Board elections.

The RationalMedia Foundation board elections are a'happenin'.

  • Nominations will commence on 26 June 2016 and run through 10 July 2016.
  • The voting dates are TBA.

To register to vote: RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation/Voter registration

Useful links:

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 18:49, 26 June 2016

RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Guinnesssmiley.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. Let's play "Have you ever considered" (06:43, 30 Jun 2016)
  2. Britain has left the building... (21:37, 26 Jun 2016)
  3. Do 3rd parties have a chance this year? (16:24, 22 Jun 2016)
  4. RationalWiki in portuguese and other languages. (14:50, 13 Jun 2016)
  5. Donald Marshall's evidence (02:13, 13 Jun 2016)
  6. Anglo-Libertarianism... (21:07, 6 Jun 2016)
To do list


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

[edit] (Sticky) RationalMedia Board elections

Paravant started up the 2016 RationalMedia Board of Trustees election on started. By 10 February, it was forgotten. In March, Tielec01 wrote:

So no board of trustees this year? Or is it life terms for elections again? After all, it's not like we need more board members... half of them are still semi-active and we still have 1/3 of our elected positions filled!

Previous board election discussion at: RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive253#RationalMedia_Foundation_Board_of_Trustees_election

Current boardmembers:

In the previous thread, several people said that (1) we might want to discuss the role of the Board (if any) before having a Board election, and (2) little information about the Board is available (see previous thread for Boardmember Human's summary of activities), so it's difficult to tell if they've done a good job or what their job is at all.

Since it's been about half a year since the mod elections -- and the Board elections are four months overdue -- now-ish seems like a good time to have Board elections, if we're gonna have them.

[edit] Useful links

[edit] Board purpose discussion

Thoughts? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this still apply? If it does, then everyone who isn't familiar with its contents (me included) or just needs to freshen their memory probably ought to read it start to finish as a premise to the discussion on this... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
And just as my initial reaction - on the one hand, this needs to be adressed (four months overdue no less). On the other hand, I work under the principle that it's important we not try to fix anything that isn't actually broken. Just my general hunch. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I haven't been here long, but I definitely don't want board members that do not really edit here having a longer term than they should.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 20:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

This still needs to happen. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but how to start it?-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think people should probably discuss the role of the board a little bit, and people should probably actually be aware of the nominations page and whether they've been nominated.
If people here are fine with it, I'll put up an intercom message linking to this thread, the nominations page, and the guide page -- and notify all the nominees who've not yet declined. HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 06:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Bump. HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 02:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with it.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 04:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Let the elections begin! Good luck to everyone.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 19:52, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to sit out this one, I'm not eligible to vote. YET. -DiamondDisc1(talk) 20:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


Btw, is this the same as the above? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Kind of? It's got some of the RW page, but not all of it.
As another issue, I've always felt that having the RMF stuff on another page was both redundant (it should also be on RW) and uninformative (people won't look at it). I move to merge and, eh? ;) Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 06:26, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm..Idk...-DiamondDisc1(talk) 05:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] He's going to need a page soon Petey Plane (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

And I thought they only made bad music... 'Legionwhat do you want from me 07:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Truly a beacon of lucidity in thought, that man. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] (SKEPTICAL ANALYSIS) What do you make of this apparently fulfilled Isaiah 17:1 prophecy?

A DISCLAIMER BEFORE THIS POST GOES ON: To be honest, I am actually not a Christian, though I used to be one in the past, but somehow, I find similarities between some events in the Bible (which I read occasionally for mere analysis) and the real world quite uncanny. I am also not sure if this is the right place to post of such topics, since it is mainly of politics and stuff. I also understand that some events in the Bible apparently allude to events in times past (preterism), and are thus, seemingly fulfilled a long time ago, such as the Abomination of Desolation, which was said to be already committed in 168 BCE when Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes desecrated the Second Temple in order to make way for the worship of Zeus. So here, my main purpose of posting this is to inquire if the prophecy has deeper historical context, or if there's an intended message behind it for those people in the past, or if it was a coincidence, or some sort of shoehorning.

SECOND DISCLAIMER: I am neither strongly on the skeptics' nor Christians' sides on this matter. I would like to keep my views as neutral as possible, so that I can look into it from both sides.

As Isaiah 17:1 says, 'The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.'

And look at Damascus now. image

All this thanks to civil wars, a certain Islamic radical group, and so on.

And here's a Christian's interpretation of the prophecy: link

Isaiah 17:2 also mentions of a specific place called Aroer, which is said to be, at that time, 'forsaken...shall be for flocks...'

Pictures of Aroer online mainly depict it as a barren plain, with not much animals/people on it.

However, back to Damascus. Despite the amount of damage and the refugees living, life apparently goes on in it, with some of its inhabitants choosing to stay. link

However, what I want to ask of is this: Is this prophecy close/nearly close to what's happening in Damascus, or is it merely a coincidence/shoehorning? Or is there a historical background to the writing of the prophecy? Or does Isaiah say that other stuff will happen before this itself happens?

