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.Coyote wrote: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.The Romulan Republic wrote: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?
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.
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.Coyote wrote: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?The Romulan Republic wrote: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?
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.
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.Coyote wrote: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.The Romulan Republic wrote:Also, if you consider this post to be "pointless Senate Bashing", then I'm sorry. It is not intended as such.
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?"
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]Coyote wrote: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?
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]You're flaming me for making a claim that I never even made, based on words you put in my mouth?
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 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.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.