![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Oh, and ray245 - I'm amazed that guy is still around given the treatment he's been receiving for so many years.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
Please, when you have a parent that scoulded you in the exact same manner people here likes to do by flaming and the fact that your mom voice can be heard 10 floors below and above, you can tolerate flaming to a certain extend. Other than that, I also have a mom who love to embrass me as a form of punishment, such as scoulding me loudly in front of the public.SancheztheWhaler wrote:I'd forgotten about that thread; it was interesting to see exactly who replied and what they said that caused Pick to leave the board. No wonder it's a year later and we're back in same spot...
Oh, and ray245 - I'm amazed that guy is still around given the treatment he's been receiving for so many years.
I don't even think PSW/PST are active enough to warrant subforums of SF. They have maybe half a page of threads that have been commented on in the last month, and rolling them all up into one big forum for Science Fiction wouldn't cause them to swamp discussion of other subjects. Sure, they'll spike for a while when the new movies/series come out, but that tends to happen with every major release of anything.Enigma wrote:I'd like to see PST and PSW fold into OSF as subforums and rename OSF to Science Fiction. Take down ST vs. SW and archive it for posterity while opening up a subforum in OSF titled "Sci-Fi Versus".
Make Fantasy strictly a discussion forum while a subforum for fantasy versus?
STvsSW I don't would be much of a problem, but the PST and PSW forums should stay open, Even though the EU is a mixed bag of gold and crap there is new Star Wars material coming out quite often, and if this new movie pans out then there will be plenty of Trek Material. In fact, Chuck's Opinionated Episode Guides have me checking PST quite often.Hotfoot wrote:Personally, I think locking the STvSW and PST and PSW forums, moving them to public archives, and then letting OSF take over would be just fine. Both ST and SW are stagnant at the moment, and the only thing that's bound to really change that is a new ST show or Lucas deciding he wants to make Episodes 7-9. Neither are likely to happen at the moment, so why bother?
Yeah, there's been many times I just didn't want to participate in topics because I just didn't want to put up with the inevitable arrival of screeching, easily-inflamed egos with axes to grind. I kinda started pre-censoring in some respects-- "Is this topic likely to go south? Do I really want to get dragged into something with the nitpicking, rules-lawyering hotheads I know are going to make an appearance? [sigh] --no, not worth the trouble."Cpl Kendall wrote:What is dishearting is the feeling that you’re going to be dog piled by everyone that happens to pass by the thread.
How is being made a Senator NOT a reward? Senators get more perks and privileges that for many users are quite desirable. And the bar next to a Senator's avatar is a clear sign of prestige. This is the immediate impression that the Senate gave off as soon as it was formed, now that they get unlimited editing privileges it becomes an even more desirable title to attain. The very existence of a Senate of board members inherently encourages the notion, even if none of the Senators themselves does so actively.Coyote wrote:But I think there are also some regular denizens who --subconsciously, without really realizing it, perhaps-- tend to put the Senators in that light. Doing infrequent nominations and then "elevating" someone to the title adds subtle reinforcement that being a Senator is a "reward", either for being "cool" or well-liked, or being a good debater, or something having to do with oral sex in the stockroom. But really, it becomes seen as a goal, a position to attain, and until you're in that position, you're not really a full member. This is silly. It gives the board not a taste of democracy, but more like the Mafia, where you have to become a "made man" by one of the Dons or Capos or something.
I don't think the Senate encourages that notion, but I think that, like it or not (or justified or not) that is the impression that has managed to settle in the minds of some.
"Yes, but..."Darth Fanboy wrote:How is being made a Senator NOT a reward? Senators get more perks and privileges that for many users are quite desirable. And the bar next to a Senator's avatar is a clear sign of prestige. This is the immediate impression that the Senate gave off as soon as it was formed, now that they get unlimited editing privileges it becomes an even more desirable title to attain. The very existence of a Senate of board members inherently encourages the notion, even if none of the Senators themselves does so actively.
And that is how it is supposed to be-- taking responsible for handling miscreats in a way that promotes transparency, and setting the example in debates, and being mature enough to make decisions about how the board is going to be run. The reason "longevity" comes into it is because, if a person sticks around here long enough, they clearly have a stake in how things are done here and have contributed something, at some point, even if small. It's "institutional memory", which is both blessing and curse...At first I thought the Senate was basically just going to be a body of users selected mostly for voting on policies debated on by admins and moderators, because the old ban poll votes and other similar polls became very unwieldly. This way the people voting could at be trusted to make a rational decision. Certainly something far less in scale than the current bureaucracy.
A necessary function? Could have fooled me.CmdrWilkens wrote:1) The Senate serve a neccesarry function and pretty much every complaint against the Senate used to be levelled at the mod staff
Get rid of it and expand the mod staff.2) Everybody bitches but not a lot of folks are offering an alternate solution.
But on every Internet BBS on Forum, that's exactly what moderators are.CmdrWilkens wrote: Can anyone here hoenstly say that they didn't (prior to the Senate) see the moderators as comprising a seperate and senior group of users?
In my opinion yes, because Moderators and Admins have actual authority which is necessary for them to do their job, which I might add is basically unpaid volunteer work. Which I for one highly appreciate.Maybe the Senate was structured oddly and certainly there are those who may have (though I like Coyote couldn't think of a name off the top of my head) used the "presitge" of their position to try and win a debate on points BUT I honestly have to say is it any different than the system we had when it was only Mods and Admins?
Then those discussions could be brought out into the open, without the creation of a Senate.The only difference I can see is that the discussions are now out in the open, where everyone can see (rather than hidden in the mod forum) and the membership of the Senate is much larger than the membership of moderators.
