STAR CHAMBER Q&A Thread - Page 2

I'm going with Coyote's analogy on this one... every forum needs SC enforcement. Everyone. There have been problems in the past in EVERY forum (even yours, Rath...). No forum is above SC. If SC decided to leave one forum alone, other mods would be pissy about them. It's only fair that we monitor all forums pretty equally.

But, as many have said before including myself... SC and mods are NOT connected. One has nothing to do with the other. If you have a problem with the mods, take it up with Nick. Problem with SC? Slap it in here. Otherwise, keep on keeping on.

(edited because I put CS instead of SC... we aren't running Counter-Strike here... I don't think...)

And I felt I handled the problems in my forum appropriatly, and there's no need for additional moderation there without my discrestion.

I'm on just as much as Star Chamber. My YIM, AIM, and e-mail is readily available. Is it too much to ask to be notified for just that ONE forum? I don't see Star Chamber actions being necessary in the future in that forum, but if they are, could the ruling party do me the common courtesy of informing before hand. Because odds are, I already know about it.

Rath, part of the problem is you thinking of it as YOUR forum. It's not. You mod there. I mod Culture and Free Form.

But these are all NICK's forums. So we're not trespassing on your territory or subverting your authority. We're doing exactly as the owner of the forum asked us to do.

And it has nothing to do with you. Or any other mod.

Fine. I'm not too happy about this, but I'll suck it up like a man.

Star Chamber's a dumb name, though.

My God I am in total agreement here.

Escpecially since I am a mod of the Budding Filmmakers forum.

I would like the readers of that forum to consult me about issues before the Star Chamber.

If whoever does not think I am doing what I should then they may go ahead and speak with the Star Chamber.

I didn't mind adding Davis to it because I can trust him enough.

Unfortunately after so long of rallying for that forum I'd rather like it if I were informed first (which I usually won't need to be as I read regularly) about anything going down in there.

That being said I must say Budding Filmmakers is the easiest forum and I have yet to take any action what so ever.

Muchos Gracias young filmmakers.

Let me add though that I realize it isn't my forum nor should I treat it that way. And seeing how this is Nick's choice I must sumbit to this.

Wish there was a better way but as of late things have shown we are well beyond lesser actions.

There's this crazy rumor going around that we have nothing to do with pre-existing mods and their status or how they're affected by our existence, CT.

Just some scuttlebutt I heard on the low.

But the very fact that you are both MODS (when you look at the top of the forum screen it says moderators) in the same forum makes you linked, and to say that you have nothing to do with the other gives a lot more credence to those "higher than mod" claims. Shouldn't SC be striving to WORK with the existing mods rather than blow them off completely?

Here's how many times I have consulted Dave Davis (co-mod of Culture and Free Form) before making a mod decision: 0

Here's how many times Dave has consulted me before making a mod decision there: 0

Here's how many times Nick has consulted either of us before making a mod decision there: 0

See a pattern developing?

There's no reason to get sarcastic.

Oh, but biting sarcasm is what the sTaR cHaMbEr is KNOWN for.

The STAR CHAMBER exists. Quit anticipating problems and get on with posting about something other than STAR CHAMBER. Please.

WHere's the sarcasm? My point is that there is very little difference between the way things were done before and now except that there are MORE people doing it with more abilities, but the things that people like Rath are complaining about were in place and being done far before SC ever existed.

And I heard a nary a complaint THEN.

That is my point.

being a newbie i've only just discovered the STAR CHAMBER (all caps seems to be the thing) and what it is, i used to frequent a much smaller movie message board where similar problems of authority were brought up, and that problem was the question of absolute power, who has it and who doesn't, the difference here being that it's a council making a majority of the decisions rather than a single person, from what i could gather, aside from that whole nick thing of course, which i think is preferrable, very cesaerian (you heard me), but the bottom line is that this is a great place, i'm actaully amazed by what goes on and the level of discussion that takes place, and i'll take the shit with the sherry, in other news, i just find it odd that the council would be named after a movie who's own council seemed doomed and defunct from the beginning, although it's been a while since i've seen it, but we all saw what went wrong there, i also find it odd that the mods (lower-cased seems to be the way) would be nick-named after a dying group of trendy '80's revivalists, overtaken and doomed by other trendy counter-culturalists, except in maybe italy, ah the lonely life of a boy and his vespa, no john! don't let her give heroine bob those pills! no! oh god! i wasn't ready for this!!!...

