StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What would people think if nothing about the Senate whatsoever was changed, but instead, all polls in the Senate, to be valid, must have a corresponding poll in the House of Commons? For a measure to be enacted it must be passed according to the Senate rules in the Senate, and then it also must receive at least 50% of the vote in the poll in the House of Commons, though there would be no quorum requirement for the House of Commons. Both threads would have to be posted simultaneously, and would run for the exact same length of time. In the case of a tie in the House of Commons, the Senate's being in favour or against would decide the matter, whereas if there was a tie in the Senate it just wouldn't be enacted.

Would that address the lack of participation issues? It would certainly be a more workable substitute for Public Defenders, as the accused would have the right to defend themselves in the House of Commons poll in the cases of punishment votes, and it would mean that the Senate could not enact anything without the support of at least a 50% poll in the House of Commons. But it would also prevent the wild, uncontrollable ban poll atmosphere of the past.

My question is this, if there is a Yes decision in the Senate, and a No in the House, what would follow? Would the proposal in question be reopened in both forums, and rediscussed? Is the matter dropped altogether?

Otherwise, I think it has merit as an idea.

I don't believe another layer of board "government" is going to be any kind of help. Especially when The idea you are proposing would just make the HoC an advisory body to an advisory body to the staff.

No, the House of Commons and Senate would become a combined advisory body, just like the US House and Senate.

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's one counterproposal to be considered, at any rate.

If the House votes it down, they would have stopped the measure from passing. It could be re-opened and re-discussed but I think that would be rather rare.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No, the House of Commons and Senate would become a combined advisory body, just like the US House and Senate.

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's one counterproposal to be considered, at any rate.

If the House votes it down, they would have stopped the measure from passing. It could be re-opened and re-discussed but I think that would be rather rare.

What would the point of the Senate itself be in this situation? If the House of Commons, representing a far larger protion of the board, has a poll that passes and wants the result suggested to the staff, why should the few people that are Senators who aren't mods be able to have the authority to not pass it?

In that case, what exact benefit does the Senate serve, if it doesn't have any function that isn't replicated here, other than being a little private member's club? Which is part of the problem with it as it stands.

My god no, I can’t think of a worse idea. If a person deserves punishment we SHOULD NOT NEED not one but two fucking forums voting in a popularity contest about it. We shouldn’t even need one. It should be self evident, or nothing should happen, people causing real trouble will hang themselves eventually and we aren’t going to suffer if the trash sticks around a while extra. This is also why I advocate more use of lesser punishments then the permbans everyone always wants whenever someone offends them.

I agree with Skimmer on all points. This is a dumb idea, increases complexity, raises questions about the point of the Senate or Senators, and will probably act to make things slower, less responsive and even lower signal:noise than we get now.

I guess it's a great idea if you wanted to play at being For Real Politicians, but realistically I see no benefit whatsoever.

Darth Fanboy wrote:[

What would the point of the Senate itself be in this situation? If the House of Commons, representing a far larger protion of the board, has a poll that passes and wants the result suggested to the staff, why should the few people that are Senators who aren't mods be able to have the authority to not pass it?

For the same reason the Senate can filibuster legislation--to provide a check in the system to prevent popularity-based ban polls from being the order of the day.

Oh well, it's clearly unworkable and a bad idea, but it seemed to match what people broadly wanted, so I thought I'd toss it out there.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Oh well, it's clearly unworkable and a bad idea, but it seemed to match what people broadly wanted, so I thought I'd toss it out there.

It doesn't match what people want at all. People want effective and sufficient moderation and the Senate to go away and stop acting like dicks. If there were sufficient moderators all this handwringing about the Senate being "necessary" would just go away.

I've never heard anyone raise issues with the mechanical nature of Senate business such that would be resolved by having another even more chaotic body rubber-stamping everything. The closest I remember was during a troll period where the Senate couldnt' get a quorum to ban them fast enough, and this situation would have been made WORSE by having a second house full of goons to sign off on it as well.

SancheztheWhaler wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Oh well, it's clearly unworkable and a bad idea, but it seemed to match what people broadly wanted, so I thought I'd toss it out there.

It doesn't match what people want at all. People want effective and sufficient moderation and the Senate to go away and stop acting like dicks. If there were sufficient moderators all this handwringing about the Senate being "necessary" would just go away.

