RationalWiki talk:Community Standards/disruption

Wow, we talk. Ain't that cool! human^{be in} 23:37, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Long version - final sentence:

The long version states, "Finally, as a community built on humor and friendship, we will support any of our contributors who face reproach for their actions, and heartily support satire and humor as forms of valuable political speech."

I've got a couple of doubts about this. First of all "actions" is rather broad isn't it? Will we really support any RW contributor for any action?

Secondly we seem to be saying that vandalism is wrong, but we support anybody who does it. Might there be a contradiction here?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

For me the whole thing's so pretentious/pompous. The cure is worse than the disease. What it says to me is RationalWiki (an entity that dosen't exist in any meaningful way) while not officially(!) condoning vandalism, will snigger at any we see. It's balony. Susan^{talk to me} 10:38, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I'm sure you could edit it to make it better Susan. :-) --Bob^{'s your uncle} 10:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

If there are to be statements on behalf of RW for consumption by third parties, there is an implication that RW has some existence independent of its members. Without formal organisation and hierarchy (which I would suggest no-one wants) this cannot be the case. (There is a de-facto organisation structure by access/editing permissions but none of the holders of office pull rank.) While I will agree about RW's general aims, I don't want anyone to think they're talking for me. By the way, I've never vandalised any site & don't expect to, ever.
If we must have a rule, how about:
"Don't make RW look stupid by behaving worse than those you are taking the piss out of."
Susan^{talk to me} 11:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I would vote for pretending we have that rule and ignoring it. It's a good one. human^{be in} 18:33, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I like Susan's idea. If what you guys are trying to do is what Human says in his post above, the wink and nod went over my head completely, but then I don't have much knowledge of the past here. I can see value in having some official policy on the record, like some all white-men's club, having a sign at the door about how they do not discriminate! But if you do that, you also need to appoint some committee to contact new users bullied and stoned to death at CP, to welcome and clue them in. Not everyone "gets" this place like all of you do. Some of the oft-repeated catch-phrases sound kind of Stepford. --NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 18:45, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You mean our "welcome" template thing doesn't help with the orientation process? human^{be in} 18:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

ROFL! I guess the kind of person who reads the instructions that come with purchases might. But I seem to remember some survey that showed only 1 in 10 did so......----NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 19:22, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

(undent) Typical male! RTFM Susan^{talk to me} 19:28, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:p --NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 19:45, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Susan, would it be better if it was de-pretenti-fied? So, quick & short, with no longer version whatsoever, so it's just a throwaway sentence that gives us the ability to say "not our fault"?-αmεσ (tinker) 22:57, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Not being Susan, but being here first, I can say I think that is a smashing idea! Perhaps just as sassy as Susan's proposed short text above. :D ----NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 23:13, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Hey! I'm not calling the shots. Just throwing my 2¢ into the pot. Susan^{talk to me} 23:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

RW does have enough organization to have mission statement/community standards/editing guidelines, and those have been applied to control content here already. I think that, whether we like it or not, RW's already crossed some sort of line into organizational territory. With that comes some kind of organizational responsibility. And there's already been an RW auction of a CP account--evidence of RW organizational activity right there. What's to prevent, for example, an RW "Contest" (those seem to be in vogue these days) for who can replace the most CP articles with "Aschlafly is a poopy-face?" That's kind of what I'd like to see avoided. If a Susan-type statement succeeds in that, I can live with it, but I think it'd be useful to go a little further.--Bayes^update 23:47, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

How about Susan's thing linking to a page with longer rules and our thoughts on some prominent vandalisms?-αmεσ (tinker) 23:48, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

That could work...Susan's statement captures the essence of what's being discussed anyway, has more of an RW attitude, and seems to be something that has more consensus.--Bayes^update 00:11, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I like the contest idea. What's the prize, a fresh young goat? human^{be in} 00:16, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Fresh virginal goat, dumped into your front yard! Or, if goat is not available, fresh young human--Bayes^update 00:29, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Fresh young human is the prize for conservapedia...we do not want to copy them too much. Zhakrin 00:32, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I'll vote for Susan's then. It is more snarky; more our style. I still think it might be good to have a longer description somewhere, just in case, or so we can point to it.-αmεσ (tinker) 00:37, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, always important to be well groomed, Schlafly always says! This is a good solution...a marriage between AmesG and Susan! :D ----NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 00:40, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, if there is one thing you can say about Schlafly its that he tries very hard to be well groomed. Zhakrin 00:47, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Makes sense...the longer description could be a guide to "how to not make RW look stupid," for instance. That could go a long way. Congrats on your marriage, Ames and Susan.--Bayes^update 00:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Provided that others are ok with this, of course...don't want to jump the gun--Bayes^update 00:46, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I, for one, prefer the original suggestion.--Bob^{'s your uncle} 01:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I think we could redraft it a bit. Susan's direction is sorta like that thing on UC, how to be funny and not just stupid, Ames' one reads like a disclaimer on a bad product. How about a sign over HQ that just says "Bad vandal, no donut"? human^{be in} 03:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Maybe. But I like the idea of a more explicit statement. I would also point out that the explicit statement has five positive votes over the page. (I excluded Human's as he voted both yes and no). The main re-drafters here are are one person who voted "no" one person who voted "yes and no". In one sense that's logical as they have a different opinion - but let's not forget the spirit of the mobocracy. Mobocracy Rulz OK!--Bob^{'s your uncle} 04:45, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Any more thoughts on this?--Bob^{'s your uncle} 18:47, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

