Debate:The Rationalwiki Reform Society

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by signed users.


The Rationalwiki Reform Society is a proposed organisation of Rationalwikians (or at least one Rationalwikian) with the stated goal of taking all of the fun out of this place trying to provoke a needless episode of Headless Chicken mode stemming the relentless descent of this website into intellectual insignificance and juvenilia.

Abstract[edit]

The necessity of creating this society is, to at least one guy, self evident - several people we could frankly have done without key members have left in the past and the intellectual vacuum has not been replaced. [1] Over the last 6 months, possibly longer, meaningful intellectual discussions have barely occurred and usually when they do they fizzle out rather quickly. Rationalwiki is dying,[2] its foundational principles are withering away. Marcus This organisation hopes to stem the tide and re-assert the foundational principles of the website with gusto and bombast. It is not based on compulsion, please do not make the assumption that the society is enforcing its views on anyone who disagrees. Think of it as an organisation of like minded individuals who will adopt the objectives listed below. There is no way of enforcing these objectives except through voluntary means and ostracisation[3].

Another pattern, which has always been evident yet not as serious as late, is the descent into juvenilia and the pervasive presence of internet memes in all its various and unfunny forms[4]. There is a relatively small number of members who revel in this,[5] yet they seem to take up the vast majority of recent changes with their irrelevant and childish edits. This must stop with immediate effect if Rationalwiki ever hopes to meet the fine principles it was founded on.

Some might ask why I care, and why I am adopting such a faux serious approach[6], but this is really quite necessary. I like this place, I even like some of the members but certain things need to change. Otherwise this will continue to be a haunt for teenagers with nothing better to do with their time. Whatever your opinion of me, try to see past it and comment constructively on what I propose. You may not agree, but at the very least you should debate your case with some honesty.

Objectives[edit]

  • The rejection of all fringe and crackpot theories - of either the left or right wing variety.
  • The rejection of internet memes in either debate or inter-personal discussions.
  • The rejection of all fake internet authority - This means a determination to see through and accomplish the original meaning of the sysop corps (To in effect, be irrelevant)
  • The rejection of irrelevant internet hierarchies, of either a formal or informal nature.
  • The rejection of religious bigotry.
  • The rejection of personal insults based solely on political or religious beliefs. (Incidentally, personal insults are not only advisable, but compulsory when someone is being bigoted, behaving irrationally, or resorting to any signs of behaviour at odds with the objectives of the Rationalwiki Reform Society)
  • The determination to hold investigations of current affairs, the humanities, the social sciences, philosophy, religion and science to the highest degree of candour and passion.
  • The determination to assert the primacy of reason - not scurrilous deduction or ideologically motivated political stilting - in all Rationalwikian articles and discussion pages.
  • The encouragement of meaningful intellectual discussions on Rationalwiki.

Footnotes[edit]

  1. For instance, we no longer have anyone to turn to for discussions of the finer differences between Therianism and Furry Fandom
  2. HOORAY! maybe we'll all get out a little more.
  3. IE--Don't Feed the Troll
  4. LOL. SRSLY? OMFG.
  5. Emperor, we're looking at you.
  6. Hey Marcus: Why do you care? And what's with this whole "faux serious" approach?

Yea[edit]

  • MarcusCicero
  • I didn't read any of the proposal... but I totally agree with it! RandomSock 06:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nay[edit]

