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

[LadyTevar]

I'll make this short and sweet.

Mike is the only one who can make this decision.
Mike is not here.
Answer is NO.

Any questions? Because my comments other than the above are
No
Hell No
Fuckin' Hell No
We don't need it.

[Coyote]

Oh fuck off. You didn't take criticisms earlier but suddenly now?

Calm down, I didn't "take criticism" when it was "RAR, ZOMBIE SENATE111ONEONE" because it isn't "zombie Senate". I have addressed rational criticisms that didn't fixate on that aspect.

There, again-- here's some other good ideas and thoughts.

Again, fuck you. I had a thought too that was well recieved by a moderator whose job was actually going to be affected by your stupid proposal but instead of smiling and saying "thank you" you proceeded to argue for your pet project without making any points.

Seriously, dude, I'm not going to immediately fold my cards the moment that Darth Fanboy said this was a bad idea. You're not the only one here. I knew not everyone would like it, but then some might. That's also why I made the vote changeable, in case people were persuaded --one way or the other. I knew some people would poke holes in it, but I wasn't going to just completely walk away in defeat the moment I encountered a couple of naysayers. How would anyone get anything done the moment they get a bit of flak? Seriously, I've been around SDN long enough to know that no one ever gets a pat on the head and a smile for effort.

Skimmer, Thanas, and myself have brought up very relevant cirticisms of your idea you failed to sufficiently answer to but apparently because we didn't pat you on the head and tell you it was a good effort you can't see where people are coming from.

Skimmer said this was "Senate II". Thanas brought up the impractical side of drawing up a fresh jury each time something unfolded, which means that (1) I also said a permanent body with rotating chairs might be another alternative and (2)that a jury or chamber or whatever doesn't have to be convened for every thread. In other words, parts of the idea were seen as problematic, and I simply provided counter arguments.

You also responded to Thanas by saying that you admit there is a good argument for not reforming the body repeatedly, and once you remove that then it really does become a stripped down version of the Senate.

Remember, it would not be a permanent body of people --like a Senate. If there was always a Star Chamber, the seats would rotate. No one would stay in there for a period of time (TBD). That was one of the ideas I put forward, to be examined.

You've then gone on record as saying it doesn't have to be formal or recognized. If not then what's the point of naming it and putting a policy in place?

Because I said from the get-go that I liked the name and that was the main rationale? That the idea (originally in history) was that it was a group of magistrates that had the authority to apply the law to nobility, and I found that amusing in this context? And that I said it could be called by whatever name?

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to "win" something here, I'm trying to discuss ways to help out. I know-- the whole idea that someone here isn't trying to WIN! Is alien, but it does happen.

You are obviously very passionate about this idea and you are debating a point about an idea that you came up with. So yes, in a sense you are trying to "win" but the goal isn't to win for the sake of winning, it's about imporving the board which it really doesn't.

I'm probably not as passionate as you think, actually. If I was passionate about it (and the idea of regurgitating the Senate) I'd probably have stuck to a more vehement defense of something more official, formal, and recognized. I really did not realize how viciously embittered people were of the Senate, to the point that simply bringing it up as a juxtaposition was going to lead to such howls of outrage. So, yeah, I stick to my proposal because I think it's a good idea and worth some discussion, and I realized that my initial idea was probably going to be morphed-- and I'm actually fine with that. I thought that folks would find the name silly but be open to the concept of "peer review", which is after all a way of validating scientific papers and I thought would go over well, although there'd probably be some modification of that, too.

I'm not so wed to the idea that it has to be called "The Star Chamber" and that it has to have a set number of people, or whatever. It seems to me that the Mods could use some sort of support, so I suggested something. People didn't like the idea exactly as it was presented, and that (IMO) is because I happened to compare it to the Senate.

But the Senate was supposed to be a way to help Darth Wong so he didn't have to get so deeply involved in every little thing. So, in my vision, the motivation and idea behind the Senate's creation were rational and made sense, but the way it ended up being implemented failed. So I was trying to find a way to do the things the Senate was intended to do, but without the built-in flaws and inherent drama. That was the rationale behind my comparison. Honestly, had I known how much the comparison would have failed my initiative, I would have stayed well away from any such comparisons.

[fgalkin]

Wow, I can't believe this idea still refuses to die.

Coyote, there is nothing in your system that is superior to the system we currently have. The only difference is that it requires more people (meaning it's even slower) and more work with absolutely no benefit to the board. In other words, it's a bad system. The mods have consistently told you this, forum users have told you this I, as a former supermod, have told you this. Why do you persist in pushing for a system that nobody wants?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Fanboy]

Coyote I'd love to continue to point out your bullshit and let you keep proving how much of a wanker you are but Tevar ended it in a much better way than continuing to listen to you babble. But go ahead and conntinu believing that I have any motivations other than the fact that this is a terrible idea and forming legislative/judicial bodies outside of the official staff is not a path to any kind of progress.