(dedent) Bob, I think most agree that the longer, Ames form was ok, as something to point to in event members here, of their own choosing, go and vandalize some place. And we seem to have a consensus that Susan's "Don't make RW look stupid by behaving worse than those you are taking the piss out of." short version would be our real guideline for members. Is that satisfactory to you? --NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 19:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Can we also include "spelling behaving worse than those you are taking the piss out of"? Oh, never mind, it's kind of another issue. My "yes" votes can count in favor of wherever they turn up - that's how I think I meant them, anyway. I know that's unhelpful at the level of 'cracy, but I could see points in both directions. Just don't move the yellow line too far before I pull back into my lane! human^{be in} 19:23, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I prefer the original statement (Ames') as well, but am willing to compromise if there's sufficient feeling that it's too radical for now. Another possibility is to have the snarky version as the short version and the long version to remain at CS. Just a thought.--Bayes^update 23:56, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I think we are all on the same wave length, Bayes and Bob. I totally agree with AmesG suggestion above: "How about Susan's thing linking to a page with longer rules and our thoughts on some prominent vandalisms?" -- --NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 01:21, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

But you are on record as approving of vandalizing CP. How do we include your voice in this statement? Besides having it be toothless and pointless? human^{be in} 01:32, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Yes, why yes I am! "I would vote for pretending we have that rule and ignoring it. It's a good one." I also agree with whoever said that as well. I thought what I missed on the other page, but then quickly surmised, and tried to recover, was that was the idea. Make some silly ass statement, no teeth, to point at if needed, and use the idea of Susan as the normal, unofficial position: "Don't get caught, dumbass, and bring it to our door." Sorry if I wasn't able to right fancy enouff to git it a cross better, but I was home skooled fer two years. --NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 02:03, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

Shit, I bin homskulled for nigh on 28 years, and it ain't took yet. Proposed new wording:

“”TrashionalWiki (hereinafter "RatWiki") hereby disclaims any ill effects pursuant to using or knowing about our web site. Bad people are bad. We also emphatically stand by the philosophy of, when taking the piss out of fools, don't get any on you (foolishness or piss). Goatspeed!!!

human^{be in} 02:16, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

ROFLMFAO! I love it. Another alternative would be the speil of the Mission Impossible guy: "Good luck, Jim! As usual, should you or any member of your team be discovered, The Secretary will disavow any knowledge of you, or your mission." ----NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 02:34, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

OH NOES!!!

I'm not going to be a lawyer's moll. & I don't want a toy boy! Susan^{talk to me} 00:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Besides his alignment is boring anyway. Zhakrin 00:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

My poor girlfriend. I guess that's how so many relationships end; your boyfriend is unwittingly married off to somebody on the internet.-αmεσ (tinker) 00:51, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I am teh Paladin. But since when are law firm lawyers lawful OR good?-αmεσ (tinker) 00:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Excellent point, hence why you need to think about an alignment change post haste. Zhakrin 00:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Personally I have found much joy in a far different approach. Zhakrin 00:57, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

You da man, Zhakrin! (Matt clinks his beer bottle atcha) Chaos rules! ----NightTrain^{♦Τάļќ ǃ} 01:04, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

ANARCHY!!!!! Eh-hem, excuse me. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 01:06, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I hope to remain lawful good. Pray for mojo.-αmεσ (tinker) 01:10, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I have always preferred lawful neutral. Gets the job done without all the moral hassle. :Javert: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 04:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Give me an old-school 8 foot plow on a 3/4 ton and I'll make my own law. At least, when it's snowing. human^{be in} 04:05, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

"Ooh, Bevis, that was so macho!" - "Did I show you my pressed flower collection?" - "!?!?!?!?! Damn." human^{be in} 04:06, 25 September 2007 (EDT)