RationalWiki talk:Chicken coop/motion by human 2011 5 10

ListenerX's response

 * 1) With regard to your complaint about my fixing the poll's length at 72 hours, my motivation was to keep the matter open until the lynch-mob that was gathering at that time had a chance to repent and make a slightly more sober judgment.
 * 2) Despite what you say here about your motives in promoting Blue — and it should be noted that Blue herself now views the matter in a different light because of this — your stated reason for promoting her was, "Accusing long time user of being a troll, complete lack of judgement."  Some heed must be paid to that stated reason.

03:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You must view that comment as part of the overall sequence of events, LX. The "complete lack of judgment" is explained in Huw's response as specifically referring to Blue's decision to unilaterally decrat Sterile without cause. Nutty Roux (talk)
 * We must also ask, then, why Human did not promote her until quite some time after the wheel-war had ended and, it could be argued, any justification for "pre-emptive" promotion had evaporated. We must further ask why he did not end the debacle immediately by explaining himself. 03:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He was cooped almost immediately and it wasn't long after that SuspectedReplicant hastily put up a vote that the mob jumped onto. Once an adversarial process begins one is entitled to sufficient time to make a response. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As the vote has come in Human's favor, there is no need to dispute this any further, but I gave him three days with the expectation that he would use it. Had he done so and turned out not guilty, the vote would not have mattered, and many people probably would have changed their votes anyway. 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your earnestness but it wasn't necessarily your place to give him any particular amount of time at all. I don't fault you for it because you rightly perceived a need for order knowing the process was going to be a mess from the moment people gave it credence. If we're going to do stuff like this we need some basic rules of procedure. Ad hoc is bad hoc.
 * Who do I petition for a judgment in Huw's favor acquitting him of all charges? Nutty Roux (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, the mob did that already. Jury nullification, you might say. 04:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel uncomfortable as Huw's advocate unilaterally entering judgment in his favor his favor on this acquittal, assuming it's accepted given the divergent number of views about how this proceeding should have been conducted. But since there's no proper judge here I'd accept a statement exonerating Huw of the charges brought by a prominent editor willing to take responsibility for the consequences of it. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Blue's current opinion of this case, you might just ask her to drop the charges. 04:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * She didn't call for this. SuspectedReplicant did. I'll take Blue's word though. Despite all this and our extremely brief differences I still think she's good people. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I just want to mention that it took a full three days simply to prepare this motion and statement. 16:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"users who have essentially nullified their vote by indicating they are voting against me for conduct unrelated to the matter at hand"
(EDIT CONFLICT)

I'd just like to address this, briefly, since I assume it refers to my vote. I mentioned your past behavior because it is highly relevant, in that it contributes to my stance that you "[arent'] prepared to acknowledge the rules for user rights, even when repeatedly referred to them". The main reasoning behind my vote is, obviously, Blue's promotion.

Moreover, you also criticize people for saying things like "he's done this multiple times" without giving examples. My vote contained such an example, but you interpreted it as "unrelated to the matter at hand". You can't simultaneously say "people haven't given me other examples" and "people keep bringing up old examples".

For the record, I don't bear you any malice, and I haven't been lurking in the shadows waiting for a chance to decrat you. You were one of my favourite editors back in the day, as you could easily verify just by looking at any talk page dating from before the Big Mobocracy Debate. My stance is that miscommunication and ad hoc rules have seriously damaged the community, and that we have to look at the problem openly and honestly. I appreciate your move towards civility, and I hope to uphold it as best I can. 03:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're 300% right to want to address his prior bad behavior and heavyhandedness. Where's the appropriate place for that? We definitely don't have a mechanism for banishing someone. We don't even have a process for decratting. I speak with Huw frequently and tell him he's overstepping things sometimes. He's not always as politic as I would recommend. But this about the rules. What do they say? What's the penalty for breaking them? No JAQing off here: Decratting an ancient editor is srsbznss. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this is our de-cratting process. Can we get going with the Constitutional Convention now? 03:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll make a case for why it's unnecessary but the discussion can do nothing but help. Thanks for your assistance in chairing the trial. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "a mechanism for banishing someone". I don't think anyone's proposed that Human be banished.
 * You're right that we don't have a process for decratting someone. However, for the most part we don't have a process for anything. The RW approach to new things has usually been to forge a new process (usually involving a vote) and then refer to it later, unless I'm much mistaken. I guess I thought we would use that approach.
 * I'm aware that we don't have rules. My position has always been that we seriously need them -- at least for certain things, like user rights. In this "trial" I tried to use the RW approach -- calling for consensus and referring to customs rather than rules -- and that clearly hasn't worked very well. I sincerely thought that RW had developed a tradition for awarding user rights that could be applied fairly consistently -- with the RW "group" by and large being aware of it and participating healthily -- without becoming, or needing to become, a rigid set of rules. To be blunt, I thought RW elected bureaucrats, and that someone selecting bureaucrats by themselves could reasonably be told "We don't do it like that". Was I wrong? (Likewise, I mean this as an earnest question that I do not know the answer to, not a provocation or an argument in itself). 04:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect your perspective. I would have liked it to be that way too. As to your last question, yeah. You were wrong. The vast majority of crats were created by fiat with no discussion or objection. I'm not going to look you up but I was cratted by fiat by Huw about 2 years ago and some of both of our favorite crats were too. Not much of a process but yeah. Nutty Roux (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)