Council, and the HoC being a soap box set in town square for drunken villagers to rant upon. If the Town council thinks the drunken ravings might be a good idea, they'll talk it over and pass it along to the higher ups. But other then that, standing on a soapbox taking the piss is about all the HoC can do or is really good for.

My $0.02, take it as you will.

Though I'm admittedly surprised to be opining this, I agree with Mr. Coffee.

The House of Commons is a place where the greater populace can posit (mostly, and sometimes too) serious suggestions about the forums, and whatever else. However, apart from being a corkboard on the wall where regular members can make their voices heard (the soapbox and complementary booze idea is a good analogy), it has no real power.

As for nominations, I'll modify what I said earlier by saying that if the House of Commons nominates someone to become a Senator candidate, include references to notable work. And, to adopt what Mr. Coffee pointed out, have the Senators talk amongst themselves about it first before automatically dropping the names into consideration.

For the record the old rules, portions of which are still up since the rules thread hasn't been edited, granted the Chancellor permission to remvoe any nomination he/she didn't like. I removed the rule mostly because I felt folks would see any such action as a power play by Rob (or myself in the event I got the job). In other words since the whole meme was "Evil Senate doesn't listen to us" I decided to a) write the rules to allow the board to nomainte Senators at which point we would consider them all and b) removed the Chancellor's discretion rule so that nobody could accuse the Senate of bias, or at least nobody could do so without being blatantly hypocritical.

So if folks have no issue with the Chancellor's discretion rule coming back then back it shall come.

My apologies for nominating Ace Pace without checking he actually wanted to be nominated, it just didn't occur to me (perhaps because of that old 'you may not express any sort of actual desire to be in the senate or even approval of anyone else or you and they will forever be banned' rule - while Zeon tried to enforce with her usual insane ruthlessness). That said I thought we'd already established that he wasn't available in the nomination thread though, before the vote started.

Starglider wrote:My apologies for nominating Ace Pace without checking he actually wanted to be nominated, it just didn't occur to me (perhaps because of that old 'you may not express any sort of actual desire to be in the senate or even approval of anyone else or you and they will forever be banned' rule - while Zeon tried to enforce with her usual insane ruthlessness). That said I thought we'd already established that he wasn't available in the nomination thread though, before the vote started.

For the record that rule has been eliminated. There is no bar to campaigning for a Senate seat either openly or by PM...I figure that someone who tries to actually campaign will mark themselves as unliekly to win by virue of that act alone but if someone just wants to check and say "hey I was thinking of nominating you" its ridiculous that that would, under the old rules, have called for a temporary bar from consideration.

As a total aside, and I won't go into details but will simply repeat that Ace contaced me via PM to state that real life concerns mean that he would not be able to take the job right now even though he would like the job. In other words he would do it if he could do it but he can't so he won't.

Mr. Coffee wrote:Now, if the Senate want's to look over a list of names, use good judgement (yeah, they really do have that sometimes), and talk amongst themselves about if someone we suggest should go to a vote, that's all well and good. But let's keep one thing in mind, the HoC isn't an advisory board to the Senate, and just like the Senate, we have no actual power to tell anyone in the board administration, Mods or Admins, how to run the place.

The problem is, while we're not exactly trying to give everyone a foot massage and fluff their pillows, we do want to dispel the impression that the Senate is supposed to be a an elite country club. The majority of us do not see it that way. But that means we're kinda stuck with a conundrum-- if we are given a list of names to choose from, and we "use judgment" (which I agree is good) and strain out the ones that are obviously not serious, then we go right back to protests about elitism and country club mindset. True, we can weather some howls from the peanut gallery in general, but that was the particular criticism that we're trying to address.

So in truth, it kinda seems like a set-up. "If you don't take all these names into serious consideration, then the charges of elitism stick. But if you do take these names seriously, you'll then be buffoons." Now, I understand there'll be some teething problems and folks will want to throw a ringer or two at first because there were some high tempers when the HoC was made, but it's been a couple months now.

