[Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Moderator: CmdrWilkens

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-13 10:10am

Perfect example of what I am talking about in this thread

I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but when Mike says "I would prefer that some kind of process be followed in cases like this. Being a dumb-ass is not quite the same as bring an outright troll, of the sort who must be banned in some sort of emergency procedure with no solicitation of public opinion."

Certainly seems like perhaps the Senate should be consulted.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
Ghost Rider
Spirit of Vengeance
Posts: 27779
Joined: 2002-09-24 01:48pm
Location: DC...looking up from the gutters to the stars

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Ghost Rider » 2009-10-13 12:05pm

On two small things.

1. Hotfoot has a point. The Senate has to define itself. Some reasoning that is agreed upon rather then just being a collection of posters voted upon by other posters to discuss the maybes of something that the board might do. Does that mean the Senate needs power? No, not as much it needs a defined purpose that seperates itself from being another area to add to one's post count.

2. While the last banning could've gone to the Senate, this is something I find a tad hilarious that it got noticed. Bannings of 2009 have been rare, the case was of someone who literally would not follow board protocol(yet demanded it from others), and finally should not be a reason for the Senate to be based upon. If that's so? Then the Senate will convene on apparently a once a month basis other then voting another member in. Which directs one to point one.
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!

Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all

Saying and doing are chocolate and concrete

User avatar
Hotfoot
Avatar of Confusion
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-10-12 04:38pm
Location: Peace River: Badlands, Terra Nova Winter 1936
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Hotfoot » 2009-10-13 12:24pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:The problem becomes the matter of the rather loose nature of the HOC. While certainly it is possible and even likely that members of this board could have reasoned discussions on board policy history has shown an almost infinite supply of stupidity ready to interject itself into such debates. The Senate, certainly, is far from immune to this btu by limiting the pool of available voices the likelyhood of such comments drops and the mechanism of the Senate also allows those voices to be removed from future discussion without removing themfrom the board. In turn I hold that as one of the cheif weakneses of the HOC, if a member goes overboard and exceeds the mandate of an advisory body there is no means of punishment short of board wide restrictions. The Senate as an advisory body can simply vote to remove a member who acts as such.

On bannings and titlings there shouldn't be that many. Honestly I thinkt he forum mods have stepped up in recent months since we shuffled the staff and have been able to head off most stupidity at the pass BUT there will always bemarginal cases. Just because we haven't had any recently doesn't mean we won't have any in the future. There should be some body which can openly discuss whether or not a board member is deserving punishment when the case is not clear cut to the mod staff. Recall that the central complaint which led to this idea was that of closed door justice. While nothing obligates the Mods and Admins providing commentary on why a decision was taken the board's general culture shoudl promote this kind of open communication. Now certainly this could result in the Senate mostly being a dead forum 10 or more months out of the year but I can think of two or three other forums that are about as well populated by new topics.

Basically my question is this: If we were to disband the Senate who would handle the marginal cases where the mods do not agree?
Well, my original position was that the mods and admins can handle those well enough on their own. Oddly, it may be a good use for the Coliseum to create threads whereby marginal posters fates are decided. They could make their case, defend themselves, and in the process be limited to only posting in that forum until a verdict has been rendered.

That said, it seems clear that Mike wants the Senate to act in those situations. Personally, I see those situations as exceedingly rare enough to not warrant a separate body to lay down judgments, but oh well.
Oddly enough yes. I would like to think I'm open minded enough to know my style of running this forum is not the only style that woudl work so in turn some other Chancellor might very well find a vote on dissolution in order. All you would have to do is open a vote of no confidence and kick me out. I would accept that mostly because a) I set up the structure because I hope it could work even if I wasn't the guy at the helm and b) I think I could probably prevail in such a vote :D
"Your overconfidence is your weakness."
"Your faith in your friends is yours."
"Heh, faith in yo' mama."

;)
This goes to my point above. There are marginal cases, and I think the Senate does (and can do) a FAR better job of dealing with those cases, remain something for which the Senate should be charged. I don't think it will happen often and I don't think it shoudl happen often but it is better to have a select body available than to attempt to create one out of whole cloth (or to activate then deactivate a group "as needed").
That's a fair point, though I would argue how many Senators we need for such a small purpose. If nothing else, there's been so much drama surrounding the Senate we should probably start over.
Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.
Image
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!

User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by RedImperator » 2009-10-13 02:03pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:Perfect example of what I am talking about in this thread

I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth but when Mike says "I would prefer that some kind of process be followed in cases like this. Being a dumb-ass is not quite the same as bring an outright troll, of the sort who must be banned in some sort of emergency procedure with no solicitation of public opinion."