  • Please read Debate:Inactivity (especially Debate:Inactivity#What is RationalWiki?). Banning unproductive talk talk talk will only result in people going away. Removing the "relatively small number of members who revel in [internet memes]" and "take up the vast majority of recent changes with their irrelevant and childish edits" will not magically increase the number of constructive edits. And even if a user only makes one constructive article edit for every 100 irrelevant and childish edits, they are improving RationalWiki. -- Nx / talk 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This is why these things should be put on the debate page. You have completely misunderstood my point, possibly based on some misinterpretation of the means I propose. The only thing I mention that should be removed is the saloon bar. By rejecting the use of memes and other crap I'm merely saying they should be shunned - not necessarily reverted and bans shouldn't even be countenanced. MarcusCicero 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, you want it your way. You are getting CUR like. Be a big boy, the saloon bar not going anywhere. You don't have to visit it and you dont have to post any memes. If you dont like it MC then unfortunately thats your issue. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
? MarcusCicero 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"This must stop with immediate effect" so what if someone doesn't want to stop it? -- Nx / talk 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Nothing. Other than the fact they should be shunned. MarcusCicero 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Then shun them. You don't need to close down the Saloon bar to do that. -- Nx / talk 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Due to the nature of the rejections of the projected closure of the saloon bar, I will remove that objective right now. This whole thing is getting dragged around on a rather insignificant issue. The heart of the proposals aren't even being challenged. MarcusCicero 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
EC Funny you should mention our Therian friend. Looking at the "inactivity" debate, a lot of it seems to be CUR whinging in much the same way MC is. RaoulDuke 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Troll. MarcusCicero 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
So you don't disagree with that observation, then? Good. Hugs and kisses. RaoulDuke 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I whinged just as much in the inactivity debate. Mindless wisest Hoover! 06:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Grow Up, Marcus, and Stop Taking Yourself and this Place so Seriously[edit]

  • RaoulDuke 21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Disband the Saloon? That wont work, this is a mobocracy dude. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You're turning into CUR, stop now. Have a look at Debate:Inactivity. Totnesmartin 21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I was under the apprehension that MC was a troll, given that he seems to appear at random in order to hurl strings of insults. Is this not the case? PubliusTalk 22:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
He has a point, though I don't agree with his proposed solution (or whether we need to do anything about it). Dismissing him by calling him a troll is not going to help. -- Nx / talk 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

  • Are we all supposed to sign this somewhere? I'll sign it here. I think MC is delusional. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Only sensible place to vote on this is here

Merged debate[edit]

The mainpage has this plastered at the top left corner:

'Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

  1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
  3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. '

Presently this is a lie. It is simply untrue. The reform society aims to change Rationalwiki and bring it into line with what it was intended for. MarcusCicero 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the sake of simplicity, can we discuss this on the relevant talk page, where a discussion is already happening, as opposed to here? RaoulDuke 21:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I fixed RD's link, and MC, what on earth are you talking about? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
No. The basic premise of the debate is above. I think the talk page is revolving around calling me an emotional CUR re-incarnation. Or something. MarcusCicero 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Added delete as there is discussion elsewhere. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 21:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The actual society is not being discussed over there. MarcusCicero 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not much of a society with only one guy in it. RaoulDuke 22:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you ever just settle the head? Your personal attacks are just grating when you haven't even the balls to actually make a case. At least have some honesty, TOP. This is just a weird grudge you have for some reason. MarcusCicero 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
MC, "Your personal attacks are just grating when you haven't even the balls to actually make a case." I note no mention of cases or facts in the claims that start this "debate". Seems you don't actually have the balls, or the chops, to actually make your case. Yes, I know you claim the lurkers agree with you in pmail, but no one seems to in "reality". ħumanUser talk:Human 07:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

... begins at home.[edit]

For someone who wants to lecture everyone else on how they ought to behave, you haven't done anything about it yourself. In your entire history here you've barely touched any articles, and when you do it's usually to vandalise them.

