); I think consensus is it got too big and unwieldy and bogged and mired in, well, all sorts of stuff. (You may call it "stuff & nonsense" if you like, or just good ol' "shit".) But things have happened since then-- namely, DW is pretty much an absentee landlord by choice and the Mods now have direct control. However, I was wondering if maybe the problem wasn't "The Senate" as an idea-- a decision-making body to go over procedure before recommending action-- but simply the size and bulk of it. It took time to collect votes, and it took time to debate merits and procedures. By the time action was agreed upon, the situation had changed and things like "bans" were already pretty much just an obvious action, with debate a mere formality. In fact, it became quite the tradition to "go out with a bang" and become more obnoxious as a vote tallied, which if anything only served to fuel the flames.
So I am thinking-- how about a "Star Chamber"? Ideally, a Star Chamber was a means to reign in wayward nobility:
Although, today, another meaning has cropped up:The Star Chamber (Latin: Camera stellata) was an English court of law that sat at the royal Palace of Westminster until 1641. It was made up of Privy Counsellors, as well as common-law judges, and supplemented the activities of the common-law and equity courts in both civil and criminal matters. The court was set up to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against prominent people, those so powerful that ordinary courts could never convict them of their crimes. Court sessions were held in secret, with no indictments, no right of appeal, no juries, and no witnesses. Evidence was presented in writing. Over time it evolved into a political weapon and became a symbol of the misuse and abuse of power by the English monarchy and courts.
Boith are from the Wikipedia entry.In modern usage, legal or administrative bodies with strict, arbitrary rulings and secretive proceedings are sometimes called, metaphorically or poetically, star chambers. This is a pejorative term and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the proceedings. The inherent lack of objectivity of any politically motivated charges has led to substantial reforms in English law in most jurisdictions since that time.
The plan is: a group of 5, or 7, or 9 (an odd number for obvious tie-breaker reasons) people are chosen to make a decision on a person who seems to be misbehaving. The Star Chamber can be either regular members who hold the position for a select period of time (either three months, say, or three "trials", whichever comes first) or is drawn up as needed from the populace and then disbanded as needed.
A Star Chamber may be useful in certain N&P debates, especially if the IvP moratorium is lifted. A Star Chamber would be quicker than the massively-populated Senate was and since they would not be permanent, institutional bias could be avoided.
Votes can be changed during the course of discussion.
Although a independent judiciary of secret members could be done... although I think more is gained form transparency.
