User talk:Bicycle Wheel/RationalWikiWiki S

Saloon bar putsch

The Name

Hmm... Well I guess if we can't think of anything else. Maybe something with one syllable instead of plastic?--Brxbrx 15:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The Night of Sporky Knives? --Eira 15:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in Germany, the Berlin Wall fell down on the anniversary of Krystalnacht. There's also been a ton of other events that happened on the same day, some good, some reprehensible, and as a result, they refer to the day as "The Day of Destiny" (translated to English) and can't really celebrate it as a Holiday, because even if you say you're only celebrating the Berlin Wall being felled, you're also dealing with the fact that it's the same day as Krystalnacht still... --Eira 15:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's like Germans can only do shit on that day - so strange. --Ullhateme 15:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

{ec-this was not directed at you, Ullhateme. I'm confident your knowledge of German history dwarfs mine quite handily} you know Krystallnacht (the Night of Broken Glass, in English), is distinct from the Night of Long Knives, right? One was the vicious harassing Jews, the other was the SS murdering SA.--Brxbrx 15:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ja, das kennte ich schon. However Krystalnacht was on November 9-10th, and the Berlin Wall fell on November 9th... "The Day of Destiny" has nothing to do with the Night of Long Knives, and thus was irrelevant to the story. --Eira 15:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you brought it up...

I brought it up, because it's one of the main reasons why Germans don't celebrate the Day of Destiny as a holiday. --Eira 15:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Now it's night of the something, my stuff about it being sunday afternoon (and sunday afternooin it was) looks out of place. Whoever changed it to night might wish to consider a rewrite. Rrose Selavy 15:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"Knife Night Coup" is nice. Though I hate to try saying it too fast. Armondikov 17:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't have named it the Night of Plastic Knives then. :P --Eira 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

...so why can't we change it? There's nothing ungrammatical about "Knife Night Coup." Liveware Problem 17:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I like Knife night coup, even though it occurred while I was at Sunday brunch. Ty 17:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was pushed for time! Armondikov 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm really partial to Saloon Bar Putsch--Brxbrx 20:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Any one else happy my idea was the one that stuck?--Brxbrx 21:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Way better than another "Night of X." Nebby 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow

Looking at the move log, there was a lot of wheel warring concerning the name. Glad my idea stuck.--Brxbrx 02:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

lol, once more for auld lang syng, right blue?--Brxbrx 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Knife night coup

I thought we'd decided on Night of the Plastic Knives. What's Knife night coup? Sounds like some awful direct-to-DVD movie. Rrose Selavy 19:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Armondikov, Ty and I prefer Knife Night Coup. Apparently now you and Eira prefer Plastic Knives. Liveware Problem 19:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I missed ADK liking it. Mea culpa. Rrose Selavy 20:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Night of the Blunt Sporks

A much better title. Discuss. Theemperor 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just uncomfortable with any "Night of the Blunt x." It smacks of ideological dissent quashing, which isn't what happened at all. Liveware Problem 23:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Except it's exactly what happened from the perspective of people who didn't agree with any of these far reaching plans to get rid of everyone in the power structure and start over, especially considering there wasn't yet any consensus for what, if any, action to take. As poorly guided as it was, the mob was working to cobble together consensus. Obvious blocs were emerging. Ideas were going around about how to approach the administrative structure and remedy the problems with it that got us into this mess. As far as I'm concerned nobody's yet articulated a single compelling reason for changing anything more than the specific rules that failed us. I would have liked to have had a chance to elaborate on that. I'm sure others would have liked to have had a chance to further elaborate on their ideas. But Armondikov expressed his obvious contempt for the right of the mob to reach consensus on issues of substance and procedure by pushing his own idea of what the outcome would be and then forcing everyone to suck it up and accommodate him because he was the only one "audacious" enough to take a giant fucking shit on his crat bit. Fuck. That. That's not audacity. It's an abuse. It was never decided by any but a few people in their own minds that we were going to be decratting and desysopping everyone. Armondikov substituting his judgment for the mob's when it was in the midst of deciding whether or not it would do what Armondikov forced, among other options being discussed, is the essence of ideological dissent quashing. I dissent heartily to this course of action implemented through this shameless abuse of trust and authority. I'm not the only one. Nutty Roux 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed Nutty isn't the only one. Sterile 15:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems some people are really butthurt about all this. Relax. New crats will get elected, DEMOCRATICALLY. And then there will be rules to prevent you from acting like a dick.--Brxbrx 17:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Coup"

