StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sarevok wrote:An exercise in futility.

This is an internet website not a UN agency. The last thing this website needs is even more top heavy bureaucracy. There is a saying in my native land that when kicked an empty vase will ring louder than one filled with water. That's pretty much what SDN is becoming with the pompous bureaucratic nonsense. Where are the interesting 10+ page long threads that can highhandedly persuade people to sign up and participate ? Instead are people here to play some Forum based Strategy / RPG game with factions like Senate and Testingstan ? If someone wants to experiment with "virtual society" let them play sim city or something. The board itself needs less drama, whining and more discussion and debates. It's all up to the users themselves to post thoughtfully. It's easy to blame the senate or mods or flying monkeys. But it does not speak highly of SDnet posters when some of the best threads of late had been Zor's RARs.

ARTICLE I: The administration

Section 1: The Emperor

ray245 wrote:I would like to bring up the idea of holding a referendum once again, in regards to board policy issues.

While I believe the Senate should have full power over the decision to ban someone, board policy, such as imposing new rules and creation of new forum section should hold a referendum instead.

The board community should have a chance to voice and decide what direction the board should take.

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Coyote wrote:Actually, I was thinking about it this morning and perhaps a annual, or bi-annual feedback review from the citizens about the performance of the Senators, Governors, etc would be useful. After all, we were appointed, not elected, and many complaints revolve around us not taking things seriously or taking other things TOO seriously.

While feedback is great, what's to prevent them from just ignoring it? With election cycles, there is the threat of losing one's job if he ignores the feedback, which can help keep him in line.

Hotfoot wrote:It should be noted that Ray did not say anything about public ban polls, but rather that the public should be in control over board policy while the Senate should retain ban poll rights.

irishmick79 wrote:It might be useful for Governors to serve as kind of an administrative board, kind of like cabinet officials. Appointed by the Emperor, confirmed by the senate. They should have full moderator powers, with the expectation that they utilize them within their designated areas. However, Governors would have the ability to moderate across all forums as coverage needs warrant - issuing bans, full editing powers, the whole nine yards. If the senators refuse to confirm a nominee for Governor, the Governor would still serve, however would not be granted full moderator powers.

If the senate was in a particularly foul mood over a governor's performance, they could hold a vote of no-confidence and strip him/her of mod powers if it passes.

Solauren wrote:Rotate the moderators. Simple as that.

Stormbringer wrote:
I gathered that and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

From my view of things, ban polls and insult titles were a matter of board policy. Everyone of those polls was a public debate and approval of certain standard and regulations by default. I'm bringing them up because they are the democratic heritage of SD.net and in my opinion played a big part in board culture.

And it was a very messy and disruptive way to go about it. I don't think there's any reason to try and pretend the board's democracy. I think some controlled mechanisms for feedback, like this forum, are important. But the best and least disruptive way to handle this is for Mike to run it, with any advice he chooses to seek, rather than trying to hedge it around with a lot of rules (which may only be nominally obeyed) or worse yet an endless chasing of plebiscites.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:
I gathered that and perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

From my view of things, ban polls and insult titles were a matter of board policy. Everyone of those polls was a public debate and approval of certain standard and regulations by default. I'm bringing them up because they are the democratic heritage of SD.net and in my opinion played a big part in board culture.

And it was a very messy and disruptive way to go about it. I don't think there's any reason to try and pretend the board's democracy. I think some controlled mechanisms for feedback, like this forum, are important. But the best and least disruptive way to handle this is for Mike to run it, with any advice he chooses to seek, rather than trying to hedge it around with a lot of rules (which may only be nominally obeyed) or worse yet an endless chasing of plebiscites.

As possibly the only person on the board to not get titled during a titling poll, I can say that the "democratic" era on SD.net was indeed the worst thing imaginable--this despite the fact I was able to charm my way out of it, when specious claims by Shep and Ted (now himself banned) brought the thing up in the first place. It was essentially a free for all in which only oratorical skill, more or less, allowed for the survival of an individual when pitted against the screaming mob. It created an atmosphere where I was actually utterly terrified while posting to Sd.net, but it was my only social network so I mostly stayed anyway.

CmdrWilkens wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:It might be useful for Governors to serve as kind of an administrative board, kind of like cabinet officials. Appointed by the Emperor, confirmed by the senate. They should have full moderator powers, with the expectation that they utilize them within their designated areas. However, Governors would have the ability to moderate across all forums as coverage needs warrant - issuing bans, full editing powers, the whole nine yards. If the senators refuse to confirm a nominee for Governor, the Governor would still serve, however would not be granted full moderator powers.

If the senate was in a particularly foul mood over a governor's performance, they could hold a vote of no-confidence and strip him/her of mod powers if it passes.

Some of that is already the case. As Red pointed out in one or the Senate threads most of the Mods are actually SuperMods and can cover broad swaths of territory. There are obviously some questions as to ban authority, edit authority and such but but I think the bility for more than a few Governors to have SuperMod status actually reduces their ability to police their designated forums.

Now that said I have no problem with the idea of Governors subject to confirmation by the Senate (and veto by Mike) but the mechanism is something that we would need to look at carefully.

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:You know what's really funny? When I proposed this on my board, Destructionator opposed it. I wonder what his game is now.

I'd oppose it here too. Again, this thread isn't a serious suggestion, but rather a place to have some fun making up government like documents for the board. Some good ideas and serious discussion might come out of it, but a real ratification won't and shouldn't.

Samuel wrote:

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Rogue 9 wrote:You know what's really funny? When I proposed this on my board, Destructionator opposed it. I wonder what his game is now.

I'd oppose it here too. Again, this thread isn't a serious suggestion, but rather a place to have some fun making up government like documents for the board. Some good ideas and serious discussion might come out of it, but a real ratification won't and shouldn't.

No, we ratify the document... then elections are suspended "for the duration of the emergency", with the emergency being people not donating money. With the required donation being set equal to the worlds GDP.

ray245 wrote:That will just make Darth Wong extremely rich, and everyone else poor!