RationalWiki talk:Discord

The other server is far-left oriented
Both co-owners are far-left. Most mods are far-left. They routinely ban people for not being far-left. I don't think I was misrepresenting them. 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird then that continues to reside there. The server is left-wing, not "far left." — Oxyaena  Harass  16:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The moderation of the guild from my experience with it is not "far-left". I don't count as someone who is "far-left" (as talkpage arguments I've had would definetly indicate), I've argued with people you would probably deem "far-left" in there and the moment they steeped to personal attacks on me, the people that were "far-left" got warned by staff. To me that would indicate that the guild is not "far-left", even if the staff holds far-left beliefs (which I would consider irrelevant if the moderation of the guild isn't far-left). Even so, the moniker seems a bit odd given how we don't have that kind of moniker for the support chat. Both serve a different purpose imho. The support chat is mainly focused on the wiki, whereas the more general guild is less focused on the wiki from what I can see. It's a nice ditchonomy and it helps to be clear what the main focus is of each guild. 18:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Most likely the main reason I’m still there is I almost never say anything. There’s probably a few people there who’d like to see me get banned, and maybe some that don’t. I’d say the server is left wing, but it definitely has strong elements of the far-left (and I suspect a lot of people there wouldn’t deny it). Either way it’s certainly a lot further left than the wiki. --RWRW (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems quite farleft to me, but labeling it as such comes off as trying to start a fight. I added a more neutral disclaimer--Hastur! (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Another server-server discussion
I'm not satisfactory of how the servers are ordered nor am I for the description for the first one. The first description deems the server as "not necessarily affiliated with RationalWiki" which can bother and divide active users on that channel who they think are part of our project of debunking pseudoscience and opposing authoritarianism but don't necessarily edit the wiki. I do see the Discord server as an extension of the wiki project and people that participate in that server but not on the wiki itself, I still see them as RationalWiki community members, and I do not want to risk having them feel excluded. Have the description just be "general server". I also think it should be ordered first due to seniority and by its sheer size. If you think it doesn't have as many familiar editors as you expect (which is true), then that's Support Chat's job to say "more focused on the wiki project". That being said, there are active editors on both, active editors on just Support, active editors on just the general servers. 21:17, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nobody is excluded. Everybody can edit RationalWiki.  I am the one that added not necessarily affiliated with RationalWiki as some sort of distinction was necessary (and it was better than the "far-left" snarl another editor thought would be more appropriate).  The culture of the other server is quite different from RationalWiki and its important that newcomers not think the other server is indicative of who we are--Hastur! (talk)  21:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That might not be your intent but saying it's not "necessarily affiliated" gives it an air of exclusion. I think the server is an extension of us, so yes, I think newcomers should think that; while it's an independent community with its own rules and users that doesn't ban users solely based on their wiki activity but just on activity on their servers (for instance), it's still part of the RationalWiki project and I think it is part of who we are and I don't want to try to instill a division or resentment from the feeling of exclusion. 21:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How about general server, independent of RationalWiki although some editors do post there--Hastur! (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * When I first added changed the page to include both links I just called it a 'general server' . But the idea of it not really being affiliated is entirely accurate. The Mods on the Support Chat are the same as the Mods from the Wiki and follows roughly the same rules as the Wiki - same cannot be said for RatCord. As for "bothering and dividing people" all I will say is people on RatCord have repeatedly bad mouthed the Support Chat server (including calling it 'bargain-bin RatCord' and calling for the invite link to be scrubbed from the Wiki). Meanwhile on the Support Chat server we have rules that tell people not to go and bad mouth RatCord. But I would support Hastur's suggestion. --RWRW (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd just call the first one "general server" and the second one "server with more wiki focus". As for the bad-mouthing, I've been partaking an effort to stop bad-mouthing Support Chat. At the time, the Support Chat had a rocky history but I told them it was under new management under Dysk and I'm in charge. I made it explicit in Support Chat that we do not badmouth RatCord nor should Support Chat be used as a server for banned users from RatCord to vent about RatCord. I do expect RatCord to act vice-versa, which is also said in the rules, but I can't enforce this but I do believe in them. Also the characterization of "not really being affiliated" is not "entirely accurate". It is accurate to an extent, but only to an extent; I point some users are active exclusively or dominantly on RatCord, some users are more active on SupportChat, and some users are active on both (which I am). The proportion of familiar users on Support Chat is higher but there's still cooperation from RatChat and I don't see the point in trying to measure one or the other as being "more appropriate" or not. It's not some contest. 21:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As it is, it avoids confusion. People go to the support chat if they have wiki-related concerns.  They may explore ratcord if they so please, with the knowledge that the experience may well be different from what they encounter on RationalWiki proper--Hastur! (talk)  21:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Chat, by nature of being a Discord server (rapid fire instant messages, heavier consequences from moderation such as destructive message deletion, ability to create hidden channels), will also have a different "culture" from the Saloon Bar here. In fact, it DOES have a different feel. Support Chat also has a separate culture from RatCord too and that's noticeable. It doesn't make it more or less "valid" RationalWiki community. 22:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Support Chat is faster but the feel is much closer and the user base is far, far more in sync with the wiki. Why did you even bring this up, anyways?  Seems like pointless drama--Hastur! (talk)  22:57, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's on behalf of other users that feel uncomfortable about the exclusion here? It's not "pointless drama", it's an effort to try to unite a community rather than divide. I think it's worth bringing up even if it seems minor. 22:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay... but what exclusion? Neither RationalWiki nor its Discord is excluding anybody.  Have people from ratcord been excluded from RationalWiki or the Support Chat?  This has not happened, to my knowledge--Hastur! (talk)  23:00, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, main Discord is badmouthing Support Discord? Fuck them! 22:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of them don't know that you made a second iteration that isn't like the first one (the first one is a lot more...rocky given the management). I've explained to them and they're pretty receptive. 22:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Raven's proposal
02:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki Support Chat — Support server, more focused on wiki-related issues (server moderation team is the same from the wiki's)
 * RationalWiki Discord — General server, less focused on wiki-related issues (server moderation team is different from the wiki's)
 * Better, yeah. I just want to list RatCord first though since it's older and has a bigger population. 02:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Raven's proposal is good. Debating which one gets listed on the page first is such a pointless thing to worry about. --RWRW (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: I was kicked from ratcord for making fun of furries--Hastur! (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, if the other chat is still used to mock or attack the support chat, then I would support unlinking it. We in the support chat have consistently refrained from attacking the other server, so it isn't crazy for me to expect reciprocity. 03:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now Hastur, don't make me prove you a liar... 03:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * :/--Hastur! (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And Raven, some evidence for that claim would be nice. 03:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Server moderation team is the same from the wiki's"? I don't like that idea. I'm happy to be a moderator here. I'm not the least bit fucking interested in that Discord shite. Spud (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No obligations. The support chat merely has the same hierarchy.  The role is fulfilled anyways--Hastur! (talk)  03:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added a hint note: "Actually, not all moderators from the wiki use Discord, but the hierarchy is the same as the wiki's". Is this better for you? 04:32, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. Spud (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The "ratdiscord"
As someone who tried to mediate the conflict whether the "ratcord" discord server should stay on the sidebar (see above section), I am no longer convinced this is a healthy relationship.
 * The "ratcord" is inhabited by a large userbase who doesn't edit the wiki nor cares about the wiki. The link exists here only to suck off activity and potential editors to the discord. In fact, the admins and mods of the "ratcord" brag about not editing the wiki.
 * The "ratcord" has been a source of a lot of canvassing, where users from the wiki ask others to participate on the mod noticeboard and chicken coop.
 * There was an agreement that there wouldn't be interserver conflicts (between "ratcord" and the support chat). This is officially codified in the rules of both. Yet, very recently "ratcord" mods have posted memes attacking the other server. I said this back then and I will stay consistent: the "ratcord" has not respected this rule and I don't think it will change anytime soon.

