RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive23
Blue[edit]
Abusing moderator privileges by locking another mod's talk page at the mod-only level with zero discussion. P-Foster 17:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Unlock the page and restore the comments you deleted, Blue. This was never going to go well for you.
17:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Make me. Blue (is useful) 17:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I never thought I would see the day when the sentence :"We need somebody reasonable. go get Ace" would be something that I could type with a straight face. P-Foster 17:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Done (I think), the protection anyway; I'll let someone else handle any restoring of comments, which I haven't looked into. If Blue wants to explain the rationale for doing this I'm willing to listen. What's all this about anyway? DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some revisions are hidden to moderator level. That's not going to fly. 17:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- To quote you, "I'll do it again." Blue (is useful) 18:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Blue's comment in doing so was "home addresses and telephone numbers, social security numbers, etc." Is this true? If so there's probably a good justification for hiding.DickTurpis (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)- It's not, but you're a mod, you can look at the deleted diffs. -- Nx / talk 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Btw, where did you see that? I only see "Inappropriate personal information" in the log -- Nx / talk 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. Can't find it now, but it was definitely somewhere as I cut/pasted the quote. I may have been looking at the wrong thing, actually. I was blindly clicking around looking for information on what all this was about. I'll look some more. DickTurpis (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nevermind. My bad. In my rush I was looking at a different thing entirely. DickTurpis (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. Can't find it now, but it was definitely somewhere as I cut/pasted the quote. I may have been looking at the wrong thing, actually. I was blindly clicking around looking for information on what all this was about. I'll look some more. DickTurpis (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, but these powers are new to me. Is there a way I can see it without making it visible to everyone? DickTurpis (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, read the message that appears when you try to view the diff, there's a link in there that says something like "you can still view this diff if you want to" -- Nx / talk 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, so there's no personal info of that sort, but it is an email that was clearly stated to be private posted on a talk page. The name was redacted, but it remains pretty obvious who it's from. I'm not sure we have any real rules against this, other than the unwritten "don't be a dick". I'm going to let others weigh in before doing anything. This isn't a matter that needs to be resolved immediately. Nice to see this group of moderators getting off to such a fantastic start. DickTurpis (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Why is there an assumption that an email is private. I've never seen that before. Dick, if you wrote me and said "Oh, god, you need to stop doing X or I'm done with you", and i say "this was sent to me in private, and i don't appreciate that, isn't that commonly done? I dislike when people do things in private that probably should be public; i dislike threats; i dislike behind the scenes game playing (not that I'm saying any of this did or did not go on here). It is quite normal for us here and around the internet to say "this was sent to me, and it bugged me/bothered me/worried me/you all should see who this guy really is", etc. Email is not private, if the receiver wants to make it public. As long as no email addresses are displayed, i'm not sure it's our right as mods to say "you should not have the right to publish that".
GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The content of the email specifically said it was private. Human publishing it here wasn't against any specific rules as far as I can tell (we have very few), but was a rather shitty thing to do. It basically serves nothing but to cause more disruptions on the wiki, which is what moderators are supposed to prevent. Sending the email in the first place was also kind of obnoxious, but isn't really a site issue. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Because if you wanted to say something in public, you'd say it in public, and not send a private email. -- Nx / talk 18:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Why is there an assumption that an email is private. I've never seen that before. Dick, if you wrote me and said "Oh, god, you need to stop doing X or I'm done with you", and i say "this was sent to me in private, and i don't appreciate that, isn't that commonly done? I dislike when people do things in private that probably should be public; i dislike threats; i dislike behind the scenes game playing (not that I'm saying any of this did or did not go on here). It is quite normal for us here and around the internet to say "this was sent to me, and it bugged me/bothered me/worried me/you all should see who this guy really is", etc. Email is not private, if the receiver wants to make it public. As long as no email addresses are displayed, i'm not sure it's our right as mods to say "you should not have the right to publish that".
- Alright, so there's no personal info of that sort, but it is an email that was clearly stated to be private posted on a talk page. The name was redacted, but it remains pretty obvious who it's from. I'm not sure we have any real rules against this, other than the unwritten "don't be a dick". I'm going to let others weigh in before doing anything. This isn't a matter that needs to be resolved immediately. Nice to see this group of moderators getting off to such a fantastic start. DickTurpis (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, read the message that appears when you try to view the diff, there's a link in there that says something like "you can still view this diff if you want to" -- Nx / talk 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Btw, where did you see that? I only see "Inappropriate personal information" in the log -- Nx / talk 17:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not, but you're a mod, you can look at the deleted diffs. -- Nx / talk 17:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Some revisions are hidden to moderator level. That's not going to fly.