"oh tay pan kee?" - Frankie

this is all too humorous and sad. I've seen several online bb communities destroyed by in-fighting etc after new mods/administrators were signed on. It's happening...all over again.

I do have a question that was indirectly asked.

Why the name star chamber? Why not the borg, or the collective. Something cool.

Or maybe something that doesn't have the negative connotations that go with the Collective, the Borg, or sTaR cHaMbEr.

Someone in chat suggested Uncle Mitch.

Goddamn, people...

LET IT GO.

Who cares really? How about we wait until they possibly do someting stupid before we get into an uproar? I don't know why we all feel the need to instill this big brotheresque paranoia amongst the newbies when we all know we are all talking out of our asses. I know I am guilty of this but it was all in jest. Now I have the feeling that some people just enjoy going over the same topic over and over again. Star Chamber is here to stay. We will just deal with it and move the fuck on.

Solid advice, Slater. Now, wanna go down to The Maxx and grab a burger, or possibly enter a dance competition?

See here:

<a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0086356" target="_blank">http://us.imdb.com/Title?0086356</a>

Star Blazers would have been cool. Plus they'd have the Yamato.

Uncle Mitch would make a great uber-mod.

I posted this for Bateman and Slater. Complaining is the point of this thread.

I still think it should be Super Chicken.

I would've gone for the borg. Only because the first replies from SC used the phrase "we" a lot.

I think if the members of the team account for their actions...make them known internally to the other members. As a whole they can police themselves to be just, as well as serve our growing community...then I have no problem with the annonymity of Star Chambers' actions.

Having people like Micah and Whitehead on board is a pretty healthy start...

Cool hilarious reference there. Thanks for the heads up dave.

dumb me. double post.

It's the mouse in our pocketess......

And I officially like New Order guy.

PS: Careful, Rath, you're going to have me start talking like DeLerIUm....

"Borg" implies a collective that acts with a concensus.

<strong> This is precisely the way things are in STAR CHAMBER.

And folks, there's nothing in the name besides a particular movie reference/parallel. If STAR CHAMBER had been called X-MEN, INTERNATIONAL RESCUE, CIA or KGB, the result would be exactly the same.

Eh I don't expect much trouble and even less with the area I mod so I will just go with the flow for now.

Guys,

Let's not forget why this whole Star Chamber thing was neccesary. Nick was a heartbeat away from closing the boards completely. After all of the shit that went down, they were becoming more trouble than they were worth. We're not the ones who made things this way - we're just trying to help Nick make it right. I see a lot of justified concerns, and Micah is going out of his way to address them. But I also see a lot of undeserved paranoia, and that baffles me.

We all volunteered because we didn't want to see the boards gone. Not because we get off on the idea of power. Not because we wanted to piss people off. Because we wanted to help get this place back on an even keel.

And we're trying. We're trying real hard.

There will be problems, kinks in the system. This is a new way of doing things, although in most respects it's not that different at all. We don't have wacky new powers. We're not above or beyond any existing moderators. And we're not some loose cannon collective imposing our whims on the board.

Everything we've done so far has been based on what we think is best. We're refining the way we do things to avoid future problems, but we're always working from what Nick has asked us to do.

We're not anonymous. Everyone knows who we are, and everyone knows who's in charge. Before all this became a big deal, I'd hope that everybody here trusted and respected at least some of the members of Star Chamber. And those you don't like or trust? Well, that's why there's ten of us, drawn from many different age groups, cliques and old alliances. This is not a group set up to victimise or antagonise anybody. If people who last week thought of me as a friend now think of me differently because I'm a part of this then...that saddens me. It's a bit pathetic.

Given the detailed way we have to log everything we do with the Star Chamber login, things have never been more accountable. We have to give reasons and justifications for everything we do with this moderating ability. And if we fuck up, you can complain to Micah and he'll deal with it. I honestly fail to see where the skullduggery is in a system like that.

