Darth Wong wrote:This function would still be served if people were rotated out of the Senate. The problem is that such rotation would be viewed as some kind of assault or heinous insult upon the person in question.
Then why not nuke the whole thing and start over? The original concept of the Senate was as some sort of reward, and when the reward is taken away, people feel miffed, even if the reward itself was more work and an illusion of status.
Moreover, if it is something that's designed to keep the board running smoothly, or at least make some aspect easier or less of a hassle, then those in the role should be actively attempting to perform to the best of their abilities and not just dead weight, granted however that it is an unpaid position.
At the end of the day, I'm not going to shed tears over anyone in the Senate who is upset at the loss of their position. If tomorrow I was removed from the Senate, oh well. I'd still likely be as active as I was before, and I'd probably still make whatever suggestions I had heard, as I did before I was a Senator in the first place. So long as the Senate exists, however, and so long as I am part of it, I will do what I can to make suggestions for what I feel would best help this board run smoothly. That is, as far as I'm concerned, my duty as a Senator, even if I think right now that abolishing the Senate is better for the board in the long run.
Of course, hey, I could be wrong. That's why I wanted to have this discussion. If there's a real reason to keep the Senate around, I do want to hear it, and if we are supposed to be the Judge and Jury to the Supermod and Admin Executioners, so be it, that's what the Senate is.
This is actually something I've been meaning to bring up with the mods, but which I haven't had time to lately. Far too many of them are acting more and more unilaterally (perhaps in inverse proportion to my presence on the board, since I have always taken a dim view of that behaviour).
If you give someone the ability to ban, they're generally going to use it as they see fit unless otherwise instructed. So far, I really haven't seen much of a problem there. Frankly I prefer quicker ban triggers, and banning from serious offenses (taunting/baiting the staff, etc.) seems to be the primary reason for banning. So be it. The nature of the board has already self-selected out the worst examples of spammers, trolls, and idiots. All that really remains are a few wandering time bombs that we can't select out until they go off and a bonafide invasion, which itself requires no Senate action for a response.