If any of you are well-versed in the Bible/willing to look into the chapter, then please comment your thoughts on it. — Unsigned, by: Webshite Hunter / talk / contribs 04:49, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

"On a moonlit night, you will meet a dark-haired stranger." Any vague enough prediction will eventually be true. This is how horoscopes work. Also, is there any sufficiently old human settlement that hasn't experienced devastation at some point? What about prophecies from other religions' holy works? And for amusement value see failed Biblical prophecies. --Ymir (talk) 05:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Not only that, but as you kind of acknowledged, Damascus is far from completely devastated. It's currently Syria's most populous city. I guess we can chalk that up as another failed prophecy. --Ymir (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure this isn't the first time in human history that Damascus was been a war zone. I believe its happened numerous times over the centuries–Damascus has a rather strategic location in the Middle East. So, if this prophecy has been fulfilled now, it's been fulfilled numerous times before. But let's face it, if 2000-3000 years ago you made this prophecy about any Middle East city, then if the city still exists today the prophecy has almost certainly been fulfilled multiple times by now, and if it doesn't exist any more, that's probably because of its past fulfilment. It doesn't take a prophet to make an open-ended prediction that something will eventually happen when in the long-run it is highly likely to sooner or later happen anyway. Name me a major city which existed 2000-3000 years ago, and still exists today, and hasn't been besieged or overrun in the meantime. I'm pretty sure you can't. Zack Martin talk 12:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Erbil hasn't been destroyed iirc. The longest continuously-inhabited city. Pbfreespace2 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
It can also mean, "taken away as a city", meaning an urban center where the people of God can dwell in safety and protecion, and a "ruinous heap", much like Hollywood, Las Vegas, Babylon, Sodom, etc. nobsBern baby bern 19:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

We need a haiku: Know correlation? It doesn't mean causation! So just stop. Please. Stop. — Unsigned, by: Mkbw50 / talk / contribs 19:39, 24 June 2016‎ (UTC)

[edit] Is there anything to look forward to anymore?

I feel like the world's gone to shit and there's nothing to be optimistic about... -- (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Technological unemployment has yet to hit, economies are still going. Give it two decades, than the fun begins. Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Nothing to be optimistic about? Ha, quite the opposite! Rejoice, for fate has put you at the crossroads of humanity's destiny. You are one of the few in human history that get to see the path mankind takes firsthand. Will you witness the grand rebirth of human civilization or total annihilation? Either way, it'll be quite the show. (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
We're making ungodly technological advances and life expectancy globally has never been so high. The only thing we have to get right is politics. Right now it looks bleak, but politics is the most inherently fixable thing on earth. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Slavery ended no less then 100 years ago , and just recently we have created devices that allow us to have unlimited access to all information. I think the future is looking bright as this will just continue. Sandflapjack (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Completion of the Network is going well. A very large fraction of the Earth's population now have routine, always on access to a global telecommunications network. That's very important.

Autonomous vehicles are on track. We will probably be able to reverse the negative consequences of deciding that everybody must drive an automobile (and thus implicitly the standards required to drive an automobile must be very low) within just a few decades after the anomalous 20th century.

Several major human diseases are on the verge of being wiped out. Polio and Guinea Worm for example. (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Need something to look forward to? Perhaps that the UN thinks poverty could be eliminated by 2050? That the average human is wealthier than the average historical monarch? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
People around the globe are finally rising up against the clerisy, against the professional and financial classes. There's one ground for hope. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
i would agree if the method of rising up hadnt left us completely fucked. In the uk at least. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I always like to think of revolution as rolling dice. You get an entirely new outcome from Stalin to Napoleon to Washington to Ghandi. You won't know until the smoke clears and the leader of the revolution or their successor shows their true colors. Thus if you have a revolution to deal with an actually-pretty-good status quo, the odds don't favor your society ending up in a better place than it started. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] BREXIT

So the UK voted to leave the EU today, and already the GBP is crashing. Pretty soon the USD will beat the GBP. America is offiacly #GreatAgain'Legionwhat do you want from me 08:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Trump visits the UK for one day and the U.S. is already winning! Just imagine how much we'll win when he's President! --Ymir (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

52% of the UK has voted to replace their EU membership with "something else, no bloody idea what, don't care, anything". I mean, does the UK stay in the EEA, like Iceland and Norway and Liechtenstein are? Well, if they stay in the EEA, they get to keep access to the Single Market–including the passporting rules which are so important to London's financial industry–but they still have to accept unlimited immigration from EU citizens (freedom of movement for the win) and they have to adopt 80% of EU law despite having 0% vote in that 80% (just like Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein do). Or they leave the EEA but stay in the customs union (as in Turkey)–which while it's better than nothing will really fuck up the British services sector including financial services. Or they leave the customs union too, which implies either customs controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or customs controls between the Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, or Ireland voting to leave the EU too in a constitutional referendum (the later option is unlikely)–but the former two options would reopen a massive can of worms in the Northern Ireland peace process. This is the utter idiocy of Brexit–having a vote to replace the current state of affairs with some utterly undefined arrangement. They should have had a vote between remaining in the EU and a concrete clearly-defined alternative–I'm sure if they had that the EU would have gone much better. Zack Martin talk 10:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Has Armeggedon come yet? Objective (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
There's a page on WIGO:World about this topic. I'd direct your conversation there. PbFreespace (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If they had Superdelegates or brought back heredity peerage with veto power, or god forbid an ability to filibuster, a divisive 51%-49% mob rule crisis like this could have been averted. nobsBern baby bern 00:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Out of the many ways this could have been averted, those are among the more far-fetched. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The issue seems quite simple: should such a momenteous decision like this be made by 51%-49% mob vote? My god, the voters in California's Proposition 8 couldn't even amend their own Consitution under the Constitutionally mandated process. There are a zillion examples of large popular vote majorities being wrong-headed. nobsBern baby bern 01:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The referendum is only advisory, parliament don't have to leave. That's why Cameron quit; whoever takes over is going to be seen as a failure whatever they do. Pretty neat way to flip the board once he lost, if you ask me. (Of course, he shouldn't have offered the ref in the first place...) (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Survey: White evangelicals think the US isn't a Christian nation