Why don't you start your reforms with yourself? Instead of proposing grandiose rules that will just alienate people from RW, do what you're proposing yourself. Write the articles. Start the discussions. Until you do that, you're just a concern troll. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Says the guy who insults me in the Nuclear thread, then ducks off to work on his sig. I make no secret of my past, but time and time again I've come up against a childish internet culture which is at odds with how this website is supposed to be. Either change the mission statements and the about section or admit the need to actually reform the place. MarcusCicero 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC) P.S- Vandalism? Fuck off. I don't vandalise, you were always shot down when you made that unbelievable charge. MarcusCicero 22:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
MC, you are continually at odds with our community standards also. Now you are the hypocrite. You are being a concewrn troll, openly and aggressivly right now. Why don't you start you own wiki with the reforms you have mentioned? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
EC "you haven't done anything about it yourself." "you've barely touched any articles." "Write the articles. Start the discussions. Until you do that, you're just a concern troll" Since you don't seem to disagree with the thrust (heh. "thrust".) of Jeeves's argument, why not just run along. RaoulDuke 22:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
He accused me of vandalism - which I'm just about bloody sick of at this stage, coming from him. Can we please get back to debating the points at hand rather than question my motives? Even if my motives were impure (Which they are not) I still raise relevant questions. At least confront them. MarcusCicero 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) P.S- I'm ignoring TOP, who is trolling rather aggressively and nonsensically at this stage. MarcusCicero 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You are being a concern troll, openly and aggressivly right now. Why don't you start you own wiki with the reforms you have mentioned as it doesn't look like you'll be getting your way here. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ace, I'm on my knee's, begging you not to go down this line. Its unfair and quite frankly its rude. MarcusCicero 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry, I don't know what you mean. Explain please. What line? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 22:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't touched my sig in months. I "ducked out" of the nuclear thread as you say because it became very clear you didn't really have clue what you were talking about. And [yes you do vandalise]. My efforts to vandal bin you may have been thwarted by kinder people than me, but after your most recent psychotic episode even the bleeding hearts are pretty much sick of you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Your silence on the Nuclear thread really did display your erudition and knowledge of the period, I must say! As for the vandalism - if that had have been done by anyone else it would have been called snark. I'm just talking as someone who actually knows something about the crusades - not some poxy 21st century perception based on wikipedia scholarship. And its revealing that you keep a grief list of edits. As for the pyschotic thing? Cheers mate. I'm not the one who left and never came back in the most bizarrely self important parting shot of internet history. MarcusCicero 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
MC I have politely put several questions to you and you failed to answer a single one. I am not going to relist them as the are all on this page and the talkpage. Hence I have to conclude that you are merely trolling in a concerned manner. As stimulating as it is I have better things to do. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
See, if you know something about the crusades, you could have just improved the article rather than insulting the author. Isn't that what this is about getting more people to improve the articles? And I don't keep a "grief list", I went to your contribs and selected "main space" as a filter. I only had to check two diffs before I found vandalism. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
'improving the article'? What does that even mean around here? Define snark for one thing. I prefer to discuss issues on the talk page anyway as I'm usually shouted down when I try to change any of the madness here. MarcusCicero 23:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way Ace, I really am. But since I feel I've answered your questions, and resent the manner in which you are framing your argument, perhaps your withdrawal from this debate mightn't be a bad thing. Though you are on of the few Rationalwikians whose judgement I actually have time for. MarcusCicero 23:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry you didn't answer me when I asked who else feels tbe way you do and above you mention something about a line, what line? And my argument is not an argument - I am not debating you, I am making statements. There is no debate here. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The line = telling me either to like it or lump it.
the people who feel like I do = its not appropriate to name names, but I have gathered from various edits that some people dislike the way things are run here. The Dane, for example, left in disgust with how this place turned out. MarcusCicero 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately it is like it or lump it because it isn't going to change in a major way as you want. Secondly, those people who were dissapointed left or lumped it, which is what you need to do. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Take 2[edit]

This has gone horribly wrong, and certain people are taking a dishonest approach to discussing this. I have updated the abstract so as to clarify my position and display the means through which the objectives might be met. Less of the knee jerk reactions and accusations of trolling please. And for the love of God, please, please, try to argue with the actual facts I mention. MarcusCicero 23:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please naswer my question above. What line? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You're basically saying I should just leave if I disagree. So much for talking in order to change things. MarcusCicero 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. If it's not compulsory or anything, what is the problem? You are free to pursue these objectives, ignore the juvenile discussions on the Saloon bar and shun the internet memes. -- Nx / talk 23:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! I'm simply opening this society up for others to join in and adopt the measures proposed. I'm not proposing scrapping anything (Well I did propose scrapping the saloon bar, but I had to remove that) MarcusCicero
I really don't see what the problem, in fact, is. I've only been here a little while and I've participated in some interesting discussions about serious topics. The key, Marcus, is to improve Rationalwiki not by attacking people but by making meaningful edits. There are plenty of articles that need work, and plenty of cranks out there that we don't cover. JS Leitch 23:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
You haven't been here long. Give it time. MarcusCicero 23:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
What Nx said. It is not going to change because of your whims. As stated several times MC, suck it up like a big boy or don't come around. Simple. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 23:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I've not been editing long, but have read RW for a long time now, and personally I think it's in pretty good health. Decent edits are happening, and I'm getting helpful responses in talk pages. The deregulated set-up is what makes this place work for me. Like Ace said, some of us come here " for shit'n'giggles, for a chat with like-minded individuals or to edit articles". I'm up for mobocracy. It's not hard to see when someone is bigoted or behaving like a dick, and we individually judge them accordingly. --Concernedresident 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference between what I'm actually saying and what you think I'm saying[edit]