Certainly seems like perhaps the Senate should be consulted.
Going through this year's bannings, we have:

Graeme Dice: Banned by Senate vote
Lord Poe: Banned by Ozymandias without a vote. No reason given, but it was pretty obvious his time on SDN was up.
PunkMaister: Banned for plagiarism without a vote.
saurc: Banned by Ghost Rider(?), no reason given. Accused of a PR 7 violation earlier in the thread, but I didn't see one. His last words were "So long suckers"; may have self-banned.
Leonardo Fibonacci: Banned by Ghost Rider for refusing to address points.
Kinnison: Banned by Mike.
Schuyler Colfax: Banned for attempting to evade a temp ban.
Nickolay01: Banned for posting flamebait after being warned.
DataPacRat: Banned by Ghost Rider for...I have no idea. I don't see anything in that thread that warranted a banning, and I seriously doubt, if it had come up for a Senate vote, that it would have passed.

DataPacRat is a fine example of why the Senate still has a role to play on this board. Mike himself has tacitly said it was unilateral; I'll go further and say that from where I'm sitting, it looks an awful lot like he got banned because he pissed off Fgalkin and Ghost Rider. I'm not saying it was, but the whole reason bannings are supposed to be conducted by the Senate is to avoid exactly that impression. I'm going to take a wild guess here and say I'm not the only person who sees it that way.

Going back through that list, Nickolay, saurc, PunkMaeister, and Lord Poe all could have been referred to the Senate, and in the case of PunkMaester and saurc, I have no idea why they weren't. You could probably make a case for any one of these people being insta-banned (Poe especially; I can understand why people wanted that drama put to an end), but when you have eight straight bannings by fiat, at least one of which is questionable, it looks an awful lot like the mods have just stopped listening to the Senate. And then people wonder why the Senate is a dead zone.
Ghost Rider wrote:While the last banning could've gone to the Senate, this is something I find a tad hilarious that it got noticed. Bannings of 2009 have been rare, the case was of someone who literally would not follow board protocol(yet demanded it from others)
What board protocol? He flat-out conceded the whole stupid "descended from Zeus" issue (and I'm with Singular Quarter, Hav, and a few others: that was blown way out of proportion). He made a dumb argument about Wikipedia and was possibly evading some points: so what? There's a list of board members as long as my leg who've done that in the past and never got banned for it. As for demanding it from others, could you provide a quote? I've been through that thread twice and didn't see him say anything about protocol of any kind.
The Yosemite Bear wrote:I still don't agree with you that the system is broken, you've called my Don Quixte (Who incidentally is the only sane person in the book, because the inquisition is in charge.) But our evidence of voting no when we have felt that the canidates are too numourus or not to our merit, has worked. I may be bi-polar, with Aspergers, but I am somewhat intellegent (even for a California Redneck whose mostly self educated)
You know, I know expecting an on-topic reply from you is hope triumphing over experience, but you still haven't explained why "the Senate is too big" means "I stay forever, nobody new is allowed in".
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

User avatar
Hotfoot
Avatar of Confusion
Posts: 5835
Joined: 2002-10-12 04:38pm
Location: Peace River: Badlands, Terra Nova Winter 1936
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Hotfoot » 2009-10-13 02:43pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I still don't agree with you that the system is broken, you've called my Don Quixte (Who incidentally is the only sane person in the book, because the inquisition is in charge.) But our evidence of voting no when we have felt that the canidates are too numourus or not to our merit, has worked. I may be bi-polar, with Aspergers, but I am somewhat intellegent (even for a California Redneck whose mostly self educated)
Bear, you'll notice that when I am presented with actual discussion, I give a reasonable response. If you actually want to talk about this issue, then I suggest that you refrain from internet tough guy posturing and, you know, talk about it. There's an adage in writing called "Show, don't tell." When you tell me now that you're intelligent, I'm willing to believe it, but you're not showing me here in the Senate how intelligent you are when you are telling me to "stop before I get hurt."

Whatever your condition may be behind the screen, I'm afraid it doesn't really matter. I'm not given the luxury of any sort of special exceptions from criticism for any issues I may have, and I don't extend any to others. I respond to what is shown to me, and what you showed me was an emotional reaction with zero substantive value, especially for the discussion at hand. If you have a point or a position you want to put forward, do so, but especially here in the Senate, we are expected to generate a higher level of discourse than the rest of the forum, that's supposedly why we were chosen for this position.