[Thanas]

Even if it were a standing body, then it would not really lessen the workload, as I would still have to check the work these guys or girls do. So the additional work is still there.

[Hillary]

I'll make this short and sweet.

Mike is the only one who can make this decision.
Mike is not here.
Answer is NO.

Any questions? Because my comments other than the above are
No
Hell No
Fuckin' Hell No
We don't need it.

This, basically.

If people were largely unhappy with how the mods were doing their job, I could understand this proposal. I don't feel, however, that this is the case at all. The only posters who appears to have problems with the mods are those who deserve all they get - which supports the fact that they're doing OK imo.

As for scales of punishment, I don't see a need for it. It's not real life, it's a fucking message board. No one gets hurt if another poster flames them. No one dies if an argument isn't backed up with evidence.

People are either worth having as members or they aren't. If a decent poster fucks up, the thread gets HOSed and they are hung out to dry for all to laugh at. If they continue doing so, they get warnings and if they degenerate to the point that they aren't worth having, they get the boot. Simple As.

[Coyote]

Alright, no problem. The only reason I kept explaining was because I didn't want it to get dismissed because it was perceived as "another Senate", which seemed to be the main theme to the objections. I don't mind if it fails, just so long as it fails for the "right" reasons rather than misinterpretation.

[Thanas]

I am not opposed to a new senate or any council, but I am opposed to more work. I hope that distinction has been made clear in my posts. I do not mind listening to reform proposals at all and find it positive that some are thinking about ways to improve this board.

[Coyote]

I am not opposed to a new senate or any council, but I am opposed to more work. I hope that distinction has been made clear in my posts. I do not mind listening to reform proposals at all and find it positive that some are thinking about ways to improve this board.

Actually, this has been useful, for different reasons-- Skimmer reminded me of the "Report Post" button, which I had completely forgotten about ( ).

[Dalton]

Restrictions on the report button are to discourage frivolous use by people who would otherwise report a post at the drop of a hat for flimsy reasons. I do not ever recall disciplining someone for misusing the button.

[Vympel]

I don't see the need for any council, senate, or anything else. I don't see who it'll really help apart from the subset of the forum population who love engaging in tedious forum politics and wars of personality.

[Lagmonster]

Keep in mind the rules state that reporting normal rules violations with that button is essentially back seat moderating.

The mods want less work, but if the regular populace offers help, the rules not only refuse it, but also add to the moderator's workload by possibly punishing the folks who offer it!

The rules list where and when you can use the report post button. If something is an immediate problem, such as something which breaks Canadian law, that's a case for you to use the button. The button notifies all staff immediately, so it's like a send-to-all PM. The idea being that you guarantee a more immediate response to something that might require it. Some things, such as violations of PR1, can wait until a mod is online, so a PM will suffice. I cannot imagine how this could possibly be confusing.

[Coyote]

Restrictions on the report button are to discourage frivolous use by people who would otherwise report a post at the drop of a hat for flimsy reasons. I do not ever recall disciplining someone for misusing the button.

...If people are not to be punished for using the button, the rules shouldn't say they will be punished for it. The only thing it's allowed to be used for in the rules is breaking the most serious laws. Contrary to what comes up in every discussion thread where it's referenced, it is explicitly not to be used as a "neighborhood watch" tool. If this is inaccurate, you have the power to change the rules as written. Doing that would be infinitely more productive than saying one thing and doing another.

I'd say it is to keep someone from pushing the button because they're getting their ass kicked, and they've spotted a minor rules violation in the person kicking their ass, so they call the Mods as a form of artillery support.

The thing about the Report Post button is that it is likely to get used by someone who is involved in the thread, ie, an emotional involvement, so when the button is pushed it may not be for the best reasons, even if its use was "technically" accurate/justified.

The last time I remember it being used was when the 711chan invasion happened, and we were spammed with pictures of autopsies, some kiddie porn, and dead Iraqis with graphic wounds. It was invaluable during that.

[Lagmonster]

But wait, moderator precedent is unavailable since it's all done via (often unanswered or barely answered) PMs and/or a hidden forum, at best! In most cases, failure to enforce the rules has no documentation at all. It's an entirely arbitrary process with reasoning that exists only in one place, the mod's mind.

"Often unanswered" PMs? Really? Tell me about all these messages you've sent about complaints or problems that have gone unanswered, because I'd like to know.

As for the "arbitrary process" bullshit, only one man can issue exceptions to the rules. The rest of us can either agree to enforce them or we can quit. If you see an exception, it was either approved at the top, we haven't caught the problem yet due to time constraints, or someone did something wrong. And if there are loose cannons on staff, we HAVE a process for dealing with that. We even have a moderator review feedback thread where we will post the results of ANY internal inquiry or complaint about moderator behaviour.