The best thing to do was to hold up the list of names until two things happened: one, make sure the nominees wanted to be nominees; and two, ask for links to posts that back up the nomination as worthy. Then we'd all discuss pros and cons, and finally the Senate would vote on the narrowed field.

But we were trying to demonstrate being responsive to the interests of the people and avoid elitism-- from the point of view of many in the Senate, we're making an honest effort to help and reflect people's concerns, and we're getting monkeywrenched for our efforts.

Now it may be that the HoC can be likened to drunken soapbox ramblings, but once a place gets a reputation for that, and people have limited time online, many people who should hear what you have to say won't bother. There's already places for ramblings-- HoS has Venting, there's Testing, etc, and there's a reason why people didn't pay too much attention to what was said in those areas-- because it was a place to vent or ramble and get gripes of the moment off one's chest. The HoC is a place to bring up concerns that have reached serious consideration. Sure, people can make stupid suggestions as well, but we can just ignore them or shoot them down as needed and not get all bunched up about it. We don't need to turn every single thread with a dumb idea into a six-page rant about how stupid the Senate, HoC, and so on is.

Coyote wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:Now, if the Senate want's to look over a list of names, use good judgement (yeah, they really do have that sometimes), and talk amongst themselves about if someone we suggest should go to a vote, that's all well and good. But let's keep one thing in mind, the HoC isn't an advisory board to the Senate, and just like the Senate, we have no actual power to tell anyone in the board administration, Mods or Admins, how to run the place.

The problem is, while we're not exactly trying to give everyone a foot massage and fluff their pillows, we do want to dispel the impression that the Senate is supposed to be a an elite country club. The majority of us do not see it that way. But that means we're kinda stuck with a conundrum-- if we are given a list of names to choose from, and we "use judgment" (which I agree is good) and strain out the ones that are obviously not serious, then we go right back to protests about elitism and country club mindset. True, we can weather some howls from the peanut gallery in general, but that was the particular criticism that we're trying to address.

So in truth, it kinda seems like a set-up. "If you don't take all these names into serious consideration, then the charges of elitism stick. But if you do take these names seriously, you'll then be buffoons." Now, I understand there'll be some teething problems and folks will want to throw a ringer or two at first because there were some high tempers when the HoC was made, but it's been a couple months now.

The best thing to do was to hold up the list of names until two things happened: one, make sure the nominees wanted to be nominees; and two, ask for links to posts that back up the nomination as worthy. Then we'd all discuss pros and cons, and finally the Senate would vote on the narrowed field.

But we were trying to demonstrate being responsive to the interests of the people and avoid elitism-- from the point of view of many in the Senate, we're making an honest effort to help and reflect people's concerns, and we're getting monkeywrenched for our efforts.

Now it may be that the HoC can be likened to drunken soapbox ramblings, but once a place gets a reputation for that, and people have limited time online, many people who should hear what you have to say won't bother. There's already places for ramblings-- HoS has Venting, there's Testing, etc, and there's a reason why people didn't pay too much attention to what was said in those areas-- because it was a place to vent or ramble and get gripes of the moment off one's chest. The HoC is a place to bring up concerns that have reached serious consideration. Sure, people can make stupid suggestions as well, but we can just ignore them or shoot them down as needed and not get all bunched up about it. We don't need to turn every single thread with a dumb idea into a six-page rant about how stupid the Senate, HoC, and so on is.

Then let there be a serious discussion on the issue of nomination here, before the Senate brings it up for nomination.

Anyone that did not bother to bring up proper justification will be ignored. Senators can challenge the nomination through a debate.

ray245 wrote: Then let there be a serious discussion on the issue of nomination here, before the Senate brings it up for nomination.

Anyone that did not bother to bring up proper justification will be ignored. Senators can challenge the nomination through a debate.

Why should we have to prove their 'not' instead of the nomination process prove they 'are'?

ray245 wrote:Then let there be a serious discussion on the issue of nomination here, before the Senate brings it up for nomination.