Now I explained why I voted to not expand the Senate, and actually I have been convinced by the subsequent discussion to not do that anymore. In fact, I think we need a lot more fresh blood in here, and while the idea of yearly re-elections churns my stomach, it's not for the reason it's abhorrent to others: I just hate the idea of busy work and the subsequent drama that's bound to happen as the Senate tag is ripped from them. Like Mike implied, there will likely be several drama llamas who think it would be a great injustice if they were no longer in the Senate, and I for one hate drama, but if drama there must be, oh well.

So here's a corollary to Red's query. Who among the Senate who says it's too big is willing to vacate it to make more room? Who thinks that they should stay forever? Let's hear it.
Do not meddle in the affairs of insomniacs, for they are cranky and can do things to you while you sleep.
Image
The Realm of Confusion
"Every time you talk about Teal'c, I keep imagining Thor's ass. Thank you very much for that, you fucking fucker." -Marcao
SG-14: Because in some cases, "Recon" means "Blow up a fucking planet or die trying."
SilCore Wiki! Come take a look!

User avatar
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1988
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Tiriol » 2009-10-13 04:11pm

Hotfoot wrote:So here's a corollary to Red's query. Who among the Senate who says it's too big is willing to vacate it to make more room? Who thinks that they should stay forever? Let's hear it.
While I'm not entirely sure if the Senate is too big or not (and thus this statement isn't necessarily directed at me), I am willing to say that if necessary, I am not adverse to the idea of not being a Senator. Nothing is eternal and while it certainly was nice to become a Senator (after all, it means that some people are of the opinion that I contribute to the board), I won't throw a hissy fit over it if the Senate at large or some higher power decides that my time as a Senator is over.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-13 10:08pm

I wanted to respond just to the last part as I think it encapsulates the overall argument (the finer point could certainly consume several more pages of discussion)
Hotfoot wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:This goes to my point above. There are marginal cases, and I think the Senate does (and can do) a FAR better job of dealing with those cases, remain something for which the Senate should be charged. I don't think it will happen often and I don't think it shoudl happen often but it is better to have a select body available than to attempt to create one out of whole cloth (or to activate then deactivate a group "as needed").
That's a fair point, though I would argue how many Senators we need for such a small purpose. If nothing else, there's been so much drama surrounding the Senate we should probably start over.
I don't know this exact answer, in terms of the appropriate size, but I dothink there is a role for the Senate to play. If we can procede from the idea that the Senate should serve the role as an advisory body for:
- Board policy of a sensitive nature such that the HoC or a similair "loudest voice" forum isn't an appropriate discussion forum (e.g. new forum creation is my first thought).
- Discussion of punishment for members where there is not a clear and flagrant violation of policy.

We could probably pick away at the specifics of this but I don't think either of us would expect that the above would occupy more than 2 or 3 threads a month during a particularly busy time. Following from the above we should design the membership of the Senate to reflect its purpose. This I think could be a bit sticky.

1) From a software perspective all Admins and SuperMods have access to the forum and can vote/post. Regardless of all other considerations they have to be members
2) The larger the group the harder it is to notfy members, allow indiviudal voices to be heard, etc
3) The smaller the group the greater the chances for one voice to dominate by force of personality (or Chancellor fiat :D ) and also the more likely that a viewpoint might be missed.

Now I don't think I have an answer to the problem as a whole but here are my thoughts:

- Minimum membership would be 16 members [Alyeska, Olrik, Dalton, Durandal, Edi, fgalkin, Hipper, GR, Thrawn, LadyTevar, Lagmonster, Bean, NecronLord, Pablo, Nitram, Vympel] which doesn't count Mike or any of the Admin accounts but does count all of the Mods who have (near as I can tell) cross forum access, that is they have the green name tags.
- I would recommend as a minimum an equal number of non SuperMods so you would need 16 more names
- The forum mod (Chancellor) should be a non-voting member who can be an arbiter so you need one more name in the pot.

That would give you a 33 person Senate with 32 voters. Now I'm not sure that this is the level one would stick at largely because I expect that the 16 non SuperMods are likely to be made up of, disproportionately, main forum mods and/or mini-mods, so I would tend to think you should have some extra names. Were I drawing it up fresh I'd go with 41 total members (and thus adjustable as staff changes may take place). This would require dropping 11 members from the current total.