If people are not to be punished for using the button, the rules shouldn't say they will be punished for it.

Don't overinflate the issue. It specifically says that the worst punishment you'll get for misuse is a warning, and possibly an informal one at that. It even says we give people the benefit of the doubt if they obviously meant well. Nobody is going to get banned for pressing the report button. If you're in the sweats over it, just send a goddamn PM. Or don't care, and leave it for someone who isn't handicapped by his own lack of judgement.

[Alyeska]

Destructionator XIII, it looks to me like you are calling Lagmonster a liar. Why? What axe do you have to grind here? What secret agenda is happening? The Staff has no nefarious plans to subvert the process of the forum. We try to enforce the rules. Mistakes happen and we try to correct them as things have happened. Its not always transparent, but there is no rule demanding it must be. You've been a member for 7 years now, things haven't really changed all that much.

You are effectively accusing the Staff of outright malice and deciept. For what purpose? Lagmonster is giving you useful advice on how to deal with bad situations, and your response is to question whether we would ban you. What The Fuck Man. Seriously, whats your problem? Do you have something you need to vent? I'd be more than willing to talk with you via PM and listen to what you have to say. If you want transparrency, I guess we could make it a specific public discourse. But seriously, whats up man? There has got to be something driving you to make these paranoid claims against Lagmonster. And they are paranoid (right or wrong). Please take a step back, you might see what we are describing.

[Alyeska]

What axe do you have to grind here?

Appealing to motive. Is anything I'm saying not objectively factual? Did I misquote the rules? Is there any fallacy in my argument?

Attack the argument, not the person.

Lagmonster told you to use the report button. You effectively accused him of lying. Grow the fuck up. I tossed you a life line and you just let it float by.

[Alyeska]

I was attacking neither an argument nor a person. I was trying to help you by asking a question and stating what I witnessed. You have seen fit to ignore it. Feel free to continue this course of action. But don't be surprised if the results are unsatisfactory.

[Darth Fanboy]

EDITING

removing my post because I had missed a previous one where the question I asked was answered. My apologies.

[Big Phil]

Destructionator... do you realize that you're currently behaving EXACTLY how many of our banned posters behave? They start raving, lashing out at everyone, a moderator comes along and tells them to knock it off, and rather than knock it off, they rant and rave even MORE than they were doing before, but now they try to quote the rules to the moderator.

If the Senate were still around, they'd be debating whether to give you a warning for about six weeks and end up not doing anything; instead, Alyeska just told you to knock it off (how unfair, right?), and now it's up to you whether you want to listen or become an object lesson.

[Lagmonster]

If they weren't private, there'd be no question here, would there? A public record would leave no doubt for anyone.

No more bullshit, I'm asking you in an official capacity to tell me which mods are ignoring problems. PM me names if you want and I'll bring it up in the mod forum; you can't say that there are significant abuses and then turn around and say that privacy rules prevent you from whistleblowing.

You're all unapproachable assholes anyway.

Really? You're going to try the same tactic that my four year old does when I won't let him stay up past his bedtime? I've just about lost any ability to take you seriously.

The rules disagree. Quoting IR2: "Let The Staff Decide. The administrative staff and Senate will decide what is an appropriate punishment when someone breaks the rules. Sometimes we may be in a lenient mood, but that does not tie our hands for the future."

That says pretty clearly that every rules decision is a decision of the staff, not just Mike. It explicitly states the entire process is arbitrary.

That obviously has to do with the severity of punishments. The rules themselves, which we are obliged to enforce and which inflexibly remind you that Mike is in charge, are penned by Mike and Dalton. I was very clear on that, and it stands: Our options as mods do not include ignoring rules, breaking rules, or arbitrarily dishing out punishments, or any punishments at all except where Mike has pre-approved us doing so (such as locking necros). At any rate, there's absolutely no point in trying to argue with you - all you have to do is PM Dalton, and ask him whether or not mods can or do act 'arbitrarily'.

I also think you'll find that nothing is anonymous, arbitrary, or unapproved; every mod action is labelled in the thread in question by the mod that performs it. I can tell you that requests for punishment are discussed in the mod forum first, but that only Dalton or Mike has the final word and we do tend to wait until we get an okay before we act where the issue is more serious than a simple administrative correction. If you note a serious exception to this, chances are it was by Word of Mike, or else a real abuse has taken place and you should raise it to Dalton.

No, it's a PR16 violation, which according to the disciplinary actions sections can lead to a ban. You won't be insta-banned for reporting a post, but that doesn't mean it's acceptable to use it in any regular fashion.

