User talk:Kazitor

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

This user enjoys the insightful commentary of trolls. Leave it be!

Nominated

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations.

--RWRW (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

It would be great if you could also be a ballot reader again, sign up is on the same page. — Dysk (contribs) 04:06, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@RWRW First and foremost, I want to assure you that I genuinely appreciate the nomination :) A few months ago I would have eagerly accepted, but not any more. Quite simply, RationalWiki is not worth my time; there are a few users who just make it a poor use of time. I've intended to put a semi-official retirement/LANCB notice on my user page, but even the effort of doing that much isn't worth it.

@Dysklyver What, after you so relentlessly bullied me? No chance :P —Kazitor 22:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving. Best wishes! Nerd (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Same here. I hope I'm not a reason... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Well it's not really possible to actually leave, is it? I've still been checking recent events this whole time... I just chose to quit taking action to deal with various issues when they continue to happen regardless. @LeftyGreenMario nah, it's more a general attitude issue I wrote about without fanfare some time ago. I stopped editing to prove... something, that I still haven't determined. Maybe I will make the odd change here and there anyway? ¯\_('-')_/¯ —Kazitor 23:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I understand and respect that. For what its worth I think it would be a great shame if you did LANCB, and I know lots of others would agree. --RWRW (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you will not accept the nomination and would ask you to reconsider. I have read your essay (yesterday), and would like to second your nomination. @CheeseburgerFace should reconsider too. I think she is of the same mind. I realize if this place sucks for you, it isn't going to help being more in charge, unless maybe you get motivated? Good luck.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Odd, this sort of platform didn't do me any favours last year. Suddenly everyone cares? Either way, moderation ostensibly necessitates being on an active lookout for drama and then getting (minimally) involved, and that's not quite appealing. I don't think it really matters who's elected anyway, all that matters is the authority to say "be quiet you two." —Kazitor 22:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Tis very important, if you aren't here then who am I supposed to pester to do tech stuff? Also I seem to be on track to have to do the mod election vote count alone. Heaven forbid I actually have to do something myself for once. :p — Dysk (contribs) 22:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Threefold

First, thanks for adding the mod bit to the sitenotice. David and I have disappeared, haven't we?

Second, you'll be missed. On that note:

1. Will you be maintaining Archiver or does Archivist need to resurrect?
2. Should I start paying more attention to Technical support?

Third, I wholeheartedly agree with Essay:RationalWiki has an image problem.

1. On the "snarky writing often precedes evidence-based writing" point: (You wrote "Is the intent to provide amusement for the editors of RationalWiki by taking it out against whichever stupid idea they encountered today, or is the intent to provide evidence and persuade others who don't already think the same?") I agree. Almost four years ago, I wrote "Instead of SciPOV vs SnaPOV, it should be SciPOV then SnaPOV. First, get referenced. Second, get snarky. Good humor always improves a point, but the point must be established first." Do you have any parting suggestions on how to achieve this goal?
2. On the "POV changes are rejected out of hand" point: (You wrote: "I really got the shits when I saw someone accused of trolling and being a sockpuppet just because they said some mean, bad things about asexuality on the relevant talk page.") Again: Do you have any suggestions on how to achieve an ideologically more open-minded community?

32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of which, @FuzzyCatPotato and @Kazitor, would you mind weighing in here? Most people there voted Yes, but I'd like to get broader consensus. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato

1. Yep, seems this site has a habit of losing the people who get stuff done :)
2. Good to know I did do noteworthy things.
   1. I intend to keep it running, but there might come a point where it annoys me too much. That shouldn't happen any time soon though, I haven't been running full-screen games at the same time recently.
   2. Don't feel pressured to spend more time here if you don't want to. Although all you really need to do is make users autopatrolled when their first edits don't go through.
3. Also good to hear. Perhaps I should have mentioned it somewhere when written, but... whatever.
   1. Nothing aside from the obvious of "actually write logical arguments that address flaws"
   2. I don't think that's what my sentence was referring to. That was about {{meh}} being used inappropriately (I get the feeling nobody who transcludes that has actually read what it says...). But to address your question, again the easier-said-than-done "(try to) address the other users' arguments from a logical standpoint"

@RoninMacbeth dammit, I'm trying to be inactive for unclear reasons that even I don't know! Your suggestion seems alright and you probably shouldn't need a vote to change that (but then again, RW will stir a shitstorm over anything, won't it?), but the larger issue is actually following and enforcing existing rules which already outline good behaviour, rather than augment them with a bunch of duplicates. —Kazitor 22:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it passes, I'll try to enforce it as best as I can. RoninMacbeth (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth That could be something for mods to set up: a sysop behavior review board (though that might just be Coop 2.0). Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to miss you

Despite our major disagreements on things I still see you as a valuable contributor to the community. You did your share to get my attention after all. I might not like your essay but it did its job and people noticed it, and there was some action attempted into addressing the problem. I tried to consider your viewpoint but I've got a lot of conflicting opposition, especially from more experienced users like Ace McWicked who said this whole yelling and insulting thing is kinda something that has always happened, and I heavily disagree with the major example provided and I really do wish for examples and what would really help is to venture into uncomfortable territory and make very specific name-drops. Not helpful when people don't do namedrops and resort to "you know who you are". RationalWiki has always been about mob mentality it seems and I attempted something like civility guidelines but it's almost unilaterally opposed, and I don't blame the opposition. There's the rethinking snark part that has bothered you too but I really do feel the provisions outlined aren't specific and don't do enough; they're not useful to me. Trying to rally change overall can be very difficult, and I've had my share of my own proposals getting voted out because "don't fix what isn't broken", so I do hope that's relatable to what's going on right now. If you do want to come back, you're always welcome, okay? Don't ever feel bad about violating LANCB, and I'm sure you'll be welcomed back if you ever change your mind. Take care now, and I'm sorry about not being the best mod to you, wish it doesn't have to be that way. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 06:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)