RationalWiki talk:Talk:Blocking policy/draft blocking policy addendum

This is a talk page for a talk page, and should be used for talking about the talk page. To discuss the original proposal, see here.

Talk's talk

Interesting talk in that talk page, let's talk about it in this talk page's talk page. Editor at CP^{mały książe} 08:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the way nobody edited the original proposal, but a huge row went on behind the scenes instead. Totnesmartin 08:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I really liked the way, um, some stuff, er, was, um, talked about. ħuman 09:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What surprised me was the way that the proposal for a change in policy morphed into a vote about banning a particular user as though the proposal had already been agreed.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It was the other way around. A question on whether to block a user morphed into policy. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 09:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? That's now how the page in question reads. There was much earlier discussion on the wiki, but the talk page for the proposal starts off discussing the changes and then goes to a vote about an individual as it it were accepted.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

MC had been blocked on and off all day. It's had been going on much longer than any proposed change. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 09:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I hate the fucker as much as any of you guys. But - the way some of us react to him makes me sympathetic to him and embarrassed for my friends. ħuman 09:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Right then, I am off to bed shortly. Drunk as fuck work tomorrow migraine and a pissy Ms McWicked to deal with. But the fucker is a fucker is a fucker. If he walked into my party and acted the way he does I would hit him. No trouble, face fist out the door. I dont see why here is different. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 09:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because this isn't a party where we have to fist face people, since we can ignore/revert them? ħuman 09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a talk page where we can talk about this talk page? I feel this might be important. ħuman 10:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It has rather become a forum about the topic, rather than a discussion of the debate. Totnesmartin 10:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Are you sure it isn't a debate about the discussion of the topic in this forum? ħuman 10:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We should start a debate on the issue to examine the analysis of the perorations. Totnesmartin 10:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Predictably, it's a mess. The talk page should have been kept for discussing the policy proposal only, & discussion + voting on MC should be elsewhere (e.g. a separate RW debate page). We could try moving some sections of the talk page off into a separate debate about how to handle MC, & bring this debate back to the policy discussion. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you're such a rationalist. Oh, yeah, you're also right. MC's trial should be in one ignored place, and the HCM over blocking should be in another ignored place. But it's much more fun to mix them up and see some people get riled, isn't it? Oops, that ain't really the site's goal.... is it? ħuman 11:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)