StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In my country, there is problem....

In the recent days, the Senate has been *ahem*..unusually active, with a lot of suggestions of various quality being passed around. There has also been a lot of input from the plebes (that's you!), which means you actually care about what we have to say (we're touched, trust us).

Unfortunately, most of this input was limited to Testing, and then either autodeleted, or locked and moved to the HoS as evidence by the powerhungry mods (that's us).

So, to show you all that we value your opinions (yeah, right), I've created this thread, where anyone can say anything about what an amazing job we're doing, make a suggestion for the Senate, or ask questions how to send us gifts,bribes, newborns for blessing, etc.

This thread is, at the moment, temporary for the duration of the period of abnormal Senate activity (anyone who calls it a "crisis" will receive a visit from some nice people in jackboots in the near future), with the option to make it permanent if we like what we see.

As they say in that heretical television series, "Engage!"

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

You know what the problem is? We don't talk about ejaculation distance and being molested by girls anymore. We need to bring the weirdness and spam back to off topic instead of wasting it in Testing where it gets deleted every day. And Shep needs to start cross-dressing again, and post pictures of it.

In regards to the coliseum thread, I find that an academic excerise can be good for this forum. After all, this is a forum that encourage people to excel academic wise.

Conduct a monthly coliseum debate using different styles. Some of them can be an academic excerise, to test people's debating skills as compared to the motion. Sometimes, we are too caught up in defending the motion, that it gets very personal. Some motion can be scientific, some can be political, some can be social and philosophical and so on. Sometime, the debate will ask you to defend your personal stand, something you will be asked to debate against your personal stand. Other times, you will be given a motion without any prior knowledge.

When you are debating against your interest, and knows that your opponent actually support your views as a person, it helps the board in many ways I think.

The senate needs to make a list, of when and what are they going to debate. Instead of observing the discussion on the board to come to a decision ( if you do things this way in my opinion, nothing will be done) , make a full and detailed list of when and what the debate is going to be before hand.

It seems that the senate is divided over what kind of coliseum should it be, should it be a parting shot section? I don't think so. You don't invite a person to a coliseum to get flamed one on one and proceed to ban the loser. The impact of losing or getting embrassed by losing a debate in that section will only scare people off.

Example:

January : Scientific debates, motion selected and choosen by the Senate or Mike, debating for your personal stance.
Febuary: Political debates, Motion taken from the public discussion board, debating against your personal stance
March : Economic debates, selected motion, debating side choosen at random by the senate (you may or may not debate against your personal stand)
April: Humor round debate ( April's fools, we know that the mess is up to something, so we can join in the fun), person who made the funniest arguments wins the debate
May: Sci-fi fantasy debates, motion selected, against your personal stand.
June: philosophical/ moral debate, motion taken from discussion board, for your personal stand.
July: Scientific debate, motion taken from discussion board, debating against your peronal stand.
August: Political debates, Motion taken from the public discussion board, debating for your personal stance
September: Economic debates, motion taken from the public discussion , debating for your personal stand.
October: Sci-fi fantasy debates, motion selected, for your personal stand.
November: Political debates, Motion taken from the public discussion board, debating side choosen at random by the senate.
December: Economic debates, motion taken from the public discussion , debating side choosen at random.

Special round debates: hosted together with the official debate, if an issue not related to the type of motion in that month was getting interesting and is heavily discussed by the forum. Can request for permission. And a history debate as well, forgotten about it. The anarchy-liberalism debate can be defined as a special round debate.

Basically, set up a guideline and deadline for a debate, and open these debates to the public. Winners get a title while losers will not get anything, unless the choose to conduct themselves in a improper manner.

I think the guideline can be changed, but essentially, we need a guideline. When I am orgainsing class or friends outing, it is impossible to get something done, unless you set up a deadline for that event early on, and stick with it. The momment you don't have a guideline or a deadline, the Senate will continue to discuss about the coliseum and we will never see another clash of the titans debate.

I for one would be willing to take up even irrational positions and try my best to undermine the logical arguements against them, even in a Coliseum fight, in order to promote and advertise the proper debating method.

So long as such efforts were never held against the actor who takes on the role, given it stays in the theatre.

ray245 wrote:In regards to the coliseum thread, I find that an academic excerise can be good for this forum. After all, this is a forum that encourage people to excel academic wise.