- Done (I think), the protection anyway; I'll let someone else handle any restoring of comments, which I haven't looked into. If Blue wants to explain the rationale for doing this I'm willing to listen. What's all this about anyway? DickTurpis (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- The only rule we have is "don't be a dick," if I recall correctly. Human was clearly being a dick. What's the problem? Blue (pester) 18:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Poor DickTurpis. Yeah, but we don't have a rule that explicitly states that you're not allowed to repost private emails so human's allowed to do that and besides you're an authoritarian fascist cunt who adds nothing of value and you're the second worst thing that has happened to this wiki. -- Nx / talk 18:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly my point, Nx. the fact that someone says something in private is their problem, not necessarily mine, especially if what they say is telling about a public issue. We have in the past, posted private email from CP people, we have posted private email from fundies, and I personally have posted private email from people here who are trolling me (i know others have as well). When you write a letter, or an email, you do not have the right to assume it will not be published. And I guess this is my problem. Human (for reasons I actually understand) said "this was sent to me, to try to control how I was to moderate". That's his right to do. If you worry that what you write in private will be shared, then you best be careful of what you say or who you are writing to. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC) (at blue, he wasn't 'being a dick', necessarily. he was sharing his point of view about someone who wrote to him about a job he had not even started yet.)
- He breached my trust by sharing an email in which I revealed some personal information, which, while nothing "serious," is just a dick thing to do. Again, what's the problem? Blue (is useful) 18:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- why did you mention personal details about yourself in an email about how Human should do his job? I thought, while I was reading it, that the personal stuff was a little off at a tangent from the rest of the message. Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Additional: if human had redacted the personal info, would you still have deleted the post? Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. Blue (is useful) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So your defence is that you wanted to hide the publication of private information which you had assumed you were telling someone in confidence? Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No. Blue (is useful) 18:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Additional: if human had redacted the personal info, would you still have deleted the post? Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually Godot, no, it's not just their problem. If someone posts private information on the wiki without the consent of the person involved, that's your problem as well, doubly so because you are a moderator. -- Nx / talk 18:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- why did you mention personal details about yourself in an email about how Human should do his job? I thought, while I was reading it, that the personal stuff was a little off at a tangent from the rest of the message. Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- He breached my trust by sharing an email in which I revealed some personal information, which, while nothing "serious," is just a dick thing to do. Again, what's the problem? Blue (is useful) 18:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is exactly my point, Nx. the fact that someone says something in private is their problem, not necessarily mine, especially if what they say is telling about a public issue. We have in the past, posted private email from CP people, we have posted private email from fundies, and I personally have posted private email from people here who are trolling me (i know others have as well). When you write a letter, or an email, you do not have the right to assume it will not be published. And I guess this is my problem. Human (for reasons I actually understand) said "this was sent to me, to try to control how I was to moderate". That's his right to do. If you worry that what you write in private will be shared, then you best be careful of what you say or who you are writing to.