That’s according to 59 percent of white evangelical Protestants recently surveyed by the Public Religion Research Institute in partnership with the Brookings Institution. And that number has jumped 11 points in just four years, from 48 percent in 2012. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 17:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. They're more shifting into "we used to be until those liberals... something something". Which is a transition from the "Christian Nation built into the fabric of our country by the founding fathers" that was the popular framing before. The meaning of the term to them completely changes when you include "no longer". It goes from the high-power framing to the ostracized-targets framing. The wording here is what makes them tick. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The Muslims are invading and implementing shariah law, duh. That's why we need to elect President Trump to put them in camps! --Ymir (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
That's certainly one of the less plausible something somethings they actually put out. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
What an awesome hypothesis. Some Researcher should test that.ClickerClock (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Not the first time a great nation lost God's blessing and went down the shitter. BFD. nobsBern baby bern 00:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ymir It's "in ze camps"!--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 18:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless wikipolitics idea: the prisoner's dilemma ban

Ban two users who fight each other too much. They're the only ones who can unban each other, and there's one page where they can talk to each other.

Who doesn't like solving interpersonal disputes with technocracy? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I kind of like it. English Wikipedia has something somewhat similar: the interaction ban.[wp] --Ymir (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and that's a good approach, but it's not fun enough for me. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 02:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I like it. The optimal strategy for repetitive prisoner's dilemma play is cooperation. If the players can't figure that out themselves, they're not being rational and can stay banned. Bongolian (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Cool idea, so long as it works! :)-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The point of the prisoner's dilemma is that they can't talk to each other, & end up screwing each other over because of it. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Both variations exist. The point isn't that they can't talk. The point is that your results are always better betraying, and the sum total is always better cooperating. Creating a tension between what works best and the most you can squeeze out of the situation. Talking modulates the problem because it introduces social complexity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Even without overt talking, there is a covert method of talking in repetitive prisoner's dilemma, e.g., by adopting a strategy like "I will cooperate unless the other person does not". Bongolian (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Will the Troubles start again?

Apparently the Northern Irish Catholics are pushing independence / joining the Republic of Ireland after the Brexit vote where the Catholic areas overwhelmingly voted stay whereas the Protestant regions tended towards leave. I have not yet heard any NI Protestant voice of importance, but it may well turn into an ugly fight with religious undertones. Whose betting against new political violence? Will David Cameron go down as the man who not only ruined Great Britain but also the Good Friday Agreement? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A return to violence doesn't really help the Republicans. The next census (2021) is likely to show that Catholics outnumber Protestants in Northern Ireland. Give it another 20 years after that (the early 2040s) and Republicans may well outnumber Unionists in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Of course, they need to exploit the Brexit for their own political advantage in any way possible, talk about the Good Friday agreement being under threat, maybe even trigger a constitutional crisis at Stormont, try to use this as leverage to extract further concessions from the Unionists and the British, but going back to violence would be totally counterproductive for them, and I think they know that. Zack Martin talk 03:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Who said anything about the Catholics going back to violence? It may well be that radical Unionists will want to delay the inevitable with violence. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I fear that as a possibility, albeit faint. Moderate unionists may also have leant toward remain for practical reasons, and the radicals, fearing an unholy alliance of Republicans and pragmatists seek to utilise violence for delay the inveitable and their own sliding power. Right now, it's a bit of a powder keg and it only takes a bungled responce in Westminster to bring the situation to a very dangerous place. I don't think the republicans feel they have much to gain by violence, but rather than the unionists stand to loose if they don't. TheEgyptian¿Dígame? 23:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
As an ignorant Yank, let me get this straight: Northern Ireland is kinda like Kosovo, and the UK is like Serbia trying to hold onto it, is that right? nobsBern baby bern 00:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Fuck no Rob. Stop sticking your head into a knifefight. PBfreespace3 (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
NI is split between Catholics and Protestants pretty much half-and-half. More like Bosnia, that's a better metaphor. The current situation is basically like some Serbians wanting Bosnia back and actively campaigning for it. The main difference here being that the Serbs in Bosnia aren't persecuted, whereas the Catholics in NI are. PBfreespace3 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
how are the catholics discriminated against exactly? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A couple years ago 52% of Catholics supported remaining in the UK. Catholic does not equal Republican. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
NI Catholics have historically been discriminated against and arguably the Protestant presence is a result of British settler colonialism (though much of the Irish aristocracy has English or Scottish roots as well, even Irish speaking Catholics). However, today's political situation in NI seems to have tilted towards: "meh status quo is alright" despite the shifting demographic (Protestants will soon be smaller in umber than Catholics). But the recent dynamics with Brexit could seriously fuck this up. Of course we might end up with a divided Northern Ireland with the mostly Catholic areas annexed to the Republic and the mostly Protestant ones annexed even more directly to the UK or whatever is left of it. But given the way Northern Irish demographics looks like, this would require population transfers on a scale of Turkey/Greece in the 1920s. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Protestants have been living there before any country known as Ireland ever even existed. It was not British colonialism, but Scottish and less so English before the UK even existed. Now a days Protestants in Cluan Place, Thistle Court, the Fountain, etc are subject to frequent attacks or were before they started fighting back, I haven't heard much news since then. Same in County Armagh. They mailed Protestants bullets in Rasharkin and vandalism against PUL fraternities continues, as well. Just trying to point out that not everything is black and white. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Lithium Water Woo

We need to debunk this:

I saw some quacks saying it improves mood, decreases depression and suicide, balances circadian rhythms, and a bunch of other stuff.