Some of you seem to think that I am saying something that I am not. If you look carefully, I do not mention articles themselves - these are largely irrelevant and unnecessary. I'm talking about discussions and debates, which don't seem to happen too often, or as often as they should. I'm talking about this group being a voluntary group of like minded people - it is not intended to institute rules or bans. In fact, it is perfectly in line with the mobocratic approach of this place - wherein the mob themselves decide on the appropriate way to behave and act.

So please try to be more charitable when you read what I say and do not affix a meaning that simply isn't there. MarcusCicero 23:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We've all read what you're saying. The problem is, what you're saying and what you're doing are two entirely different things. Why don't you come back to this in a couple of months time after you've actually put what you're saying in to practice yourself. People will be more likely to take you seriously if you're actually an upstanding member of the community rather than a periodic irritant to be endured. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you're happy with the articles and not with the banter, read/write/edit articles and ignore the banter. If you don't like the general culture of the place, that's another thing. You're acting in a pretty entitled manner to go around asking people to conform to your idea of what the place should be like when most everyone either likes it the way it is, or more likely, has learned how to partake in that which they enjoy and leave behind that which they do not. You'd prolly be wise to do the same, 'cause the place will change as it evolves, but not to suit any one person's outlook. RaoulDuke 23:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. What Raoul said. You know, your ostracism thing. Don't let the "internet memes" distract you from making RW better. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I really am quite amazed with the response this has gotten. I went away for a smoke, cleared my head, and looked over what I actually wrote. Its all rather unambiguous and so I can only conclude that these responses are based on peoples opinion of me from earlier times.
All I can say is this - my final word for the night as I really have to go to bed - If you disagree with the reform society, fine. No-one will force you to accede to the objectives listed. If you agree, then join and simply undertake to follow the measures listed. There is nothing especially controversial mentioned, no cumpulsion, no real threat to anyone here. In fact what I suggest is remarkably benign. The 'bad manners' in this thread has not, in fact, came from me, but others such as TOP and Jeeves. So maybe if you look at what I say, free of the biased mind you're bringing to this debate, you might realise that I might actually have a point.
Goodnight.MarcusCicero 23:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Goodnight Marcus. Sleep tight. RaoulDuke 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how almost everything MC says here contradicts almost everything he said here yesterday. Anyhoo, good luck with the society, it sounds like a blast. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not interesting at all: he's just trolling so consistency shouldn't be expected. He sees us as a group of which he is not a member and is just doing the usual outsider thing: if you can't join, destroy. He's trying to get us fighting among ourselves. Over the years we have accrued a fairly homogeneous core or at least we know our various idiosyncrasies and get along and it upsets him that he isn't in that "in crowd" despite his being the most intelligent person on the web. I am eating Toast& honeychat 01:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I have stayed out of this cause quite frankly MC is as dull as a beige Volvo. However, Toast, you have hit the nail right on the head. Rad McCool 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Little note posted at car repair place next door "Volvo battle tank for sale"... ħumanUser talk:Human 06:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What is this "cumpulsion" that MC keeps referring to? Is it an internet meme of which I am unaware? Sounds porno to me. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some real, useful reform[edit]

One thing that perhaps does need reform is how we deal with persistent trouble makers who don't fit neatly in to the "vandal bin on sight" category. It seems to me we're terrible at dealing with these people. We had headless chicken mode over deciding to ban TK, and now we're letting MC troll us to his heart's content, much as TK did.