Anyone that did not bother to bring up proper justification will be ignored. Senators can challenge the nomination through a debate.

So how would you judge the debate on the nominations? Do we vote on accepting nominations before we vote on the nominations themselves? Do we leave it to the Chancellor and/or Whip? Sure debating the merits of a nomination sounds good but as I pointed out to JSF it would be damn difficult to come up with an objective standard.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

ray245 wrote:Then let there be a serious discussion on the issue of nomination here, before the Senate brings it up for nomination.

Anyone that did not bother to bring up proper justification will be ignored. Senators can challenge the nomination through a debate.

So how would you judge the debate on the nominations? Do we vote on accepting nominations before we vote on the nominations themselves? Do we leave it to the Chancellor and/or Whip? Sure debating the merits of a nomination sounds good but as I pointed out to JSF it would be damn difficult to come up with an objective standard.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. My new position is one that yes, we should be the 'old boys club' due to these very problems.

There was a question asked about where the Senate was required to be more responsible. First, there is a general board culture that is built around an idea the privileged requires extra responsibility. One need look little further than most N&P threads railing against corporate heads to see that this culture exists. Secondly, and perhaps more damning was statements by Wilkins in the N&P clean-up thread, supported by Edi and others that the Senate was supposed to represent better, more responsible posting.

I have no problem with the Senate going back to a loose advisory body who's primary purpose is an "old boys club" and generally just making some joke threads about budgets, proper peon punishments and death star redecoration ideas. The HoC can serve the Senates mandate to be voice of board considerations at large, and the Senate can deal with purely Administrative problems like Ban polls and the like. Under such a system, who is added per month is not as important, the conflict between Senator and Plebe becomes humorous and nonthreatening.

Of course, in order to do so the faux authority held by Senators will become just that. The 'privilege' of the Senate will greatly diminish. The idea of "worthiness" to be a Senator will be a comical farce.

If Senators must truly be worthy, doesn't the meritocratic attitude of this board almost demand that they must also uphold themselves to a higher standard. Or is this truly just "I contributed to the board" (ignoring how board contribution as an idea was scoffed at in N&P cleanup) and so now I get my reward.

Ender wrote:

Phantasee wrote:Ender, why are you treating the HoC as a single entity?

Why is the Senate being treated as a single entity?

It shouldn't be.

Ender wrote:

Consider the 'joke' nominations to be a couple people's idea of 'Hello World' in the new thread. There were plenty of serious nominations by serious people after the fact: Bounty, Thanas, and J.

None of which were conducted with any degree of seriousness - no evidence threads, no serious discussion, etc.

This is true, but Bounty's evidence is scattered all over PST and AMP. I don't think his photos thread is going to get him the spot, of course, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with anything in PST to actually find his posts, so I'm going to blame Flagg for this one

I'm just trying to clear the air in this thread, and figure out where everyone stands by spitting out what I see of the picture so far. At this point I'm convinced the only reason it's confused is because of Dark Hellion starting shit.

Dark Hellion wrote:There was a question asked about where the Senate was required to be more responsible.

Asked by either Mike or the Admins, right? Who asked this question?

First, there is a general board culture that is built around an idea the privileged requires extra responsibility.

Er...no. Where do you get this notion? Mike made a board based off of his want to create a board. He made mods based off of what ever the fuck he decided he wanted to be mods. He let the Senate be, due off of what ever the fuck Rob told him. He let the HoC into existence based on what the Senate advised him.

You can imply that privileged requires extra responsibility, but you can chalk it all up to Mike just wanting to be...Mike. What is your evidence to this notion?

One need look little further than most N&P threads railing against corporate heads to see that this culture exists.

er..no. I don't. Why don't you show me with...evidence.

Secondly, and perhaps more damning was statements by Wilkins in the N&P clean-up thread, supported by Edi and others that the Senate was supposed to represent better, more responsible posting.