Might I suggest that if people are going to bring these complaints to a public forum they so so with more information so that those reading - and who are presumably being asked to come up with considered responses - are able to understand the issue? On the other hand if only handful of people have a problem they might want to fix the whole thing over email between themselves.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blue sent Human an email telling him that as a moderator he couldn't do whatever he wanted and bringing him up to speed on a few things, e.g. sysoprevoke, and telling him that she doesn't want to post it publicly to prevent drama. Human responded by telling her that he prefers to discuss such things in public and that he finds most of it to be bureaucratic nonsense. Blue sent another, more confrontational email with some personal information about her, after which Human posted it on his talk page without saying who the sender was. Blue then reverted it and suppressed it. -- Nx / talk 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK - but shouldn't a complaint here express .. well .. what the complainant is?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, we're more interested in the public lynching. -- Nx / talk 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
--★uːʤɱ netlabelist 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I have no more to add. Thank you for the clarification.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So who's more at fault? Osaka Sun (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Is that important and how would one assess it?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No one is more at fault. Human was a surprising level of asshole, which is not against the rules per se but unfortunate from someone who is supposed to prevent this very thing, and Blue overreacted in a very mild way. Now we just know how to deal with Human: let him go back to being inactive again, because he really loves this drama shit. And I'm sure Blue has realized that she was hasty in most people's eyes at this point, although considering the personal information I think it's probably justified.--
talk
20:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So who's more at fault? Osaka Sun (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- In that case I have no more to add. Thank you for the clarification.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, we're more interested in the public lynching. -- Nx / talk 18:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- OK - but shouldn't a complaint here express .. well .. what the complainant is?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blue sent Human an email telling him that as a moderator he couldn't do whatever he wanted and bringing him up to speed on a few things, e.g. sysoprevoke, and telling him that she doesn't want to post it publicly to prevent drama. Human responded by telling her that he prefers to discuss such things in public and that he finds most of it to be bureaucratic nonsense. Blue sent another, more confrontational email with some personal information about her, after which Human posted it on his talk page without saying who the sender was. Blue then reverted it and suppressed it. -- Nx / talk 18:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
This is really fucking troubling[edit]
So we are back to this now? Blue, why didn't you just post to his talkpage? Why the email? What the fuck? What has it been three days and people are already jumping on their same fucking bandwagons? Nx being a dick as per usual, Blue seemingly baiting Human.... Jesus man, what the fuck is wrong with you people? This is a huge non-issue with people just playing their parts - becoming their own caricatures. Bunch of fucking pansies. AceModerator 20:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- What did I do? -- Nx / talk 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, seriously Ace, what did I do that you consider "being a dick as per usual"? -- Nx / talk 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't play dumb Nx. From your comments on his userpage to your edit summary on RWW...you admitted yourself that Human's very presence turns you into a dick...and you call him sad? AceModerator 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I left two comments on his talk page, one was a sarcastic remark berating Human for posting a private email without the consent of the other party. In the other one I was defending human, because he did make his position clear before the elections. As for the RWW summary? Yeah, I can see how that makes me the biggest asshole in the world (that was sarcasm again) -- Nx / talk 20:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Don't play dumb Nx. From your comments on his userpage to your edit summary on RWW...you admitted yourself that Human's very presence turns you into a dick...and you call him sad? AceModerator 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- No, seriously Ace, what did I do that you consider "being a dick as per usual"? -- Nx / talk 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, she says in the email she didn't want to do it publicly (rake over old coals and all that). I don't know if she was right, but it's not a terrible idea. Especially since Human immediately insisted on starting up a lot of drama by posting private correspondence.--talk 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- [EC] Obnoxious behavior isn't just on one side here. But since it seems Human didn't break any rules, and the gist of the email has already been summarized above, I'm prepared to reinstate the hidden edit on his talk page (assuming it isn't done already). This I guess is a lesson that you shouldn't say anything to Human that you don't want repeated publicly. Hopefully we can let this matter die and move on without instigating HCM. DickTurpis (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- This section is entitled Blue and I call bullshit on her actions which I think were obnoxious and far from innocent. You want to address Human then start a new section. AceModerator 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think she overreacted, but only slightly. I think this whole furor is worse than what she did. I am not interested in cooping Human, because being an asshole isn't against the rules exactly, but it certainly is relevant to the discussion.--talk 20:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I think she overreacted, but only slightly. I think this whole furor is worse than what she did. I am not interested in cooping Human, because being an asshole isn't against the rules exactly, but it certainly is relevant to the discussion.--
- This section is entitled Blue and I call bullshit on her actions which I think were obnoxious and far from innocent. You want to address Human then start a new section. AceModerator 20:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- [EC] Obnoxious behavior isn't just on one side here. But since it seems Human didn't break any rules, and the gist of the email has already been summarized above, I'm prepared to reinstate the hidden edit on his talk page (assuming it isn't done already). This I guess is a lesson that you shouldn't say anything to Human that you don't want repeated publicly. Hopefully we can let this matter die and move on without instigating HCM. DickTurpis (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
How was any personal information revealed?[edit]
I have the entire text of Human's post in front of me, and I fail to see where any of it falls under the rubric of "personal information." There are no names/geographical locations/nothing that points to a specific person or place, just vague characterizations that I, a lifer in this community, could not trace to any particular person. If Blue had not have done his/her utmost to show how the Streisand Effect works, then Humans post might have either been the start of a productive discussion or easily dismissed as Human trolling his wiki. P-Foster 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I thought it was either Nx or RA. AceModerator 20:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's not too egregious, I agree. There are some personal details, but they're nonspecific enough that you have to guess who it is.--talk 20:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Blue probably thought it would be easy to guess that the sender was her (she alluded to her decratting by Human which led to the May HCM), and the email contained bits of information she was not comfortable revealing publicly (why she told Human those things is a good question) -- Nx / talk 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So...[edit]
We forget this and move on? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. AceModerator 20:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, good suggestion.--talk 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
RobSmith; Enough is Enough[edit]
|
|---|
|
Enough is Enough; I'm tired of the bullshit surrounding Rob and the completely disunified response people have involving him. We actually need to come up with something here, Because the General Jingoistic Trolling is annoying, Psy is threatening to start a new Round of HCM because of Him and negotiations have never even gotten off the starting line. Wether we censure rob, set up a whole new system in RW for dealing with trolls/near trolls, or something else, we need to do SOMETHING, or atleast decide that the status Qou is ok; not have one camp sitting over there tightening the noose while the other keeps cutting the rope. So please, take this serious, because if we can avoid having to bring it up again then that would be wonderful.
