WTF Thanas?

[Thanas]

On another note, Thanas, what is HoC supposed to be, in your opinion? You define it alternately as a place "to have ideas brought up (yeah, what a great success that has been so far)" as well as "The HoC was created to allow people to air their grievances." While they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, a place for people to piss and moan and a place with actual responsibilities and authority are two very different things.

It is both. And I was unaware that bringing ideas up denoted any authority.

As far as bringing up ideas, what the hell do you want? This is a BBS that people visit for entertainment for crissakes, not a brainstorming session trying to solve the healthcare crisis in America. Are you seriously expecting hard hitting, serious discussions all the damned time. Hell, look at the Senate's behavior over the past 12-18 months, and its' not really all that impressive either.

I would submit that the current SC discussion thread is different as well as the vast majority of senate threads. What specific examples do you mean with the senate misbehaving in your opinion?

[Big Phil]

I never said the Senate was misbehaving; don't put words in my mouth. You're complaining the HoC isn't bringing up any good ideas, but look at the first two pages of Senate threads: votes for new senators, ban threads, discussions of punishment, and proposals for rules changes. It's mostly unnecessary fluff - nothing really impressive or meaningful.

And what's your deal with HoC and authority? Who do you think is demanding the HoC be given authority, and given that, as you pointed out, even the Senate doesn't really have authority, why do keep harping on this?

Edit: given that the HoC has no authority to ban or title people, why would you expect that sort of discussion in HoC?

[ray245]

I never said the Senate was misbehaving; don't put words in my mouth. You're complaining the HoC isn't bringing up any good ideas, but look at the first two pages of Senate threads: votes for new senators, ban threads, discussions of punishment, and proposals for rules changes. It's mostly unnecessary fluff - nothing really impressive or meaningful.

And what's your deal with HoC and authority? Who do you think is demanding the HoC be given authority, and given that, as you pointed out, even the Senate doesn't really have authority, why do keep harping on this?

Edit: given that the HoC has no authority to ban or title people, why would you expect that sort of discussion in HoC?

Perhaps there is not much things to discuss about the board? The senate isn't in charge of running a board or even mataining it. That's the role of Mike, the admins and the mods, not the senators.

Seriously, tell me what sort of discussion do you expects the Senate to discuss?

Titling a member? Discussed in the senate. Asking for a ban to be handed out? Discussed.

The senate usually discuss about things that has a tangible effect, whereas the House of Commons doesn't. This is actually a good thing as opposed to a bad one.

Take for example, the 'Do you think that we have a problem with reflex judgment?' thread. Do you think that any major action is going to be done due what I said in that thread? No, it's just people talking about the community as a whole.

When people discussed about SC in the senate, you can be certain that some action will be taken and backed up by proper arguments.

In my opinion, the senate is far more useful to the board than the house of commons, namely because the senators would be more mature so to speak.

We don't get things like a "Joke Nomination" in the senate, where people decides to nominate me for the "lolz!", nor do we get any attempts to turn the board into a democracy down there.

It's not about how much power and control the senate have, but about how useful the senate is to Mike and the admins over the house of commons.

[Thanas]

I never said the Senate was misbehaving; don't put words in my mouth. You're complaining the HoC isn't bringing up any good ideas, but look at the first two pages of Senate threads: votes for new senators, ban threads, discussions of punishment, and proposals for rules changes. It's mostly unnecessary fluff - nothing really impressive or meaningful.

Like I have already said, the senate does at least pay attention to what is happening. Look at the SC thread - we have meaningful discussion there.

But really, what are your specific examples for concluding the senate is not impressive?

And what's your deal with HoC and authority? Who do you think is demanding the HoC be given authority, and given that, as you pointed out, even the Senate doesn't really have authority, why do keep harping on this?

This whole mess of a thread started because someone had the idea of giving the HoC some votes in senate threads. So that is what I am harping about, because the subject of this thread are a few of my comments about that proposal.

Edit: given that the HoC has no authority to ban or title people, why would you expect that sort of discussion in HoC?

The purpose of the HoC is to act as a glorified commentary forum on what the senate is doing, thereby providing the senators with alternate views or arguments. Do you agree that authority is not a requirement for having an opinion about something?

Which is also not restricted to commenting only on ban or title threads. Look at the nomination thread for just one example.

[Big Phil]

Like I have already said, the senate does at least pay attention to what is happening. Look at the SC thread - we have meaningful discussion there.

But really, what are your specific examples for concluding the senate is not impressive?

Dude, the SC thread is unnecessary drama, coupled with Internet Nerd feelgood bullshit [LET'S MENTOR TUBBS! YAY!]. I get why you all feel the need to discuss it (he is fucking annoying), but frankly a PM to an Admin or Mike saying "Tubbs either needs to shape up or get lost" would have been just as good. I know others think the "visibility" of the Senate makes the board more fair but, as you keep saying, Mike & Co. ultimately run this place as a despotism, so that "visibility" is mostly an illusion to placate a handful of whiners - NOTHING you guys decide is actually binding if Mike disagrees.