It was a presumed notion. The Senate, as the staff and the board in general exist at the whim.....WHIM of Mike Wong. It is his board. By the very culture of the board, as represented by Mike Wong; that of one of logic and reason, you would expect all members to behave as such. That is what Greg was alluding to. However, you choose to quote some one whom at the time, and I posit at this time, is not a direct representative of Wong. If an Admin said as such, you might have a point. Greg, for as much as I respect him and love him as a brother in the corps. he is at most a mini mod.

I have no problem with the Senate going back to a loose advisory body who's primary purpose is an "old boys club" and generally just making some joke threads about budgets, proper peon punishments and death star redecoration ideas.

So,it would not be a problem for you to show an example of when the Senate wasn't a advisory body, or when they exceeded this mandate via Mike?

The HoC can serve the Senates mandate to be voice of board considerations at large, and the Senate can deal with purely Administrative problems like Ban polls and the like. Under such a system, who is added per month is not as important, the conflict between Senator and Plebe becomes humorous and nonthreatening.

When has this not been the case? The HoC has been more a concession of the Senate than some sort of Mike approved opponent of the Senate. The Senate allowed the HoC to live and by the implied verdict of Mike for his advisory panel to hold some sway rather than the glee of the staff.

[uote]Of course, in order to do so the faux authority held by Senators will become just that. The 'privilege' of the Senate will greatly diminish. The idea of "worthiness" to be a Senator will be a comical farce.[/quote]

Ah, now we're at the truth of the post. The privilege and worthiness of a Senator. Besides the obvious fact of them being originally those whom Mike was comfortable enough with to let Rob go forth with his idea of the Senate, and those after whom he implied via omission; why are they not held by authority. By the very definition of authority, they are not faux authority, but authority by default. What is to diminish but your opinion, rather than the authority vested in them by the owner of the site.

By what authority do you make the accusation?

If Senators must truly be worthy, doesn't the meritocratic attitude of this board almost demand that they must also uphold themselves to a higher standard.

Short answer? No.

The attitude of the board has no bearing on the Senate. It was created via fiat by the board owner, not the general consensus of the board. Honestly, if the dictates of the board in general are to be considered, it is the shithole and whine fest that is the testing and HoC that are dictates of the attitude of the board and those held above it that matter.

The 'higher standard' is what primarily Mike says, then the Staff, then the Senate say it is. Everything else is the mob telling the mob. You can even make the argument that the Senate telling you something is the mob telling the mob until an admin backs it by force of power.

Or is this truly just "I contributed to the board" (ignoring how board contribution as an idea was scoffed at in N&P cleanup) and so now I get my reward.

Scoffed by whom?

What authority where you given?

You have the ability to edit you posts and discuss board policy. Where is there authority?

Hell:

4. Where everybody knows your name - That Senator tag means that everyone knows you have a bit (a very tiny bit admittedly) of clout, it also means that you have proven your Debating skills. It doesn't ensure you'll also get respect, but it can't hurt.

from the rules of the Senate. The implication is damn clear that there is no authority given. Hell, it states flat-out that you are not even given respect naturally by inclusion.

By the way, Faux authority is not only my words. Ender says the same thing in Beans Reconstruction thread.
Enders comment

But this is neither here nor there. Just a few months ago we had numerous threads open discussing what was at the time seen as major board problems. Whether the concerns raised were solved or not is debateble and not really applicable to this disussion.

However, a major thing I saw (maybe others saw differently) was the business-as-usual and status-quoism attitude was detrimental to the board. Lets just look at SB.coms politics section to see what happens when the same old hat posters post the same shit in every thread for why this is bad for a board of this nature. Yet, nearly every thread in which some suggestion of change to the Senate is raised is instantly hit with at least one senator (generally several) who all immediately go about trying to blast the suggestion out of the water. Hell, Beans thread in the Senate was damn near a dialogue for the first page. If the Senate is to be an unchanging and inviolable institution then so be it. But lets have that be discussed by the Senate first, then agreed upon by Mr. Wong.

