Senate's gone, how about... a Star Chamber?

[Lagmonster]

I prefer living under a single emperor with absolute authority.

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

The Emperor is in the golden throne, and he's *fine*. You hear me? FINE.

[Solauren]

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.

Prices change, finances change, interests change, priorities change, etc.

Unless Mike is actively using the sight, NOTHING is scribed into stone. And even then, it's more 'firm clay' then anything.

However, I'm just trying to point out that discussing the management of the board without the owner being involved is rather moot.

[Coyote]

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.
...
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?

If a situation can be dealt with by a Mod's immediate action, then it is dealt with that way. Bear in mind, I'm not calling for a large, permanent group that would take days or weeks to deal with a subject, while finding something to do during down-time. This would be (at most) 9 people, probably less, and they would not hold their positions permanently.

This would not be to replace moderators (who I agree do their job very well) but to oversee certain forums (such as N&P) and provide an layer of action between "no action" and "ban". One of the reasons Edi has stated he doesn't want to lift the IvP moratorium is because an IvP thread by itself will tend to become a time-suck as Mods have to wade in and separate the wheat from the chaff. A Star Chamber could oversee IvP in particular, or help oversee the whole N&P in general, and allow Moderators more flexibility. We could also go back to having more temp bans and titles, whereas now a person tends to just get banned outright with no in-between.

[Coyote]

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?

I think I did ( ) but that's why this would be a small group with a specific purpose, and not permanent. Either the seats would rotate, or, it would be dissolved after the purpose had been achieved. That way, we avoid having a large, standing body of 40 or more bored people getting into drama.

[Coyote]

However, I'm just trying to point out that discussing the management of the board without the owner being involved is rather moot.

Well, that's the thing: this wouldn't be board management or policy, but a way to oversee a certain area of limited scope.

For example, a Star Chamber could keep an eye on the N&P forum, and recommend someone get a title or a temp ban, but they would not have any power to set board policy or alter how N&P is run.

The idea is to assist the Mods so they don't have to get bogged down in threads that require a lot of oversight.

[Eternal_Freedom]

If you are looking to oversee small subsets of forums, why not have more minimods?

[Aaron]

Make the mod forum publicly view-able, there's your star chamber. It'll also go a long way towards improving the perception of transparency and mod accountability.

IIRC the idea has been floated before, sometime during the Senate debacle.

[Hillary]

I think it works fine the way it is. The mods deal with posters who need dealing with and HOS threads that need it.

Titling and temp bans are less in evidence these days but, let's be honest, titling is is merely for the amusement of the plebes and serves no practical purpose, and temp bans are rather pointless imo. A wanker tends not to change his spots, so giving somebody a week's abeyance makes little difference to the end result.

Having a secret mod forum means that posters and issues can be discussed without the input of the peanut gallery, which is the best way of doing things. If they decide to take action, we get to know; if not, there was never any need for us to know.

Democracy is overrated.

[Akhlut]

One, I think the Star Chamber idea is neat conceptually and might work on some other board. However, I think SDN is probably too big and, frankly, the need tomake the decisions on who would be in the Star Chamber would probably take too long and it'd be more economical on time to just have a mod oversee things then trying to decide who to let into the Star Chamber.

As for making the Mod Forum transparent: I'm actually against that idea. As a very prominent man said something about sausage making and politics, and I firmly stand by that. The mods don't abuse their power, so their debates seem to work out just fine. The only thing I would ask for is a few days for someone who is about to be banned so they can appeal the decision and possibly try to get some mercy.

[Sarevok]

Why do people forget SDnet is a web forum like thousands of other web forums on the internet ? We are not even a particularly well known forum at that. Actual real world organizations with power, money and influence have less bureaucracy than what some of our members propose. It is preposterous !

[Lagmonster]

We have one thread going into bitching about board policy. I will not tolerate a second. AR2 is in place for a reason, and I intend to enforce it. If anyone has a serious concern about board policy, PM Dalton and ask him to open discussion. Other than that, you can speculate about plausible board governance structures as much as you like.

[Starglider]

Drama Lama Farm I, aka The Senate, was finally destroyed after an epic struggle, which cost the lives of many Bothan spies the board a significant number of interesting members.

