RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive22

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


On 30 October, B♭maj7 dropped a three-month banhammer on Brxbrx, in clear violation of the rules. soon after, he dropped another hour-long block on Brx. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I say we remove his rights for two months--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Goat goat goat goat. Goat goat, goat goat goat goat goat Goat. Goat. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I say Brx was offered sysopship and denied it, therefor if he can't revert blocks on himself, that's really his own doing. I've blocked people for three months, cause i could. and they undid it. If someone does not choose the power to undo his on block, why is that the rest of teh world's fault? we all play by the same rules.--Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 00:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC) and why is a 3 month block, "in clear violation of the rules."
Yawn. Tytalk 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Ty, you wouldn't be yawning if I was about to open a vote on whether we repeatedly slam your testicles in a drawer. Smarten up. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 00:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
True. I'm not yawning at Godot. Tytalk 00:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
WfG, don't the standards clearly say that some people might not want to be sysops and that should be respected?--ADtalkModerator
I'm sure they do. I'm not sure I agree with that in principal. my argument is quite symple. this world at RW is a huge game of friends, sorta friends, sometimes enemies, and out right cat fights sometimes. it just is. and if you want to be part of that, you're going to be banned, you just are. that you say "I don't want to play" is fine, and we should try to respect you. but you say "i don't want to play, but i'm playing anyhow (taunting, teasing, getting offended, etc) and then run to momma with "i'm not a sysop, he's mean", it's a huge problem. There are users who may or may not be sysops, but who just edit, or make comments about CP, but don't really engage in our sillyness and our taunting. those people should be respected, and if you or anyone fucked with them, i'd be on teh other side instanty. (i'm thinking of names like David Gerard who edits religion papers and almost never really "chats" or "plays around"... i'd do my best to virtually kick ace's butt if he fucked with him), but nto people who engage in the game. does that make sense? --Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. You might be right. But it seems like according to the standards - even if you disagree with them, and if you do, you can propose a vote to change them - no one can be forced to accepted a demotion they don't want. Unlike many standards, it's pretty plainly there. And in fact I agree with it.
I see where you're coming from, but while I'm sure Brx is interested in playing games and whatnot (like when he encourages people to keep editing his talkpage, an attention-seeking behavior), and is certainly annoying sometimes, he should also be able to goof around and be annoying without being blocked from the site. In other words, he wants to roughhouse, not swordfight, and we shouldn't force him to grab a scimitar if that's not how he wants to play the game.--ADtalkModerator 00:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I do agree you should not sysop him without his agreement. What I'm saying is that if he is choosing to NOT be a sysop, knowing the game and taunting it, it's not our problem. and gain, we are talking a block THAT ANYONE CAN REMOVE. this is what seems to be missed (to me) over and over. the fact that no one wanted to remove that block is telling. but it's not like this was a block that is special, is hard to deal with, or is overly problematic. or am i missing something? --Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 00:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Not everyone can remove it. Brx, the person blocked, can't. And as you are now pointing out, this means that no one around unblocked him, because he's not popular. You're arguing, essentially, that it's okay to block people from RationalWiki because they're not popular. Is that not so? If he had more buddies around, then he could have been unblocked and it wouldn't have been a problem, but it's his own fault for being unpopular that he's getting banned from RationalWiki for however long?--ADtalkModerator 00:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't mean for that to sound as passive-aggressive as it comes off on re-reading. I'm just trying to point out the logical conclusion of this line of argument - I don't really think that you believe that people should be blocked for being unpopular.--ADtalkModerator 00:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Very little of this addresses what we are to do with someone who with malice aforethought violated the community standards. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
No, AD, I'm fine with your tone and tenor.  :-) I respect you, and even if i disagree, it's just an opinion. But in this case, to me, it's about what goes on here, and the game playing. there is a remedy for Brx. and if he is not choosing that remedy, (since this isn't about rape, and it is about games and humans, it **is** an acceptable remedy). you say he is choosing to play a game with batons and we are attacking with guns. But at some point (again, this being a game, and not being real life) a person who walks into a virtual world and says "hey, attack me with everything you got", then whines cause they did, .... well... I'm just not sympathetic, AD. I would be if the person who we all disliked, was not provoking, was not a troll. I've stuck up for MARA for example, who i don't like but has never played trolling games. the difference to me is adult responsibility. "you get what you ask for" and "we have offered you a fair solution by being equal". Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 00:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC) (ec) -- Bflat. very little of anything is addressing anything. I'm tacking NX on the page you started for him. I think. there are three threads.
I think all you can do, then, is propose to change the rules so that it's okay to block people for fun who can't unblock themselves. We shouldn't just ignore the standards.--ADtalkModerator 01:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
we shoudln't do lots of things that we do. NX shoudln't change admin rights to these two for messing up. this is the problem with trolling; the trolls goal is to get us to bite at eachother, and we do. said troll wins. and no, i don't know what to do. i just think.... i just sorta think the attention isn't in the right place, and i don't really have a clue how to fix it. so maybe i should drink some apple cider, and let people who care about rules (not an attack on any of you, just the frustration) more than what's "rational" or "logical" in this situation, rule. again, that is not an attack on you, blue, nx or anyone. just frustrated. Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 01:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't feel too badly for Brx, because he does invite a lot of this trouble. I don't feel too badly for Ace or Bbmaj7, because if they're dishing it out then they need to take it. I don't care too much about Nx's sorta-abuse, because he was pretty much just doing his job by stopping some bullying with some bullying. So, c'est la vie.--ADtalkModerator 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Nx was stopping bullying with bullying? By waiting 9 hours to abuse his mod rights after the fact, when everything had already been sorted and then refusing to answer why he had done it?. Riiiiight. Aceace 01:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
+1. Nx was stirring up shit after it had settled down, & using an ability which only the few other mods could undo (unlike blocking), apparently for reasons of spite or to prove a point rather than any practical necessity. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
that is exactly what i am trying to say but everyone is ignoring it. Aceace 01:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Because now it's all about Brx again for some reason. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
EC I'm not. Make a proposal about what to do. A non confidence vote? A stern warning from Trent? Tarred and Feathered? The hounds? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 01:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
While we're at it, we should also change the rules to allow us to also desysop people who are "asking for it". Then we can get rid of Maratrean, because he's clearly "asking for it" by editing this wiki and promoting his bullshit here. -- Nx / talk 01:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Mara never trolls. he never runs around trying to get people pissed at him. I may not agree with anything or much of what he says, but it's his right to say it. he is quite respectful. I am really sure you can see the difference, NX, between not being liked, and actually being a trollish bore who wants people to attack him so he can get the attention.Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 01:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes he does. Look at the NSFW incident, or the suicide promotion thing. Maratrean likes playing the martyr. -- Nx / talk 01:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, i admit I wasn't here for those. I've seen him push his own shit, writing his article about his religion, etc., but to me that was different than the kind of "nahh nahh look at me" crap Brx does. again, my solution to the whole thing is treat everyone like adults, but that means you offer someone sysop, and if they don't take it, too bad so sad. i'm a big believer in personal responsibility in *this* kind of thing. No, rape, murder, or even hacking into my computer, or walking in to my house when i leave my door open are different than grown ups being well... petty jackasses. (myself included there).Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 01:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that nobody seems to care[edit]