Just putting this here for future reference if anyone's in the mood to write in article. I checked our water woo article and I couldn't find any mention of lithium there or anywhere else on RationalWiki. PBfreespace3 (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's probably because lithium really is a scientifically demonstrated mood enhancer. Its side effects are just worse than modern prescription anti-depressants. It's an outmoded treatment. Not sure if that rises to the level of woo or not. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 04:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It sounds like people are treating it as a antidepressant-panacea, which is def woo, but the actual effects are not. Typical conflation of "interesting results" and "mind-boggling medicine-revolutionizing world-changing (and, if I do say so, quite profitable) results". Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 07:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It's hardly an "outmoded treatment". Lithium is still a mainstay for treating bipolar disorder. It's darned effective; the only problem is the adverse effects, which include long-term kidney damage. --Ymir (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
People say Cobain made this because he was taking Lithium. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Lithium as medicine[wp] is not woo in any sense of the word, quite the opposite. Besides, what do you have against 7 Up? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Mobile Friendly?

Ok Rationalwiki is hard to read on my phone because it is designed only for desktops and laptops. I propose that Rationalwiki has something like this (desktop link) / this (mobile link) for mobile.

Except unlike wikipedia there is no separate mobile site extension but a site that automatically switches based on the device viewing the site.


As Troy Hunt puts it:

You see that? The “m.” prefix was kindly added when I loaded the site on my mobile device and now I’m stuck sharing that URL. Everyone who opens it up on the desktop now gets the mobile version of the site which means I’m sitting here at my PC looking at about 80% wasted space and buttons that are literally 1,850 pixels wide. This is why we have responsive design – you detect the capabilities of the device and then display content in an appropriate way, not boot people off to another location then keep them there even when it looks like crap on their big screen!

It's annoying.

Will this MediaWiki extension for mobile-friendly view help?

ClickerClock (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Like many other things, using that extension is contingent on updating RW's software - the extension requires MediaWiki 1.23, RationalWiki still runs 1.19. Which, by the way, reached the end of its life in May 2015, more than an year ago.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh the managers and technicians will hate the bothersome upgrade job. :| ClickerClock (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe there's only one active user with any sort of direct access to the server itself. And he's overloaded as hell with real life. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
It's planned for 2018. Also, I don't agree that "responsive" design is some sort of holy grail, there are some drawbacks as well. I often get kicked to the "responsive" site obviously designed for touch screens when I zoom a little bit since I like larger text. It can be very annoying. Carpetsmoker (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I meant the mobile design that detects what device you are using not change based on the parameters of the viewing screen.ClickerClock (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The "viewport" control reacts to the screen size, not the device type (to try this, go to a responsive site, like mine, and reduce your browser window size - at some point, the layout will probably collapse to a different layout). More sophisticated systems can strike a balance between both. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I edit quite a lot from my Android phone. I think it works well as it is. Not saying an improvement wouldn't be an improvement (tautology), but... It works. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I also don't like the "m." method of creating a mobile-friendly site, but in re the WP implementation, it takes me, um, about three seconds to delete those two characters from the url and reload. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:32, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Oh my


Went searching to see if we had an article on vaping. Turns out, we basically do don't. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have replicated your experiment, Reverend Black Percy, and found the same result. In the name of the Universe! But the good news is, as you imply, we basically do have that article. It's just he search engine that went haywire. Nerd (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I can confirm that, too.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 22:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sometimes a vaporizer is just a vaporizer. Vulpius (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey now, anything's a vaporizer if you're brave enough. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Insert Lewinsky joke here (weren't there some rumors about Billy-Boy putting cigars up his favorite intern's vagina?).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC) 22:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears Lucene is a better search engine than we thought - David Gerard (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, she's a genius... Just mention vaping and she'll offer to direct you straight to Vagina. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] \//\

"Cure cancer, cure diabetes..." Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Funniest Stuff I've ever heard in my life/ Black Supremacist pseudo-pyschology

I had to share this

"On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts…. If his sweetheart ingests "chocolate with nuts," the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male…. Is it not also curious that when white males are young and vigorous, they attempt to master the large brown balls, but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master the large brown balls? Their focus then shifts masochistically to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and resignation—in full final realization of white genetic recessiveness[sic]" From Black psychiatrist Frances Cress Welsing
Incredibly bizarre to the point of hilarity. TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I lolled at the tiny white golf balls. (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
And don't forget pingpong, where asians smack around even smaller balls (but with far greater masochistic vigor - as they have faced the music already in their youth). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please please please put this in the black supremacy article. It's as revealing as the altwhite nonsense about cucks. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 23:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
"Please please please"? That level of energy proves the good doctor's thesis... I think somebody needs to go whack his tiny golf balls with a driver for a while, cool down, get some bearings. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
(Jokes aside - I whole-heartedly agree with FCP! :3) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
All I see here is a guy that's really into balls. (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
BAAALLLLSSSSSSS PBfreespace (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
What the? This is the same level of "What the hell" as YADA. I'm a biologist... and a madman. (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 20:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Carrier Censorship

David Gerard has reverted talk page reporting on Richard Carrier with the astonishing excuse that this was a legal matter. This is obviously poorly concealed nonsense to protect his FTB/Carrier tribe. For one, Michael Shermer actually sent out lawyer letters, and it was of no concern to the reporting here (and still isn't). Carrier has not even done that, only said he might, and not against RW. For another, it is perfectly legal to write “Richard Carrier was accused of sexual misconduct” because it's true. At one point the crowd here should realize that you are beeing fooled and that your reporting on anything pertaining the a/s movement is halfsided verging on Bizarro Universe Alternate Reality. ~ Aneris 13:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh shush, I put it back. Conspire elsewhere. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 13:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Getting money out of politics