Conduct a monthly coliseum debate using different styles. Some of them can be an academic excerise, to test people's debating skills as compared to the motion. Sometimes, we are too caught up in defending the motion, that it gets very personal. Some motion can be scientific, some can be political, some can be social and philosophical and so on. Sometime, the debate will ask you to defend your personal stand, something you will be asked to debate against your personal stand. Other times, you will be given a motion without any prior knowledge.

That is an excellent suggestion, Ray. I myself would be up for any historical debate.

Bubble Boy wrote:I for one would be willing to take up even irrational positions and try my best to undermine the logical arguements against them, even in a Coliseum fight, in order to promote and advertise the proper debating method.

So long as such efforts were never held against the actor who takes on the role, given it stays in the theatre.

Exactly, don't hate the actor for portraying himself as a downright crazy or evil person. Complement his ability to act. In a debate, complement a person’s skills, and do not support him because of his personal stance.

This does not mean debating for your personal stand will not be around. You can see those around during a certain month, or you can request for a special round debate. If the senate and the parties involved approve, then we can see two debates in a month.

Thanas wrote:

ray245 wrote:In regards to the coliseum thread, I find that an academic excerise can be good for this forum. After all, this is a forum that encourage people to excel academic wise.

Conduct a monthly coliseum debate using different styles. Some of them can be an academic excerise, to test people's debating skills as compared to the motion. Sometimes, we are too caught up in defending the motion, that it gets very personal. Some motion can be scientific, some can be political, some can be social and philosophical and so on. Sometime, the debate will ask you to defend your personal stand, something you will be asked to debate against your personal stand. Other times, you will be given a motion without any prior knowledge.

That is an excellent suggestion, Ray. I myself would be up for any historical debate.

I'd be willing to take the side of Luttwak for the purposes of an interesting debate with you, for instance.

Wilkins wrote: Sometime talk is an accomplishment, the goal of that long and winding thread was not to come up with every solution to the problem but rather to make sure a solution happened and if it did so simply by generating greater awareness then it served its purpose.

I'd like to disagree with this. Very strongly. Clearly the N&P discussion did not fulfill it's goal, because here we are, a few months later talking about the exact same thing. All the previous discussions ensued was that there would be precedent for the same stuff being decided in the current overview of board culture. What is required is some sort of action. An understanding that what is being discussed should be implemented from the top down. Not urging the "plebes" to hold themselves to a higher standard but working to ensure that the senate also upholds the same culture it wants to encourage.

Should Senators become mods of certain forums, repsonsible for maintaining order and seeing to the needs of their "constituents"? Make them subject to a vote of no-confidence and replacement if they do not perform well?

This would open up more moderating, make the Senators answerable to some people, and give them someone to represent in Senate when concerns are brought up?

Some forums would have more Senators due to traffic volume: N&P would probably have 7-9 (yes, not the odd numbers, very clever, yes?) and preferably people spread around different time zones so there'll be someone on duty 24 hours a day. A large number since at any given time, some may be on vacation in RL, sick, or just not involved that day.


The Horsemen would be the mobile police force that can descend into any forum if requested, to wade into dogpiles and shitfests and bitchslap those who deserve it and picking those going to the Coliseum to "fight it out".

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I'd be willing to take the side of Luttwak for the purposes of an interesting debate with you, for instance.

Alright, that should be fun. I'd be willing to argue against Luttwak. Shall we converse via PM to hash out the details of this debate or would you feel more comfortable discussing it in this thread?

EDIT: Come to think of it, this should be a great debate which most likely will fail to present a winner at all, considering that Luttwak is right in some points.

Ace Pace wrote:

Wilkins wrote: Sometime talk is an accomplishment, the goal of that long and winding thread was not to come up with every solution to the problem but rather to make sure a solution happened and if it did so simply by generating greater awareness then it served its purpose.

I'd like to disagree with this. Very strongly. Clearly the N&P discussion did not fulfill it's goal, because here we are, a few months later talking about the exact same thing. All the previous discussions ensued was that there would be precedent for the same stuff being decided in the current overview of board culture. What is required is some sort of action. An understanding that what is being discussed should be implemented from the top down. Not urging the "plebes" to hold themselves to a higher standard but working to ensure that the senate also upholds the same culture it wants to encourage.

