StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, we tried a Senate and it didn't work out too well ( ); 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:

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.

Although, today, another meaning has cropped up:

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.

Boith are from the Wikipedia entry.

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.

We already have a "star chamber." It's called "the Mod forum." As an added bonus, it can actually enforce the decisions it makes!


Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yes, but this would be more of what the Senate (probably) was supposed to be: peer-review with transparency. It would not apply to every decision that needed to be made, and would not necessarily be a standing tool of policy enforcement.

Man I thought you were talking about Farscape but then I remembered that was StarBURST Chamber. This is far more boring.

Additional layers of bureaucracy spending more time justifying and defining their own role is currently not what this board needs in my opinion, nor do I think it ever will be.

Uh, a Star Chamber lacks transparency by definition. If it has transparency, then it is not a Star Chamber but a jury or a committee.

And by the way, the decisions of the mods are not arbitrary and the reasoning is generally laid out at the time of the punishment, so the transparency angle is pretty much covered.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Yeah, mods have this one covered. How is the Mod forum any different from this Star Chamber of which you speak?

Darth Fanboy wrote:Additional layers of bureaucracy spending more time justifying and defining their own role is currently not what this board needs in my opinion, nor do I think it ever will be.

But that's the point. It would be convened for a purpose, and would not be made up of permanent members. It would eithe rbe for a set period of time, then changed, or, for a specific purpose, then dissolved.

Hawkwings wrote:Yeah, mods have this one covered. How is the Mod forum any different from this Star Chamber of which you speak?

It would allow peers to serve as a review board so that Mods don't have to get bogged down in details. Like a Star Chamber could be convened to watch over a Israel vs. Palestine debate, and that would be their only real purview, and the Mods don't have to get involved in a bunch of baby-sitting.

fgalkin wrote:Uh, a Star Chamber lacks transparency by definition. If it has transparency, then it is not a Star Chamber but a jury or a committee.

I know, I just dig the name. Although a independent judiciary of secret members could be done... although I think more is gained form transparency.

Coyote, the problem is who gets to decided when to convene the star chamber? The Mods are the natural choice and if they want to raise something they can do it in their private forum and actually execute the decision with out further discussion. Not really helpful.

But the mods have neglected some part of the system as it is. They do not give titles or temp bans much anymore, just perma bans for stuff. For instance LionElJohnson should likely have been titled long before he got banned. The early board had lots (relatively tons) more instances of titling people. We don't need people to sort out when a banning should happen, but we might have something for assigning titles.

Unless people really don't think titling is important anymore. (I would say it is a good way of public humiliation, to encourage people to get better in posting. But that is just my opinion.)

I never understood the Senate. But this sounds...inititially reasonable, until I read the posts made by fgalkin and fanboy.

I like the idea of peer-review convened for specific purposes, like the issue of titling people as Agent Sorchus said (and not just for stupidity as well, perhaps you could revive the system of giving people custom titles as a reward of some sort), but I think it could very easily get out of hand, or try to over-step it's mandate, which is what (as far as I can tell) happenned with the Senate.

Clearly the idea needs more fleshing out. But it should be dismissed out of hand.

Coyote wrote: But that's the point. It would be convened for a purpose, and would not be made up of permanent members. It would eithe rbe for a set period of time, then changed, or, for a specific purpose, then dissolved.

It's still unecessary bureaucracy seemingly for the sake of bureaucracy. What's the point of having moderators and admins if decision making authority is just going to be handed off periodically to people who may not be qualified one way for the other?

fgalkin wrote:We already have a "star chamber." It's called "the Mod forum." As an added bonus, it can actually enforce the decisions it makes!

See, when fgalkin says something I completely agree with it's either a sign of the Apocalypse or whatever it was that someone made a thread about the answer is 97 shades of fucking obvious.

I'm not really sure I see how this is any different from having ban polls aside from limiting the number of people who can vote.

Darth Fanboy wrote:

Coyote wrote: But that's the point. It would be convened for a purpose, and would not be made up of permanent members. It would eithe rbe for a set period of time, then changed, or, for a specific purpose, then dissolved.