I already said how i'd do it differently in my previous post. With the addition of my previous comment about moving specific moderator discussions (not all of them), such as those about banning or certain policy changes, to a more public area.The bureaucracy of the Senate may strike some folks as unneccessarry but I'd like to ask them how they would do it differently? If you don't have rules then the complaint is arbitrary decision making, if you don't have the discussion publicly viewable then you suffer the potential accusation of secret bias or vendetta, if you have policy disucssions open to the entire membership of the board (as with the old ban polls) then there is a very real and present risk of groupthink clouding the judgement process and the bandwagon carrying away toward poor decisions. The Senate, like any legislature, is a neccesarry evil and I'd rather have it well structured than a loose conglomerate based on good will amongst the Senators and "common sense" rules.
I disagree, the accusations against the moderators were that they were abusing their authority, authority that is necessary to do their job.Really its two points I'm trying to make:
1) The Senate serve a neccesarry function and pretty much every complaint against the Senate used to be levelled at the mod staff
There are a LOT of things that are misleading about looking at that list so let me start at the beginning:Darth Fanboy wrote:Some stats about the Senate I've noticed from taking a quick peek at the Senators Usergroup list, a peek prompted by this discussion.
There are 34 members on the list, and of those 34 members on the current list, 26 of them joined in 2002. Of those 26, 18 joined around the board's inception in July of 2002. This is where the "Old Boys Club" mindset begins. Do I think that join dates play a part in how one becomes a Senator? No. But I am not fully convinced that the Senate does not entirely realize that this plays in to how the body is received, especially on a board where approximately 2/3 of the users have fewer than 100 posts.
Which, if you read my post is exactly what I was talking about.CmdrWilkens wrote: There are a LOT of things that are misleading about looking at that list so let me start at the beginning:
(snip)
So while I can get that there may be a perception of a old hands network in the Senate I think its the sort of snap judgement where the person holding it has not bothere to look at how the Senate acts and we have acted to include membership both old and new.
Extra emphasis on that second line. Of course it is misleading, but my whole point is that there hasn't been much to dispel that myth though, and it's up to the Senate to do that if it wants to be taken seriously.What I Said wrote: This is where the "Old Boys Club" mindset begins. Do I think that join dates play a part in how one becomes a Senator? No. But I am not fully convinced that the Senate does not entirely realize that this plays in to how the body is received, especially on a board where approximately 2/3 of the users have fewer than 100 posts.
Stripping Marina of her senatorial status would go a good ways towards fixing the issue IMHO.Ender wrote:And the calling-out has begun. Allow me to try and head this off at the pass. From the PMs I received after my request to hear views, the fact that Marina is strongly seen as a bad example of what the Senate is supposed to be isn't a surprise. Ok, most people see her as a power tripping bitch, a point of view her first page post doesn't do much to dissuade. Got it. Message received. Understood. Et cetera.
Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?
Get rid of the Senate. It serves no purpose other than to inflate the egos of a few who are part of it and its actual responsibilities could be handled easily by an expanded moderation staff and simple popular submission.Ender wrote:Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?
Deleting the senate does not magically inflate the size, coverage, and quality of the moderation staff.thejester wrote:Get rid of the Senate. It serves no purpose other than to inflate the egos of a few who are part of it and its actual responsibilities could be handled easily by an expanded moderation staff and simple popular submission.Ender wrote:Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?
Except that when these things turn into a raging shit fest of everyone blasting over perceived personal slights that most of the offenders didn't know were personal slights nothing gets done. Part of the purpose of the House of Commons was to expand the ability to come up with solutions. If you want to tear into each other that is your call, but this isn't the proper venue. This forum is meant to house productive discourse to improve the board, and as dictated by the mods OT rules apply.Dark Hellion wrote:Perhaps we need to point fingers? A lot of issues exist that boil under the surface and shit up threads because someone can't bring it to tell someone else that they think they are a jerk. Disliking people isn't bad. You can dislike posters without having to disrespect them, and you can even dislike posters while thinking they are good posters.
Bad blood is a huge issue on the board. We all know it. Sweeping it under the rug obviously isn't working. How we could do this without it becoming a giant shitstorm is anyone's guess, but saying that we understand that certain posters are disliked isn't a solution either.
Which is why I said an 'expanded moderation staff.' I would have thought there was a fair consensus by now that more moderators are needed.Ender wrote:Deleting the senate does not magically inflate the size, coverage, and quality of the moderation staff.
And yet she still remains a Senator. What does that say about the effectiveness of the Senate that someone can behave the way she does and still remain a Senator? And in terms of pointing fingers, sure I highlighted her as one of the most prominent and vocal Senators who I think are arrogant/pompous/ridiculous, but at the end of the day what else should we expect from senators? They have no power, no authority, no particular reason for being, and yet, as a group, you all preen and tell each other how awesome you all are, and never seem to police your own. Senators either have to leave on their own or have a huge blow up and then leave (Wayne Poe being the obvious example), but once you become a senator, you're a senator for life.Ender wrote:And the calling-out has begun. Allow me to try and head this off at the pass. From the PMs I received after my request to hear views, the fact that Marina is strongly seen as a bad example of what the Senate is supposed to be isn't a surprise. Ok, most people see her as a power tripping bitch, a point of view her first page post doesn't do much to dissuade. Got it. Message received. Understood. Et cetera.
Umm... does an obvious solution to ineffective an insufficient moderation not jump out at you? How about Mike appoint some new moderators - hell, pull from the senators, I really don't care - and have them actually moderate? What other "solutions" are you looking for?Ender wrote:Now can we try and get a solution rather than point fingers? Sanchez says moderation is the issue, but didn't express good solutions to fix it. It was pointed out earlier that our mod coverage doesn't match our forums even in numbers, muchless in availability. Does anyone have ideas to fix that or other issues?