I'd like to clarify just one bit. I don't think the N&P debate resolved it as in permanently but rather raised the level of awareness. RedImp pointed out a notable thread which had, at the time of his posting, reached 9 pages of actual viable discourse. Something like that has been sorely lacking at times past. I don't think the N&P debate permanently or perfectly fixed the problem but I think that talk can and does and has contributed towards, at the least, a decline in the rate of regression and possibly a stablization. I think "soft poer" approaches such as that need to constantly be re-inforced to become effective long term, I'm dissappointed that we didn't keep tlaking abotu N&P after we had the votes but I also know that the "consensus" of the discussion theads was that we simply were over-reacting a given incident and had done enough. As it turns out we were under-reacting but it doesn't change the fact that perception (and everything we have been dealing with is perception) shifted in the wake of that discussion. It didn't shift permanently and it obviously didn't shift enough to forestall the prop 8 degeneration but it did shift. So while I admit that I definately overstated the impact of the N&P thread I disagree that it had no impact.

Thanas wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: I'd be willing to take the side of Luttwak for the purposes of an interesting debate with you, for instance.

Alright, that should be fun. I'd be willing to argue against Luttwak. Shall we converse via PM to hash out the details of this debate or would you feel more comfortable discussing it in this thread?

EDIT: Come to think of it, this should be a great debate which most likely will fail to present a winner at all, considering that Luttwak is right in some points.

Instead of reaching a define answer, perhaps you can determine a winner by saying who actually bring up more relevant points? And see if any good points brought up have been rebutted? If certain relevant points are not properly addressed, then the points will stand, even if it can be flawed.

In a real gladiator fight, a gladiator does not win because he use the best moves and attacks. A gladiator wins because the other party made more mistake than him.

Missing a relevant point can decide the winner and loser at times.

This is my comment on "Board Culture"

Simplicius wrote: To add a comment, I would mention the missile defense threads that have come up in N&P recently as another example of a subject in which members stand in fundamental disagreement, yet maintain a productive discussion that does not degenerate into a flamewar. I don't know how much of this is caused by the topic, which is nationalist but impersonal, and how much is by the character of the primary participants. But if we are looking for a desirable balance between tone, content, and SDN character, it might be fruitful to find some other threads which make good examples.

As a primary instigator/participant in these discussions, I would like to think that it is some of both. I would like to think that Stas Bush and I could argue about a US ABM system all year long, and not have any hard feelings, because I think that we can see and understand the other person's position as well as knowing that we wouldn't attack the other person, something that can be sorely lacking in other discussions.

An example of attacking the poster, not the post I think could be seen when I stated that in the recent election, I chose to vote one three issues (ABM, 2nd Amendment, and Nuclear Power). Very rapidly I had sickness and unemployment wished upon me. Because of my voicing of an unpopular fact about a recent court case, I was told that another member would fantasize about killing me.


As we all know, it is easier to attack something rather than someone. It is also easier to make the attack if you're name isn't on the attack, but rather you're handle's. In that vein, I mulling over a request a change of my username from MariusRoi to Timothy_C (my real name and last initial). This will simply be another change in my converting all of my usernames to my real name (after all, it's trivial to find out my real name - just go to my website), but I'm not dead set on the idea yet.

ray245 wrote: Instead of reaching a define answer, perhaps you can determine a winner by saying who actually bring up more relevant points? And see if any good points brought up have been rebutted? If certain relevant points are not properly addressed, then the points will stand, even if it can be flawed.

In a real gladiator fight, a gladiator does not win because he use the best moves and attacks. A gladiator wins because the other party made more mistake than him.

Missing a relevant point can decide the winner and loser at times.

But do we really need a winner or loser? I wonder if some people decline Colosseum debates because they worry about losing, or rather, being labeled as a loser. People have fragile egos, after all. The point of debating should be discovering or uncovering the truth or at least some approximation of it, not rubbing your opponent's face in the dirt and crushing their spirit so you win the game.

Or, if I was going to be sappy, the real winner would be the audience who gets to be enlightened about the topic in question.

MariusRoi wrote:I would like to think that Stas Bush and I could argue about a US ABM system all year long, and not have any hard feelings, because I think that we can see and understand the other person's position as well as knowing that we wouldn't attack the other person, something that can be sorely lacking in other discussions.