I ask the wiki editobase whether they really want to be connected to a discord server that has nothing to do with the wiki other than instigating conflict and rooting activity. 17:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's worth caring about. Removing ratcord from this page will gain us little, but will definitely cause drama--Hastur! (talk)  17:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel like this is another attempt to start drama. Vorarchivist (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m given to understand that the matter was settled and no action is necessary. 18:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Just wanted to keep my word when I said it back in the beginning of August, when I actually tried to solve the drama problem that existed. Which, of course, nobody gives a shit if I try to help. 18:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * ...you tried to mediate? I remember you being the one who tried to call the guild far-left. You were not involved with the conflict within regards to that page and don't pretend to be. Anyone who doesn't believe me, well the archives are right there. In any case, yes the Discord should stay. Accusations of canvassing are ungrounded, please post actual evidence of canvassing (aka solliciting for votes in a certain direction). Merely talking isn't canvassing, there has to be an active push to it. "Memes attacking the other server"... what? I have been monitoring the way the Support Chat is talked about in that guild, and the worst it gets is people questioning why (and the answer is "it has a structure more tightly following the wiki, when it comes to mods"). There have been no interserver conflicts beyond one or two banned users trying to appeal in Support Chat for Ratcord, which usually gets handled swiftly, typically by Ratcord mods who are in the Support Chat. There is no hostile relationship between Ratcord or the Support Chat, not anymore anyway. We've come to an amicable agreement on the existence of the two servers. You're just trying to kick up drama. 20:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Subject already solved. Nobody cares. 20:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove "ratcord" from the server list
To be clear, I recognize that there is no functional way to talk about this subject without bringing up discord drama. Apologies in advance for anyone who is sick of it or doesn't want it to exist. But I feel it's time to address an elephant in the room. "Ratcord", the server on the list as "RationalWiki" should at least from my perspective be removed from the server list.