For those who want to "get money out of politics", what exactly do you mean? What needs to be specifically reformed? Does it mean publicly funded elections? Does it mean reforming the donor process, and if so, how? Does it mean we want to prohibit groups like the NRA from running ads that drive gun reformers out of office? Does it mean no more lobbyists? Do we mean we want fewer rich people in office? --Castaigne2 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverse the decision of citizens united. -MasterofLogic (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
In general, there should be zero perverse financial incentives for politicians. There should basically be no money coming to a person before, during, or (mostly) after they're in office, as it relates to their political views. In no way, shape, or form. That's the coarsest possible answer. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Fund campaigns publicly and ban private contributions. I'll live if Koch brothers can spam lawn signs but can't pay politicians. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Right. Let the government pay it. And when the government goes broke and can't pay no more then send in UN peacekeepers. Right? nobsBern baby bern
I'm gonna start of with the absolute maximum which does not currently exist in any country and will probably never exist in that form. Any politician who either personally or on behalf of his party or a charity (even one unrelated to politics) accepts so much as a pencil is to be tried like a bribed public servant would be. Political parties are to be funded by nothing but membership fees and public funds. Political advertising is to be provided on TV by law with equal time guarantees. No ads besides those required by law are to be run that are or may be perceived as being of a political nature. An independent commission with twenty members, ten appointed for lifetime, ten randomly selected from the populace is to arbitrate in unclear cases. No party may own shares of any newspaper, radio station, TV channel or art gallery. (okay I am willing to compromise on art galleries). Media are to be treated by an especially harsh antitrust commission that forbids non-media entities from owning them and has full authority to break up conglomerates. That's a rough outline of the maximal position. Remember that you start out from that to end up with a compromise that's still progress. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I might add a thing or two about the style of corruption as evidenced by politicians "miraculously" getting well paid positions in the private sector after leaving office. That's harder to tackle unless you want to prohibit them from ever working for money ever again and pay them out of public money. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd go with forever. Maybe just five years or so after leaving office. And sure, pay them for those years. Some kind of exemption based on size/assets of the employer would probably be fine. I don't think Mr. Congressman opening up his own knickknack store, selling his own paintings, etc. is a problem. The problem is him leaving office and then immediately getting hired by some big company or trade group to lobby his former colleagues. --Ymir (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I would just like to suggest that politicians should be well paid to reduce the chances of corruption. Nerd (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
A mandatory disinterest in material wealth sounds like a much better idea. A disproportionate amount of politicians would consist of Buddhist monks, but that needn't be a bad thing. (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
You sure about that? --Ymir (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Ymir! Religion, no matter which kind, is not a cure to any of our problems. Nerd (talk) 12:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

My main concern is with politicians who set up their own charities since I think they are merely trying to get anonymous donations w/o paying taxes on it; I think that was why Romneys and the Clintons started their own foundations. My other concern is with think tanks who tend to muddy the water by creating reports that oversimplify or ignore data.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 23:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Does this stuff make sense to you Castaigne? Personally agree with any of it? PBfreespace (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense.
No, I do not agree with any of it. This is why. And before you rail against me about my lack of idealism, read the article and keep in mind that I hate chaos and disorder. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that you've set it up as a dichotomy there...either you are for the current status or for chaos. Where the climate seems to be instead that voters no longer think their elected government is representing their interests because they have been paid for openly so many have lost trust that it is representing the their will. -MasterofLogic (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not a dichotomy. It's just that the suggestions given here increase chaos and create more Trumpalo/Sandalo bullshit. Offer a suggestion that doesn't and I'll probably cotton to it. And you obviously didn't read the article, did you? It addressed what you just said. --Castaigne2 (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Where did it address this? -MasterofLogic (talk) 16:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Castigne2 raises a damn good question. Perhaps using bitcoin or going to some sort of barter system could get money out of politics. A candidate for example could act like a manager of a barter club, arranging deals between restaurants and TV producers who get to eat in restaurants that advertise on their station, and the candidate/manager would run campaign commercials and eat in restaurants for free cause he brokered the deal. That's how to get money out of politics. nobsBern baby bern 19:50, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

In my infinite wisdom, I have devised schematics for a device that directly extracts money from politics ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

"You think you can control me with a hair cut?" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The us's electoral process lasts over two year with billions (is that an exageration? I'm not sure) of dollars spent. American politics is entirely about making money. The election a president seems like an after thought. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Religion is getting easier

Persecution! HairyFelineTuber (talk/stalk) 20:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Nerd (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Hah, Joris made a repressed peasant template? :D Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I really like it. :-) Many thanks to him. Nerd (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I was using this so much that it was easier to simply create a template for this. Turns out it was a good idea.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Board elections

Instead of having elections for a board that never seems to do anything can we instead have an election for someone to get access to the RationalWiki servers and:

  1. Upgrade MediaWiki
  2. Keep the software up to date
  3. Install and update extensions
  4. Allow access via https (talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The board looks after the financial and legal side of RW, it doesn't do tech stuff. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm contradicting you, but RationalWiki:RationalMedia Foundation explicitly states that the Foundation hires the Operations Manager. More to the point, the Foundation is the legal owner of the servers, so it has the final say. --Ymir (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what I was seriously hoping for? Carpetsmoker not to be an idiot so I could foist the job off on him. Instead he turned out to be a dramatist prima-donna who thought fucking Kiwi Farms was in any way a good idea. We had a dramatist sysadmin before, and it's still a fucking delight finding things that one did his way. The problem with this job is finding someone who can do it who isn't going to be a fucking disaster with root - David Gerard (talk) 15:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that you and trent kinda grew the tech side of this wiki from the ground up organically, which meant you guys got exposure to the mistakes to make before making a mistake was a disaster. Sans importing a professional mediawiki tech from a major wiki, I think the appropriate skillsets are very hard to come by. Which sucks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@DG: I mean, CS kinda got pissed off by drama here in the same vein as Paravant, who was pretty trustworthy. I think if we want help, Ikanreed is probs right -- we'd need to ask someone from WP. Unless DG is willing to run a root-access boot camp <_< Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile, in Totnes

The capital of vaccine idiocy has a measles outbreak. Twats. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 08:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Twats indeed. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm waiting for them to blame measles on the EU and brown people . (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] By the way

I'm not sure if this is the right time/place to ask this, but do any of you have Steam/Skype?

We'll mainly talk about debunking conspiracy theories, looking into pseudoscientific stuff, and so on. However, we can talk about video gaming, entertainment and stuff if you're into them.

Find me on Skype at roboticizedteggs, and/or on Steam as FURFR0U. I won't add you unless you specify your account name in the replies. First, we have to get to know each other in the chat before going on into the meat. Webshite Hunter (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Should we reform coop procedures?

The last coop case was derailed more than once by debates about procedure and how to vote on what. I think this is a highly undesirable outcome. Should we reform the procedure by which to hold coop cases and if so how? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No. Trying to actually get 2/3 of the community together to agree on something and make things around here better will have the Streisand Effect: causing more drama when getting rid of drama is the original point. It's a pointless endeavor. PBfreespace (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think part of the problem was that there was disagreement what "getting a two thirds majority" actually means. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
no1curr. No. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Coops are a continuing time drain. Add a Prisoner's Dilemma-like de-mopping facility as a pre-coop filter; it would require some programming unfortunately. Bongolian (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's interesting. You're saying demop both the accused and the accuser during the Coop? FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 18:20, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No, it would be more like if two sysops engaging in edit wars with each other, then automatically demop both parties for a modest period of time, and automatically revert edits to the pre-war version. Encourage both parties to go to the talk page and work it out. If the edit-warring continues after remopping, then it might go to the coop. Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I **might** be able to set up the edit filter to do that. Probably not, though. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 19:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Definite nope. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes. We need to at least state how a vote should be set up and establish punishments for trying to meddle with them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC) 17:29, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Nerd (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The system works fine. As fucked up as it is, it discourages people from getting involved in coop cases or bringing them. To reform it would only produce more cases with more expectains of results and punitive actions. nobsBern baby bern 19:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

So, the coop case is now closed? Does anyone know why? The new vote just got started. Nerd (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. Typhoon got penalized. Case closed. Let's move on. Nerd (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
And so, peace once more shines upon our humble goat farm. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's go back to raiding libraries and do some very serious mental exercises. Nerd (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A few things:

First off, check RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Solving_edit_wars. Since edit wars and related squabbles have made up 100% of recent (last year) coops, that's probably the real issue.

Second off, the failure of the coop to generate anything but drama suggests, to me, that we need more active moderation.

Third, I made a thing, way back when. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 18:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars need to be resolved with dialogue, not voting. & Especially not clusterfuck voting with dozens of options & arbitrary counting methods that users make up as they go along. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
What Weasel said. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
What Weasel said certainly sounds reasonable. I agree especially with the need for more active moderation. But what if all attempts to resolve differences via dialogue fails? Nerd (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Switch off editing between 10pm and 8am? - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@DG: I'm not sure if that's the best alternative. People live in different time zones you know. Nerd (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
He was just kidding, Nerd (it's a horrible suggestion lol). ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the coop altogether. Clearly people can't come to an agreement about anything, so let's cut the pretense that they can. (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] 3 person debate

my suggestion would be to nominate 3 persons acceptable to both parties with debate limited and only from both parties. This would prevent one side ganging up on the other egged by the usual grudge holders. Punishment should be clearly defined, with block limits, vandal binning etc having clear criteria. Consistency here is paramount. With edit wars specifically, should they neec to be cooped, both sides should face it. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Problem is, the people acceptable to both parties will probably never overlap. Partisanship is a bitch, aye? The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No offense, but to me, that just sounds like a perversion of the current system of electing moderators. It sounds like a mobocracy - like now - but shrunk down to three people. That's not more just. It also sounds way more clunky than the current conflict resolution system. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@fcp - i agree it might be difficult, but it still might be doable. Rbp - how is remotely like the mobocracy. It takes it entirely out its hands. How is it more clunky? Did you not you see that farce of the coop that you started? Any debate would be constrained to force concise and too the point arguments. I am sure 3 neutral people could quickly come a decision more easily than the current shit show. It not at all like the mods. The mods serve a term. My suggestion would have those nominated only for that specific case. They need not be mods, they might already be involved. As fcp suggests, the only sticking point would be the nominations. I am sure there is enough folk of good standing who arent involved in the petty drama and inane cliques to make it work. But lets be realistic about this. Even if not my suggestion, something similar will have to happen because everyone weighing in to a free for all witch hunt isnt working and never could AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] How about an ancient greek like system?