You can't simply invoke Mr. Wong like you would invoke god, stating that this is how Wong created it. The Senate has grown to be a far more involved portion on the board than it was two years ago. Perhaps some honest discussion that includes more than the 10% of Senators who actually discuss anything would be appreciated (Beans thread has literally 9 out of 52 Senators contributing anything to it)? It would be nice for this board to actually implement more major changes like the HoC (for all it is worth) without always relying totally upon the Fiat of Wong.

Dark Hellion wrote:What authority where you given?

None, that 's kind of my point. As one who was elected (by you or the mods withstanding) I have little power rather than a minor voice in a panel. By vitrue of being amonst 30 or so 'normal' people in an advisory panel, my total power is about zero.

You have the ability to edit you posts and discuss board policy. Where is there authority?

exactly. What's your bitch then?

4. Where everybody knows your name - That Senator tag means that everyone knows you have a bit (a very tiny bit admittedly) of clout, it also means that you have proven your Debating skills. It doesn't ensure you'll also get respect, but it can't hurt.

See, a very tiny bit....

from the rules of the Senate. The implication is damn clear that there is no authority given. Hell, it states flat-out that you are not even given respect naturally by inclusion.

You realize you are destroying your argument and not mine, right?

By the way, Faux authority is not only my words. Ender says the same thing in Beans Reconstruction thread.
Enders comment

But this is neither here nor there. Just a few months ago we had numerous threads open discussing what was at the time seen as major board problems. Whether the concerns raised were solved or not is debateble and not really applicable to this disussion.

So why bring them up?

However, a major thing I saw (maybe others saw differently) was the business-as-usual and status-quoism attitude was detrimental to the board.

Why, I'm tired of this posit without evidence. So far, lots of credit has been given to the Senate being this or that. I've yet actually seen evidence to this.

Lets just look at SB.coms politics section to see what happens when the same old hat posters post the same shit in every thread for why this is bad for a board of this nature.

Why do I give a flying fuck what some other forum that I don't belong to does?

Yet, nearly every thread in which some suggestion of change to the Senate is raised is instantly hit with at least one senator (generally several) who all immediately go about trying to blast the suggestion out of the water.

Bullshit. Those who've have suggested such have been given too much credit, imo. The very existence of the HoC is attributed to the weight these fucks have been taken without adequate evidence.

If anything, the Senate is to sensitive to your view point, to the point that the Senate is constantly plagued by the notion of becoming something it was never intended to be just to satisfy the dictates of the bitching masses you represent.

Hell, Beans thread in the Senate was damn near a dialogue for the first page. If the Senate is to be an unchanging and inviolable institution then so be it. But lets have that be discussed by the Senate first, then agreed upon by Mr. Wong.

Beans thread is representative of what you want. I disagree. If Mike Wong's advisory panel is wrong, let him be the first to cast a stone. If not, you are just another in a long line of whiners.

You can't simply invoke Mr. Wong like you would invoke god, stating that this is how Wong created it.

The fuck I can't. The uncomfortable notion is this; if Wong ever became broke and couldn't continue with SDnet, we are screwed. It starts and ends with Mike. All else is at his discretion and whim.

The Senate has grown to be a far more involved portion on the board than it was two years ago

Funny you can't support this. What was it and what do you think it is now? What evidence do you have to support it?

Perhaps some honest discussion that includes more than the 10% of Senators who actually discuss anything would be appreciated (Beans thread has literally 9 out of 52 Senators contributing anything to it)? It would be nice for this board to actually implement more major changes like the HoC (for all it is worth) without always relying totally upon the Fiat of Wong.

I agree, same with the HoC. Out of the 3000 members, an appalling small amount of members bitch and vote int he HoC. The Senate is not under your preview, any concessions are by the Senate or Staff, not by your whinieness. It is not up to you. Nor me, for my vote is one in 50, rather it is up to the staff and ultimately Mike.

You want discussion, fine. You're are slightly less important than mine. Sorry, I'm technically elite and your not. My vote is less than the vote of a mod, who's less than a super mod who's less than an admin. Tis the power structure here. You can debate it all you want but until it changes, it is the p0ower structure.