Sorry if I did this wrong, It's 2 am and i've never actually started anything like this on a wiki--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no problem with Rob insulting one country or the other. I have a problem with his denialism: he clings to his personal definition of the first/second/third world, while being corrected time and time again. That's a behavior often seen in debates performed by creationist etc., though they at least have the decency to wait for the next debate to come up with the same garbage again. One can't argue with someone who prefers his made-up statements over indisputable facts and uses words in a way only he can understand. So one shouldn't. And if he keeps up this trolling, he should be banned or binned. larronsicut fur in nocte 09:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. We don't regulate speech of this nature. We don't ban users. We don't vandal bin non vandals. You can privately admonish anyone to do or not do anything you want. The coop is a farce because of spleen venting nonsense like this. Several of you are drama prone fascists. Etc. etc. Glad to help. Cuddles,
In summary: Rob's a dick. Yeah, we knew that already. His inability to string two cohesive sentences together is annoying as hell too. But that might be a genuine mental handicap of his for all we know. I don't know what anyone expects us to do about it, especially without links to specific actionable things he's done. Yeah, he insulted New Zealand. But he did it in such a moronic and inept way that all it did was make him look like more of an idiot than he already dead. Give the guy some credit: that's a high bar to clear. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC) A slight contradiction[edit]"We don't regulate speech of this nature." What about MC? What's different between calling Psy a racist Cunt and Ace a Third-World sheepfucker?P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
" And all discussion about NZ, globalism, international trade, US defense costs vs US healthcare spending, Rugby, and Superbowl have been most rational and informative to all involved..." No Rob. They've been hilarious. At your expense. You're an idiot, and no conversation with you is "informative" about anything except the depths of your stupidity. Now fuck off, troll. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
You people are kidding, right?[edit]First of all, do you people really take Rob only the slightest bit seriously? Because if you do, what the fuck is wrong with you? Have you read anything he wrote? The dude's insane! If you don't, why be offended by anything he says? Is anybody seriously going to think Ace is a racist because a guy that argues that everybody that links the term third world to poor coloured people based on the assumption that the third world is every country that was neutral during the cold war (or something like that, Rob changed his opinion too fast to follow)? Fuck, no! So why do you give a fuck. Argue with him and see the lulz and facepalms roll in as Rob pops up in Recent Changes. Second, if we are going to plea for consistency about blocking so called trolls, how about consistency on rights abusal. Just a few days ago Nutty had to tell those that kept blocking Rob to knock it off. Nobody gave a fuck about that, but when a fucktard calls somebody a racist you all get your panties in a bunch. Third and final: Get a grip of what a troll is! A troll is all over the internets defined as somebody solely joining a site or discussion only to cause trouble — do any of you actually think that Rob has an idea how to do that? Yet, that he even could pull that off? Same goes for brxbrx, guy's an idiot sometimes but if one steers trouble only by posting something no matter what the content is, that is a bigger problem in the community than that guy. Maratrean, while clearly having the ulterior motive of spamming his shit all over the place, only caused troubled when people where trying to tell him how to think - which is a genocide to all irony meters on Earth in which even the plans fo irony meters go up in flames considering what kind of website we on. HeidelbergKid? The dude stopped spamming an is still around posting stuff. Even worse the guy said he's sorry! So he's OCD and not really well endowed with social skills, oh FFS that doesn't make somebody a troll. Trolls are people like MC, TK and Talsley — troll doesn't mean "that user I don't like". --★uːʤɱ heretic 22:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
What has this cooping accomplished?[edit]
If sheepfucker is an acceptable rhetorical device for New Zealanders...[edit]Then I'm a beaver licker. Oh, baby... Osaka Sun (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC) |
Seriously, can we just remove RobSmith's Sysop Rights?[edit]
| This vote has been closed. Please do not add, remove or change votes. The result of this vote was: nope |
|---|
|
Because I guess I have to: Yes[edit]
No[edit]
|
Please observe the guideline of bringing specific charges against the accused on this page. We won't have a lynch mob. Blue (is useful) 04:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL!
04:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not claiming my hands are clean, buddy. Blue (is useful) 05:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- LOL!
- Isn't that 30% of what RationalWiki is about? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- According to the block log, Rob has literally done nothing with his rights but unblock himself, except for giving one three-second block six months ago.
ListenerXTalkerX 04:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- But why should trolls have sysop rights in the first place? That's like giving AK-47s to convicted serial killers, and then saying that they haven't used them to kill anybody yet.
- According to the block log, Rob has literally done nothing with his rights but unblock himself, except for giving one three-second block six months ago.
- Like my use of an analogy there? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- The sane reason most of us have rights? IT isnt exactly normal for a wiki to give out rights like candy--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) If we block him for trolling, it is necessary to remove his rights to stop him from unblocking himself. Other than that, the only reason we would remove his rights is if he had abused them for trolling purposes, as MarcusCicero did several times with his blocking sprees. ListenerXTalkerX 04:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) But I thought I was a specul snowflake...
- (EC) If we block him for trolling, it is necessary to remove his rights to stop him from unblocking himself. Other than that, the only reason we would remove his rights is if he had abused them for trolling purposes, as MarcusCicero did several times with his blocking sprees.
- The sane reason most of us have rights? IT isnt exactly normal for a wiki to give out rights like candy--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Like my use of an analogy there? Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anyways, I'm already over it, so whatev. I don't about this stupid poll or this stupid site anymore! Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is what you get when you put a few scores of ornery rationalists together in close quarters. ListenerXTalkerX 04:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you forgot to put rationalists in scare-quotes. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- This wiki is rational? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. We rationalists do not, on average, take kindly to people disagreeing with us (whether or not the disagreeing people are wrong). That is especially pronounced here because the Cabal were people booted off Conservapedia for attempting to change disagreeable material. ListenerXTalkerX 04:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) This wiki is filled with a bunch of idiots, stupid articles, and trolls. Most people are all three. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- People are RationalWiki articles? ListenerXTalkerX 04:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was speaking hypothetically, obviously. God. Flitzertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why stay if that's how you feel? Sam Tally-ho! 04:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was playing Devil's Advocate. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- we didnt need one?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the fights here on the Wiki are generally a positive influence on its rationality, for the same reason that the best-referenced Wikipedia articles are the ones on controversial topics. ListenerXTalkerX 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- It does have the negative effect in that only the best fighters or best at getting lots of allies manage to survive meaningfully. Although that can be a pro as well--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the fights here on the Wiki are generally a positive influence on its rationality, for the same reason that the best-referenced Wikipedia articles are the ones on controversial topics.
- we didnt need one?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was playing Devil's Advocate. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Why stay if that's how you feel? Sam Tally-ho! 04:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I was speaking hypothetically, obviously. God. Flitzertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- People are RationalWiki articles?
- Yes. We rationalists do not, on average, take kindly to people disagreeing with us (whether or not the disagreeing people are wrong). That is especially pronounced here because the Cabal were people booted off Conservapedia for attempting to change disagreeable material.
- This wiki is rational? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think you forgot to put rationalists in scare-quotes. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- This is what you get when you put a few scores of ornery rationalists together in close quarters.
- Anyways, I'm already over it, so whatev. I don't about this stupid poll or this stupid site anymore! Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 04:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- We rationalists do not, on average, take kindly to people disagreeing with us
- Is such an emotional response rational? nobsModerated 13:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Irony. How on Earth does that work NOBrainS?
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
- Irony. How on Earth does that work NOBrainS?
- Is such an emotional response rational? nobsModerated 13:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! And stop being troll feeders. steriletalk 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
How long will this trolling persist?[edit]
The consensus yesterday was there is no basis for a cause of action at the Coop, yet the initiating party(s) continue trolling. [1][2][3][4] nobsModerated 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)