The context of this discussion was of people trying to help by using the report button, and what almost seems to be your fear that horrible, undefined and arbitrary things will happen to said person if they can't discern exactly how Mike wants them to use it. If you try to help, and you use the button wrong, we'll just write you a PM and explain how that wasn't the proper use of the button. If you are an asshole and just push the button on every post in a forum because you want to shit all over the place, that is not trying to help, and we'll probably punish you severely. In either event, Dalton or Mike will decide if something serious is required. I can discern the difference between reasonable and unreasonable in both contexts without needing to spell out addendums to every rule, such as defining exactly what "we" means. Why can't you? To add to that, no actions are anonymous, and avenues exist for you to report moderator abuse. What's to worry about?

[Alyeska]

Question for the moderators: is it allowed to report this post for being an AR1 and PR6 violation? (back seat moderating and dogpiling)

If yes, will you please edit the rules to reflect that? They currently state "The "Report this post" button is not for: Violations of any of the administrative rules [...]"

I believe that using the report post function for any perceived rules violation, not just specific ones, is the proper course of action. I assume good faith on the part of people reporting a post. And yes, it would be a good idea for the rules to be updated to correctly reflect the status of the button.

If no, please stop suggestion people use the button for such things. If this were the real world, that'd be called entrapment. (Unless his post isn't a rule violation, in which case some clarification would be nice too. Thanks!)

This sentence is a little off kilter. If reporting a post for AR1 and PR6 is not allowed, why exactly are we telling (or suggesting) you do this? If we've made the suggestion, thats the rule. We aren't trying to create a trap to punish people here. My only ulterior motive is making money at work and paying off my mortgage.

[MKSheppard]

I get almost fuck all PMs.

Even though I may only be a STGOD moderator and History Moderator, I can still raise issues in Modland for you guyz if you PM me.

Disclosure: I voted "Coyote, you goddamn wanker."

[Lagmonster]

Okay, I'll tell you what, I'll give you the fair shake I usually tell people I'll give them. I'll bring it up in the mod forum - specifically to Dalton's attention, since he's the only one who can contact Mike to enact a change in policy - that the report button rules be amended for clarity of the consequences of misuse, and to enable the button's wider use for people to report problems that should be brought to a moderator's attention. With a specific notation to your comments in this thread in case I've misunderstood. If Mike allows for the change to the rules, you'll be notified. Don't sit with your legs crossed; he's hard to reach.

Bear in mind that I'm still obligated to enforce AR2; you've been given a shitload of leash so far. Don't tug any harder.

[White Haven]

I'm actually quite glad to see your post, Lagmonster. I was finding myself in agreement with Destructionator the way things were going, and that's just an unsettling position to find myself in. (I kid, I kid!) ...But I only kid about the downsides of agreeing with Destructionator. The Moderator Doomtrain rolling in on him was getting a bit noxious.

Regarding the perception, accurate or not, of an inattentive moderator staff, I think a lot of that comes down to the secretive communications channels and deliberation forum. Aside from individuals or specific threads that get moderated, there's very little ripple when you do move on something, and none at all if you don't (outside of whoever PM'd a mod to begin with). That's all well and good when the mod contacted decides to intervene; the people involved in the thread see Thanas oppressing some fool, and that's that. They might not know the why, depending on how blatant a violation the aforementioned fool committed, but they see the action. If anyone thinks the enforecement is out of line, be it the target, the reporter, or a bystander, they have the information necessary to pursue the issue in the hopes of a resolution.

In the case of a reported violation that the mod contacted doesn't think warrants action, though, no one but the mod and the person contacting that mod knows anything even happened. If the reporting individual agrees with the moderator's presumably-PM'd response (or lack of response, depending) or when the reporting individual just decides it's not worth the effort to press the issue, nobody around hears about it. Whether or not the mod made a good call, others involved in the thread may well end up reporting the same thing over and over again because they simply have no way of telling that a moderator (in)action has already occurred. This can result in either one mod getting swamped by a flood of appeals on exactly the same topic, or the thread's occupants collectively 'shopping around' for a mod who will take action without even realizing they're doing it.

In summary, I'm all for transparency. The Senate was an abortion, and I'm not coming out in support of Coyote's Star Chamber proposal, but the one thing I did like about the old Senate was that it took deliberations and (in)actions out of the shadows and into public view. Did they fuck some of them up? Sure. And when they did, they had people outside the senate looking over their shoulders in a position to say 'what the fuck?' to higher authority, i.e. the mods/administrators. Make public everything that can be made public which, given the lack of OMG NATIONAL SECURITY concerns, should be most anything, and roll from there.

[Aaron]

^--This. The Senate also enabled a discussion of the board, it's culture and it's rules without AR2 hanging over the heads of the participants. I'd like to see something that enabled that to return. Not the Senate as it was, merely a way to openly discuss policy without the instant AR2 shut down.