Information icon.svg

Nominations for the RationalMedia Foundation 2020 board of trustees election are now open!

User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki/Headless Chicken Mode

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Topic[edit]

Would the recent controversy involving the "aquatic ape theory" article be considered a) HCM b) important enough to write about? Eh? Sic Vita Est 21:56, 8 June 2008 (CDT)

I missed that one. Care to link to it for me?
If it involves controversy, by definition it is HCM. We just need to determine how bad it was. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" (cover your eyes!) 22:34, 8 June 2008 (CDT)
I doubt it. There were minor edit wars at "quote mining" that were resolved in "talk", and the article itself has been improoved at least 127 points. But feel free to report on the conflict if you wish! humanUser talk:Human 22:56, 8 June 2008 (CDT)
What about HCM 0? We need one- the therian incident engulfed three sites. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 22:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
See my comments below. I doubt that this was a bigger conflict than the "Great Pissing Contest" or "Kip the Dip" thing (both before my time), or even than one or two other feuds I've seen in recent months. But it should really be left to people who weren't involved in this to decide. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 23:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Three sites? Gee. I guess you missed the metapedia wars, which went on for weeks. "Engulfed"? Are you sure? Human 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like my sig prefs got lost in a move along the way. Testing... fixed :) humanUser talk:Human 23:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It still hasn't burn out yet, and it could flare up again. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 23:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, like herpes. humanUser talk:Human 04:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of herpes, would the resident therian please stop welcoming people who sign up? I think CUR is the last person they want to see immediately after joining. Hans Johnson as in "keep ya hans off my" (cover your eyes!) 10:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

HMC 0[edit]

Sorry, but I've cut CUR's last edit for now, as I find it problematic.

HMC 0 happens when an argument not only engulfs RationalWiki, but at least one other site as well. This has (thank goodness), only happened once, in the January 2009 Therian Incident. HCM 0 stir up massive debate, and often trigger RationalWiki to move in a slightly different direction, as evidenced in the therian incident, when, later, several members voiced digust at percieved intolerance.

A few problems:

  1. It's CUR hyping his own activities at RW or conflicts he has been involved in again, which is becoming too much of a problem (IMO). The point RWW should be to observe & write about what other people are doing at RW.
  2. It's HCM (Headless Chicken Mode, not Headless Mode Chicken).
  3. CUR probably hasn't been around long enough to judge whether conflicts across multiple sites have occurred before.
  4. Conflicts have certainly spilled over from Conservapedia (Samwell Incident, Fuck You Too Incident) & RWW has been used/abused to carry on RW conflicts pretty often.
  5. Probably too early to say whether RationalWiki has moved or will move in a slightly different direction as a consequence of the therian incident.
  6. You're placing this on the HCM scale above conflicts which lasted for days & involved prominent members falling out with each other or leaving the site. Yes, the therian thing took up a lot of time & pages, & got a bit heated & messy, but in terms of actual tensions & fallout, it's probably about level 2 or 3. That's my view anyway. Let other minds decide. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the analysis above.--False Flag 21:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like HCM 4 at worst to me. HCM 3 requires "In HCM 3 other editors involve themselves", and that never really happened. What did happen was that CUR, as usual, ran around pissing people off and edit-warring. Human 23:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Human. CUR seems to have an inflated view of the "incident". HCM 1 involves heated discussion and hurt feelings all around. Though the whole discussion has been going on for quite a while, it's never been remotely intense, and it's largely due to CUR's own promotion of it (much like him rating it at HCM 1 here). All in all, it was an interesting diversion and a topic for (nostly civil) discussion. I don't see much drama in it at all, which seems to be a requirement for any HCM level elevation. --Arcan 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not the one who cated the incident as high drama. --ConservapediaUndergroundResistor 02:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes you did, you added it. I am beginning to think this whole incident is self created so you can put yourself here making it appear you are more central to RationalWiki then you are. I wouldn't rate this more than a 4 and CUR is the only one headless-chickening. 219.90.133.165 02:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The diff you were looking for. -- Nx talk 02:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Not HCM[edit]

Bah. One editor fighting the site is not in any sense HCM - at least not as HCM was originally intended. (And I know what was originally intended as I invented the phrase.) HCM is about major users falling out with each other, and the possibility of the site breaking down; it is not about one relatively new user annoying everybody and claiming to be a victim.

I see that our present article has references to "lynch mobs" and "victims". Although such things may happen at RW, and it may be a part of HCM, I think that that sort of activity needs a different name. Perhaps we should have an article "rational lynching" or something of that nature and edit this article so that it refers to real site-wide conflicts.--False Flag 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the "lynch mob" stuff.--False Flag 21:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

HCM gone?[edit]

