Senate yay or nay, definitive

[The Romulan Republic]

First of all, I should point out that I always tend to take the free speech position, even when most people probably wouldn't. However, I try to have valid reasons for the positions I take. In any case, I hope that I can clarify my position on this.

In the event that we see persistent whining about the House of Commons on the same level as the whining about the Senate, would you also be willing to forbid criticism of the House? Or is this a one way deal?

Oh, asking for more substantive discourse is "forbidding criticism" now? Seeking something more that the whining of brats and the barking of dogs is stifling opposition and free speech? Sorry, I must have been sick the day they covered that in Oppression 101 when I learned to be a Senator.

Ok, maybe I made an unjustified assumption (though you seem to be falsely assuming that I view the Senate as some sort of Gestapo, to use your wording later in this post). It certainly was not my intent to do so. It's just that terms like "pointless," and "whinging" can be somewhat subjective, and when you said "I'm seriously considering saying that this will be the final thread on the matter...," I guess I felt concerned that you were talking about a moratorium on Senate criticism threads. Also, their is the fact that your definition of "pointless" might be rather different from mine.

Also, my question stands: would you be willing to enforce a comparable rule on behalf of the House? Note that I don't really approve of such a rule for either the House or the Senate. I'm just wondering.

Also, how do you define "pointless Senate Bash?" Do you have any objective way of determining when criticism ceases to be constructive, or do simply mean to ban any criticism of the Senate automatically?

Can you use your fucking judgment? A thread that is little more than "let's ban the Senate! Torches! Frankenstein rakes! Nooses! Storm the bastille!" needs to be fucking dissected and its worth weighed?

Is that another defamatory attack on the OP? In any case, you've apparently missed the intent of my post, which I believe was a more general question regarding your definition of "pointless Senate Bash." Which frankly is a relevant question, given how subjective these things can be. One reason why I oppose limitations on speech in most cases is because things like this can be so damn open to interpretation.

And to be honest, if you really see the OP (or the poll results) as "let's ban the Senate! Torches! Blah Blah Blah!" then I don't particularily trust your f*****g judgement.

Also, if you consider this post to be "pointless Senate Bashing", then I'm sorry. It is not intended as such.

Not the post in itself, but that you actually found it worthy to defend the pointless criticisms as anything other than potential rabble-rousing. You compared it to the stifling of any criticism, like I was going all Gestapo or something.

I think that people are going to make pointless criticisms sometimes, but given how subjective the definition of "pointless criticisms" can be, it would be impossible to stop it without also interfering in threads that have merit.

Note that, so far as I can recall, I never gave any specific examples of criticisms that I am defending, other than saying that certain members of the Senate are against the HoC (which is pretty much obvious). If I haven't even said what criticisms I'm defending, what causes you to assume they're "pointless" ones?

Of course, you could also just enforce the existing rules against spamming and trolling. I think the first question that should always be asked when considering a new rule is "can the problem be solved by enforcing the existing rules?"

You mean like the "objective criticisms" and "supporting arguments" that were presented in the OP, about why the Senate should be disbanded? Eh? That long list of well-thought out and well-reasoned arguments that were presented as good reasons to disband the Senate?

No, that's not what I meant, nor what I said (nor was the OP even attempting to argue against the Senate). But thanks for jumping to that assumption. I'm sure it was easier than answering my questions.[/quote]

You're flaming me for making a claim that I never even made, based on words you put in my mouth?

You know, I'm sorry if I read something into your comment, but it seemed you were comparing this to useful criticism; and that my bitchfest about it as stifling criticism in all cases (Senate, HoC). I'm really irritated right now, and while I see myself as generally open to criticism, I just want useful and meaningful criticism, and I don't see this as very useful or meaningful and said so. If you want to know about pointless bitching and whining about the HoC, yeah, I'd want to shut down the noise and enhance the signal, are you that blind? Why do I need to spell it out?[/quote]

Ok, I get your intentions. But frankly, I would appreciate it if you spelled it out as much as possible, for the reasons I have already mentioned. How am I supposed to know what you mean by "pointless criticism?" You were clearly talking about more than just this thread, and so was I.

Also, this topic is an opinion poll. Nothing more, nothing less. Now maybe you consider that to be spam, but for the last time, their is nothing in the OP that attacks the Senate. I am aware of the context in which this thread came to be, but in the end, it is what it is. How could I compare this thread to "useful criticism," when its not structured as criticism at all? And regarding stifling all criticism, I'm sorry if I jumped to the assumption that that was your intent, or in any way seemed to do so. However, without knowing what you consider to be "pointless criticism," and as you seem to be seeing criticism where it isn't obviously their, I think I have reason to be concerned about legitimate criticism being blocked as well.