As far as specific examples, I already pointed out what Senate threads actually consist of; it's almost all fluff on the first few pages of the Senate. The HoC has some actual discussion of changing board policy (IvP moratorium, Use of the term "Jap," Forum suggestions, etc.). Considering how you seem to think the HoC hasn't produced a single good idea yet, I would expect that you could point to hard hitting, substantive threads in the Senate demonstrating how you guys are super duper awesome and the HoC is just a bunch of lameasses, but you can't as most of the Senate's threads are nominations, bans, etc., which makes it seem like sour grapes that the HoC even exists.

This whole mess of a thread started because someone had the idea of giving the HoC some votes in senate threads. So that is what I am harping about, because the subject of this thread are a few of my comments about that proposal.

Well, that's a stupid suggestion, so I guess we're in agreement there.

The purpose of the HoC is to act as a glorified commentary forum on what the senate is doing, thereby providing the senators with alternate views or arguments. Do you agree that authority is not a requirement for having an opinion about something?

Again with the authority kick - dude, we're in agreement, so drop it.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, for fuck's sake... Are people still going on about this useless shit?

If the Senate wants to use their time for fluffy bunny shit, who cares? If they want to use their time for productive shit, who cares? In both cases, there isn't anything in the Senate's rules that say they can't post fru-fru fluffy crap and there also isn't anything that says they have to be productive. They could have Duchess post three pages of threads full of the best batshit crazy she could muster and it wouldn't be at all against the rules (and I know sure as hell I'd love that shit too. When she's decides to flip the batshit switch she produces some of the best damned rants this board is capable of. Duchess is my homegirl...). They could post two pages full of votes for choosing amusing pet names for every user on the board and it wouldn't be against the rules at all (and it'd be fuckign hilarious if they did that).

Same goes for HoC, only more so. The only reason why this bitch got created was because the non-senators kept bitching and complaining over the Senate supposedly acting without any real input from the rest of us (I still think Hotfoot trolled the shit out of the Senate with the HoC idea, and much hilarity ensued). There isn't anything in the board, Senate, or HoC rules that say we have to post nothing but serious crap and there aren't any rules saying that the Senate, the Mods, the Admins, or Mike Wong has to even consider anything we post here. It's a fucking feel good measure, that's all. It gives a place where we can bitch, whine, and moan with the occasional useful suggestion so that if any people who actual can effect board policy decide they want to see what the "plebes" think they can read it.

As for Colefail, if the Senate wants to discuss his place on the board, or lack there of, they can. After all, that's part of their job. Hell, I was one of the people that volunteered to help mentor the little asshole. Even though I've tried to help him in the past (as well as mercilessly mock him when heacts like a tool, which lately is all the damned time), and he either hasn't taken a damned bit of it, I said I'd do it and goddamnit I'm gonna do it if the Senate decides to go that route. I'm a sucker for the underdog like that.

Anyfuckingway... Sanchez, quit yer bitchin'. Thanas, keep on rockin' my Teutonic Homeboy. Rest of you do whatever.

[Big Phil]

Anyfuckingway... Sanchez, quit yer bitchin'. Thanas, keep on rockin' my Teutonic Homeboy. Rest of you do whatever.

What bitching, Latte Boy? I'm just having a discussion with Thanas, started by the whole "give HoC voting authority" concept, which is just stupid, and its moved on from there.

EDIT - Don't know if you noticed (you might be twitchy from all the java, and not able to focus on the words on the screen ), but Thanas started the whole "bitching about lack of substance" discussion with his comments about HoC. I don't know who originally started that (it wasn't Thanas... Knife maybe? Doesn't really matter...), but your point about HoC and the Senate being fully within their mandate to post fluffy useless shit is right on. Neither the HoC nor the Senate HAS to post only on serious topics, so that entire line of criticism is pretty ridiculous; I simply tried to point out that the criticism would have stronger legs if the Senate weren't FULL of fluffy, ridiculous threads.

[Mr. Coffee]

Neither the HoC nor the Senate HAS to post only on serious topics, so that entire line of criticism is pretty ridiculous; I simply tried to point out that the criticism would have stronger legs if the Senate weren't FULL of fluffy, ridiculous threads.

Dude, if the Senate wasn't a collection of fru-fru fluffy posts with the occasional harumph-harumph seriousness they wouldn't be anywhere near as great a source of comedy fodder as they are.

[Chardok]

Neither the HoC nor the Senate HAS to post only on serious topics, so that entire line of criticism is pretty ridiculous; I simply tried to point out that the criticism would have stronger legs if the Senate weren't FULL of fluffy, ridiculous threads.

Dude, if the Senate wasn't a collection of fru-fru fluffy posts with the occasional harumph-harumph seriousness they wouldn't be anywhere near as great a source of comedy fodder as they are.

And we can all agree that a loss of that magnitude is simply unacceptable. Regardless, the Senate is an amusing, if unnecessarily bloated, ornament on the SDN tree that, if nothing else provides an interesting stufy in ell oh ell one oh one.