There are several reasons for this, but the main inciting incident was a situation where a user was arbitrarily banned from the server for the crime of "being boring". Do note that this is not a rule described in the server list, nor was any attempt to amend the rules met with anything but dejection and when I made a point of noting this and standing up for it, I was subsequently subjected to a similar ban vote. (I left before it was enacted because users were calling me pointless garbage and I am under no obligation required to put up with that.)

This is a very clear discrepancy with how the site itself is ran; to get permanently banned here (outside of obvious trolling), a rules violation has to be established.

Even outside of this drama, the connection the server has with RationalWiki as a whole is tenuous at best. The editor overlap between those of us highly active here and the userbase on ratcord is rather notoriously pretty much non-existent. Several prolific editors once were on the discord but were also eventually banned. I have seen multiple editors come and go from that server, with few managing to stick around. Some got banned for unacceptable behavior, others left because of other things. At the moment, the overlap in terms of active users is pretty much tiny to the point of obsolence.

This has been the result for about as long as I've been on the site, but as a general rule, the way things go on the discord and the way we do things here wasn't different enough for this to be an issue, so I advocated for the server to be kept in our list. That said, there's now a clear discrepancy here, and it needs addressing. As a result, I am putting it up to a vote. Since this vote concerns potential outside influence, I want to remind voters that for this vote, RationalWiki:Eligible users is specifically put into effect based on my own mod fiat, the basic concept that we should aim to reduce potential brigades and the fact that this pertains to communities we passively endorse which arguably makes this policy. -- Techpriest (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) Per my own proposal. -- Techpriest (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) It seems like the user cultures no longer overlap, and perhaps have not overlapped for some time. It would be best in that case if both parties went their separate ways. 00:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) Should never have been connected with RW.Scream!! (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) That server was a mistake. EDIT-we are already seeing someone make a massive post over something that didn't even happen on this site. Why should we host intense arguments over things which which didn't even happen here, or worse yet things which those of us without discord (not a small amount bear in mind) will never see the full context of?-Flandres (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 5) I wasn't going to vote for fear of my vote being perceived as vindictive but given what I've learned about the situation it's pretty clear that Ratcord and RW should go their separate ways-Hastur! (talk)  02:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 6) Not being on the discord, I have only encountered it as an occasional source of drama here. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  03:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 7) I recently left due to disgust against ratcord’s arbitrary and overbearing mod team. 04:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 8) Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 9) I’ve been on RatCord since 2018, personally witnessing much of the drama that spilled onto the wiki, seeing the huge rift between the two communities and seeing the contempt for rationalwiki that some discord users openly have. I’ve thought that this would be the inevitable (and appropriate) outcome for quite some time. --RWRW (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Long overdue, there’s almost no user overlap and little wiki-related discussion. Won’t pretend to understand the current drama. Christopher (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 11) “Ratcord” is an absolute joke: they’re more concerned with designing festive themed brain icons (I’m not joking), than with anything pertaining to RW’s mission. In the words of David Hume—commit it to the flame!  Leucippus Salva veritate 15:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 12) My first experience with Ratcord: banned for being a "Nazi" before I couldn't even make my first post. The reason? My nick is a reference to the Roman Empire (the guy that banned me was so ignorant that he thought that my avatar, a statue, was a Roman statue). Granted, they allowed me to come back later, but that should be enough to show how toxic that place can be. I mean no disrespect for Vora and the others, but that place is an eyesore and shouldn't even exist. I personally disagree with the idea that someone cannot be banned just for being annoying; a Discord server has an entertening value that a Wiki doesn’t have, e’re trying to build something bigger here. Nonetheless, if anything I’m afraid that Ratcord’s culture can leak to RW. That being said, I strongly support creating a “neo-ratcord” separated from the Support chat, although I don’t have time to chat there, let alone create and moderate a new discord server. GeeJayK (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Nay

