All posts by GuacamoleCCXR

A reply to Alemas2005

0

GuacamoleCCXR·12/9/2016

FiretigerIsMLG wrote:
Neutral. I like history, while it is hate, and bad, its still history, SOOOOO, Neutral.

the point of this vote is not to enact historical revisionism, but rather prevent glorification of historical figures such as the examples named above. as i mentioned earlier, discussion of the events involving prominent nsdap leaders in a historical context will still be allowed.

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

GuacamoleCCXR·12/9/2016

Madkatmaximus wrote:

Loney 97 wrote: I think banning hate symbols and "ironic hate speech" should be enough - banning mention of historical figures seems overkill to me.

yeah I don't get the historical figures part. if you're using them for bad jokes, sure, or anything constituting bad taste, yeah. but like in and of themselves? idk.

i think the point is so people don't run around with goebbels avatars. you can still talk about these people in the context of historical discussion.

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

GuacamoleCCXR·12/9/2016

Riolu777 wrote:

Veralann wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Veralann wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Veralann wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Veralann wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Veralann wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

KnightoftheLight wrote: Meh, neutral. I'd rather the vote was a little more concrete. :P

It doesn't get more concrete than this.

It would be more concrete without the statement of "Ambiguous symbols/imagery/figures will be decided on by the admins. " hanging over the vote

Feels pretty concrete to me. What's more concrete than admins deciding on stuff? Don't you trust us anymore?

It's not necessarily about trust, more certainity. When you say "tbd" that means we can't be certain about that category of things.

But you can be certain once the decision is taken...?

I don't see the problem here.

</noscript>

The problem is that we won't be certain until a specific answer on what will and won't be allowed is given, and that wouldn't happen until after this vote passed, if it passes

If the vote fails you'd never get an answer, you'd never get any certainty.

Which may be, in some users' opinions, better than voting on a vote that doesn't completely cover the matter at the time of voting.

What's the problem with going on a case-by-case basis for these things?!

That's currently what we're doing, from what I can tell. This vote was supposedly to give one concrete and specific answer to all of them, was it not?

Alemas, I don't really foresee us needing to decide something ambiguous in the future, this already is a catch-all policy proposal. Why don't we just axe the admin decision bit?

i don't think that's a wise decision. the admins need freedom to act spontaneously without losing policy legitimisation, otherwise whenever a user finds a new loophole to exploit the situation will devolve as it did this time around.

edits: grammar

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Alemas2005

1

GuacamoleCCXR·12/9/2016

Keplers wrote:

Oh, and what even is freedom of speech.

freeze peach guys!!!!

voting a)

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to AmazingPythor

0

GuacamoleCCXR·11/27/2016

d

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Dr. Satl, M.D.

0

GuacamoleCCXR·11/7/2016

Loney 97 wrote: In all seriousness, this vote is the internet version of grumpy teenagers in family vacation photos.

+1

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Dr. Satl, M.D.

1

GuacamoleCCXR·11/7/2016

ironic dabs are pretty fun tho

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Veralann

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/14/2016

a

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Veralann

1

GuacamoleCCXR·10/11/2016

leave all as is, increase dm cooldown to 4 weeks

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Alemas2005

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/11/2016

busycityguy: demote

danielboone6702: demote

drew1200: demote

jdude420: keep

lbk10: demote

madkatmaximus: demote

melte2: keep

nxtstep101: demote

obi the lego fan: demote

zxspidermanxz: demote

i had to remove so many capitalised letters from this goddamn list

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Romaniandude12

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/10/2016

a2

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Slicer Vorzakh

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/9/2016

b

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to GuacamoleCCXR

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/7/2016

Rapmilo wrote:

GuacamoleCCXR wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:
Hmmm...does the shift key work on your computer?

i purposefully tore out both l- and r-shift to ensure there's no way i can break my persona

I was just wondering because I've never seen you type a capital letter. Like ever.

consistency is my strength

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to GuacamoleCCXR

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/7/2016

Rapmilo wrote:
Hmmm...does the shift key work on your computer?

i purposefully tore out both l- and r-shift to ensure there's no way i can break my persona

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to GuacamoleCCXR

0

GuacamoleCCXR·10/7/2016

yey bois

(Edited by GuacamoleCCXR)

A reply to Veralann

1

GuacamoleCCXR·10/6/2016

Keplers wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

GuacamoleCCXR wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Keplers wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

GuacamoleCCXR wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Keplers wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Slicer Vorzakh wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

AmazingPythor wrote:

Rapmilo wrote:

Purplebrick333 wrote:

Marshal6000 wrote:
So much for democracy.