It's still unecessary bureaucracy seemingly for the sake of bureaucracy. What's the point of having moderators and admins if decision making authority is just going to be handed off periodically to people who may not be qualified one way for the other?

This would not be focused on things like board policy, etc. This would be for peers to determine that someone needs to cool off for a week or two (temp ban) or get a title, etc, and then inform a Mod of the decision-- the Mod then implements it. Again, it's so Mods have time to focus on board matters as a whole, instead of getting sucked into babysitting one particular situation (be it an over-active thread, or an overly-troublesome poster who stays just on this side of the rules, etc).

Their scope would be limited, so getting involved in "bureaucracy" would not become an issue. With the Senate, they were a standing forum that had nothing to do when time was idle, so they nosed around in things for no reason. This would not be permanent, and would not be the same people over & over again.

I prefer living under a single emperor with absolute authority.

We could just rename the Mod forum the Star Chamber. Not that any of you grots would ever know the difference.
[line 2]

Coyote wrote: This would not be focused on things like board policy, etc. This would be for peers to determine that someone needs to cool off for a week or two (temp ban) or get a title, etc, and then inform a Mod of the decision-- the Mod then implements it. Again, it's so Mods have time to focus on board matters as a whole, instead of getting sucked into babysitting one particular situation (be it an over-active thread, or an overly-troublesome poster who stays just on this side of the rules, etc).

Current system: Moderator sees problem -> Moderator deals with it.

Your System: Someone perhaps a mod sees a problem -> Temproary group convened -> debate ensues -> actions are voted upon -> temporary group informs mod of decision mod could have made on their own because moderators have authority given to them by Admins -> Moderator ultimately deals with it they way they see fit if they disagree because they have auhtority and regular users don't because that's how it works.

Their scope would be limited, so getting involved in "bureaucracy" would not become an issue. With the Senate, they were a standing forum that had nothing to do when time was idle, so they nosed around in things for no reason. This would not be permanent, and would not be the same people over & over again.

Which solves the problem of layers of bureaucracy how again? Because taking several days to solve an issue when a moderator can do it within minutes is better? Why are you so determined to create another body of users like the old Senate or House of Commons?

Mayabird wrote:We could just rename the Mod forum the Star Chamber. Not that any of you grots would ever know the difference.
[line 2]

Oh I would know.

Because you just told me.

Having been a Senator, I have to disagree with the concept of this "Star Chamber." The present black-box moderating system works much better than the board's flirtation with 'transparency.' People who get thrown out on their ear typically get lots, and lots, of warning first. Unless they violate one of the insta-ban rules; in which case, they're crushed with the appropriate lack of mercy. Anyone who wants to complain about moderating decisions can now do so without turning it into the sort of huge open-air bitchfest that was engendered by the Senate and its spawn, the House of Commons.

I mean, look at bans conducted by the Senate. Most of the people who came up for banning and wound up being banned would've gotten themselves just as banned under the system, as it stands now. So would those who were titled.

This idea is really a solution in search of a problem.

jegs2 wrote:I prefer living under a single emperor with absolute authority.

I did too, but "Our Emperor" has been away for some time

Personally, I'm all for anything that gets some of the decision-making out from behind closed doors. Cloak-and-dagger is unspiffy outside of Tom Clancy novels.

Star Chamber or something similiar? HAH!

Quite frankly, the board's life was numbered the second Mike stopped posting on it.

I mean, would you keep a World of Warcraft account you haven't touched in over a year?

The second he (or Rebecca) decides it's not worth the economic outlay for something he's not even using, the board is done.

At least in it's current form. Someone else might be able to take over ownership, but (shrugs).

Not accurate. Mike has stated in the past that he has taken steps to assure that the board and it's history don't go the way of the dodo, even in the event of his death.

On to the topic at hand... Coyote! Are you just a drama fiend? The Senate was fun, and it's nice to have regular members participate in decisions, but c'mon, it is fine the way it is. Did you learn nothing from the House of Commons?

Solauren wrote: The second he (or Rebecca) decides it's not worth the economic outlay for something he's not even using, the board is done.

I am still under the impression that the ad revenue is covering most of, if not all the costs. So economics I don't think plays into it.