You know it's interesting, but RW has got nowhere near the HCM stuff that used to happen. Is this a good or a bad thing? Discuss.--False Flag 21:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a neither here nor there thing. I'm sure it will happen again eventually, but RW has, overall, grown up and developed de-facto standards for handling problems.MNpunkboy 03:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, it could be that RW has grown up. My opinion is a little different. I think that two classes of editor have disappeared and the site philosophy has changed.
The editors we have lost are (1) Highly disruptive editors - TK being the classic example. (2) Very able editors who had opinions markedly different from those of the rest of the Wiki. AKjeldsen would be an example of the latter.
Additionally, it seems that the general assumption of athiesm has become the de-facto philosophical position of the site. It was always very close to that but never, I think, as close as now. What that means is that the two main causes of HCM have been removed: we no longer have the personality clashes which used to occur, and the scope for philosophical differences has been reduced.
And now that I've stuck my neck out watch the site explode tomorrow.--False Flag 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Good analysis, but I think there will continue to be HCM modes now and then.. it seems most are due to "personality conflicts" these days, or perhaps editors posting while tired/drunk/other impairment. lol. :p Refugee 08:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I resemble that comment! Hell, the Tor thing would never have become exciting/dramatic if I hadn't gotten all pissed off about it. What was it about, again? humanUser talk:Human 02:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I reckon that big fights over the internet are usually the result of people believing that they can get away with it. As RW has aged (not necessarily matured, of course) then more users appear who weren't part of RW 1.0. Then you reach the point where people don't feel like they own the site anymore because they weren't there in the days of RW 1.0, but they do feel a responsibility towards it, even though there is no risk of being blocked for telling someone to shove a large, nobbly stick up their arse. Ergo, they don't feel they can get away with the more maniacal activities that once happened there. In addition, proper flame wars require the majority of users to completely lose it; as the site generates higher activity and more regular contributers, the absolute number of users required to do that simulataneously increases. Previously, you'd need 3 or 4 at the most to go into HCM, now you might need 10 or so. Armondikov 11:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Current insanity[edit]

I'd say HCM 2-3. Ty 18:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

HCM 0[edit]

Not sure it started with the LJ Incident. You could argue it started with the Human de-cratting vote, or the way he de-cratted Blue. Or... SuspectedReplicant 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm posting here because I think the LAST thing this site needs is someone changing a major post with no discussion! SuspectedReplicant 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Or me feeling guilty and LANCB because Nutty said he LANCB because of me, and then human yelling at ADK for her yelling at Nutty, and Blue jumping into the fray... Ty 21:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a plot from a teen drama. --Ullhateme 22:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh yeah! It's all YOUR fault! I forgot! :-p SuspectedReplicant 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It is! How dare I make 2000+ edits a month? How dare I try to make the category system resemble a flow chart rather than a moebious strip? How dare I propose standards for funspace? How dare I delete articles? How dare I sysop people? How dare I make nav templates? How dare I add pictures to pages? etc. Ty 21:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought the Loya Jorga referred to the present madness. Let me just... Javascap 22:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There we go, the Humangate event. Any better names? Javascap 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Works for me. Ty 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
It works for me.... although for some reason I can't help thinking of Human bending over and gaping in a Goatse kind of way... That's my problem though, and it shouldn't take more than a few years of therapy to get me out of it. SuspectedReplicant 22:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm so hopped up on caffeine I didn't even stop eating. Ty 22:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, just read the line "How dare I try to make the category system resemble a flow chart rather than a moebious strip?" Have a cookie for the giggle! Armondikov 18:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Nom. Cookies.TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 18:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought you guys were talking about this guy. I thought "Wow, who knew an American and a Brit are so knowledgeable about French psychedelic comics!" I was also a little confused because Moebius did boards, not strips. But now I now you're all talking about that funny circle thingy. BTW, ADK, you're still an uppity shit.--Brxbrx 20:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I do try. Armondikov 22:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Current HCM level meter[edit]

Template:HCM A suggestion: I'd like to see a "current HCM Level" meter on the main page, maybe at the top of the WIGO panel.

The current level could be determined via a rigorous application of the method known as "completely arbitrary", plus relevant bickering. Voxhumana 00:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Good plan. Ace McWicked 01:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do later, this sounds good. Tytalk 01:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with the template we already have? Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 03:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
We'd kinda like to keep the rest of the main page locked. Tytalk 04:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It isn't. And that's not what I meant, but whatever... Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 04:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hm, oh nothing is wrong with the template. Tytalk 04:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The template looks good, I'd just suggest making it horizontal, and then transcluding it to the top of the WIGO panel on the main page. I'll tinker around in a sandbox and see if I can come up with anything worthwhile.

So are we at HCM3 or HCM2 at the moment? Voxhumana 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

3, nearing on 2. I'm taking a break now.--Brxbrx 00:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually this is nothing. 4 I'd say. Ace McWicked 00:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pathetic. Just a bit of light arguing, nothing more. Not even all that many people being drawn in. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 00:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Me and ToP arguing with Blue (not even really arguing), Brx sticks his nose in where he knows he shouldn't, I block him for a bit, no its all over. That's not even an HCM. Ace McWicked 00:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ty just posted a LANCB notice, which is what made me think it was lower (but of course, "What the fuck do I know" is a necessary disclaimer to every comment I ever make.) Voxhumana 00:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Ty is one of those people who 'leaves' all the time. He'll be back before tomorrow. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 00:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader/HCM How's that? Better? Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 01:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Very nice. (Nothing wrong with the old one of course, just it didn't easily fit into the main page layout.) Are you going to put it into the WIGO page? Voxhumana
I was thinking that it could go just below the 'welcome to rationalwikiwiki' box on the main page, but it doesn't really matter. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 01:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I put it up. The question now, of course, is can a sufficiently deadly insult elevate us to level three without requiring the extra participants? Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 04:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good, nice work. So what happens if HCM 0 is reached? Maybe just replace it with this? Voxhumana 05:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That can be arranged. Tobul Oltarolin, Expedition Leader 05:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. I tested it on my userpage. HCM2|0 will fill up the entire main page, but I see that as a benefit in the event it is needed. Voxhumana 05:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The incidents[edit]

Can the red-links be expanded? (I know the general tenor of the argument can be deduced from the name, but some detail might be of interest.) Anna Livia (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Buuuuuuuump. I don't know what these are and I want the teeeaaaaa. Koi "the spelling's on porpose!" development 18:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)