I am, have been, and still remain a big supporter of the House of Commons; that's why I'm here. I was one of the people that pushed for it's creation... remember? If you need me to remind you of this, sorry, I'm not in Catering. It should be very clear what "side" I'm on but I am going to criticize some of the things going on here in the HoC because to me they aren't living up to standards. And I'm getting more than a little weary of it.

I know you support the House of Commons, and I've been trying to remind myself of that when I respond to your posts, and not make unjustified assumptions. However, I'm worried that by enacting a new rule against pointless Senate criticism, you might also be restricting legitimate criticisms. I am also concerned that their could emerge a double standard, wherein its acceptable to attack the HoC, but not the Senate. Hence my questions. I'm glad that you have clarified matters somewhat.

[The Romulan Republic]

I just want to add that I'd say the poll is pretty good evidence of how the board (or at least those who frequent the HoC) regards the Senate.

Now at 73% against abolishing the Senate.

[General Zod]

I just want to add that I'd say the poll is pretty good evidence of how the board (or at least those who frequent the HoC) regards the Senate.

Now at 73% against abolishing the Senate.

I dunno about anyone else, but I only voted no because there wasn't an option for "This poll is worthless spam".

[Formless]

I voted no because the idea is, well, stupid. The only reason the Senate or the HoC aren't doing their jobs is because they are bogged down in all this self reflective BS. What happened to the days when issues came to the senate rather than the senate/HoC creating their own whole cloth out of thin air? I miss those days.

[aerius]

Put the Senate on hold for a couple months and go back the old system. And bring back the Ubiqtorate so we can oppress Testing. Then we can take a vote on the Senate.

[erik_t]

As long as the Senate remains an old boy's club for ASVS'ers, with no expectation of even maintaining a standard of quality from members on the board as a whole, I don't see that it has any real utility.

[rhoenix]

As long as the Senate remains an old boy's club for ASVS'ers, with no expectation of even maintaining a standard of quality from members on the board as a whole, I don't see that it has any real utility.

You need some extensive, profound and thought-provoking evidence to back this up and not have this vague handwavery-laden statement be laughed at on its face for absurdity.

[erik_t]

Regrettably, I don't know how to do that without running afoul of vendetta rules.

Fortunately, it only matters as much as the opinions of this body, ie not at all.

[rhoenix]

Regrettably, I don't know how to do that without running afoul of vendetta rules.

I'll make sure you're on the list to get one of the "Help, I'm an SD.Net plebe and I'm oppressed!" t-shirts, then. Would you prefer woe-is-me blue, down-the-street-not-across red, or emo black?

[Trogdor]

Voted no. While I'll admit that I have not always liked the Senate, I long ago came to the conclusion that its value as a tribunal for those users who have broken board rules alone justifies its continued existance. It's loads better than putting the poll up in the HOS, at any rate, and while I think that the transparency that the Senate allows for is often overrated, ban polls and discussions are definitely something I would not like to see taken behind the closed doors of the mod forum.

Coyote, while I can understand your annoyance with the anti-Senate sentiment that often gets expressed in here, I believe it's safe to say you jumped the gun on assuming this was more of it. JointStrikeFighter created this thread to see which way the wind of public opinion was blowing, which I think was a pretty damn unwise thing to do, especially in the wake of the latest round of drama and gnashing of teeth between the Senate and the HOC, but hardly constitutes anti-Senate bashing. Also, the poll is so far pretty overwhemlingly in favor of the Senate's continued existance.

[erik_t]

Regrettably, I don't know how to do that without running afoul of vendetta rules.

I'll make sure you're on the list to get one of the "Help, I'm an SD.Net plebe and I'm oppressed!" t-shirts, then. Would you prefer woe-is-me blue, down-the-street-not-across red, or emo black?

Oh piss on a rope. I didn't post some whiny diatribe in testing or venting. The question was asked; I answered it for myself.

[rhoenix]

Oh piss on a rope. I didn't post some whiny diatribe in testing or venting. The question was asked; I answered it for myself.

If the meaning of my sarcasm wasn't clear, it was to shine a spotlight on how you alluded to having problems with how things are run, but chose not to elaborate, citing the "vendetta rule" as the reason. This just seemed like a weak copout to me, quite honestly.

If you've a better idea than those already presented, then voice it.

[Coyote]

A lot of us are not ASVS leftovers; in fact I never even knew of ASVS until I joined here and there was still a lot of talk about it from the "old hands". I'm "second wave" myself: never part of ASVS, but joined SDN in the second wave of people who came here after the ASVS crew made accounts.

[erik_t]

(edit: to rhoenix) You have a PM. Anyone else curious as to my specific thoughts can ask.

[Coyote]

Coyote, while I can understand your annoyance with the anti-Senate sentiment that often gets expressed in here, I believe it's safe to say you jumped the gun on assuming this was more of it. JointStrikeFighter created this thread to see which way the wind of public opinion was blowing, which I think was a pretty damn unwise thing to do, especially in the wake of the latest round of drama and gnashing of teeth between the Senate and the HOC, but hardly constitutes anti-Senate bashing. Also, the poll is so far pretty overwhemlingly in favor of the Senate's continued existance.