As has been noted on numerous occasions, none of us can control the appointment of moderators on this board.

The daily-active board population is more like a village, not a small country. We don't need two bodies of parliament, a cabinet, and a giant mod hierarchy. FFS, what a bunch of self-important prattle from so many people.

In all honesty, I'd prefer this board to be a paternal autocracy, with Darth Wong as the autocrat. If he doesn't want to use his power, which appears to be the case, he delegates to others. I think everything would run just fine if we have efficient and active moderation. They really don't even need to use their mod powers most of the time, merely telling people to knock shit off while having the ability to do something is often quite sufficient. Has anyone ever been pulled over by a cop and then let off with a warning? You tend to drive real carefully after that, don't you?

erik_t wrote:The daily-active board population is more like a village, not a small country. We don't need two bodies of parliament, a cabinet, and a giant mod hierarchy.

Indeed, a village chief and a council of elders is appropriate and sufficient.

The House of Commons is a great idea in my opinion, as it allows everyone to try and positively have a say in board affairs, with no special privelages or rank.

But the Senate? I don't have anything personal against it, but given the trouble and nuisance I've observed it seemingly igniting coupled with it's, frankly, seeming uselessness makes me wonder why it's still there.

If we embrace the Star Wars universe in our collective geekdom, then the disbandment of the Senate would actually make something of a amusing nod towards the fictional universe so many of us here love.

We now have the House of Commons, which serves the exact same function and everyone can be involved. Removing the Senate forum seems like a action with no real negative side effects I can think of, and potentially addresses some minor problems it's existence has apparently introduced.

More Governors...er, moderaters seems like the only thing the board really needs.

I actually saw a similar idea, with dual votes in both branches, except I figured it would arise naturally, not out of a rule. In the event of a tie, a Governor or Mike would cast the deciding vote, perhaps.

Making it a rule is, I feel, kinda getting a little too "down in the weeds", so to speak, considering that not only is it "just a BBS" but it is also getting awfully formal and stilted even now. The idea is to relax, have fun, kick off the shoes...

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No, the House of Commons and Senate would become a combined advisory body, just like the US House and Senate.

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's one counterproposal to be considered, at any rate.

If the House votes it down, they would have stopped the measure from passing. It could be re-opened and re-discussed but I think that would be rather rare.

What the FUCK? Marina, I have no idea how much time you spend on this board a day but getting an actual quorum out of the senate takes ages. Add in some basic poll in HoC that can be trolled by anyone? Are you high? We're 3000 people. You know what you do with an active population of a few hundred? You let a few people manage things. You don't set up layers of authority just so we can feel good about how smart we are. If we're so damn smart, we'd know to delegate things properly.

*shrug* It was just one possible idea to address the idea that the Senate isn't responsive enough.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:*shrug* It was just one possible idea to address the idea that the Senate isn't responsive enough.

Tell me, how would making the HoC responsible for voting on every senate decision speed things up?

It wouldn't. This is yet another lame idea from the HoC...

It seems all these "reforms" have been pushed because the board has supposed grown too big. But where the hell this idea come from ? If anything the board has shrunk in terms of posts made. And a not so insignificant percentage of posts made these days is the board talking about itself. How long is SD is going to be staring itself at a mirror ? I doubt most people joined SD to indulge in internet forum management so can we please get back to "
Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people" ?

Ace Pace wrote:Tell me, how would making the HoC responsible for voting on every senate decision speed things up?

I don't think Marina ever thought it was a particularly bright idea, she just threw it out there to see if anybody liked it. Nobody did, so that's that. She already conceded it's unworkable.

Here's a thought... Instead of tossing out retarded ideas that you already won't work or might even make things worse we just not propose retarded ideas. Just saying...

Mr. Coffee wrote:Here's a thought... Instead of tossing out retarded ideas that you already won't work or might even make things worse we just not propose retarded ideas. Just saying...

Because it might stimulate people to think of better ideas that will work.

I do this a lot, actually, propose things I know are extreme when I can't think of anything better in hopes that someone will rebut me with a better idea, so I can learn what it is and adopt it for myself.

Skimmer can vouch for the fact that I have done this for years and it's not some sort of backpedaling.

Or you could just, you know... Not waste our time with shit post proposals that you know won't work.

Edit: Marina, just because you're been doing that for years doesn't make it at all useful, productive, or right.