Talk:Headless Chicken Mode

From RationalWikiWiki

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 _{I'll get my hans on it} 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! human^{be in} 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 :) human^{be in} 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. human^{be in} 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 _{I'll get my hans on it} 10:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HMC 0

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)

[edit] Not HCM

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)

[edit] HCM gone?

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? human^{be in} 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)