 * 1) Nuclear Pasta convinced me that this is a proposal made in poor judgement. I don't think Techpriest is lying but I don't think her assessment of what happened here was accurate IMO. 03:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with LeftyGreenMario as it's for a drama that didn't happen on the RatWiki itself... Also, I found RatCord via RatWiki itself. Exaskliri (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 04:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Adam Warlock (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Ineligible

 * 1) This is an ill-founded proposal that ignores the context (and literal text) of what happened. NotHowThatWorks (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not eligible. Christopher (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Warum? NotHowThatWorks (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Only eligible users can vote to prevent brigading and because it’s arguably a policy vote (CS), per Techpriest’s original comment. Christopher (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I stand by what I said below, delinking the server is nothing more than one disgruntled user's attempt at revenge against the community, when she brought all this conflict upon herself. Nuclear Pasta  Talk  15:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't like assuming bad faith and I don't think she wants to condemn RatCord itself. Exaskliri (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * …bruh, it’s like written in plain text that she is condemning the server. No one would want it removed from the front page otherwise.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Sqrt-1 / talk / contribs 01:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not condemning the server. If this is the community RatCord wants to run, then they are very much free to do so. That being said, it is not in any form matching up with the way we do things around here, which means we can't in good conscience link to it from here. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Goat

 * Sidenote, whether or not this vote goes through, I'll clean the page up in general a bit. I do intend on keeping the Support chat listed (because it doesn't have much of a culture and has at times helped unblocking users who got accidentally mistaken for trolls, I am the owner of it and I have a strict policy of promoting people with positions on the wiki to having positions on the server), RW server is well, vote pending. I'm wiping the affiliated list, it's very strenuously tied to RW and has caused drama in the past according to the talkpage history. Similarly, I'm wiping the members list since most of the users there are terribly out of date/not really active here anymore/got banned from here. I don't think this is controversial enough to cause objections, but if you have them, speak your mind. -- Techpriest (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * This looks like it was made in the wake of a recent major disagreement I'm looking through currently in the server. I can't help feeling that you should cool down and process what just happened before you attempt such a drastic change like this. 01:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not see how this is drastic in any form. It's been said several dozens of times by now, both on and off of that server that it mainly doesn't really pertain to RW as a site anymore. I'm fine with them if that is the community they want to build, but we are not under any obligation to lend oxygen to a server that fundamentally does not work with the CS we employ here. (In fact, when I pointed out that even here you need an example of a rules violation to get a case against someone, I was told "this is not the wiki", which is pretty much an admittance that CD is not considered relevant for that server, which is pretty much one of the guidelines that we employ in determining rules violations and I would consider a core principle of the CS/RW as a whole). -- Techpriest (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't say I agree. The ideals of both the server and the site align, where vetting sources is important and the wiki was a bit of a springboard for a lot of the members. I could ask how they found the server. In the meantime, I don't think it fundamentally doesn't work with the CS. The CS itself explicitly states that spirit rather than letters matter more: discourages the "they didn't break any rules" if a behavior is called into question. As for the "this is not the wiki" a Discord server is always going to be fundamentally different from the wiki; people aren't going to be handed block privileges like candy for instance. As one of the first messages I recall from the older days of the server, "it's easier to fuck up a server". But they're not really advocating a clean hard divide between the wiki and the server? 01:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the few ideals we have here is that even if you dislike a user's choice of conversations, you can just ignore them, we don't put them to ban vote on that. The thing you're msising is that "they didn't break any rules" isn't even a "don't shoot your foot off" emergency button. The proposal was literally "I find this user boring, I find the conversations they generate boring and unpleasant to look at, let's get rid of them". Upon asking for elaboration, I wasn't given much else outside of some vague statements. The user wasn't some stripe of bigot or asshole to anyone, their most notable presence on the server was joining and feeling stressed out over Roko's Basilisk for a bit, before settling into regular conversations with people that weren't particularly interesting, nor particularly offensive. -- Techpriest (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out that the way Techpriest presented the situation is misleading to the point of outright lying. Lots and lots of users were getting irritated with this user for constantly derailing discussions to constantly bring up obscure hypotheticals, and he was blatantly using other users as his therapist for his anxiety over obscure transhumanist thought experiments.  Quite a lot of people wanted to get rid of him, and yet she kept insisting that "one person can't just have another kicked out purely out of personal bias," and straight-up ignored all the other people saying they wanted him gone too, to the point where the number of people who voted to ban outnumbered the votes to keep by a factor of five to one.  It's a basic fact that if a community does not want to have someone there, then there's no obligation to keep them there, just like a person who does not want to have guests in their house is not obligated to continue to have guests.  In ratcord's case, the consensus was that they weren't happy with him there, and the majority of people agreed that they wanted him gone.  Techpriest's constant refrain of "but point out specifically which rule he broke" pretends to ignore the blatantly obvious fact that plenty of trolls cause lots of harm by intentionally toeing the line and consciously doing things which are technically inside the rules, but which by any reasonable measure are abusive.  It is for this exact reason that ratcord, like most other well-moderated servers, has a rule specifically outlining that any behaviour which technically does not violate any rules but which is in obvious bad faith, or which makes other users feel unwelcome/uncomfortable/etc is still punishable.  Techpriest continued to pretend to ignore basic social realities such as that to continue arguing that it was merely a case of one disgruntled user trying to get another one exiled, and when that fell flat, she resorted to extreme, abusive, and hyperbolic language, amongst other things calling the ban vote a "lynching" and calling the modstaff and community "dictatorial" and "reactionary."  When confronted with actual evidence that this wasn't merely one person and that everybody wanted this, she started insisting that the community was unfit to make decisions for itself and that it needed to be have its decisions made for them by a modstaff which was above bias and grudges.  In all her time on the server, she has been combative, contrarian for the sake of contrariness, and constantly engaged in bad-faith devil's advocate arguments which were completely unwarranted and inappropriate in most cases.  As such, the last thing she did before falling on her sword and leaving the server was brag about how she was going to cut off the server's source of new members purely as retribution for it no longer being welcoming to her, despite the fact that she was the one who burned all her bridges and chose this hill to die on.  