Is there anything that can be done, short of having some people actually in charge> --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

With time Jeeves, you will see. You have trolled, and insulted me in this thread. Reform sometimes has to happen from the ground up due to people not having the mental capacity to look beyond mere personality. You are one of these people. MarcusCicero 08:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. No. We tried with CUR--we actually TRIED CUR, and he was on some probation for a while and then eventually skulked away on his own accord. Pretty much the same thing with TK, IIRC. The problem is, there's no consistency among the heavy hitters how to deal with this stuff, so it usually just drags out until the troll in question gets bored. MC is pretty tenacious, but he'll disappaear eventually. But there's no point gettin' all HCM by trying to come up with a policy that will prolly end up being divisive and not really working--ban him, bin him, someone will un-ban and un-bin. RaoulDuke 01:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually totally understand what he is getting at and, to some extent, I agree particularly with the internet memes. I don't visit 4chan nor am I part of any other forums or internet communities (if RW died I would get on with my real life instead - and harrass Nutty via telephone) and I find the "teh" and lolcats etc etc rather silly but anyway while I understand I don't think MC is genuine in his feelings nor do I think he puts his case well. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 02:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
O noez! No can haz teh lolcats anymoarz? In all srsnuss, I'm trying to quit and write only serious things. No more lolcat-speak *sniff*Secret Squirrel 02:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, I am just old skool. I dont even type "LOL". Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 02:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
But, Ace, you are a one-man internet meme... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest that we ban all trouble makers on site (pun intended), revert their edits, install Checkuser, institute rangeblocks, and have witch-hunts for all those not "atheist" enough. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Dang, I was going to say "and disable anonymous editing" but you signed in and signified your policy position. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't agree, that is a slippery slope towards CP. We just have to keep doing our jobs. If we show annoyance, it will just encourage them. Besides, do we want our own Bugler?--Thanatos 03:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You seem unfamiliar with sarcasm. Are you aware of other "asm's"? I know some I could teach you. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 03:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately that rather underscores one of MC's points. :( Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I suppose emoticons count as internet memes. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Binned[edit]

I re-binned MC, after having taken him out the other day. After Ace's words and those of Jeeves and Weasaloid (not to mention his own), I went back and looked at his edit history. He's never made an edit that wasn't combative and trying to pick a fight. Usually he's succeeded. It's possible he's well-meaning and honestly trying to help with stuff like this page, but it sure doesn't seem like it. He's either being subtly malicious or he's just retarded when it comes to basic interactions. Either one is a problem he seems incapable of surmounting. Obviously if someone else wants to give him yet another chance, no one's going to stop you, but this was - what? - his fifteenth chance to quit being such a dick. Dum spiro spero and all that, but there's a line.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 06:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I paroled him. Obviously I haven't been here long enough to understand all everything involved with the user, but I believe that every person on this site is a big boy or girl who can take a little belligerence. YorickIs Joe Biden Eva Braun? 08:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
We should knock this on the head. One person tries to change RW into something he likes, rather than what other people like. He should get a thicker skin. There's stuff on RW I disagree with but instead of fighting the site I just ignore it and work elsewhere. There probably is, somewhere, a "serious" forum for talking about what we talk about. Shop around the internet, MC, and you'll find something to like. Totnesmartin 08:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I will stop pressing the issue if you change your mission statement and about section. But I happen to remember this place as being much better, much more intellectual when I first arrived. Then again, the quality of members was greatly improved back then. You may like horrible internet jokes and meaningless internet banter, but you are a child really, a child who doesn't know the first thing about the importance of reason. Lookit, stop telling me to go to somewhere else. And besides, its usually only a couple of minutes before some self important power crazed nut like TomMoore decides to vandal bin me. Just shun me if you disagree with what I do. But you shouldn't try to shut up someone who is merely pointing out your own institutional hypocrisy to you. MarcusCicero 08:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You are a sysop, and barring abuse of those powers or returning to the vicious personal attacks, I will try to keep you that way. The vandal bin is now just a five second inconvenience. Mindless wisest Hoover! 08:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I was genuinely annoyed when I found out he tried to bin me, and Jeeves shite above really wound me up. Can't people just look at what I say and forget my supposed 'motives' for just a second? They really are behaving like the picture of reactionary jacobins. MarcusCicero 09:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah, woe is you. You're so put upon. Why can't people see past your douchebag exterior to see the core of well meaning nice guy within. I've looked at what you have to say, and if you're serious then you're just displaying that you don't understand the problem. This is like trying to solve anti-social behaviour by having people take a voluntary oath to be nice all the time. However, I don't think you're serious, I think you're just trolling. Why do I think that? Because you've never shown the slightest bit of interest in making this site better through your actions.
You need to stop and consider for a moment that the problem isn't with everyone else on this site, but the problem is in fact with you. People don't listen to anything that you have to say because you have in the past behaved, and continue to behave, like a complete jerk. If you're serious about cleaning up your act for the next six months and stop editing by deletion, hurling abuse, trolling and vandalising then great. We can have this discussion after that happens. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 09:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Not once have you challenged any of the objectives mentioned Jeeves. Your spite is hardly surprising, mark 2. I still occasionally look at your parting shot on your original account and guffaw heartily. To be honest, someone who threatens to 'leave and never come back' is the least creditable kind of person on the web. There is a certain type of person who does that, and yourself, Susan and Human all share certain life similarities which is no coincidence.
Lecture me on my behaviour, whatever, but you should look at your own tendencies too. You are unrepentant, bigoted and boring. MarcusCicero 11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
"Not once have you challenged any of the objectives mentioned Jeeves."  K e n  D o l l , is that you? --Kels 14:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I officially withdraw this option from the membership base[edit]