Your proposal to build Drama Lama Farm II (III if you count the ill-fated HoC) does not seem necessary, sane or well founded to me.

[Dalton]

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.

What about the people who aren't punished? That's the real failing of the system. Debating rule violations and complaints regularly get ignored or dismissed with no explanation. This leads to a perception of bias.

And sometimes they get missed. We're not fucking omniscient, champ. The cops can't solve every crime or catch every bad guy, why would you expect anything different here?

If you see a fucking problem, bring it up.

[Coyote]

I get the impression that people see this idea as "Senate Mk. II" which it would not be.

The biggest problems with the Senate were that it was:
1- Too big. (took forever to do anything)
2- Permanent (people got bored, made drama)
3- Self-appointed (became an old boys club)
4- Had too much power (could influence board policy)

This would be something else. It would be...
1- Small, with less than 10 people.
2- Either temporary (rotating seats, or, formed and dissolved as needed)
3- Limited in scope (mission would be for 1 forum, or 1 set of thread activity, like "all IvP debates")
4- Would have nothing to do with making board policy, only enforcing existing policy.

They could be appointed by Mods, and would assist mods in "small decisions" so they don't have to get involved. That means Mods can keep a sort of general overview of a forum, while the Star Chamber (call it whatever, I just thought the name was nice and ominous) can see to the details if things get too details. This would be for threads that go on for several pages about in-depth debates, and would allow things like peer rebukes from people not involved in the debate, titles, and recommend temp bans. It also means that Mods don't get involved monitoring long-running debates that gets their temper up, having to deal with brats and minor stupidity, and therefor a decision wouldn't be made in anger.

It would be more like a temporary jury, convened for a purpose. Not a standing trouble-making body seeking purpose and relevancy.

[Darth Fanboy]

This would be something else. It would be...
1- Small, with less than 10 people.
2- Either temporary (rotating seats, or, formed and dissolved as needed)
3- Limited in scope (mission would be for 1 forum, or 1 set of thread activity, like "all IvP debates")
4- Would have nothing to do with making board policy, only enforcing existing policy.

1-What can a group of ten people with potentially varying schedules and levels of committment do faster and more efficient than one of the staff here? First you have top figure out what you want to convene for, then you have to pick those ten people, then you have to have a discussion and potentially a vote. That's a lot of fucking wasted timewhen compared to the current system of "PM a moderator who takes a look at it and then makes a judgment decision based on actual authority."

2-How many people on this board realistically want to participate in such a thing? If you limit it to ten people and only 12 or 13 posters want to be a part of this, then you really aren't changing it up that much.

3-If you limit it in scope that much you're wasting even more time by repeatedly forming and dissolving a body AND making sure you don't use the same people every time.

4-I don't see how a group of 10 forum users "enforcing board policy" is anything other than another version of backseat moderating, which is heavily frowned upon here. What if the mod just says "fuck off we're not doing it that way, because I said so and you guys can't do dick about it." What then?

[Coyote]

1-What can a group of ten people with potentially varying schedules and levels of committment do faster and more efficient than one of the staff here? First you have top figure out what you want to convene for, then you have to pick those ten people, then you have to have a discussion and potentially a vote. That's a lot of fucking wasted timewhen compared to the current system of "PM a moderator who takes a look at it and then makes a judgment decision based on actual authority."

In some threads, you know there will be the potential for trouble; say if the IvP moratorium is lifted. Or, if it seems a particular poster is being a consistent problem, but managing to stay just within the rules. Mods can convene a Star Chamber to watch over the situation as it develops, and let the Star Chamber make decisions rather than having to shepherd a situation constantly (a drag on the Mod's time). It would not be convened for every little thing.

Also, if it is a sitting body, just with rotating seats, then it is already in place to deal with whatever comes up, as it comes up.

2-How many people on this board realistically want to participate in such a thing? If you limit it to ten people and only 12 or 13 posters want to be a part of this, then you really aren't changing it up that much.

That's one of the reasons I brought this up. People could volunteer, or be asked by Mods or peers.

3-If you limit it in scope that much you're wasting even more time by repeatedly forming and dissolving a body AND making sure you don't use the same people every time.