Going forward I'm not sure how you would allow for a refresh but my first thought is that missing more than 2 votes brings a Senator up for a removal vote including those who request to go inactive for a time period but I'm up for suggestions on that mechanism.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by RedImperator » 2009-10-14 12:16am

I don't see why supermods should get automatic Senate membership just by virtue of having software access. They already have a great deal of influence; they have Mike's ear directly in the mod forum, and by virtue of determining how the rules are interpreted, they set a lot of policy on their own. I don't think they should be excluded automatically, either, but if they're in the Senate, they should be in on their own merits.

And as far as I know, it's not automatically necessary that they have software access anyway. When Mike upgraded the board software and we had all those broken permissions, I lost my Senate access even though I still had mod powers in all the public forums. As long as the Senate is classified differently from a public forum, anyone except an admin can be excluded from it.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

User avatar
Simplicius
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Simplicius » 2009-10-14 12:40am

Well, if the Senate is supposed to address mod activity as part of its mandate, it would be helpful for mods to be able to explain themselves if need be. If the Senate is going to be a restricted forum like it currently is, then mods would have to be allowed to post in it whether or not they are officially considered "Senators."

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-14 02:05am

RedImperator wrote:I don't see why supermods should get automatic Senate membership just by virtue of having software access. They already have a great deal of influence; they have Mike's ear directly in the mod forum, and by virtue of determining how the rules are interpreted, they set a lot of policy on their own. I don't think they should be excluded automatically, either, but if they're in the Senate, they should be in on their own merits.

And as far as I know, it's not automatically necessary that they have software access anyway. When Mike upgraded the board software and we had all those broken permissions, I lost my Senate access even though I still had mod powers in all the public forums. As long as the Senate is classified differently from a public forum, anyone except an admin can be excluded from it.
Honestly because I'm trying to go path of least resistance. I'm not sure what permission fixes would be neccessarry to set the Senate up so that only Admins and Members have access btu I do know that an Admin would have to do the work. Conversely if we just reduce the non supermod membership I can do that myself as the Group Leader.

If we DID switch things up and take care of the permission fixes then I would recommend going with a Senate of between 30 and 40 including the Chancellor. Its enough folks that you aren't likely to have one voice drown things out but not so many that any particular voice gets drowned in the babble. Again that's what I would go with but if we DO this limiting the size then we also need a more stringent means of refreshing membership (the 2 vote miss rule would have eliminated close to a dozen current Senators back when I had to do individual PMs).
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-15 04:43pm

So since I've been braod on generalizations but short on specifics here is a rather specifc detail on how we might re-organize:

41 total members including the Chancellor but excluding Mike (who can vote and post but has excused himself).
Each member's term runs for 2 years and can be re-confirmed for an unlimited number of times.
Nominations will still be taken from the HoC however existing member(s) whose term(s) have expired are automatically up for the monthly vote.
The Senate will continue to be the sole arbiter of its own membership votes.
The monthly vote will admit the top vote getters sufficient to fill the membership to its 41 members.
  • If there are no vacancies due to removal, resignation, or expiration of term then there will be no vote.
    If "None of the above" carries the greatest number of votes (or the second most when there are 2 vacancies, etc) then that seat would remain vacant until the next vote.
The division of membership in to voting categories would occur as such:
  • For initial members they would be arranged alphabetically
    For members voted in they would be arranged sequentially by order of addition to the Senate
    "The" in a username will be used to place the Senator under the "T"s alphabetically

As practicable SuperMods would be removed from automatic permission and be voted in or out per the above. If this can be done then initially there would be 2 members per month excepting January(no expiration) and December (Chancellor) if not then I'll come up with an alternate arrangment ( :D). The reason for the December Chancellor vote is that the Chancellor's term is currently 1 year so unlike regular members who get to sit around for two years the Chancellor is on the hot seat every year. If the Chancellor is removed during the vote then they are out and subject to the monthly vote in January. The new Chancellor would no longer be subject to their original term expiration month but instead be subject to the Chancellor's vote in December.

Anyway this system would provide a POTENTIAL refresh and would allow us to whittle down the Senate over the course of a few months as oppossed to me arbitrarily cutting a dozen or so members out. The idea is that we woudl have 3 members at a time up for the vote (sequential alphabetically) of which only 2 could retain membership though all 3 could lose membership if we voted 2 new Senators in higher than all of the old members. Basically it would look like this:

Example Vote 1:
Senator A: 12
Senator B: 4
Senator C: 7
Nominee A: 9

Senator A and Nominee A would be Senators

Example Vote 2:
Senator D: 1
Senator E: 15
Senator F: 4
Nominee A: 3
Nominee B (former Senator C): 9

The old Senator C along with Senator E would be Senators while D and F lose their role.