If activity under the Star Chamber login is anonymous it's because that is what Nick has specifically said we should do. It's to keep things simple, and free from emotional or personality issues. The system doesn't work if Person A has a problem with Member X and reads ulterior motives into their every action as moderator.

Rather than picking apart what we've done, or haven't done, or might do, I think time would be better spent looking at how we got in the position that this was even neccesary. You will see more threads locked, and moved. Nick wants us to clean house, and while we've got an evolving rulebook of how and when this should be done, it's going to be visible and hands on. Don't take this as aggression or abuse of power - if these boards are to be saved, then we need to toughen up on the things that threaten to spoil it.

Top of that list is fighting and flaming. From now on, a warning post will be made by one of us - in person. If things do not calm down, then Star Chamber - as a seperate entity - will lock the thread without prejudice. We're here to put out fires before they start, nipping this shit in the bud.

Searching for real world analogies doesn't really help anyone. All this talk of "absolute power" and "who watches the watchers", comparisons to secret police, the FBI, whatever, it's all a distraction. This is a message board. It's Nick's message board.

We're not infringing on your rights. We're not wielding some vast omnipotent power. We're trying to bend things back to the way Nick wants them. We can't ban people, we can't kick people out. All we can do is what moderators have always done - close, edit or move threads that are a problem. The fact that we do this using a common login, under Micah's leadership, isn't that different from the way things have always worked. Would people be up in arms if Nick had locked some of these threads? My guess is "no". So the problem lies with people's acceptance of the idea of Star Chamber...and the only way that will happen is through experience, because we're not going anywhere.

We're trying to help. We're bending over backwards to explain how and why this works. I don't know what else we can do other than ask people to judge us by what we achieve down the line.

Help us make it work. Because the alternative is no boards at all, and that's too depressing to comtemplate.

(doing my best Will Ferrel impression)

That Dan Whitehead is SO hot right now.

Look what I found under Bateman's pillow!!!

<img src="http://www.idlerants.com/chud/lovedan.jpg" alt="" />

Those t-shirts are still available from <a href="http://www.stonecoldpimping.com" target="_blank">www.stonecoldpimping.com</a> for just $19.99 plus shipping, by the way.

I've bought mine! Now if I can just find the matching G-String in my size...

Dan, are you talking about <a href="http://www.idlerants.com/chud/dantee.jpg" target="_blank">THESE</a>?

OK, now I'm scared.

It should also be noted that if a warning is issued by a member as themselves, and things continue, that you shouldn't presume that the person who made the warning was the SC member who closed the thread...part of the reason there's several of us is the coverage issue.

Example: I had to issue a warning in one of the Sex threads last night, but I can't go into that forum today because I'm at work. So, someone else will pick up the slack if things get out of hand.

Wait, maybe I should rephrase that last sentence.

What Dan said. If you have complaints after reading that, you've got too many complaints, and you're looking for flaws.

Really.

And I hate to say that.

Are we anticipating high turnover for the Star Chamber? Frequently infusing fresh blood and all that?

Edited to add I think this would be a BAD idea. Just want to make sure we have more or less the same folks responsible for things, and the rest of us not having to guess about an ever-shifting SC membership....

STAR CHAMBER has ever been our friend and ally.

Resistance is futile.

I honestly don't think so. The SC members were rather chosen by their stability among other criteria. It'd be best of SC members were around the whole time until the CHUDTV Cable Network* is in full swing, but we obviously know things change.

*Not a real plan, just an example of what the future of CHUD might bring...

I really appreciate the lengthy posts from Dan and Nick. I feel better about most of this, but (at the risk of everybody yelling at me) I still have just a couple concerns that I might as well bring up while this topic is open. The "shut up about it" vibe is already going strong here, so I'll keep this short.

1. Mod Chamber. SC people keep saying they have nothing to do with the mods, but I think they do, since they both do the same job. Some cooperation between the two groups would be nice, so toes aren't stepped on. I thought SC was supposed to be a last resort kind of thing, but it's jumping in very quickly, often before anything mod-worthy has happened. I just think that instead of pretending SC has nothing to do with mods, they should all communicate and work together to take care of things.