Again, having a standing body that is ready at any given moment, can alleviate that. Or, if that is too much of a bother, maybe have some hand-picke dpeople ready to go to "jury duty" once it becomes evident a problem is developing.

4-I don't see how a group of 10 forum users "enforcing board policy" is anything other than another version of backseat moderating, which is heavily frowned upon here. What if the mod just says "fuck off we're not doing it that way, because I said so and you guys can't do dick about it." What then?

It's not "backseat modding" if it is part of the plan. If the Mods appoint them, then it is official. This is a way for Mods to stay out of a fray, and say "Imma let you guys handle this, let me know if you're ready for a titling or a tempban or something, because I don't have time to constantly monitor this thread".

Bear in mind, this isn't replacing Mods throughout the board-- this is to help Mods better use their time when the Mods feel it is useful. The Mod doesn't have to accept their suggestion, but it gives more flexibility. Right now we have a thread becoming an increasing trainwreck until finally, the problem gets so big a Mod just wades in with a banhammer. A Star Chamber, or Jury, or Panel, or whatever-- the name isn't important-- watches over certain situations and then recommends action to the Mod so the Moderator isn't getting tied down in any one thing. Not only would it waste the Mod's time, but make even the best Moderators susceptible to making a decision in a moment of impatience.

[Coyote]

To belabor ( )--

A Star Chamber could have been appointed to, say, "watch over this TrekDestroyer guy and let us know where or how he fucks up". The people in the Star Chamber can then say "we've kept an eye on this guy, and he's fucked up in all sorts of threads through several forums. We recommend a title/temp/perma ban". (Sure, eventually, TrekDestroyer got sorted out on his own, but this is something that could be applied to a new poster who seems destined for that fate).

Or, in N&P, a group of people stand ready to watch over any Israel vs. Palestine thread the crops up, and alert a Moderator that "this is getting out of hand, and we recommend titling X and temp-banning Y". The Mod can look over any evidence and carry out the recommendations, and do it without having been dragged into it personally. It would be a decision made with more professional detachment.

[Big Phil]

Coyote, what exactly is the problem for which you're proposing this solution?

[Darth Fanboy]

In some threads, you know there will be the potential for trouble; say if the IvP moratorium is lifted. Or, if it seems a particular poster is being a consistent problem, but managing to stay just within the rules. Mods can convene a Star Chamber to watch over the situation as it develops, and let the Star Chamber make decisions rather than having to shepherd a situation constantly (a drag on the Mod's time). It would not be convened for every little thing.

This is the dumbest sounding idea on this forum ever. by the time you get everything set up the situation is either completely out of hand or never develops.

Also, if it is a sitting body, just with rotating seats, then it is already in place to deal with whatever comes up, as it comes up.

Are you even listening to yourself? I'll go into coordination flaws more later but you're going to try and get rotating groups of ten handpicked by the staff THAT YOU SAY IS OVERWORKED and then coordinate them all into your moronic inquiry.

That's one of the reasons I brought this up. People could volunteer, or be asked by Mods or peers.

That really didn't answer my question.

Again, having a standing body that is ready at any given moment, can alleviate that. Or, if that is too much of a bother, maybe have some hand-picke dpeople ready to go to "jury duty" once it becomes evident a problem is developing.

So people need to be on call for this? I think you seriously overestimate how much of their time most people are willing to invest in this board that also care enough to do this. We do have a select few people that do care and are willing to put in the time, they are called moderators.

It's not "backseat modding" if it is part of the plan. If the Mods appoint them, then it is official. This is a way for Mods to stay out of a fray, and say "Imma let you guys handle this, let me know if you're ready for a titling or a tempban or something, because I don't have time to constantly monitor this thread".

Which completely defeats the purpose of a moderator if he is just going to delegate his or her admin given authority. The board isn't a democracy. Policy is set, moderator enforces policy, having a discussion if there is a unique situation or gray area that isn't easily resolved. There is no need to convene and coordinate the schedules of ten other people to do this. This is an international forum with posters from multiple continents and even more timezones, you think you're going to get this done quickly even with people picked in advance?

Bear in mind, this isn't replacing Mods throughout the board-- this is to help Mods better use their time when the Mods feel it is useful. The Mod doesn't have to accept their suggestion, but it gives more flexibility.