Anyway I think this makes sense, keeps the numbers low enough to be manageable but still provide fresh perspective, keeps me on the hot seat (part of the reason why I want to keep the 1/yr Chancellor vote), and requires that Senators continue to contribute in order to remain. I don't know about the software permission issue but I would prefer to do this with everyone up for a re-vote hwoever I'd be plenty happy to work things out with just non-SuperMods.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Coyote » 2009-10-16 01:04pm

Things at home and work have calmed a bit; my dad has stabilized but it's still a matter of "any time now". But I've been poking around here a bit more recently, and read this thread.

I was thinking that a time limit for Senators would be a good idea, like mentioned a 2-year term is good with option to retain the seat or, I guess, run again in the future. Limiting the size of the body would also be a wise idea, since as it is it can only balloon or go stagnant.

Wilkins's ideas seem pretty good to me.
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
Surlethe
HATES GRADING
Posts: 12213
Joined: 2004-12-29 03:41pm
Location: Hiding a pot of gold at the end of the Ricci flow
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Surlethe » 2009-10-17 12:28am

Simplicius wrote:Well, if the Senate is supposed to address mod activity as part of its mandate, it would be helpful for mods to be able to explain themselves if need be. If the Senate is going to be a restricted forum like it currently is, then mods would have to be allowed to post in it whether or not they are officially considered "Senators."
I don't see why that's necessarily the case - we could always PM Senators to have our points raised, just like other board members. If several Senators all refuse to post a mod's feedback, he could always go to an Admin to have the point raised, but who wouldn't give a mod a say, especially in an issue directly concerning the mod?
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp! Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

User avatar
Simplicius
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2031
Joined: 2006-01-27 06:07pm

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Simplicius » 2009-10-17 01:41am

True. I forgot about that whole process; HoC kind of made it superfluous.

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-17 12:25pm

The big issue with Mods as members is that right now with the way Board Permissions are set the supermods all have access without being group members (regular mods still need to be members). If we wanted to put everyone up on the block then Mike would need to edit permissions and I don't know if that might affect other operations.

Any Admins watching this thread happen to know what the feasibility is of removing all access except for Admins and group members?
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17490
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Alyeska » 2009-10-17 01:52pm

RedImperator wrote:I don't see why supermods should get automatic Senate membership just by virtue of having software access. They already have a great deal of influence; they have Mike's ear directly in the mod forum, and by virtue of determining how the rules are interpreted, they set a lot of policy on their own. I don't think they should be excluded automatically, either, but if they're in the Senate, they should be in on their own merits.

And as far as I know, it's not automatically necessary that they have software access anyway. When Mike upgraded the board software and we had all those broken permissions, I lost my Senate access even though I still had mod powers in all the public forums. As long as the Senate is classified differently from a public forum, anyone except an admin can be excluded from it.
It is my understanding that moderators and SMs don't have the same rights in here as the average senator. To avoid undue influence on the senate process, Mods are not allowed to nominate or 2nd anything. Moderators can take part in discussion and can vote.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."

User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by RedImperator » 2009-10-17 04:45pm

Alyeska wrote:It is my understanding that moderators and SMs don't have the same rights in here as the average senator. To avoid undue influence on the senate process, Mods are not allowed to nominate or 2nd anything. Moderators can take part in discussion and can vote.
That hasn't been the rule in, like, forever. Supermods and mods have the same rights as regular Senators.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17490
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Alyeska » 2009-10-17 05:51pm

RedImperator wrote:
Alyeska wrote:It is my understanding that moderators and SMs don't have the same rights in here as the average senator. To avoid undue influence on the senate process, Mods are not allowed to nominate or 2nd anything. Moderators can take part in discussion and can vote.
That hasn't been the rule in, like, forever. Supermods and mods have the same rights as regular Senators.
This is true. But it does show what I was getting at. If you want to define the Senate and separate it from the mods, that means deciding what role Moderators and Super Moderators have.