Yeah, sure - I don't think we should flame each other just for recognizing a fundamental political difference (I'm from the USSR after all, that should make me disagree with people here more often than not ). I notice though that some Gun Control threads particulary tend to devolve pretty quickly... it starts with personal notes about "gun lovers" and goes down from there. Shame, I always thought producing some sort of logical argument from both sides is possible, and I always tried to produce one when I was participating in those threads myself.

Mayabird wrote:

ray245 wrote: Instead of reaching a define answer, perhaps you can determine a winner by saying who actually bring up more relevant points? And see if any good points brought up have been rebutted? If certain relevant points are not properly addressed, then the points will stand, even if it can be flawed.

In a real gladiator fight, a gladiator does not win because he use the best moves and attacks. A gladiator wins because the other party made more mistake than him.

Missing a relevant point can decide the winner and loser at times.

But do we really need a winner or loser? I wonder if some people decline Colosseum debates because they worry about losing, or rather, being labeled as a loser. People have fragile egos, after all. The point of debating should be discovering or uncovering the truth or at least some approximation of it, not rubbing your opponent's face in the dirt and crushing their spirit so you win the game.

Or, if I was going to be sappy, the real winner would be the audience who gets to be enlightened about the topic in question.

You have to accept a loss in order to improve your debating skills. Hey, I usually lose in a debate, but through my loss, I managed to learn something new.

The 'lost' in this case isn't due to his or her personal stand and views. His or her loss is due to his debating skills.

ray245 wrote:You have to accept a loss in order to improve your debating skills. Hey, I usually lose in a debate, but through my loss, I managed to learn something new.

The 'lost' in this case isn't due to his or her personal stand and views. His or her loss is due to his debating skills.

The way I see it, if somebody clearly loses, then there's no reason for any formal mechanism to declare a winner or loser. And if both sides argue a strong position well and there's no clear winner, then it's silly to declare a "winner" by some formal mechanism. This isn't a boxing match; nobody in Vegas has money riding on these things.

RedImperator wrote:

ray245 wrote:You have to accept a loss in order to improve your debating skills. Hey, I usually lose in a debate, but through my loss, I managed to learn something new.

The 'lost' in this case isn't due to his or her personal stand and views. His or her loss is due to his debating skills.

The way I see it, if somebody clearly loses, then there's no reason for any formal mechanism to declare a winner or loser. And if both sides argue a strong position well and there's no clear winner, then it's silly to declare a "winner" by some formal mechanism. This isn't a boxing match; nobody in Vegas has money riding on these things.

Ok, I get it. Can the senate get back on discussing the rules and regulation of the Coliseum, please?

Fighting a good, hard fight in the Colosseum should be worth something, win or lose. If the Colosseum is a place where losing is punished, no one is going to fight in it.

Personally, I think a lot of people would be willing to go to the Colosseum if we view both "fighters" as being posters of great skill, instead of what the one match previously had been; a way to humiliate a particularly boring ideologue.

Respectfully, I would argue that so far as making policy and enforcing its will ("getting shit done" in layman's terms) is concerned, the Senate's record is largely a failing one. Consider:

-The Coliseum was established in March, if I'm not mistaken. Since then, there has been exactly one debate held there. The Senate has been debating what the next match shall be since May.

-The attempts made by the Senate to reform N&P, which were shortly followed by the explosion in N&P that prompted the current flurry of debate among both the Senators and the "plebs."

-The long ago decision to remove Death's custom title, which was only done recently, and only now that it's been brought up as an example of the Senate's ineffectiveness.

The great exception to the Senate's failings, as pointed out in the Chancellor thread in the Senate, is the creation of the subforums. While some have indisputably been a rousing success, such as the History subforum, other have been less so. The Famous Threads subforum lay empty for a long period, and only recently had threads moved there (and if I may be excused for injecting my two cents, I believe that the three threads in there are poor choices for it, as they all deal with the 2008 US Election, a dated topic.). There are other subforums which have only a small handful of threads as well. Therefore, I think it presumes too much to place the creation of the subforums entirely in the win column for the Senate.

If I'm missing any Senatorial accomplishments, please correct me, but I failed to find any after browsing through the list of Senate threads. For the most part, the Senate seems to have discussions which result in little or nothing, debates regarding its own internal bueracracy, debates regarding who shall be elevated to the rank of Senator next, and threads discussing and then voting upon the fates of errant posters.