You're basically just admitting this is useless. If a mod wants a hand there are other mods and a mod forum. We're back now to your bureaucracy fetish.

Right now we have a thread becoming an increasing trainwreck until finally, the problem gets so big a Mod just wades in with a banhammer.

Seems like that thread was locked in rather short order without the need to convene your ridiculous internet jury.

A Star Chamber, or Jury, or Panel, or whatever-- the name isn't important-- watches over certain situations and then recommends action to the Mod so the Moderator isn't getting tied down in any one thing. Not only would it waste the Mod's time, but make even the best Moderators susceptible to making a decision in a moment of impatience.

Or, as a better solution, we could find more people like SCRawl to join the ranks so that there are actual moderators with actual authority in more places.

[Lagmonster]

Or, as a better solution, we could find more people like SCRawl to join the ranks so that there are actual moderators with actual authority in more places.

Fuck yes.

To everyone that has a problem with SDN, there are two things you personally can do. Yes, you. All of you.

1) Make better posts. Seriously; and if you don't let your goat get got, we won't gut your goat. If everyone followed that, even if you all had completely opposite opinions from one another, the community would still function smoothly.

2) Volunteer to help the staff. This follows from #1, but we are spread thinly and need people who give a shit and fit the mold of #1 above. Understand that some of the old guard, however loyal to their responsibilities, are now much closer to 40 than to 20, many have families and established careers, and that there are consequences to this given that we are volunteers.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'll volunteer. Galdly. I've got plenty of time on my hands and I'm on here for far too much of my time. Might as well put it to good use.

[Coyote]

Coyote, what exactly is the problem for which you're proposing this solution?

It was noted (most recently in the IvP moratorium thread) that there is no "middle ground" between "ordinary posting" and "banhammer". Things like titling and temp-bans have largely fallen to the wayside, with the only real consequences for poor behavior being a ban.

In the same thread, Edi said that things like IvP threads were a time suck and annoying to watch over, and tended to be distracting.

Something like this would allow Mods to see to it that a potential problem stays monitored, without having to become a babysitter.

[Coyote]

This is the dumbest sounding idea on this forum ever. by the time you get everything set up the situation is either completely out of hand or never develops.

Well, I'm trying to come up with an idea. Take a look at Lagomonster's post after yours; apparently the Mods could use a bit of support. I think my Star Chamber idea is a good one, at least in theory (obviously or I would not have posted it), and so I presented it precisely so it could be looked over by more people and either saluted, or flaws I had not thought of are exposed. As far as convening quickly, see below.

Also, if it is a sitting body, just with rotating seats, then it is already in place to deal with whatever comes up, as it comes up.

Are you even listening to yourself? I'll go into coordination flaws more later but you're going to try and get rotating groups of ten handpicked by the staff THAT YOU SAY IS OVERWORKED and then coordinate them all into your moronic inquiry.

Actually, the idea would be a lot simpler than you may realize. If you have time, you can simply say "I can help oversee anything that comes up, at least until August, when I will be on vacation".

Or, if it is a body that is always convened, but with rotating seats, then it is even easier; nothing has to be assembled in the midst of a problem; the Mods can just say "we need some help overseeing this thread, the meltdown potential seems high".

That's one of the reasons I brought this up. People could volunteer, or be asked by Mods or peers.

That really didn't answer my question.

To me, it seems you're treating this like a done deal that I am trying to ram through the board's acceptance. It's not. It's an idea I had to fit what seemed (to me) to be a potential problem. The whole purpose of this thread is to discuss merits or flaws, and contemplate improvements that could make this useful, or, if it is too flawed to be salvaged, then reveal it as such and move on to the next idea.

Again, having a standing body that is ready at any given moment, can alleviate that. Or, if that is too much of a bother, maybe have some hand-picke people ready to go to "jury duty" once it becomes evident a problem is developing.

So people need to be on call for this? I think you seriously overestimate how much of their time most people are willing to invest in this board that also care enough to do this. We do have a select few people that do care and are willing to put in the time, they are called moderators.