The Senate is supposed to have some semblance of governing ability. It certainly has politics. Why don't be borrow from another Senate. Perhaps we should form a Committee who has the power to come up with a plan for the Senates future and the roles of Senators, Moderators, and SMs. The more people we have talking, the more haphazard it some times gets. Say a 5 man committee that is selected from the current senate ranks. They form a proposal that can then be voted on by the senate as a whole.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-17 05:59pm

General note for all:

THE RULES

Please remember to check them out every once in a while. That is all.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
RedImperator
Roosevelt Republican
Posts: 16465
Joined: 2002-07-11 07:59pm
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by RedImperator » 2009-10-19 01:42pm

Alyeska wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Alyeska wrote:It is my understanding that moderators and SMs don't have the same rights in here as the average senator. To avoid undue influence on the senate process, Mods are not allowed to nominate or 2nd anything. Moderators can take part in discussion and can vote.
That hasn't been the rule in, like, forever. Supermods and mods have the same rights as regular Senators.
This is true. But it does show what I was getting at. If you want to define the Senate and separate it from the mods, that means deciding what role Moderators and Super Moderators have.

The Senate is supposed to have some semblance of governing ability. It certainly has politics. Why don't be borrow from another Senate. Perhaps we should form a Committee who has the power to come up with a plan for the Senates future and the roles of Senators, Moderators, and SMs. The more people we have talking, the more haphazard it some times gets. Say a 5 man committee that is selected from the current senate ranks. They form a proposal that can then be voted on by the senate as a whole.
Well, I think Greg has made a proposal which is a pretty good starting point (and now I apologize for not replying to it sooner). I'm still not certain we actually need a limited membership, and bluntly, I'm not ready to concede that without discussion when the only three people unequivocally in favor of it never tried to defend it in this thread after the first page. The way it usually works on this board, if you make an argument, someone challenges it, and you don't reply, that's taken as a concession, not a consensus. And the role of mods and supermods still needs to be sorted out.

I actually kinda like the committee idea. It wouldn't have to be any kind of formal thing; a few interested people could do it via PM and then present something to the whole Senate.
Image
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963
X-Ray Blues

User avatar
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1988
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Tiriol » 2009-10-19 02:07pm

I also like the committee idea. That way the discussion wouldn't be a free-for-all like it might be in the House of Commons nor would it grow stale and stagnant relatively soon like it might do in the Senate.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-19 06:51pm

Excellent. The Chair nominates:
RedImperator
Hotfoot
Thanas
Mr Bean
Tiriol

:D

Actually I think that would provide the whole spectrum of sentiment as expressed within this thread, everything from toss everyone out to change things up, to the current system works if people would just explain themselves.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

User avatar
LadyTevar
White Mage
White Mage
Posts: 19499
Joined: 2003-02-12 10:59pm
Location: Tahalshia Manor

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by LadyTevar » 2009-10-20 07:30pm

I second the Nominations.
Image
Librium Arcana, Where Gamers Play!
Nitram, slightly high on cough syrup: Do you know you're beautiful?
Me: Nope, that's why I have you around to tell me.
Nitram: You -are- beautiful. Anyone tries to tell you otherwise kill them.
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy, last Tweet

User avatar
Alyeska
Federation Ambassador
Posts: 17490
Joined: 2002-08-11 07:28pm
Location: Montana, USA

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by Alyeska » 2009-10-20 08:06pm

This is where it gets really interesting. We can make a vote on the nominations. Though it isn't really necessary. Anyone can form a proposal and then present it and have it voted. I have no problem with the candidates for the committee. I am inclined to let them start work on devising a future for the Senate and the position of Moderators and SMs within the senate. However, I defer to CmdrWilkens judgment.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."

"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."

User avatar
CmdrWilkens
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9093
Joined: 2002-07-06 01:24am
Location: Land of the Crabcake
Contact:

Re: [Discussion]Ideal size of the Senate

Post by CmdrWilkens » 2009-10-20 08:21pm

The thing with the above is:

A) I think we should go with a small group so as to get more voices in to it than my irreverent need to build upon our existing bureaucracy.
B) We should have at least one SuperMod
C) We should have at least one person who has advocated dissolution
D) I want a single source to generate a proposal that I can review so that we don't have 3 or 4 different ideas floating about in this thread which might confuse people offering suggestions.

Now that being said I have NOT contacted any of those proposed members (though one contacted me) to see if they are interested. Basically this list represents a quick calculation on my part of who was involved in this discussion and would allow me have a balanced group (which I could then discretely control :D ) fulfilling B and C above. In other words if folks think someone else might be a good contributor OR if the volunteered members aren't sure they want to do this they should probably either speak up in this thread or contact me separately. If the idea of a committee is okay with the Senate then I want to hold off until the weekend before finalizing a list of participants and I'd rather do it by unanimous consent rather than a vote. In fact the only reason I would go to a vote is to test a polling theory I think might help streamline our process.
Image
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner
MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE

"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven

Locked