Senate I Want to Believe-The Senate's Social Thread and Secret Society Roundtable

I think there are different expectations with respect to " in depth" discussion that is all. The Senate expects it because it is a niche forum designed for that purpose and that is the focus of the mods, whilst the JCC does not expect it but clearly that does not mean that "in depth discussion" does not or cannot happen there. People will gravitate to whichever forum suits them. Just because somebody doesn't frequent the Senate doesn't mean they are incapable of doing so it just means they aren't interested or couldn't be bothered.

At the end of the day it's always going to be a question of whether the thread topics are of interest. The Senate mods can relax the "in depth discussion" criteria somewhat but that won't matter if all of the thread topics are boring or are limited to a specialised field.

 

Except no one is saying that, and it's not the issue here. This entire thing has gotten rather silly. This is how the 2 forums exist together:

1)The JCC is like a pub. You can put on your jeans and favorite comfy shirt and go hang out with your mates in a familiar setting. All sorts of conservations happens in a pub, from politics to how silly a co-workers new hairstyle looks. However, the atmosphere itself doesn't readily create an environment for serious, in-depth discussion, because there are plates and glasses being clinked around, there's a game of darts taking place in the corner, and the group at the next table is yelling "MANCHESTER UNITED!!!" at the top of their lungs....And all are happening at once.

2) The Senate is like an official roundtable discussion. Or a university debate competition. Or an episode of Meet the Press or Charlie Rose. You have to put on a suit and tie, and the discussion is more structured and more direct with a more deliberate pace. Can you loosen up the windsor knot of the tie, or show up with a shirt and sweater once in a while? Of course. But the guiding force is still the roundtable type of environment.

Each one fills its own role, and offers its own unique experience. I've lost count on how many times its been repeated that neither one is necessarily better or worse than the other, they're just different by design. So I'm truly lost at all the "ivory tower" type of claims. Anyone here can take part in either forum according to their own schedule and wants and desires. When you feel like hanging out at the pub, go to the JCC and engage in rapid fire banter. If you feel like delving into more of the meat and potatoes of an issue, pop into the Senate, and contribute a paragraph or two. The JCC will still be there and vice versa. Maybe to one person, there might be only 1 topic a month they contribute to in the Senate, preferring the JCC. The reverse is also true as there might be someone who spends most of their time in the Senate, and comes over to the JCC to let their hair down a bit. Either one is fine, with every variation in between. This is no different than the relationship that exists with any other forum here, so I don't really see what the issue is.

 

Seems to me the issue is that some regulars from either forum feel unwelcome in the other one because of the difference in their design, while at the same time assigned to that forum whenever it is the sole venue where something of their particular interest is discussed.

 

In a community, these different establishments often exist on the same block. One can decide whether they're feeling stuffy or loose each day and plan their activities accordingly. If you realize this, and don't see what the issue is, why have you been arguing for so many pages? It's okay to change your mind. It's actually an admirable quality to realize that you may be wrong, and things aren't as bad as you thought they were. Usually when that happens, though, if we're talking about a decent person, one expresses their change of heart/mind and ends the discussion on a good note. That's what makes it an admirable quality--not pretending that you've thought this way all along, and don't understand what the issue is. You understand what the issue is... you've been arguing about it for days.

To touch on the conversation that happened a page, or so, ago, I think I agree that the senate should have its own space, and here's why:

If I decided that I wished to discuss abortion one day, and make a thread, I would not appreciate it being changed to a senate thread (I've seen that happen at the temp board--I don't recall if I've seen it happen here). I like humor mixed in with my serious discussion. I have a diverse set of friends, and can intermingle with a lot of them at once. I don't hang out with my stuffy friends one day, and my obnoxious friends the next. I think people from different backgrounds can interact and even learn from each other. It would be annoying to see the senate abortion thread and jcc abortion thread on the first page of the community. Holding tabs within the same board to different "standards," is goofy, but I guess I do get what you're saying about not being willing to change those standards... I just don't like the language a lot of you chose to use. Both Lowie and Merk are busy these days, and don't have time to police senate threads, making sure people are posting the way they're supposed to be posting. If they were moved back to the lone senate's slower pace, they'd probably appreciate. Other community mods could step in to help, but you've already expressed an issue with that. If the senate remains here, Jabba or Ender should be re-promoted.