Democracy only works well in certain situations anyway.

This wiki is not an example of a good one.

Nah, democracy sucks. Period.

Democracy with a well-educated populace is ideal for a nation, but with something like a wiki some oligarchic influence can prove useful.

Why do we have to implement a governmental system on a wiki?

We can do without one.

that would be anarchy

Not quite.

an oligarchy would still be a government system

We could use feudalism; at least the concept of it, that is.

I hate to make you feel like a moron but not only is that somewhat of a governmental concept, it's mostly a societal/economic construct that's not remotely applicable here

I meant using the concept of it; not feudalism literally.

We have admins and editors. The editors edit the wiki in exchange for regulation by the admins. Something of that sort. It's similar to how feudalism functions, however remotely.

But I agree it's not really much of a governmental system

except editing is voluntary, cannot be demanded by the administration, and isn't even remotely comparable to the mass of all resources extracted from peasants under feudalism.

not to mention that there is no benefit in the system you proposed, even if something along those lines could realistically be installed.

Alright, let me make myself more clear:

First off, I don't mean to install a system of literal feudalism, as I have stated before. This means that I am looking toward the concept of feudalism rather than the actual practice of it.

Now let me make myself clear by what I mean by the concept of feudalism and what I mean by the practice of feudalism. What you, Guac, are referring to is the practice of feudalism, that is how it was implemented and practiced in Europe (which, needless to say, was a mess). But what I am referring to is the mutualistic concept of feudalism (the way that it was supposed to be implemented).

Obviously the difference between the concept and practice of a governmental system, is not exclusive to feudalism. Socialism and communism are both examples of governamntel/political constructs that weren't met well when implemented.

So how can the concept of feudalism, which reflected the needs of serfs, lords and vassals, be implemented in a wiki, a virtual community of semi-anonymous users. Well, the answer is quite simple when we eliminate the idea of wealth/land and replace it with the urge to edit (even if voluntary), and relate the concept of feudalism with the relationship between administrators/staff and users.

If we equate users with serfs, and admins with lords, for sake of the argument, we are met with a relationship of admins exploiting editors. Correct? Well, only partially, that is if we are referring to the practice of it as it had been practiced in Europe.

However, if we are referring to the concept of feudalism the reality would be much different. Administrators would exist for the benefit of those who edit on the wiki. What benefit could that be? Well many things such as catering to the needs of the community and general regulation.

So in this manner admins and users have a mutualistic relationship. Is this really feudalism, I then hear you asking? Probably not, but it does draw a fair share of ideas from it.

On any note, I think I'm taking this far too seriously :P ... But I enjoy nothing more than a good argument, even one as aimless as this.

Basically you're still asking for the bureaucratic dictatorship I told you earlier: a small oligarchy makes the decisions and in return the users have the reward of using this wiki.

It sounds better when you don't use the word dictatorship :P

feudalism does not sound better than dictatorship at all

Well, that's subjective.

Understand that Guac's a Marxist and Marxism itself was designed more or less to directly combat feudalism. Feudalism is a system in which the lower classes are essentially slaves to knights, lords, and kings, with levels of wealth and control over production rising with one's rank. To use the word feudalism here is to imply that the admins will make absolutely all decisions and the users will be left with basically nothing but the incentive to edit.

Which, by the way, is a dictatorship (one person) or oligarchy (multiple persons).

this, except i'd like to broaden the term dictatorship; metaphorically, it can be used to denote the absolute power of a larger societal body than just one person. for instance, weydemeyer and, after him, marx and engels coined the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

edits: clarification