Given that the only person who has expressed a hard opinion about B-flat blocking Brx was Brx himself, I move that the charges which I levelled against B-flat be dropped, and this section archived away. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 12:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm surprised this shit stuck around so long. Although, I suppose everyone knew it was a satirical accusation, so... I guess we just played along? Honestly, you could have archived it any time you want. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 12:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I was being totally serious. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 12:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Only four people have said anything. Most people thought you were joking. Don't act like the mob thinks you're innocent.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Lol, won't break character, huh? Just like Stephen Colbert! You crack me up B flat! (OBTW, brx, yeah, he's innocent, in the same way that I'm innocent of the crime of not making a PB&J sandwich to eat... even if I were "guilty as charged", there was no crime or harm committed.) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 13:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Give three or four more days for that discussion to get back on track and if it doesn't I'll close it out. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"Most people thought you were joking." Nope. Totally serious. Took myself to the Coop, since what I did was obviously against the rules, and so egregiously so that my rights were taken away for it. It was a serious, serious matter that needed to be addressed, especially given that the moderating community acted a half-day later out of immanent fear that I would do it again. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the mob as the mob is fine with what you did, since it was easily fixed, and certain people who choose to be drama queens sorta deserve what they get. And yes, I am in favor of blaming the victim sometimes. Walk around the farm without boots - expect to get shit on your feet. So B-flat, i'm in favor of what you did and agree any sanctions should be reversed and this archived. --Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Take a gander at my coop case. You were gone when a lot of this crap happened so you don't know what's what, Godot. Look here. See me behaving in the same way P-Foster is now.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

What a load of wank[edit]

I come back after a week away and see all this. This is the biggest load of nonsense I have ever read on RW, and that is saying something! DamoHi 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't you know that this is incredibly serious business? Fuckertalk to me :D 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That wiki is hilarious. I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly take offence to what is obviously a send-up of weird marxist-like conspiracy theorists. I mean, seriously, its all just a bit of fun, and yet people are talking about people breaching fiduciary duties for posting on it? Holy shit. --DamoHi 08:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
If you really think it's serious, I'd advise that you stop bumping related sections, so they will be archived.--ADtalkModerator 09:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

A disciplinary measure for the deleting of the benevolent talkpage comment[edit]

Here you will see this shocking injustice with your own eyes[1].

Here you read the blatant disregard for our wiki rights[2].

This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes.
The result of this vote was: Unicow is a crazy person whom we pity.

Here you may vote on appropriate discipline:

Do nothing:

Remove the offender's administrative privilege (for how long?):

Place alert at top of the offender's user page which lists any such offences (or links to archives of these disciplinary hearings):

  • For at least one year if there are no other offenses in that time period. Unicow (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Forced to push a boulder up a hill for eternity

  • I say this is a fitting punishment--il'Dictator Mikal 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)



Well that is fine. Just wondering what the rules are. The wiki articles record the sacred traditions of our unerring forefathers, while it is open season on talkpages. The wiki is developing quite nicely. Unicow (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me you said "unerring forefathers" ironically. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Everyone here likes me, so I'm allowed to do whatever I want. An American Fallacy (super crazy fun time!) 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Depressingly accurate. Blue Talk 04:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Speak for yourself. I don't like you. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Me either. ТySerious Business Guy 13:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
When does anyone ever count you in? GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 04:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I count myself in. It's the only way to get ahead. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You should be our butt monkey. GodothasArrived (super crazy fun time!) 04:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Pardon? All I read was "argleblargleblargleTVTropesargleblargleblargle." Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Unerring forefathers...hmmm. Perhaps it is you who think I believe in my unerring forefather. Oh well, I adjourn this meeting and BTW you are all fired. I will leave you with this even more depressing statistic; the birthrate of cows is nearly triple that of humans. Your time is short. Unicow (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)