Anyway... we'll see what happens.

I fee like I rambled in this post... I was up very late writing a paper, and my words aren't coming out they way they're organized in my head.

 

It's ok Harps, you cleared two paragraphs and it sounded like you wore a pants-suit, so it ticks all the boxes for a Senate post. This, OTOH? Pure JCC.

 

Hmmm... well, I'm currently rocking pajama pants and an old Grateful Dead t-shirt I don't know what to make of that. Should I be having an identity crisis right now?

 

It's ok this is the social thread. Pyjamas are allowed and we also relax our standards on citations and a bibliography.

 

I'm tired of forum hostility - it's a waste of time. I'm-a popularize that stuffy old Senate right now.

 

Well I'm wearing a Lacoste Polo shirt, RL jeans, desert boots and an Omega Seamaster. Is that appropriate for you?

 

im nude

 

Why don't you popularize the Senate, ES, and post a pic of that ITT?
You know, PPOR.

 

Sorry, but I just can't allow this to slip by...

This is not a complete sentence.

 

lol

 

What? Did someone speak of a dystopic future somewhere?

 

you rang? Ah, Cloud Atlas. That movie could have been so much better had they taken the time to linger on the capitalist dystopian and post-apocalyptic segments.

 

Not a complete sentence. Here's what my English prof said, "Once you know the rules of (English grammar), you can break them."

Since I usually post from work, I am usually dressed business casual. On the weekends, I usually post in my pj's too.

 

Well, it's moved on a few days but will this help?

 

Model: http://www.omegawatches.com/gents/seamaster/300-m-quartz/22238000

Yes, it's quartz and not the chronograph but it's $2K more for the Chronograph which loses a lot more time per month than the quartz.

That being said, a Chronograph is next on the list.

 

Noooiice. That watch cost more than my car.

 

My father bought a Rolex Submariner (http://www.rolex.com/en#/rolex-watches/submariner/submariner-date-40mm-steel-m116610ln-0001) in 2010.

It was £7,000.

But still, LOH. There are a few things you should always spend money on. A good wallet, a good watch, and good suits. Good pen is, nowadays, strictly optional.

 

I would disagree on the good watch part. I loathe wearing suits/dress clothes, but understand the need for them.

 

Tunick, an appropriately nice/good watch can say a lot about the person. So can a cheap watch.

I've seen digital watches with a diving bezel. I can't begin to tell you how judged that person was.

Just look at this, Tunick. How could you not love it?

http://www.tagheuer.com/int-en/home#/int-en-monaco-monaco-watch

 

I've learned I judge people off of those sorts of things, too. Like, I'm suspicious of anyone wearing a fancy suit on a plane.

Expensive watches are not quite as shady to me, but that's mostly because I can't notice where the money goes.

 

While we're in the business of comparing watches....



Given this bad boy on my 21st. Mechanical, self-winding.

 

I hate wearing watches, rings and the like. My wedding ring has been sitting on my bedside table for years. I spend a decent amount on suits but I hate wearing them and willI only wear them to meetings and when important people visit my office or if I have to go to court which is pretty rare. Likewise with ties. I hate wearing a tie. In the office I generally wear jeans and a casual type collared shirt, on Fridays I wear a T-shirt (normally plain but sometimes SW related or Metallica, Megadeth or Black Sabbath) and jeans. This does not accord with our corporate dress code but I manage to get away with it as nobody else in the office seems to want to push the boundaries (they all wear $5,000 suits and $2,000 watches and $1,000 ties).

E_S - what does the absence of a watch say about somebody?