Forum:Loya Jirga/Trolling

Hi, I've lurked around here for quite some time and have posted under IPs before, so forgive the intrusion. I first discovered rationalwiki when I was editing CP for a while, and occasionally follow the 'what is going on page'. However, after reading this thread I have to say that I find it mightily disheartening that these proposals will be adopted without any disagreement. I'll outline my reasoning;

• As far as I can gather, RW is a liberal place opposed to the authoritarianism over on CP. I was also under the impression that the stated raison d'etre was to hold authoritarian ideologies to account and to ridicule.
• These proposals as mentioned seem a little authoritarian to me, and are completely contradictory to the image this site wishes to present to the public.
• I think the idea of forming an elite to safeguard against troublemakers is a good one, but I fail to see how this could work in practise.
• As an outsider, I would suggest dropping the present 'public image' and construct a more conventional website. This idea of showcasing some kind of enticing 'democracy' is at odds with this present aim to create an elite with strange and contradictory powers.

Again I should state that I find it highly unusual that these policies seem to passing through without any disagreement. If I'm wrong, pay no heed to me, but I feel it is important that the policy itself be more closely scrutinised before getting passed by the majority here, because it shudders on dangerously rocky territory at the moment.

Thanks for listening. Michael (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is a non-authoritarian way to deal with members of a community who are only there to cause problems? Etaroced (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We might not like it, but recent events have shown that the current system is not sustainable. Broccoli (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, let me be clear, I'm not arguing with your right to do this, but I do argue over the split public perceptions you are giving to the world. That needs to be fixed or otherwise you'll just look hypocritical. Michael (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem strangely familiar Michael. -- =w= 18:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We can manage looking a bit hypocritical if it stops the HCMs and departures. Broccoli (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets keep it in the theoretical though, I would actually like to know what non-authoritarian methods could be used to deal with non-compatible community members who are destructive in nature, or even malicious. Really the mission is exploration of authoritarianism, the community itself is an interesting aspect of this. It is not saying authoritarian systems are wrong prima facie, under what conditions do you have to develop policies that are approaching authoritarianism? How do you keep it under control, can you? Etaroced (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The gold-pig-capitalist method: Found a (non-profit) organisation (association? my english good) and let the paying members vote for site objectives. It might not be that bad an idea, at least here those don't require much effort to maintain and you get many benefits. It stays under control by solidifying the minimal rules at founding time. --Swedmann (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I think authoritarianism is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I can either ignore or rebuke troublemakers. I'd rarely want to prevent troublemakers having a voice in the first place :) Michael (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We tried ignoring him; it didn't work. This seems the only way forward, not with an authoritarian cabal who make all of the decisions but with an elected group of members who will only be turned to under extreme circumstances. Mindless word Hoover! 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's what I do, in fact I go one step further, I usually completely ignore not only the trouble maker but any of the massive discussions that branch off from them. I have had very little to no dealing with MC with any of my socks. Nor have I been involved in any discussions about him, or discussions about discussions. However, doing that doesn't seem to change the reality of the fact that he is being destructive to the community. On purpose. So what do you do? It seems obvious that a community that has no way to deal with elements that are destructive implodes. So do you sacrifice the community to avoid having to take action? Some people suggested that actually, to pull the plug and be done with it all. All in all I think it is an interesting petri dish we have going here. And I am curious about theoretical options on "paths" to follow, regardless of the path that is choosen. Etaroced (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just feel that you should revamp the public image of the site, or at least make the website more conventional if you mean to follow these new proposals. I hardly think burning every persons post who is identified as a troublemaker makes you a fit organisation to hold authoritarianism to account. Michael (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Marcus Michael. Can we return to the important discussion now? -- Nx / talk 18:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cept no one is really talking about burning posts, no one said we are holding authoritarianism to account either. Certainly seems like we are going out of our way offer a lot of checks and balances to the system being proposed. Again the mission is exploration of authoritarianism. The ebb and flow, trials and tribulations, of building a working community out of the open ended ill defined ideas that started this place is all part of that. Etaroced (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<some stuff kept>

I think the websites name should be changed since clearly an abuse of power has occured, and this new committee is merely a way for the elite to hog power at the expense of the industrious masses. It has ceased to be 'rational'. Michael (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay out of this, Marcus. Mindless word Hoover! 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)