And Mods can't do everything, all the time, and they, too, get tired, distracted, or sucked into threads or frustrated. As to whether people would care enough to devote the time, those people probably wouldn't do Star Chamber stuff very often, if at all. But the board is full of regular posters, mini-mods, and people who have a lot invested in the board overall, so you might be surprised. We're coming up on a 10-year anniversary for the board; a lot of these people have been here since "Day One" (or before, for the ASVS folks) or close to it. The truly disinterested have probably already drifted off.

It's not "backseat modding" if it is part of the plan. If the Mods appoint them, then it is official. This is a way for Mods to stay out of a fray, and say "Imma let you guys handle this, let me know if you're ready for a titling or a tempban or something, because I don't have time to constantly monitor this thread".

Which completely defeats the purpose of a moderator if he is just going to delegate his or her admin given authority. The board isn't a democracy. Policy is set, moderator enforces policy, having a discussion if there is a unique situation or gray area that isn't easily resolved. There is no need to convene and coordinate the schedules of ten other people to do this. This is an international forum with posters from multiple continents and even more timezones, you think you're going to get this done quickly even with people picked in advance?

Actually, having people across multiple time zones is a help. If everyone in a Star Chamber was in, say, the US and Canada, then that would leave gaps in coverage. This wouldn't be a handful of people all working together at the same time, constantly monitoring one thread, this would be someone who would be on the board at his or her normal times, but also willing to keep an eye on potentially problematic threads and report to a Mod if things get out of hand, if Mod hasn't yet had time to get to it or notice it.

Bear in mind, this isn't replacing Mods throughout the board-- this is to help Mods better use their time when the Mods feel it is useful. The Mod doesn't have to accept their suggestion, but it gives more flexibility.

You're basically just admitting this is useless. If a mod wants a hand there are other mods and a mod forum. We're back now to your bureaucracy fetish.

If a person who's serving on a Star Chamber makes silly recommendations on a constant basis, then they won't be called on anymore, so that people who make "useful" decisions can take their place. As for bureaucracy, remember this isn't a special forum for special posters to gather and discuss things, and preen, like the Senate became. Seriously, think about how low-key this would play out-- no special sub-forums, no special vote threads, but rather a couple of PMs between a Moderator and a handful of people who aren't involved in the debate:
"There's an IvP debate starting up. Could you keep an eye on that and let me know if things get out of hand? I can't be on 24/7, and these things tend to devolve."
And that's it.

The Star Chamber would have zero ability to influence board policy or rules, so there'd be very little "Bureaucracy" at all.

Right now we have a thread becoming an increasing trainwreck until finally, the problem gets so big a Mod just wades in with a banhammer.

Seems like that thread was locked in rather short order without the need to convene your ridiculous internet jury.

Seriously, dude, I never said that a jury would be convened for every. little. thread. You're applying an extreme interpretation.

Or, as a better solution, we could find more people like SCRawl to join the ranks so that there are actual moderators with actual authority in more places.

More mods or mini-mods may be the better solution. Like I said, I'm just proposing an idea, not trying to convince you that "this is gonna be done, and you're gonna do it!". Mods could use some support. This was my way of proposing some support without adding people to the Administration. If you have different or better ideas, then by all means, let's have them.

[Sea Skimmer]

I see no possible advantage and everything the slow moving train wreck senate was out of his, not just no but hell no. We never needed a senate in the first place, we just as shit don't need a trimmed down replacement. If we need a few more mods, then some can be appointed. Making life more complicated is just dumb.

[Thanas]

Or, if it is a body that is always convened, but with rotating seats, then it is even easier; nothing has to be assembled in the midst of a problem; the Mods can just say "we need some help overseeing this thread, the meltdown potential seems high".

[...]
If a person who's serving on a Star Chamber makes silly recommendations on a constant basis, then they won't be called on anymore, so that people who make "useful" decisions can take their place. As for bureaucracy, remember this isn't a special forum for special posters to gather and discuss things, and preen, like the Senate became. Seriously, think about how low-key this would play out-- no special sub-forums, no special vote threads, but rather a couple of PMs between a Moderator and a handful of people who aren't involved in the debate:
"There's an IvP debate starting up. Could you keep an eye on that and let me know if things get out of hand? I can't be on 24/7, and these things tend to devolve."
And that's it.

So in addition to checking whenever a topic becomes volatile, I now also would have to PM 10 people, then read through their PM responses, check their work for errors and then check the original topic as well?