StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Mr. Coffee wrote:Here's a thought... Instead of tossing out retarded ideas that you already won't work or might even make things worse we just not propose retarded ideas. Just saying...

Because it might stimulate people to think of better ideas that will work.

I do this a lot, actually, propose things I know are extreme when I can't think of anything better in hopes that someone will rebut me with a better idea, so I can learn what it is and adopt it for myself.

Skimmer can vouch for the fact that I have done this for years and it's not some sort of backpedaling.

Given the amount of drama alot of your proposals cause maybe you should stop making so many.

Nobody's forcing you to spend any time on this if you don't want to.

And Marina has a point about stimulating discussion.

Then stimulate productive discussion. Quit wasting people's time with ideas that you know are crap.

Mr. Coffee wrote:It wouldn't. This is yet another lame idea from the HoC...

Ah, but the idea is from a Senator, so this is clear evidence that the Senate is deliberately attempting to sabotage the HoC

If we do this, the Senate's purpose becomes highly questionable. Since the House is open to everyone, you might as well just put all decisions not made by by Admin decree to popular vote and shut the Senate down, right?

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No, the House of Commons and Senate would become a combined advisory body, just like the US House and Senate.

I'm not sure it's a good idea, but it's one counterproposal to be considered, at any rate.

If the House votes it down, they would have stopped the measure from passing. It could be re-opened and re-discussed but I think that would be rather rare.

Their were specific reasons for the setup in the US. As I recall, their was a conflict over weather to give each state equal voice, or base representation on population. The US system represents a compromise to that problem. No such situation exists here, so a different justification will be required.

Note I'm not condeming this idea. I believe in democracy, and my personal inclination is to offer this idea some support. But it hasn't really been justified by anything I've yet read, and their are implications that need to be adressed, specifically the resulting uselessness of the Senate and a slowdown/clogging of the board's response to issues.

JointStrikeFighter wrote:Given the amount of drama alot of your proposals cause maybe you should stop making so many.

Alternatively, people could stop taking everything so seriously.

Adrian Laguna wrote:Alternatively, people could stop taking everything so seriously.

If you want banning and titling people to be pure comedy, then show trials it is. Actually I'm all for that, frankly those old threads look pretty fun to me. The 'use more temp bans' proposal fits right in with that.

Adrian Laguna wrote:Alternatively, people could stop taking everything so seriously.

I've already suggested that the 'lol I was just kidding obviously' emoticon needs to be installed. Not being part of the old boys club, I'll just be ignored for making a spurious and humourous suggestion.

Oh sorry I missed your cop-out there.

What emoticon is that?

Is it like the new Hitler emoticon? //:-=|


Ohhh, shit, did I just Godwin? I wasn't trying to.

It's speculative, I haven't seen any likely candidates. But the sentiment is used at least as often as the 'my face is an arrow pointing right' sentiment, so I figure it deserves a spot. I'm sure the emoticon people can suggest something relevant.

Isn't it :V ?

Stark wrote:I've already suggested that the 'lol I was just kidding obviously' emoticon needs to be installed. Not being part of the old boys club, I'll just be ignored for making a spurious and humourous suggestion.

That's what is supposed to mean, IIRC.

Oh sorry I missed your cop-out there.

It wasn't a cop-out.

That'd work if people used it, they don't. They make 'outrageous/contraversial/obviously rubbish/attention-grabbing suggestion' and then later say LOL OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A JOKE when nobody agrees/everyone laughs/etc. Thus, it needs to be an emoticon, so if people don't use it, they can fuck off.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Because it might stimulate people to think of better ideas that will work.

I do this a lot, actually, propose things I know are extreme when I can't think of anything better in hopes that someone will rebut me with a better idea, so I can learn what it is and adopt it for myself.

Skimmer can vouch for the fact that I have done this for years and it's not some sort of backpedaling.

If you’re going to invoke my name on the matter, then you can also remember that I suggested knocking it off because it is annoying, and most of the ideas are just clearly dumb. It tends to make people waste time pointing out how dumb they are, not coming up with better ones. Given the shear quantity of discussions going on right now we don’t need more obviously bad ideas.

There are even methods of stimuating discussion that aren't hijacking, time-wasting personal-involvement methods, as well. I can stimulate a discussion without making myself look like a compete idiot and derailing the thread; Zeon should try this out.

Oh and again, we need the 'oh I was joking OBVIOUSLY' emoticon.

Stark wrote:Oh and again, we need the 'oh I was joking OBVIOUSLY' emoticon.

Question: is that not one of the many uses of the wink ( ) smiley?

Sea Skimmer wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Because it might stimulate people to think of better ideas that will work.

I do this a lot, actually, propose things I know are extreme when I can't think of anything better in hopes that someone will rebut me with a better idea, so I can learn what it is and adopt it for myself.

Skimmer can vouch for the fact that I have done this for years and it's not some sort of backpedaling.

If you’re going to invoke my name on the matter, then you can also remember that I suggested knocking it off because it is annoying, and most of the ideas are just clearly dumb. It tends to make people waste time pointing out how dumb they are, not coming up with better ones. Given the shear quantity of discussions going on right now we don’t need more obviously bad ideas.

'Touche.

I will remember that advice in the future.

Formless wrote: Question: is that not one of the many uses of the wink ( ) smiley?

That'd be fine, if we had some consensus on whatever it was and people used it as such to remove the drama-generating silliness of proposing obviously stupid retarded crap just to waste three pages of backbiting.

Zeon, you got your style and that's cool, but there's that saying about doing something for satire when you resemble it too closely. It might be unfair, but others could do it and get a laugh whereas due to your extremist history you get a much more 'she's probably serious' response, and your claims to the contrary simply look (as you note) like backpedalling.

The solution is to stop doing the thing, rather than expecting the result to be different.