This is nothing more than pure vindictiveness, and her attempt to disavow the server as a means of extracting personal revenge shouldn't even be taken seriously.  (And as a side note, it's worth noting that her motives couldn't be clearer by the fact that she went out of her way to bring up the Support Server out of nowhere, purely to clarify that that one is okay, when she is in fact the owner of said server, almost like this is at least in part a scheme to elevate her own standing and position herself as the only RW-endorsed official server.)  Nuclear Pasta  Talk  03:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I look forward to finding out the next person you guys block/drive away-Hastur! (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * How do I respond to this without going into the very thing I don't want to do; ligitating discord drama on the wiki. I'll try to keep this as short as possible; "obscure hypotheticals"/"personal therapist" both of these are referring to the users short period of time of believing and stressing out about Roko's Basilisk. Yes it was annoying at that point, but they hadn't been doing that for quite some time so that reasoning doesn't add up. I am fully aware that a ruleset can't cover every rule, but there is the "obvious loophole abuser who is disruptive" sidestepping and "moon logic" sidestepping. This is the latter. I'll skip all the personal attacks on my address, but rest assured that I find this a highly biased way to look at things that ignores about 80% of my activity there if all you do is characterize me as a devils advocate contrarian (I am in fact not, most of my activity there was fairly casual discussions). I used hyperbolic language because it got the point accross. The final thing I want to address on this is that while the users behavior may have been somewhat annoying back then, it was by no means trolling, "bad faith" or banworthy and more importantly that behavior stoppped. As for what pertains to the wiki; no this is not a power move to go for the support chat. I'd nuke that thing entirely if it turned out to be a backchatter area for discussions on the wiki or had a similar divergence like what happened here, but it's proven so far to be quite useful in keeping chatter there wiki-focused and we've had people who got mixed up with trolls show up from time to time to ask for help; there's a use for it, one that Ratcord barely if ever fulfills. I brought up the subject of removing the server from the list not because I want to cut off new members (by all means, there are multiple server directories for discord, register on one), but because I cannot in good conscience recommend users to go to a community that is willing to be this divergent from the rules and guidelines RW has beyond the point of even a wide interpretation of "don't shot your foot off". -- Techpriest (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel like you're aware of your hypocrisy but aren't quite willing to acknowledge it yet. I give it a couple of years and you'll be fending off mobs with torches and pitchforks defending hapless cranks who chose RW as their home-Hastur! (talk)  01:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Says the one doing that right now elsewhere on the site. This isn't about a hapless crank at all. -- Techpriest (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Allow me to elaborate: One of the few ideals we have here is that even if you dislike a user's choice of conversations, you can just ignore them, we don't put them to ban vote on that.-Hastur! (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I believe in you. We'll make a Hastur out of you yet!-Hastur! (talk)  01:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that we have established (again) Hastur is a melodramatic cretin still nostalgic for the days when even the likes of Tisane were allowed here let's just ignore him and move on with our lives.-Flandres (talk) 02:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, you can't just ignore people you don't like. You have to permaban them.  THAT'S how we do things now, you big silly goose-Hastur! (talk)  02:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Last comment I'll make on this since this is highly off-topic; if you seriously can't understand the difference between not putting up with a PRATTling dumbass who wants to relitigate the same points over and over again and the situation I laid out, I suggest you have more moral searching to do than me. -- Techpriest (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Analyzing "PRATTling dumbass who wants to relitigate the same points over and over again" as "obsessive dummy who always wants to have the same pointless conversation" suggests some parallels to "I find this user boring, I find the conversations they generate boring and unpleasant to look at". All that really seems to have changed is that the user is getting called stupid rather than boring, and the conversations called pointless rather than boring.  Relitigating the same thing over and over is, in a very real sense, a choice of conversation, dislikable though it may be.  I would like to think that there is something I am missing here, some principle. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒   talk  02:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not the only one who thinks this is hilarious, right?-Hastur! (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a rather timely illustration of one of the major risks of I don't like this as an argument. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 02:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Minor thing: the list of active members will be very outdated, should probably be removed. Christopher (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll do that either way, whether the vote fails or not. It's in general just not a representative list of people you can find both here and there because many are either not that active here or have been banned from here or there (Oxy for example is banned from both that discord and from here). -- Techpriest (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: are we going by simple majority or by 2/3 majority? 18:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple majority, the only scenario where we need a supermajority is for block votes. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy votes require a supermajority, and this is being treated as a policy vote. Christopher (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, that is about policy votes relating to a users removal from the site. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Like it matters. The only other users that might vote against this more than likely forgot their passwords lol-Hastur! (talk)  21:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In this specific case, it doesn't matter too much but this is the second time we've run into this question iirc. I do think it needs some clarification. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say supermajority, since this to some degree a major decision. 21:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Policy votes need a supermajority, the CS isn’t at all ambiguous. The only reason we keep running into the question is because people don’t read it. It can’t be referring to policy votes relating to a users removal from the site, as that’s not something that happens. Doesn’t really matter in this case of course. Christopher (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been over 7 days. Closed the vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 09:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Request to add "Saloon Bar" to the server list and formally affiliate it with the wiki.
Heyo, if you don't spend much time in the Saloon Bar, I've announced that I have created a new server to solve some of the issues we have with the Support Chat and the Ratcord. The current verification system I have in place requires new users to send a message to my talkpage, but I'd like to move it to the RationalWiki space for accessibility reasons. Of course, before I can do any of that, I probably should get the server formally affiliated and not just a pet-project. Can we start a vote about it here? 03:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You have my informal permission to set up a vote. -- Techpriest (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yay

 * 1) I still have no idea why I haven't done this sooner 15:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) OK. Spud (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I guess it's better if I don't have to spam your talkpage when I get around to joining. Vomitorium (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Goat

 * Here's the server in question. 15:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)