In light of the infuriating and constant accusations of troll, and the attempts to vandal bin me (Considering I have being the victim of personal attacks and trolling on this proposal) I have decided that Rationalwikians lack the maturity of intellect or emotions to really consider the necessity of this society. As a result, I will reconvene the discussions after 6 months, and will adopt the code of conduct by myself if needs be. MarcusCicero 08:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC) P.S- Tom Moore's attempt to bin me speaks volumes of the fake internet authority and hierarchy I was talking about. MarcusCicero 08:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Fake internet authority? starting a society and then officially withdrawing it? You pompous windbag. Do you habitually wear a blazer, MC? It would suit you. Totnesmartin 09:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with wearing a blazer? It gives you plenty of pockets. Mindless wisest Hoover! 09:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you talk to all gentlemen that way? MarcusCicero 09:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Only when they lecture things I'm in about how we should all behave. Totnesmartin 09:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You were binned. I unbinned you and asked you not to be a dick in return. You lasted all of less than a day before you started another goddamn fight. Like I said, it's all you ever do. I don't care if you contribute, but it doesn't seem right to me that you not only fail to contribute in any way, you can't even manage to chat and hang out without being a prat.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 03:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

prat[edit]

You are turning into a real prat now MC. This site will never be what you want it to be, FACT. So you have three options - put up with it, leave, or be a complete blow hard. No other option presents itself I am afraid. So, if you put up with it and stay away from what you disagree with on the talkpages and contribute you might enjoy yourself and others will learn to like your presence as you obviously seem intelligent (though you could work on your social skills). You can leave in which case we'd forget and you'd forget. Or you can be a total blowhard, you'll be flamed, vandal binned and generally treated like a blow hard. You should choose. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 09:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm confused. MC, you pop now and again, slag us off for whatever perceived ills annoy you at that moment and yet you're desperately worried that RW is dying and needs to be remodelled along your lines. I tell you what - toddle off to here and create MCWiki and we'll all come along and ooh and aah at what we've been missing all this time. And as has been said, you have made no attempt to be friendly to the members, or contribute meaningfully to RW, so you can't be surprised why we aren't leaping to agree with your suggestion. Given your attitude, I'd be more likely to listen to what TK has to say... before ignoring him too. --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 10:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm well are that I'm a prat, thanks. But this is the internet, I can be whatever the hell I want to be. I refuse to believe that the sum total of the internets potential is the repetition of terrible jokes and irrational behaviour. MarcusCicero 11:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Question for MC[edit]

What do you think were your best contributions to RW? What kind of contributions do you like? At the moment, I've to admit, I don't know about anything of your work which would make me say: Jeez, let's model RW according to MC's ideas to make it a place worthy of MC's contributions.