2. SC members. I don't know if it's just me, but I have a bit of trouble remembering who all is in the Star Chamber. I like the idea of them trying to get a thread back in line while posting as themselves, but that might get overlooked if people aren't aware of who is in the SC. Perhaps a custom title or a standardized sig line for the members would help. It's already getting a bit tedious to dig up that thread where the list was first posted.

3. A public side. There seems to be a bit of a divide between the SC and the rest of us, partially because they have an admin forum. That is both good and bad. It's good because they can take care of confidential stuff confidentially. However, it results in most concerns being responded to with a "We're talking about this" or "Actions are extensively documented." If some of this could be shown to the rest of us, it could help with the trust issues and keep the SC from seeming like an elite secret group. I can see why which member took action is kept quiet, but the reasons for each action should be said in the SC post that takes that action. Maybe regular updates would also be nice, I guess, since we aren't privy to the discussions and debates the SC has. Poxy is right that we should know SC's rules.

4. SC for SC actions only. If SC is a login for when action is needed, why is it being used at other times? I've seen it in the recent visitors list in the Chewers forum when there were no threads in danger of derailing and no SC action was taken. So was a member just signed in as SC for no real reason? Also, there's a post in this very thread from "STAR CHAMBER", with no indication of which member it is. I don't know if this is something the members have discussed (somebody would have to tell the rest of us), but I thought the SC name was only to be used when taking action.

That's about all I have. Hopefully I didn't jump in late enough to just have this blown off as after-the-fact whining, but I waited until now so that it wouldn't be blown off as before-the-fact whining. Some reply to this would be nice, so hopefully one of you has the time/patience to bother with it. I'm feeling better about this SC business, but still had a couple observations I wanted to get off my chest. Thanks!

Bob, I like your sig idea. Maybe SC could have a list of the members in its sig line, that way people who have a thread locked can easily see who to contact.

</strong>

Please don't be insulted, but I am mystified as to why I must explain this over and over. We have NOTHING to do with the pre-existing mods. Nil. SC is an additional mod function. That's it. It's that simple. There has been almost no coordination between co-mods of a forum before, and there'll be none now. We each act with autonomy. I've been co-modding two forums just like this for months now with scarcely a peep from either Nick, the co-mod, or anyone else on the boards. Same circumstances here. That's it. End of story.

</strong>

There will not be a constant notification of who is in the Star Chamber at any given time, nor will we identify ourselves on each individual action.

If you're that concerned about who is in the group, then you should take the time to read and memorize the basic roster. Any changes will be announced, but beyond that, it's on you to reinforce your own memories of who the group is comprised of.

</strong>

As I've already stated, SC "rules" are no different from the "rules" of any other mod. We're here to help keep peace, discipline, and organization as any mod is. HOW we will do that will differ according to the thread content, poster, location, and many other individual circumstances.

As for "trust" issues, more than a Herculean effort has already been made on the part of both Nick and the group to answer questions and explain things at length, and yet the same concerns get repeated over and over. At this point, either you trust us or you don't. If you don't, then only our future actions will change that.

</strong>

The post in this thread IS an SC action, and that action is answering queries, which has taken up far more of our time than any other activity related to this position. SC has not, is not, and will be used for casual instances. It's either to answer a question, give a warning, or to take other action. That's it.

Yeah, but I find it odd that a forum on religion has members offering others a sexual encounter, or comparing them to certain orifices.

When I last read that forum Friday, there were a handful of nice, interesting, polite discussions going on. I come in Monday morning, and it's all gone to pot.

Unfortunate.

I just wanted to point out that since SC has been created... there's been honestly very little for us to do! The SC forum is getting pretty quiet. You guys are behaving magnificently.

This of course doesn't mean we're going to stop paying attention. I just think y'all deserve a little pat on the back.

Please don't leave. Your comments are insightful and you've brought life back into the forum.

I spoke too soon with this. *Tsk, tsk, tsk...*

Heh, I was going to point that out as well...

Thanks. That wasn't an exit speach, that was a "Sick the Star Chamber on 'em, and maybe they'll learn to be respectful" speach.