The Ancient Greeks (at least Athens at the time of Socrates' death) had a system of two tiers: First both sides would argue about innocence or guilt before the jury would vote. If innocence were to win, the accused would walk. In the second stage both sides suggested a punishment. Each side only got one try. The jury could then decide between both options but could not propose a third option. In theory this would ensure both sides to come up with a reasonable punishment. What do you think about this? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. [1] Would the innocence/guilt vote then be a majority vote? (Rather than 2/3?) [2] Would a requirement for the accused be that their punishment be more substantial than "nothing" or "warning"? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In the Athenian system there was no required minimum penalty. In fact, some say Socrates asking for a ridiculously low penalty made him being sentenced to death possible as the jury did not like being insulted. I think we should have a two thirds requirement in there somewhere and this proposal can obviously be improved upon, but I think it may be a good starting place. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The coop works as intended. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
and its pretty much the system we already have. I think your focus on punishment is missing the point. Coming to a fair decision is surely the point AMassiveGay (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this system focuses on punishment -- rather on making everything a binary choice. Either guilty or innocent, and either [punishment 1] or [punishment 2]. That prevents clusters like the previous coop. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thats how the system plays out. Thats how reform arguments are focused. We should be discussing how to resolve conflict not arguing how best to decide a punishment. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
and how is it a binary choice? Its always been six of one and half dozen of the other. Tbats why mob votes dont work. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@AMG: Sorry, I think I confused you. By "this system" I meant the one proposed at the top of this section. I think the problem is this: RW users appear categorically unable to come to agreement on deeply held issues (irrationalwiki amirite lol). This is the real reason why arbitration (as you propose) can't work: even if the 3 arbitrators decide something, they need a way to enforce their decision -- which is where punishment comes in, and is why the coop is needed in the first place. In other words, people will break the rules unless there's a reason no to. Do you disagree? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 21:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
i dont see a great difference between the current system and the ancient greek system. Both rely on a disfunction mob with vested interests and grudge who would get glassed if they acted like they do here in real life. Punishment is secondary to all this. We cant even agree on the crime most times. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
That's why it makes sense to de-mob-ify (?) it. One person raises the coop (so mob doesn't "agree on the crime"). Votes are a binary -- for or against guilt (so mob doesn't decide options). After X time, the vote is decided (so mob doesn't decide when vote ends). If "for" wins, then the person who raised the coop decides [punishment X] and the accused decides [punishment Y] (so the mob doesn't decide options, again). After X time, the vote is decided, again (so mob doesn't decide when vote ends, again).
As to "vested interests": you're probably right. But I don't see any functional system (no offense to the arbitrator idea, but I don't think that two users who hate each other's guts will find in three people from a "d[y]sfunction[al] mob with vested interests and grudge[s]" that they can agree on) that can eliminate this. Instead, we can only minimize it. By breaking options down to binaries, it makes it harder for overactive and overangry people to dominate the process. They've only got the one vote, after all -- where in the current coop they can just create thread after thread and option after option ad nauseam. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
ha, one vote, but infinite flaming comments generating more bad blood. No it is never as simple as guilty or innocent. Its always six of one and and half a dozen of the other. Most coops open arbitrarily accusing someone of wiki crime with the accuser claiming to be the aggrieved party while behaving in the exact same way they are accusing the other. These things are not black and white. The crime in many of the cases is simply disagree with accuser as vigourously as the accuser. It all boils down to whose got the most pals to back them up. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
And that's why I think the coop can't resolve edit wars (see RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Solving_edit_wars) -- they're wars and naturally tend towards partisanship and groupthink and both sides "behaving in the exact same way" as each other. Essentially, I think: mods should handle edit wars, and users should handle sysop abuse. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Trial by Combat

Might has always made right. CorruptUser (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Or vote telepathically; similar to caucus votes without recorded paper ballots. nobsBern baby bern 03:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Invert the coop

Currently: [1] Someone abuses rights or edit wars, [2] the mob rages in the Coop for a week and then [3] a mod closes the discussion and enacts punishment.

Instead: [1] Someone abuses rights or edit wars, [2] a mod enacts punishment, and [2.5] if the mob is unhappy with the punishment then [3] the mob rages at the mod for a week.


  1. Faster. Oh my god faster. 7 days? To fix an edit war?
  2. Mods already have the power to do so, they just don't use it
  3. Doesn't require wikilawyering or vote interpretation by the mob (at least until the [whining] stage)
  4. Some decisions will be relatively uncontroversial, and so avoid the dramafest of the coop
  5. When users whine, they whine at the mod, rather than at each other -- it'll bring us together!


  1. Mobocracy is dead, and we killed it (except for determining site policies and article content and who the mods are but whatevs)
  2. Mods have to be active at the time (though this is also true of the coop)
  3. Leaves users at the whims of arbitrary mods, rather than arbitrary peers
  4. Mods can disagree and make dramafests all their own

If we flip the coop upside down, maybe all the shit will fall out its windows.

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 21:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd say we should give it a try. (But don't get me wrong. I hope the next case will not come soon.) Nerd (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This has potential of alienating users: Mods are not "the people"; A blocked user will not be able to participate in the coop if one develops; Mods are not always neutral and/or innocent and even if they are, they are not always perceived to be; fastness is not a virtue by itself - sustainability of the peace and quiet is. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Mods are elected. So if they show poor judgements, they will soon be elected our of power, no? Nerd (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The coop works as intended. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
fcp - the same old shit as before. @Castigne i must be confused as to the coops purpose. Can you enlighten me? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
"The chicken coop is for the avoidance, containment and resolution of cases of Headless Chicken Mode (HCM)." --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
really sure how its doing that right now. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the HCM is well contained when it's there. It sure as shit stopped being on the other pages. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thats because nothing else happens during coop. No one can resist the opportunity for dick waving. Its tragic that they believe they doing something more. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] I'm pretty much done with this site

Please don't nominate me for moderator or board member anymore. I have very little interest in this site anymore. It has a special place in my heart, and I'll happily defend it against whiners, but I'm not willing to put in any work for it. The other board members have probably suspected this for some time.