IM(not so humble)O, you are neither contributing to the content nor to an enjoyable - or at least interesting - atmosphere.

larronsicut fur in nocte 10:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to 'create content' is this environment. I don't edit articles, because the level of work needed is too immense. Even when I try to insert reason, such as on the Maggie Thatcher article, I get shot down by some child with no comprehensive knowledge of the issues at hand. Whatever. I much prefer discussions, and take part when I can. its easy for the likes of Jeeves to say he stopped discussing 'because I didn't know what I was talking about' - thats very easy for someone who seems to think that the Cold War was about sugar and that MAD didn't stop WWIII, but economic rationality did. Honestly, the childishness of it all.
I insult particular members who go out of their way to endorse this childish, horrible internet culture whenever they can. I go out of my way to insult religious bigots like Susan and Jeeves, who are really are prejudiced to such a frightening degree that I could picture them taking part in some futuristic atheistic anti-religion purge. Don't shoot the messenger, as they say. MarcusCicero 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You go out of your way to insult people, while also expecting them to do what you want. Whatever your job is, I do hope it doesn't involve working with other people. Totnesmartin 09:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Turdblossom
This is one of many discussions that has descended into petty snipping and trolling idiocy on RationalWiki.
Here are the others, in case you are curious, bored, or enjoy pain:
- Analysis of the relative income streams of the National Football League and international rugby union -- Barroom brawls -- Cat fight -- Chicken coop -- Chicken coop/Archive37 -- Community Standards/Revamp, January 2009 -- Community Standards/Revamp draft -- Community Standards/TK -- Community Standards/disruption -- Constitutional Convention, April 2008 -- Drama dump -- Epic debate -- HeartOfGold Sysop vote -- Inactivity -- Is RationalWiki under the control of Feminist activists? -- Make TK a sysop? -- Nuclear Option -- Privacy clusterfuck -- Property rights in WIGOs -- Requests for comment/HeartOfGold -- Serious Business -- Site politics -- Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees -- The case of MarcusCicero -- The mobocracy -- User:Copyvio's campaign to stop copyvio -- User rights and moderation revisited -- Voting Procedure -- Voting standards -

Petition for the Release of MarcusCicero[edit]

The Rationalwiki Reform Society brings a formal petition of redress to the Rationalwiki hierarchy of behalf of its founder and President, one MarcusCicero of the Internetz.

The petition states:

Due to the persecution of the leader of the Rationalwiki Reform Society, and to the grave manner in which his good name was slandered and abused, the Rationalwiki Reform Society demands that an official investigation into the causes of MarcusCicero's persecution take place.
Following the publication of an objective report written from uninvolved members of the Rationalwiki internetz community, the Rationalwiki Reform Society shall push for a fair trial wherein MarcusCicero may plead his innocence with his atypical eloquence.

The Rationalwiki Reform Society abhors this section from the community standards;

Snarky point of view — This is the meaning most people refer to. It means that, to keep our articles from being dry and boring, we spice it up with humor, sarcasm, skepticism, satire, and wit.
and do not understand how it is consistent with this;
As stated in our mission statement, RationalWiki's official purpose is to
  1. analyze and refute the anti-science movement,
  2. analyze and refute crank ideas, and
  3. explore the nature of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 
We also have a fourth, unofficial purpose, which is to provide people who agree with the previously-stated goals a place to just hang out and have fun with like-minded people.
Rational Wiki is not a general encyclopedia; it does not require articles on every known subject. However, the wiki's mainspace welcomes many articles that do not relate to the primary missions of Rational Wiki providing that they are factually accurate and of interest to the community at large. These include articles on general science, historical events and important individuals throughout the world.
The Rationalwiki Reform Society believes MarcusCicero was persecuted for daring to speak out about the nature of this inconsistency. The Society awaits a righteous resolution to this resolvable situation. — Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs
I second Marcus Cicero's petition of redress. 86.40.109.221 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Talking to yourself, Marcus? Or is that your brother? -- Nx / talk 15:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I'm your mother, and I had a great time sucking off MarcusCicero last night. 86.40.109.221 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)