RedImperator wrote:You know, there's an easy way for the Senate to regain one of its functions--the mods could start referring disciplinary matters to the Senate again, rather than just summarily banning people. That was one of Mike's primary reasons for creating the Senate in the first place: restoring democracy and transparency to the disciplinary process. He even, if I recall correctly, explicitly used the words "star chamber" to describe the old way of banning people.
Here's another idea to make the Senate relevant again: let the Senate actually make binding policy decisions, subject to veto only by Mike.
You're missing my key distinction here. I'm not asking how to make the Senate relevant by adding levels of complexity, I'm asking how to make it USEFUL, helping the board run smoothly. Letting the Senate make binding policy decisions is laughable, we NEVER had that power, and rightly so. Mike can see our suggestions, but if he doesn't want to do it, he's not going to, end of story.
As far as punishments, the Senate has failed there rather spectacularly. By the time a case gets to us, it's usually beyond all hope anyway (We title people? Since when?). Granted, not always, but those have been exceedingly rare cases. Here's an easier way it can be done: put a thread up in the House of Commons, where the accused can even try to defend themselves. Not that it would really be necessary. Most of the trolls we've been getting lately have been of the self-destructing kind.
What I'm seeing in all of these arguments, and what I'm trying to show to everyone through rational discussion, is that the Senate has outlived its usefulness to the board. It was a good idea when it started, but the need for it has diminished over time and it went from being fun and a reward for solid members to a self-important echo chamber where nothing ever gets done.
The Senate is not some sort of hallowed institution people. It's not some business that's "too big to fail". I say we scrap it, let the House of Commons take over, and move on. If we really do need a senate-like body again for a specific reason, then we can easily create it at that time and move on.
As for making a vote, well, let's face it. Some people may enjoy the feeling of supposed power they get from being in the Senate. I am trying to appeal to their reason first, so that in the case that the Admins don't step in and abolish it anyway, a vote might actually pass. If our largely absent base of Senators rolls out of bed to find a PM asking them to destroy the Senate, they may just be so shocked and incensed that they would immediately vote "No" and thus we continue on as a flock of lame ducks.
I will put forward a proper vote soon enough, but before then I want to hear all the opposition to this movement. In fairness, there may be a legitimate use of the Senate I have overlooked that may justify its continued existence.