I consider my time as treasurer and board member for the RationalMedia Foundation an embarrassment. By any reasonable standard, I failed every goal I set for myself. I worked to gain the trust needed to be appointed treasurer, then set about exercising the same lack of discipline that's led me to drop out of college five times. I successfully managed only two fundraisers across 2013 and 2014. The latter half of 2014 was both a personal and professional disaster for me, and when my depression was at its worst. In 2015 I accomplished fuck all. On top of all this, the accounting software I had the Foundation pay for was only used by me for a couple months, at which point I never touched it again—that's $23 a month for the last two years, pissed away, because of me.

The past three years have presented a cavalcade of evidence that I'm unfit for any measure of responsibility. I will not accept any further nominations for board member (or moderator, for that matter). I also resign my position as treasurer. There's no need to panic about this: I've done literally nothing for two years in this role, so my resignation makes no difference.

I might pop up every once in a while. I have one or two articles I'd like to write someday. But I probably won't. I can barely bring myself to work on the things I actually enjoy, and I haven't enjoyed my time on this site for a long while.

I'm sorry for letting the Foundation down. I'm sorry for letting all of you down.



Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 22:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, you sound like you need help. Get help. Medication, therapy, whatever. If you are already doing some of this, shake it up, go to a different therapist or try different medication. Best of luck to you. And get well soon! Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry. But unless you have a medical degree, please do not make clinical judgements. Nerd (talk) 01:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Nerd, my friend... For once you're in the wrong. Hamabost isn't making any type of "clinical judgements" by pointing out what is obvious and good advice, advice which any responsible person should be giving. Stabby mentioned depression by name, aside from signaling a rather overt mood from the entirety of her/his text. As a person without any stigma towards mental illness and with many personal years of therapy and several medications in my past - it does sound like Stabby could use some help. I concur with Hamabost - Stabby, consider getting help, if it's possible, if you're able and if you think there's a need for it - not if you think you "deserve" it or not, not if you think it'll "work" or not - if there's a need as in; if you're feeling depressed or the likes, Stabby. Medication, therapy, or both. Though, I won't ask you to switch therapy and medicine on a limb - that's a discussion to be held between you and your healthcare provider(s). But really, Nerd. Stabby doesn't need conflicting advice on whether or not to seek help if (s)he's feeling down. We all care for eachother here to some extent and we all want Stabby to feel better. So Stabby; if there's any need, please don't hesitate to get help. We're here if you wanna talk. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Stabby Anyone with 22k edits is a god damn RW hero in my eyes, period. And you're being honest on top of that. Two thumbs up man. Respect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

You did not let the Foundation down. And quit diagnosing people with mental illness on the Interwebs, not cool. You did not let the Foundation down. Objective (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I think Hamabost's intent is correct. Professionals have done wonders for my friends and family, even those who didn't have mental illness(es). Someone to talk to, who is neutral, and who knows the literature on psychology etc., is incredibly useful -- because life is hard.
As much as you demean it, your influence here is and will remain substantial. It might not seem like it while we squabble, but RW has genuinely grown into the internet's largest anti-conspiracy and anti-pseudoscience -- and your contributions (all 22k of them, edits alone) have helped them along. Failure is a human thing, all too often a RW thing, but that doesn't mean that you didn't move RW in the right direction. I wish you the best of luck in everything you do. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

ehh, don't beat yourself up. Do RW stuff an and when it's fun, do the grindy bits when you feel you should, stop doing them when they're too much of a goddamn PITA - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Objective Who was diagnosing people with mental illness on the Interwebs...? Stabby mentioned his/her own depression, Hamabost didn't diagnose anyone. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@FCP I also agree with Hamabost's intent, and I raise my voice in unison with it. Stabby, get well buddy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

[edit] EvoWiki: In case anyone wants a reprieve from drama

EvoWiki articles: 304 down. 2767 to go.

Drama got your head in a spin? Still hate creationism? Love tedious and unrewarding wiki tasks? Have we got the thing for you!

Project:EvoWiki is still ongoing. EvolutionWiki and its contents are owned by RationalWiki. Yet they remain separate. What can you do?

  1. Clean up ports. RW currently has 26 articles categorized as Category:EvoWiki ports. These articles need [1] to be cleaned up (they were written in '08-era wikicode), [2] to get an appropriate navsidebar and navbox, [3] to be renamed or merged with existing RW articles if necessary, and [4] removed from the EW port category. Tons of wikignome fun!
  2. Port over articles. EW has thousands of useful articles on evolution-education and creationism-rebuttal. (I'd estimate it's got 1/8 to 1/4 as much material as RW mainspace has.) And RW owns EW. To help port over the articles: [1] Ask me or David Gerard (DG is probs busy) to give you curator (edit) rights, [2] edit the EW article, copy its text, and replace it with "{{rw}}", [3] paste the text of the EW article to a RW article (if the RW article is under a different name, create the original name from EW as a redirect), [4] remove all categories, links, and templates that don't exist on RW, [5] add "Category:EvoWiki ports", and [6] proceed through "Clean up ports".

Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:18, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools