StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not to create the board drama, and just to find out where opinions lay, Do you think the senate should be disbanded.

Yes Slash No

...Maybe I haven't been watching the right places or something, but this looks like it's coming right out of nowhere.

Unless conclusive evidence can be shown that the forums at SDN would somehow be better served without the Senate structure currently in place, which would have to be impressive in amount to convince me - I'm voting no.

Not worth it for the amount of bitching getting rid of it would cause. Besides, if it didn't serve some useful purpose I doubt it would have been kept around this long.

No. The Senate is fine. Some people are just uptight buttwads that need to find something to bitch about.

havokeff wrote:No. The Senate is fine. Some people are just uptight buttwads that need to find something to bitch about.

So we keep the senate around to give them a place to do that?

Just making it clear I am not saying BAN THE SENATE. I personally am just curious about how the poll will roll.

Wow, this is a lot closer than I would have thought.

Frankly, I think that trying to get rid of the Senate is a terrible idea. I think there's enough hostility between the Senate and the HoC to begin with. There's no need to make it worse.

As Ender said when we argued about it, in the end it's pretty harmless so I don't really give that much of shit. Having said that I think it's an utter wank whose only purpose has been rendered irrelevant with the opening of the House of Commons. So no.

FUCK! I pressed 'yes' instead of 'no'.

I think the senate is totally harmless and I think the plebes are harmless too, and that while most of the senate-plebe intercourses are bleh, when there is serious business, the senate does prove a little useful in providing an avenue for discourse from a bunch of people who're not dumb and who are not a hivemind.


JSF, your thread title is: Senate - Yay or Nay

Your poll says: Should the Senate be DISBANDED - Yes or No

I thought the Senate was Yay, and I ended up unintentionally voting Yes... for DISBANDING it.

You suck.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:
JSF, your thread title is: Senate - Yay or Nay

Your poll says: Should the Senate be DISBANDED - Yes or No

I thought the Senate was Yay, and I ended up unintentionally voting Yes... for DISBANDING it.

You suck.

I AM BAD MAN

WTF is it with people on this board that they create drama out of nothing? Seriously, why does nearly every dammed topic in this forum result in "THE SENATE IS EVIL/INCOMPETENT/ELITIST/NOT TO MY LILKING, THEREFORE [insert suggestion here]"?

I am going to say it right here - this forum is far worse than the Senate ever was when it comes to creating unnecessary bitching. There have been three or four good suggestions made by the HoC, but I fail to see why those could not have been raised by sending a PM to a senator you trust. If it would be up to me, I would disband the whole soapbox this has turned out to be and be done with it. It was a nice idea in theory, but in practice it is just freaking worthless.

It's ok Shroomy I got the same idea but the wrong way around (cause I'm retarded) so our votes balance out and shit.

BTW can someone point me to this massive HoC bitchfest? I've seen Dark Hellion and that's it.

Voted no.

thejester wrote:
BTW can someone point me to this massive HoC bitchfest? I've seen Dark Hellion and that's it.

Look harder.

Thanas wrote:WTF is it with people on this board that they create drama out of nothing? Seriously, why does nearly every dammed topic in this forum result in "THE SENATE IS EVIL/INCOMPETENT/ELITIST/NOT TO MY LILKING, THEREFORE [insert suggestion here]"?

I am going to say it right here - this forum is far worse than the Senate ever was when it comes to creating unnecessary bitching. There have been three or four good suggestions made by the HoC, but I fail to see why those could not have been raised by sending a PM to a senator you trust. If it would be up to me, I would disband the whole soapbox this has turned out to be and be done with it. It was a nice idea in theory, but in practice it is just freaking worthless.

With all due respect, I'd rather they were bitching about their frusterations in the HoC than holding it in until it burst out in an ugly flame war resulting in bannings. In other words, perpetual low-level simmering is better than calm that periodically explodes. If nothing else, I believe that this is a potentially legitimate purpose for the HoC.

That said, their have been valid suggestions, as you've pointed out yourself. Some have met with support, and some have been shouted down. But either way, their have been real, serious suggestions made here, and the complaints made about the Senate, justified or otherwise, do not negate or invalidate that.

You complain about people looking for any opportunity to complain about the Senate. Well, maybe some people have been too quick to attack the Senate (I honestly haven't followed this debate too closely). But their are also a fair few people on this board who seem to be looking for any justification to attack the House of Commons. Frankly I'm getting fucking tired of it.

Oh, and you think people will complain less about the Senate if you shut down the House of Commons? More likely, most of the people who post here who don't already blame the Senate will begin to do so as well.

I tell you what, I am getting pretty fed up with the anti-Senate whingeing here. I'm seriously considering saying that this will be the final thread on the matter and from now on, any thread that devolves into another pointless Senate Bash will be automatically locked and flushed. I am seriously losing my fucking patience with all the soiled diapers around this issue.

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, 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?

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

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Thanas wrote:WTF is it with people on this board that they create drama out of nothing? Seriously, why does nearly every dammed topic in this forum result in "THE SENATE IS EVIL/INCOMPETENT/ELITIST/NOT TO MY LILKING, THEREFORE [insert suggestion here]"?

I am going to say it right here - this forum is far worse than the Senate ever was when it comes to creating unnecessary bitching. There have been three or four good suggestions made by the HoC, but I fail to see why those could not have been raised by sending a PM to a senator you trust. If it would be up to me, I would disband the whole soapbox this has turned out to be and be done with it. It was a nice idea in theory, but in practice it is just freaking worthless.

With all due respect, I'd rather they were bitching about their frusterations in the HoC than holding it in until it burst out in an ugly flame war resulting in bannings. In other words, perpetual low-level simmering is better than calm that periodically explodes. If nothing else, I believe that this is a potentially legitimate purpose for the HoC.

I'd rather they stop bitching at all and grow up. That said, if people want to bitch at things, they can do so in testing or in the venting threads. It has worked before.

That said, their have been valid suggestions, as you've pointed out yourself. Some have met with support, and some have been shouted down. But either way, their have been real, serious suggestions made here, and the complaints made about the Senate, justified or otherwise, do not negate or invalidate that.

Sure. The problem is that every one of those suggestions could have been implemented via the old way. On the same grounds, the old system would not have resulted in all these worthles threads.

You complain about people looking for any opportunity to complain about the Senate. Well, maybe some people have been too quick to attack the Senate (I honestly haven't followed this debate too closely). But their are also a fair few people on this board who seem to be looking for any justification to attack the House of Commons. Frankly I'm getting fucking tired of it.

This relates to my argument...how?

Oh, and you think people will complain less about the Senate if you shut down the House of Commons? More likely, most of the people who post here who don't already blame the Senate will begin to do so as well.

They can do so in testing. We do not need a dedicated forum for that.

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, 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?

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

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?

Piss off.

Thanas wrote:I'd rather they stop bitching at all and grow up. That said, if people want to bitch at things, they can do so in testing or in the venting threads. It has worked before.

Frankly, I have doubts about Testing's suitability to replace the HoC, because the environment is not conducive to serious discussions, and moreover because of the "three page lock/deletion" rule. Using Testing as a substitute for the HoC is questionable, simply because Testing has a very different and less serious tone, is subject to different rules, and seems to have a rather different purpose (a joke/spam board as opposed to a suggestion board).

Wasn't this all taken into account when the House was created? Obviously, it was not felt at the time that Testing could fulfill the role of the House adequately. The question, then, is: do you want a place where people can just bitch, or a place where people's bitching can be channeled into useful discussions?

Sure. The problem is that every one of those suggestions could have been implemented via the old way. On the same grounds, the old system would not have resulted in all these worthles threads.

You are missing the whole picture (or choosing to overlook it). Yes, suggestions can be made to Senators by PM. However, weather that suggestion makes it past the writer's outbox depends entirely on discretion of the Senator in question, regardless of the merit of the idea. By proposing an idea in the House of Commons, it is possible to determine in advance how much support a new idea has, and get constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement.

This relates to my argument...how?

Your argument is that the House is a source of pointless bitching, and that that outweighs its usefulness? Well frankly, the same arguments could be made (and are made) against the Senate. I guess my point was that the Senate is not alone in being a target of hostility and bitching.

It is my opinion that any argument made against the House of Commons (redundancy, lack of productivity, source of bitching/grandstanding/hostility) could also be made about the Senate. But I don't see you calling for the shutting down of the Senate.

They can do so in testing. We do not need a dedicated forum for that.

Thanks for missing my point. Let me spell it out for you again:

You have a problem with people complaining about the Senate in the House of Commons. So you want to abolish the House. You really think that won't feed into the existing hostilities towards the Senate?

Coyote wrote:

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, 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?

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

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.

Coyote wrote:Piss off.

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

Thanas wrote:WTF is it with people on this board that they create drama out of nothing? Seriously, why does nearly every dammed topic in this forum result in "THE SENATE IS EVIL/INCOMPETENT/ELITIST/NOT TO MY LILKING, THEREFORE [insert suggestion here]"?

I am going to say it right here - this forum is far worse than the Senate ever was when it comes to creating unnecessary bitching. There have been three or four good suggestions made by the HoC, but I fail to see why those could not have been raised by sending a PM to a senator you trust. If it would be up to me, I would disband the whole soapbox this has turned out to be and be done with it. It was a nice idea in theory, but in practice it is just freaking worthless.

Well, if the drama was not contained here, it might spill over to the rest of the board.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Thanas wrote:I'd rather they stop bitching at all and grow up. That said, if people want to bitch at things, they can do so in testing or in the venting threads. It has worked before.

Frankly, I have doubts about Testing's suitability to replace the HoC, because the environment is not conducive to serious discussions, and moreover because of the "three page lock/deletion" rule. Using Testing as a substitute for the HoC is questionable, simply because Testing has a very different and less serious tone, is subject to different rules, and seems to have a rather different purpose (a joke/spam board as opposed to a suggestion board).

Precisely. That's it. We made a forum for mature, rational discussion when folks felt it was time to "do business", and we get spam. That shows disrespect not only to us and our time (which apparantly doesn't deserve consideration) but it also certainly detracts from the from the respect that others have earned here by bringing up rational topics.

Some folks are trying to discuss worthwhile topics while some seem intent on little more that rabble-rousing and soccer hooliganisim.

The question, then, is: do you want a place where people can just bitch, or a place where people's bitching can be channeled into useful discussions?

The signal-to-noise ration here is controlled by you, and people like you. If you are trying to blame the Senate for the lack of discourse here, then put down the crack pipe and step away from the lava lamp.

You are missing the whole picture (or choosing to overlook it). Yes, suggestions can be made to Senators by PM. However, weather that suggestion makes it past the writer's outbox depends entirely on discretion of the Senator in question, regardless of the merit of the idea. By proposing an idea in the House of Commons, it is possible to determine in advance how much support a new idea has, and get constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement.

This has revealed something about the previous system of PM'ing that we Senators apparantly did that no one appreciated: spam filters. It stuns me to think that there must have been so many dumb ideas being PM'ed all along that Senators would politely, and privately, ignore or shoot down with no one else knowing. Maybe the old way was, indeed, better.

Your argument is that the House is a source of pointless bitching, and that that outweighs its usefulness? Well frankly, the same arguments could be made (and are made) against the Senate. I guess my point was that the Senate is not alone in being a target of hostility and bitching.

A source of or a target of? I am increasingly unconcerned about sniping at the Senate by a few malcontents who seem intent to build the Senate into some giant fucking bogeyman of "powah and authoriteh" so they can attack it, when that "power and authority" exists in their minds, not in fact.

Read some Don Quixote to get an idea how I feel about their attempts to tilt the Senate Drago-- er, windmill.

You have a problem with people complaining about the Senate in the House of Commons. So you want to abolish the House. You really think that won't feed into the existing hostilities towards the Senate?

How about because the whining about the Senate is based on bullshit persecution complexes rather than fact? How about the fact that this thread was just started as a "let's ban the Senate! Raaarrr!" and nothing else. How about the fact that the HoC was created to be a platform of mature discussion about issues (when Venting or Testing aren't enough) but it is little more than a stage for them to showboat on?

If you're disappointed in the performance of the HoC's level of discourse, then police your own. If you have a complaint to make about the Senate, then make a fucking argument with facts and back 'em up. This "storm the barricades!" type thread is getting old because I think the Senate, the Admins, and Mike have gone a long way to try to seek answers, work with people, and show respect for concerns being brought up and we're getting a lot of shrieking and poo-flinging in return.

Coyote wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Thanas wrote:I'd rather they stop bitching at all and grow up. That said, if people want to bitch at things, they can do so in testing or in the venting threads. It has worked before.

Frankly, I have doubts about Testing's suitability to replace the HoC, because the environment is not conducive to serious discussions, and moreover because of the "three page lock/deletion" rule. Using Testing as a substitute for the HoC is questionable, simply because Testing has a very different and less serious tone, is subject to different rules, and seems to have a rather different purpose (a joke/spam board as opposed to a suggestion board).

Precisely. That's it. We made a forum for mature, rational discussion when folks felt it was time to "do business", and we get spam. That shows disrespect not only to us and our time (which apparantly doesn't deserve consideration) but it also certainly detracts from the from the respect that others have earned here by bringing up rational topics.

Some folks are trying to discuss worthwhile topics while some seem intent on little more that rabble-rousing and soccer hooliganisim.

I hope you're not trying to imply that I am one of the would-be rabble-rousers.

Also, I think the definition of "spam" in this case is somewhat subjective, and that regardless, some of us have tried to use the House of Commons for serious and productive purposes.

Coyote wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:The question, then, is: do you want a place where people can just bitch, or a place where people's bitching can be channeled into useful discussions?

The signal-to-noise ration here is controlled by you, and people like you. If you are trying to blame the Senate for the lack of discourse here, then put down the crack pipe and step away from the lava lamp.

I'm not trying to blame the Senate for the lack of discourse, though I do feel that some members of the board, Senators or otherwise, are underrating the House of Commons, or perhaps looking for an excuse to declare it a failure.

Coyote wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:You are missing the whole picture (or choosing to overlook it). Yes, suggestions can be made to Senators by PM. However, weather that suggestion makes it past the writer's outbox depends entirely on discretion of the Senator in question, regardless of the merit of the idea. By proposing an idea in the House of Commons, it is possible to determine in advance how much support a new idea has, and get constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement.

This has revealed something about the previous system of PM'ing that we Senators apparantly did that no one appreciated: spam filters. It stuns me to think that there must have been so many dumb ideas being PM'ed all along that Senators would politely, and privately, ignore or shoot down with no one else knowing. Maybe the old way was, indeed, better.

Presumably you would know if this were the case, being a Senator and all, so I'm inclined to believe you're being sarcastic, but I'm not sure what your point is.

In any case, you failed to address any of my above points. Even if the old system filtered out some spam, you haven't explained how that outweighs the advantages I described above, or how those advantages do not in fact exist.

Coyote wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:Your argument is that the House is a source of pointless bitching, and that that outweighs its usefulness? Well frankly, the same arguments could be made (and are made) against the Senate. I guess my point was that the Senate is not alone in being a target of hostility and bitching.

A source of or a target of? I am increasingly unconcerned about sniping at the Senate by a few malcontents who seem intent to build the Senate into some giant fucking bogeyman of "powah and authoriteh" so they can attack it, when that "power and authority" exists in their minds, not in fact.

Read some Don Quixote to get an idea how I feel about their attempts to tilt the Senate Drago-- er, windmill.

You hardly strike me as unconcerned, if your posting on the subject (including apparently descending into outright lies) is any indication.

Besides, even if some people have made poor use of the House of Commons, and even if every complaint about the Senate were completely invalid, that does not negate the positives, which I have already described and which I do not feel have been adequately rebutted.

Coyote wrote:

The Romulan Republic wrote:You have a problem with people complaining about the Senate in the House of Commons. So you want to abolish the House. You really think that won't feed into the existing hostilities towards the Senate?

How about because the whining about the Senate is based on bullshit persecution complexes rather than fact? How about the fact that this thread was just started as a "let's ban the Senate! Raaarrr!" and nothing else. How about the fact that the HoC was created to be a platform of mature discussion about issues (when Venting or Testing aren't enough) but it is little more than a stage for them to showboat on?

Ok, stop this bullshit now. Nothing in the OP supports either side. Its an opinion poll. You are putting words in people's mouths again, and if you need to lie to bolster your argument, maybe its not so strong after all.

Coyote wrote:If you're disappointed in the performance of the HoC's level of discourse, then police your own. If you have a complaint to make about the Senate, then make a fucking argument with facts and back 'em up. This "storm the barricades!" type thread is getting old because I think the Senate, the Admins, and Mike have gone a long way to try to seek answers, work with people, and show respect for concerns being brought up and we're getting a lot of shrieking and poo-flinging in return.

Well that's a rather one-sided interpretation. The House has a lot of opposition in the Senate and you know it. And its not like their have been no attempts at serious suggestions in the HoC.

As for "police your own," how the fuck am I supposed to do that? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a mod. As a matter of fact, aren't you one of the mods for the HoC?

I can argue against dumb ideas when they're posted here, and try to post better content myself, but I already have done that, to an extent. I'm not sure what more I or anyone else can do, except "more of the same."

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

Can I propose that the Senate should abuse its oppressive authority and boot this idiotic thread to testing? This is even stupider than the smiley thread.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I hope you're not trying to imply that I am one of the would-be rabble-rousers.

No, and I apologize for going off on you at first when I was PO'd. You were not my target, but unfortunately you just got there at the "right" time when I was going off. I had to go back and re-read what you wrote and I hope you understand that I was going off on the concept of the thread and the general attitude, rather than you in particular.

Also, I think the definition of "spam" in this case is somewhat subjective, and that regardless, some of us have tried to use the House of Commons for serious and productive purposes.

The Romulan Republic wrote:I'm not trying to blame the Senate for the lack of discourse, though I do feel that some members of the board, Senators or otherwise, are underrating the House of Commons, or perhaps looking for an excuse to declare it a failure.

That I agree with.

Presumably you would know if this were the case, being a Senator and all, so I'm inclined to believe you're being sarcastic, but I'm not sure what your point is.

I did, on occassion, get PMs for ideas that were not so great. While I try to explain (politley) why an idea won't be passed on to the Senate, I can only assume that other Senators were getting PM's as well that were full of less than well-thought out ideas as well. Maybe they responded, maybe they didn't. But the 'point' was, was that before an idea came to the Senate, it had already been considered worthy in private. Not to pick on poor ray245, who is a well-meaning person, but if he'd had to PM all his great ideas to a Senator first before getting them aired, how many of his suggestions would have seen the light of day?

In any case, you failed to address any of my above points. Even if the old system filtered out some spam, you haven't explained how that outweighs the advantages I described above, or how those advantages do not in fact exist.

I don't think the old system was advantageous. Remember, I wanted the HoC. I still do, and I think it can serve a purpose greater than it serves now. Hence, the noise that accompanies endless calls to attack the Senate piss me off, as would endless repeated calls for anything stupid that would happen here.

You hardly strike me as unconcerned, if your posting on the subject (including apparently descending into outright lies) is any indication.

Besides, even if some people have made poor use of the House of Commons, and even if every complaint about the Senate were completely invalid, that does not negate the positives, which I have already described and which I do not feel have been adequately rebutted.

That's because we are in agreement about the positives. The negatives, unfortunately, are what is causing there to be a cavalry charge against the HoC. In other words, the HoC is attracting bad press by these endless anti-Senate rants; people here are shooting themselves in the foot.

Nothing in the OP supports either side. Its an opinion poll. You are putting words in people's mouths again, and if you need to lie to bolster your argument, maybe its not so strong after all.

Look at the thread in context. Look at the whole layout of the terrain. This didm't come from nowehere. it was planted in ground made fertile by constant plowing up of bullshit attacks on the Senate.

Well that's a rather one-sided interpretation. The House has a lot of opposition in the Senate and you know it. And its not like their have been no attempts at serious suggestions in the HoC.

The reason there is opposition to the HoC in the Senate is because the HoC is being seen as a place where --ta-daa!-- rabble-rousers are using it as nothing more than to bring baseless attacks against the Senate!

As for "police your own," how the fuck am I supposed to do that? In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a mod. As a matter of fact, aren't you one of the mods for the HoC?

I am a mod, and I am trying to maintain a sense of free speech while balaning my increasing irritation at the endless attack threads. Hence my statement that started all this-- that any more stupid, baseless attack threads were going to be locked and flushed. You can police you own by calling your peers on their bullshit when they start doing stupid things, so that my threatened action becomes uneccessary.

I can argue against dumb ideas when they're posted here, and try to post better content myself, but I already have done that, to an extent. I'm not sure what more I or anyone else can do, except "more of the same."

There you go-- you do what you can, then, and keep doing it. So again, I'm sorry you got caught in my blast radius, but the thing that brought this up has gone on long enough, and so I'm going to start watching out for the formation of pointless attack threads a bit more militantly. No doubt the calls of "come and see the violence inherent in the system-- help, help, I'm being repressed!" will no doubt follow.