But given that the silent majority did not comment, the obvious conclusion to draw is that the consensus is to keep the stupid trolls, ban the funny trolls.
OT survey results
- Thread starter Atticus
- Start date
Another matter that could use debating is what would happen with duplicate threads in a unified OT. Currently you can have a thread in the Chamber and a thread in the Tavern on the same topic. But if the forums were to be merged, an RD thread alongside a non-RD thread for the same topic would probably be pretty detrimental to both. Would people be happy with living with whichever thread is created first? Or would certain topics have to RD (a suggstion that wasn't popular in the past)?
I wouldn't see the problem with some duplication. For example, a RD thread on a Supreme Court decision alongside a normal thread on it where we can mock Scalia. Both serve a distinct purpose.
RD threads were an abject failure for - among others - this reason.
Reviving the concept for a second go around will not make it any better all of a sudden.
The Chamber has utility as a direct result of the low traffic. Threads get bumped and sustained (instead of having a new one every three weeks on a similar topic).
This is very useful for the "ask a ..." threads, the foreign language threads etc.
In this lies the damage you will incurr if you delete the Chamber. Whether you implement RD threads in the merged OT or not will by and large not matter at all.
I am repeating myself here. You guys thought we have to have two parallel threads about this (in adition to the other like three recent ones).
There are few enough active Chamber threads that in the few instances that that comes up, it could be handled case by case. If it's the same subject being discussed differently, 
the serious one. If there's no real difference, merge them. Or if one has run it's course, lock that one and keep the other one the active topic. It's not going to come up more than a handful of times.
the serious one. If there's no real difference, merge them. Or if one has run it's course, lock that one and keep the other one the active topic. It's not going to come up more than a handful of times.
I think you should allow the concept of a more dynamic thread where the thread starter can turn the Red Diamond on and off just so long as the poster makes marker posts in the thread indicating the timing of such changes.
plastiqe
Grinch
Ahhh, so this is what that OT Survey I've heard mention of so many times is about. Y'know, somebody could have linked it in the Forum Feedback poll. Some of my responses in that thread would have fit better in this thread if I'd known it existed. : P
Interesting that the OT Reorganization poll topic was basically brought up in the OP, even if it took a long time to decide that a poll was needed. However, the fault I see in the OT Reorganization - Vote now. poll is that it doesn't do this:
*************************************************
One of the larger issues brought up in these results is forum governance. With active Admins something like OT Reorganization is usually not a problem, cause the Admin just goes "Captain Kirk" and solves the issue (to paraphrase one of the better replies in this thread). But here on CFC there are four Admins and their work has been delegated to the mods. Surveys are a valiant effort at including the community in the decisions that affect the community, but where I think it breaks down is when the referendum is decided on by mods.
I would propose a forum governance based on the American system of Executive, Judicial and Legislative. Admins are obviously the Executive and have final say over what happens to their site. Mods are obviously Judicial and are responsible for laying down the law. Legislative would be representative of the community and open to participation from anyone, noob to Admin alike. I think a few people have suggested something similar along the lines of a bipartisan committee; on another forum I was on it was called the Council.
How exactly the Legislative branch of the forums would function is open to debate. For starters I think a social group akin to the CFC Rules Discussion Group would be perfect if it allowed for polls (maybe polls can be added to social groups?). I think it's important that anyone be allowed to have a say but in order to get things done you'd probably need leaders with some form of control. Choosing those leaders can be anything from electing them in popularity polls to written applications chosen by an Admin with a term limit.
I'm sure there are smarter people than me on this site that could envision the details of how it should work. All it really needs to get started is willingness from the Execs to meaningfully involve the community in the decisions around here.
Lastly... if ever there was a thread deserving of being in the Chamber with the slower forum movement. This thread has 'civil discussion of the important topics' written all over it. : P
Interesting that the OT Reorganization poll topic was basically brought up in the OP, even if it took a long time to decide that a poll was needed. However, the fault I see in the OT Reorganization - Vote now. poll is that it doesn't do this:
OT Reorganization mixes "reunite the OT" (which it seems like people here are in favour of) and "bring back RD" (which doesn't seem so popular) into one poll question.
*************************************************
One of the larger issues brought up in these results is forum governance. With active Admins something like OT Reorganization is usually not a problem, cause the Admin just goes "Captain Kirk" and solves the issue (to paraphrase one of the better replies in this thread). But here on CFC there are four Admins and their work has been delegated to the mods. Surveys are a valiant effort at including the community in the decisions that affect the community, but where I think it breaks down is when the referendum is decided on by mods.
I would propose a forum governance based on the American system of Executive, Judicial and Legislative. Admins are obviously the Executive and have final say over what happens to their site. Mods are obviously Judicial and are responsible for laying down the law. Legislative would be representative of the community and open to participation from anyone, noob to Admin alike. I think a few people have suggested something similar along the lines of a bipartisan committee; on another forum I was on it was called the Council.
How exactly the Legislative branch of the forums would function is open to debate. For starters I think a social group akin to the CFC Rules Discussion Group would be perfect if it allowed for polls (maybe polls can be added to social groups?). I think it's important that anyone be allowed to have a say but in order to get things done you'd probably need leaders with some form of control. Choosing those leaders can be anything from electing them in popularity polls to written applications chosen by an Admin with a term limit.
I'm sure there are smarter people than me on this site that could envision the details of how it should work. All it really needs to get started is willingness from the Execs to meaningfully involve the community in the decisions around here.
Lastly... if ever there was a thread deserving of being in the Chamber with the slower forum movement. This thread has 'civil discussion of the important topics' written all over it. : P