I did go off the chain on Romulan, who was but the unfortunate bystander trying to ask a question when the straw broke my camel's back, for which I felt bad afterwards. But, yeah, I do feel that my frustration was borne from a well-deserved annoyance. The timing on this was a poor choice, I agree, and JSF may well have meant nothing more than a garnering of opinion, but... well, anyhow, I have to admit when General Zod mentioned just flushing to Testing I considered it, but I wanted this to be a determining moment-- the notion of ditching the Senate is going down in flames and I want the partisans to see that so we can set this aside once and for all-- and get on with business.

[Stark]

Sorry, Coyote, but some random poll being 'defeated' isn't going to change anyone's attitudes. People who are cranky at the Senate aren't going to change due to this. You're not 'defeating' 'partisans' and the issue isn't going to go away.

[CmdrWilkens]

Sorry, Coyote, but some random poll being 'defeated' isn't going to change anyone's attitudes. People who are cranky at the Senate aren't going to change due to this. You're not 'defeating' 'partisans' and the issue isn't going to go away.

No but it does mean we can finally rest from worry that the view expressed by the vocal minority was shared by a larger portion of the board. The bitching I can get and, as was mentioned when we decided to create the HoC, its probably better to have the release valve of the HoC than to let things either build up or jump into the general forums. So its nice to know that the whiners are in the minority but if they want to keep whinning and occasionally they have a good idea then the HoC was worth it.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Just to clarify AGAIN. I just wanted to see where the board in general lay in its opinion. Though, in retrospect I probably should have asked Senators not to vote.

[General Zod]

Just to clarify AGAIN. I just wanted to see where the board in general lay in its opinion. Though, in retrospect I probably should have asked Senators not to vote.

That wasn't clarification, that was backpedaling. You went from "should the senate be disbanded? I'm really not trying to create board drama!11!!" to "lol just kidding it's only an opinion poll". Even if that's really what you intended it's mind-numbingly stupid and pointless to put it in the HoC of all places.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ah, "Should have not let Senators vote". Hee. The oldest trick in the book when you want to force a result--eliminate the people the law is about from being able to vote. That shows exactly what this is, the internet equivalent of a push poll, and one that backfired, no less.

[Flagg]

Hell, I only voted "yes" for the luls.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Just to clarify AGAIN. I just wanted to see where the board in general lay in its opinion. Though, in retrospect I probably should have asked Senators not to vote.

That wasn't clarification, that was backpedaling. You went from "should the senate be disbanded? I'm really not trying to create board drama!11!!" to "lol just kidding it's only an opinion poll". Even if that's really what you intended it's mind-numbingly stupid and pointless to put it in the HoC of all places.

"Not to create the board drama, and just to find out where opinions lay" OP. I wanted to find out what memebers of the board outside the vocal minority thought. Too which everyone immediately went off that "RARAR PEOPLE TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE SENATE!"

Ah, "Should have not let Senators vote". Hee. The oldest trick in the book when you want to force a result--eliminate the people the law is about from being able to vote. That shows exactly what this is, the internet equivalent of a push poll, and one that backfired, no less.

Well I think we already knew that Senators support keeping the senate dont we

[General Zod]

"Not to create the board drama, and just to find out where opinions lay" OP. I wanted to find out what memebers of the board outside the vocal minority thought. Too which everyone immediately went off that "RARAR PEOPLE TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE SENATE!"

I'm sure a poll titled "should the senate be disbanded" had absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ah, "Should have not let Senators vote". Hee. The oldest trick in the book when you want to force a result--eliminate the people the law is about from being able to vote. That shows exactly what this is, the internet equivalent of a push poll, and one that backfired, no less.

Maybe that was the OP's intent, but I'd like to see you try to support that claim with any evidence. Seriously, you're not the first to assume that the OP had an agenda beyond simply posting an opinion poll, but I'd almost call this borderline paranoia.

And obviously the OP did not ask Senators not to vote at the time. Nor could the poll have really excluded Senators from voting.

Seriously, the OP poster has not attacked the Senate in any post, has not argued or even implied to my knowledge that it should be disbanded, and has repeatedly and politely tried to state his intent. Maybe he's lying through his teeth, but without any evidence that that is the case, how is this more than just character assassination- the second oldest trick in the book?

[JointStrikeFighter]

"Not to create the board drama, and just to find out where opinions lay" OP. I wanted to find out what memebers of the board outside the vocal minority thought. Too which everyone immediately went off that "RARAR PEOPLE TRYING TO SHUT DOWN THE SENATE!"

I'm sure a poll titled "should the senate be disbanded" had absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.

Conceeded, I should have named the thread "Do you like the senate y/n"