A fun use of revolutionary terminology aside, I do object to the term "coup" as no one was actually disposed. User rights don't translate into actual authority so authority wasn't actually removed from anyone. Also, although Pi did go a leeeettle over the top with said revolutionary wordings, there was no new leader installed at the top. Things pretty much remained the same. Unless you count crat rights as being a "special class of user", which they're not supposed to be if people remember that particular rule. Armondikov 00:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I liked the terminology, and for a minute there, I actually felt something was actually going to get done. Ty 00:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Juntas and dictatorships change things overnight... everything else that does not base its legitimization around "I can kill you, if you don't recognize my authority" requires time to establish, and consent. If you felt "something was actually going to get done"... well, you were naive then... --Eira 00:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No, just optimistic.Ty 00:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

In my dictionary optimistic == naive. But then I'm a pessimist... (the best part about being a pessimist, is if you're right, then at least you're right, if you're wrong, then something good happened! yay!) --Eira 00:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I am a pessimist, but I woke up this morning inordinately cheerful. Actually several good points came of the whole thing, but I shall not mention them here. Ty 00:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You are an awfully strange person. --Eira 00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mad as a hatter, they say. Ty 01:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the term "coup" fits perfectly. Albeit, a bloodless coup. But a coup nonetheless. Punky McPunkersen 00:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Coup does fit. Ty 01:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

How? What leaders were disposed? It may have been bloodless but a coup requires a change in authority, unless you consider the 'crats the authority, which according to the rules they are emphatically not. People are acting as if Nx and I shot Trent in the head, seized the server and blocked everyone from editing when no such thing happened. All it was, was one member of the mob shaking things up and forcing an issue. You'll find the HCM that followed a testament to the fact that the governing structure of RW remained ultimately unchanged. If I did the uber-asshole Plan "A", where I stripped all 'crat rights except for me and then just appointed 5 crats and re-wrote community standards and the rule book to say that they were ultimate arbitrators and beyond question while blocking anyone I thought was a trouble-maker and having Nx install checkuser, it would be a coup. As it happened, nothing of the sort occurred. People's editing abilities were left in tact, we were left leaderless as always and no one was blocked save Maratrean who had blocked themselves for a week a day or two earlier. All I did was rock the boat and give people a stronger imperative to solve the rights structure issue because, like always, it was just going to fizzle out until the next big fight 6 months down the line. I've seen the same cycle for 3 years now and I had little intention of having it continue indefinitely. It was a dick move, but the mobocracy of RW is held together by dick moves. I may have turned the rule book against itself, but I played by them and largely left them in tact. Armondikov 11:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"I may have turned the rule book against itself, but I played by them and largely left them in tact." You may have left them intact, though there's nobody left to be bound by them as to crats, but you haven't articulated anything in support of your claim that you played by them. The crat guidelines, for all their faults, don't permit what you did under any circumstances. Nutty Roux 16:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's so little respect for rules now, do you really expect anyone to following after the "Grand Reordering"? There's a time to bend the rules, and RW does need to deal with the scale problem, but throwing the baby out with the bath water's a bit different. Sterile 16:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it when someone forces their will on others. ADK, You did this because you wanted things done your way. I am for people getting a say in what happens on a collective project. I am not for someone moving to put changes in place unless and until there is a vote on it. I refuse to participate in a project under this type of situation. I don't respect your action. I would respect it if you worked within the system to make changes. And what great improvement has come about? The same set of people are nominated to be crats, minus those who don't like all the politics, those who kept the user base balanced and diverse... a shame to lose them. Refugee 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

We're really used to "coup" only referring to a "coup d'êtat", but there are a few different types of "coups". Such as a "coup de grace" and others. The French word "coup" just means "a strike". Sure this wasn't a "coup d'êtat", but it certainly was a "coup". As to ADK doing something to prevent the cycle of big shit storms every 6 months... you're trying to stop the cycle of shit storms, with the mother of all shit storms? That almost doesn't defies logic... --Eira 17:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If I intended to start the mother of all shitstorms I would have done something far more creative. As it was, I wiped the 'crats to start it from a clean slate. No one would have had anything to gain or lose anymore from altering the power structure. Armondikov 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Like what you did back during the destruction of RW2.0. That was far, far more annoying. Ty 21:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Blocking? No. Leaving comments about cunts and fascism? No. Removing the sysops? No. Vandalising pages? No. See where I'm going here? People wanted the mother of all shitstorms so I just gave it to them, it would have happened eventually. A week down the line, a month, a year, and as the site grew and membership increased it would have been increasingly worse. I should have sparked it a year ago at least. Armondikov 21:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you managed to get everyone to wake up, that is for sure. Ty 21:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

While I believe ADK's actions were short-sighted and exacerbated HCM, I don't think they were malicious in intent like much of the edit warring, flaming, and trolling that went on. Nebby 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't in any way say that the coup wasn't necessary... or that it wasn't a good idea. But it was the mother of all shit storms, and I know he could have done worse. Let's put that aside for right now (for example, Nx really fucked shit over... just removing crats wasn't actually that big of a deal) but saying it "wasn't a coup" is a little retarded... that's what I was getting at. --Eira 00:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)