The Senate was never supposed to be a power bloc, a police force, enforcers, a goon squad, powerbrokers, a Gestapo, or anything of the sort. People were chosen because Mike valued their opinions (even those he didn't agree with, for perspective) to add insight to a question, policy, or situation. That was it.

Anyone butthurt about "Senate power abuse" and "elitism" and so on has manufactured their own problem by projecting an aura of power onto the Senate that doesn't exist. Have a drink. Take a pill. Jerk off if you have to. But quit getting so spun up about nothing.

You know, looking back I am not really sure what I am so worked up about or why. I think I might be letting off some real life stress by making up an issue. I think I am going to remove myself from the HoC for a few weeks. I think I just got upset about the number of abstained votes and spiraled into paranoia-ville. Sorry about that.

Dark Hellion wrote:There was a question asked about where the Senate was required to be more responsible. First, there is a general board culture that is built around an idea the privileged requires extra responsibility.

You're putting the cart before the horse. People were chosen for the Senate because they already, without prompting, showed good sense ans judgment, and were able to back up their arguments, keep cool under fire, and in general do well without need for prompting, reminding, or other action. In some cases, probably the ability to lose an argument with tact and not blow one's cool may well have been a factor. Things like not being a sore loser, or worse, a sore winner, probably all came into play.

Because of these qualities, the position of Senate came post-facto. That doesn't mean all Senators displayed these at all times, or that we are perfect robots that perform flawlessly. But overall, at the time of the selection, those picked showed the right amount of these attributes in the right capacity. So, merit came after the display of performance.

I have no problem with the Senate going back to a loose advisory body who's primary purpose is an "old boys club" and generally just making some joke threads about budgets, proper peon punishments and death star redecoration ideas.

It never really changed that much, except in others' perceptions. We didn't do so many of those 'humor' threads any more, true, but for the most part all we did was add transparency to punishments (not a bad thing) and provide an open area to discuss policies (rarer, but again, not a bad thing).

The HoC can serve the Senates mandate to be voice of board considerations at large, and the Senate can deal with purely Administrative problems like Ban polls and the like.

It's a sweet idea, one I support wholeheartedly, but one thing that has to happen is that the HoC has to grow into its shoes and quit just being a big graffiti board for the Daily Whinge.

Under such a system, who is added per month is not as important, the conflict between Senator and Plebe becomes humorous and nonthreatening.

The conflict is engineered for entertainment purposes to begin with. It only builds steam because people buy into it.

Of course, in order to do so the faux authority held by Senators will become just that. The 'privilege' of the Senate will greatly diminish. The idea of "worthiness" to be a Senator will be a comical farce.

If Senators must truly be worthy, doesn't the meritocratic attitude of this board almost demand that they must also uphold themselves to a higher standard. Or is this truly just "I contributed to the board" (ignoring how board contribution as an idea was scoffed at in N&P cleanup) and so now I get my reward.

See above. This kind of post is just fanning the flames for no reason. You seem to be jealous of a "privilege" that Senators have that exists largely in your mind.

I'd like to point out to you and arsonists like you that ever since this "problem" came to light we have bent over backwards trying to accommodate the complaints. The HoC itself was created, rather than bans, titles, threats or other measures taken to silence whiners. Editing privileges have been changed to try to seek a happy medium. The Staff and Admins have taken on extra workload to try to make things more comfortable and democratic even though there is no real reason to other than out of respect for others. As Mike pointed out, he still does all the server maintenance for a bunch of (essentially) freeloaders, so quite frankly the ice you're standing on as you bitch and moan is getting thinner and thinner.

Dark Hellion wrote:You know, looking back I am not really sure what I am so worked up about or why. I think I might be letting off some real life stress by making up an issue. I think I am going to remove myself from the HoC for a few weeks. I think I just got upset about the number of abstained votes and spiraled into paranoia-ville. Sorry about that.

A wise choice. Thank you for your apology, which I (for one) am willing to accept.