Additionally, certain Senators have used their positions in attempts to further their own vendettas, such as the numerous swipes taken at Testing and the attempt to rename the Mess to Assholes. To the Senate's credit, these attempts have never succeeded, but they reflect poorly upon that body regardless.

In the thread in the Senate on the subject of naming a Chancellor, RedImperator stated that the Senate was intended to give some transparency to the disciplinary process. I submit that this is, to a large extent, the only function which the Senate has proven itself to be good at.

Therefore, I suggest that the Senate consider renaming itself. Many of its members seem to forget that it is little more than a glorified advisory board for Lord Wong and the people on this board who actually do have power over it, and I believe renaming the Senate would help its members keep that in mind. I believe the Duchess of Zeon once commented on the fact that she always treated the Senate as though it really was a Senate, despite its lack of real power (she can feel free to correct me on this if my memory fails me, of course. I seem to recall it clearly but can't locate the relevant thread).

Since the only true power the Senate seems to wield is judgement over those accused of wrongdoings, I suggest that the new name for it be the Imperial Court, the Imperial Tribunal, or something else with a judiciary ring to it. In this way, the reality that the SDN Good Old Boys (and Girls) can only suggest "legislation" can be properly expressed.

Am I the only one that thinks the N&P crackdown actually kind of worked? Even with the election threads and everybody getting really worked up over that, we could have done a lot worse than we did. Yes, there have been HoSed threads over the past few days, but I saw a definite decrease in the number of "lulz murricans r stupid" vacuous posts.

Metatwaddle wrote:Am I the only one that thinks the N&P crackdown actually kind of worked? Even with the election threads and everybody getting really worked up over that, we could have done a lot worse than we did. Yes, there have been HoSed threads over the past few days, but I saw a definite decrease in the number of "lulz murricans r stupid" vacuous posts.

Not to mention, the worst Prop 8 blowup happened in OT. I don't think the N&P cleanup accomplished everything we wanted by a longshot, and I'll freely admit we missed the most important change that needed to be made--breaking up dogpiles and reducing the use of logical fallacies--but we also said we'd try to start small and build from there. Which is exactly what we're doing.

And I'll let everyone in on a little secret: back when all policy decisions were made in the mod forum, the staff wasn't exactly a model of efficiency then, either. The difference between then and now is back then, when everybody agreed on a good idea and then it sat unimplemented for months, nobody but the staff saw it.

(and if I may be excused for injecting my two cents, I believe that the three threads in there are poor choices for it, as they all deal with the 2008 US Election, a dated topic.)

Maybe they could move some threads that they think are examples of a good political discussion or debate, as per the criterion in the "being positive" senate thread? That way, people can look in there to get a better grasp of what is good behavior. Maybe start with the recent gun control thread Red was so happy about, assuming no one is going to add anything more to it?

I almost feel tempted to be in the senate, to tell other senators, reach a decision by a deadline, if not, locked this thread.

Chop, chop, get things done. The Senate needs someone daring enough to tell them off, an angry boss. You either made a decision by this date or your proposal will fall.

The senate needs an 'enforcer' or the excutive body. A moderator in the senate to ensure the senate can actually made a decision.

Deadlines is one very useful tool I guess. If anyone can be the 'enforcer' or the excutive body that the senate needs, I think ghost rider can do that job well.

Bully people into making a conclusion.

The Famous Threads subforum lay empty for a long period, and only recently had threads moved there (and if I may be excused for injecting my two cents, I believe that the three threads in there are poor choices for it, as they all deal with the 2008 US Election, a dated topic.). There are other subforums which have only a small handful of threads as well. Therefore, I think it presumes too much to place the creation of the subforums entirely in the win column for the Senate.

I think the election threads should end up in the history forum instead. Reason being, the internet can be used as an archive and let future generation have first hand infomation what the general public feels as a whole during the 08 elections.

I'll remind folks that many times, what the Senate works on, is banning miscreants in a way that is transparent to all. Typically, someone acts up, the Senate has it brought to our attention, we review the case, give a chance for someone to advocate for the poster if they see fit, and then the troublemaker is banned.

So usually the reason the Senate appears to "not do anything" is because the people we deal with are gone within a few days. So most of the people directly affected by the Senate aren't around anymore to raise the issue.