Talk:The Great Tor Debate
From RationalWikiWiki
I'm not sure where, if anywhere, to put this on the HCM scale. The debate itself, while showing true RW chaos, was quite civilized. Things only got heated in the later debate about the debate.--False Flag 20:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- By the definition: HCM 5 when the debate on Talk:CS started, HCM 4 when Human entered the room, and it seems that's it, but Human hasn't returned yet. -- Nx / talk 20:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you're right! Haven't reviewed HCM for ever so long. Needs a small update as well. It seems it's unlikely that this story is going to go anywhere now though.--False Flag 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- How do you like the new template (idea shamelessly ripped from Trent's real life intrusion alert)? It doesn't cat things though because there's no HCM cat, but it could cat stuff into Low/Medium/High drama, e.g. 5,4 is low, 3 is medium 2,1 is high? -- Nx / talk 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- The template is great. Are you saying that the insertion of the template could automatically cat the article? If so, sure, why not?--False Flag 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, just tell me which cats you want associated with which HCM level. -- Nx / talk 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- To keep in one place I'll answer on your talk page.--False Flag 15:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yup, just tell me which cats you want associated with which HCM level. -- Nx / talk 15:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- The template is great. Are you saying that the insertion of the template could automatically cat the article? If so, sure, why not?--False Flag 15:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, pretty good article! Re: (Quote): "Of course that was not the only unilateral decision that TOP and Armondikov came up with that night - they also decided to get rid of CP references in mainspace, but as (almost) nobody noticed that they slipped that one in, it's OK." (UnQuote) So that explains it! I was wondering how I'd missed a debate about removing all the CP references. Refugee 03:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- HA! I wasn't even aware that they had done that. Now, if I wanted to cause HCM, I could call them on it and argue against getting rid of CP references. But, then again, that would be against my slacking off lifestyle.MNpunkboy 03:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's because there was no decision to remove CP links. Read on, and you'll see that adding links was the decision, not removing them. SuspectedReplicant 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure. It's clear that TOP and Armondikov decided between them on Operation Move on. TOP then presented what he himself called a fait accompli in the saloon bar.
- I can see that you suggested something different and in usual chaotic RW style a small number of people took what they wanted from the discussion that followed. The problem is that it wasn't subject to a formal debate; no site-wide consensus was looked for; much of the site will be unaware of what is going on; and if, in future, actions are questioned there will not be a lot to fall back on. It's really a poor way to run things and it's a bad example to others.--False Flag 15:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's because there was no decision to remove CP links. Read on, and you'll see that adding links was the decision, not removing them. SuspectedReplicant 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- HA! I wasn't even aware that they had done that. Now, if I wanted to cause HCM, I could call them on it and argue against getting rid of CP references. But, then again, that would be against my slacking off lifestyle.MNpunkboy 03:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- How do you like the new template (idea shamelessly ripped from Trent's real life intrusion alert)? It doesn't cat things though because there's no HCM cat, but it could cat stuff into Low/Medium/High drama, e.g. 5,4 is low, 3 is medium 2,1 is high? -- Nx / talk 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you're right! Haven't reviewed HCM for ever so long. Needs a small update as well. It seems it's unlikely that this story is going to go anywhere now though.--False Flag 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] HCM level
Looks like HCM 4 to me.--False Flag 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Debate map
I've got half a mind to make a debate map of this. Pros and cons, ads and disads, rebuttal's to rebuttal's to rebuttal's... now it needs a flow chart, etc. But I'm gonna need more pages, it will branch out into more issues that just Tor, I'll be copying people's words without asking or attribution, but I will try to keep my stupid ideas out of it. I'll put all the pages in the same category for easy removal or archiving. Category for everything will be something like "block policy debate map". Is that okay to do here? Any other suggestions for categories? Lumenos 06:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll just give my personal opinion here. Please note that I have absolutely no authority on this wiki. There are a number of points to bear in mind in response to your question "Is that OK to do here?"
- The purpose of this wiki is to report on the goings-on at RW. If that is the prime objective that I'm sure that nobody would mind - indeed they will be happy to see activity. If, however, your main objective is to make some point about, for example, TOR, then it would be less appropriate.
- As this is a wiki you would not "own" the pages you create which could be edited by anybody.
- I can't help but feel that there is an element of overkill in your suggestion. Still, it's you time.--Bob M 09:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- If RWW has a use, it's for collating things like this. It certainly exploded after I went offline and reached tl;dr territory. If you can track down the point where it appeared to change from "blocking TOR to prevent malicious, threatening and stalker like posts" to just "blocking TOR for the hell of it and maybe stop spam" I'd like to know, I missed most of it. Armondikov 11:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
