Gamergate 2.0

For serious discussion of the "major" forum for Wikipedia criticism and how it fails.

Moderator: Abd

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Anyone » Sun Aug 25, 2019 3:30 pm

CrowsNest wrote:I echo the statements of confusion about why Discord is even being used for Wikipedia criticism.

I asked my son about this yesterday. He said he and his friends use Discord when playing PUBG [Player Unknown Battlegrounds].

But they use it for talking to each other -- not for typing.

PS. One of the maps in PUBG is inspired in part by Thai architecture.

Image
User avatar
Anyone
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:20 am

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Dysklyver » Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:28 am

Anyone wrote:
CrowsNest wrote:I echo the statements of confusion about why Discord is even being used for Wikipedia criticism.

I asked my son about this yesterday. He said he and his friends use Discord when playing PUBG [Player Unknown Battlegrounds].

But they use it for talking to each other -- not for typing.


Yeah I used to do voice chat on occasion, but nobody has ever used the voice channel on the WO Discord and I don't do it so much anymore.
De facto globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. Editor of The Wiki Cabal. find me on the Wiki Treehouse Discord.
User avatar
Dysklyver
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:14 am

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Abd » Mon Aug 26, 2019 10:36 am

CrowsNest wrote:
Abd wrote:The *effect* is trolling.
Since I think both of us are banned from Wikipediocracy for "trolling" in the eyes of the establishment, and we both understand what our bans are really all about (displeasing the establishment with facts and analysis they don't like), I at least would be very careful about using this word in this way about other critics until I was absolutely confident I was accurately describing the behavior, that I hadn't misconstrued it.
CrowsNest, you have not read carefully. What you quoted was not an accusation of "trolling," which requires intention. It was a statement as to the effect of certain behavior, that it had the effect of trolling. And, in context, that is essentially undeniable. But you'd need to see the context, and you have refused to look.

Trolls simply aim for a reaction, any reaction, not caring what it is. In that respect, it can't even be said your statement makes sense, someone is either aiming to troll or they aren't, they can't be an accidental troll.
Declaring an impossibility requires omniscience.

One can have the effect of trolling, without intention as such, definitely.

I did not claim "accidental troll" as such. And I know quite a few people who somehow manage to piss off lots of people, yet they always have "good reasons" for what they write. There can be a subconscious motivation active there, playing out some very old game. Or not. An effect is an effect regardless of intention.

Hence why we do not consider ourselves trolls.
I would not claim that my writing never has the "effect of trolling". It does, sometimes, and it's something I really need to be aware of and factor for.

And whatever you think of Graaf, I don't think he meets that definition at all either.
This comment is irrelevant to context. It does not look at what was actually being done, but makes an overall generalization with no evidence at all. I did come to a conclusion that Graaf was, on occasion at least, being deliberately provocative. But his reactions are so erratic that it's difficult to assess what is really going on.

I've been deliberately provocative. I was voluntarily complying with the topic ban declared by William M. Connolley on cold fusion, in 2009, when he made a point on Arbcom talk that the ban was still in effect, and he could prove it.

Really? I thought. So I declared that the ban was null and void and I was not going to respect it. That was, again, on an ArbCom talk page. No comment arose. The next day, someone asked a question on the Cold fusion talk page that I could answer with a link to the Talk page archive where that question had been discussed. I did so, and then I went to bed. When I woke up in the morning, all hell had broken loose. WMC had blocked me, I was unblocked by an Arb, and they started discussing emergency desysop. And I was accused of "trolling" him. I did not deny it. He was a loose cannon, very transparent. I actually liked him in many ways (for the open authenticity). But he was poison when it came to involved actions as an admin. That incident spoke more than reams of writing on the ArbCom Evidence page. He was desysopped.

You bet they wanted to get rid of me. I was Dangerous to the cabal. They had already decided that in the previous JzG case, and that is why WMC had involved himself in the first place. They started investing serious assets. I was not, as they claimed, a "believer" in cold fusion. That was all propaganda. I was promoting WP neutrality. Later, I did become an author in the field, published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal, but it would still be misleading to call me a "believer." I'm a skeptic, but a real one. At least I hope so!
User avatar
Abd
Modsquad
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Graaf Statler » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:02 pm

This comment is irrelevant to context. It does not look at what was actually being done, but makes an overall generalization with no evidence at all. I did come to a conclusion that Graaf was, on occasion at least, being deliberately provocative. But his.

Funny, often I have exacte the same opinion about you. Because often I find your reactions so erratic that it's difficult to assess what is really going on. And I think something is broken in you, so the big question who of the two of us is right?
But, we don't have any fight or conflict on our personal level . But I think Abd is in the spectrum and I not and that gives this effect., without any value judgment because a s long we are not talking about Wikipedia we are best friends. And well, for me can Wikipedia complete burn down, so where is the problem? I don't have any personal problem with Abd
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Abd » Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:54 pm

Graaf Statler wrote:
This comment is irrelevant to context. It does not look at what was actually being done, but makes an overall generalization with no evidence at all. I did come to a conclusion that Graaf was, on occasion at least, being deliberately provocative. But his reactions are so erratic that it's difficult to assess what is really going on.
Quote was mangled. Restored in red.
Funny, often I have exacte the same opinion about you. Because often I find your reactions so erratic that it's difficult to assess what is really going on. And I think something is broken in you, so the big question who of the two of us is right?
That is never the big question. The big question is always, "What's real?"

I could write much more. Graaf's description of what happened is heavily distorted.

But, we don't have any fight or conflict on our personal level . But I think Abd is in the spectrum and I not and that gives this effect., without any value judgment because as long we are not talking about Wikipedia we are best friends. And well, for me can Wikipedia complete burn down, so where is the problem? I don't have any personal problem with Abd
And I believe that he believes that. But he behaves as if he has a very severe problem. I can see what he's written first draft on the server before he edited it, and it is often extreme reaction, obviously very angry.

Vigilant is a hater and if he says "get help," he is saying it with contempt.

But I do agree that something is broken and that Graaf might be happier if he can address it. He loves the Orthodox monasteries and that life, but the way he behaves would never be tolerated in that atmosphere.

I have gone through extensive therapy, with experts, for many years. I have never been diagnosed or suspected of being "in the spectrum," which is unclear, but I think from other things he has written is about the autism spectrum. I was diagnosed with ADHD, and the diagnosis was not only very clear, it is heritable and my older brother, as a teenager, was actually an early Ritalin trial participant, when the drug was experimental for "hyperactivity."

ADHD is a social developmental disorder which also is coupled in some with high function. It can lead me to see things that others have difficulty seeing, among other things. Unmanaged, it can cause social dysfunction. But I've been working with that for years. Communicating what I see and understand will probably always be a challenge.

Graaf proposes a question, almost as if there is no answer except "forget about it." We clearly have two very different perceptions of the situation. So what can be done if you and a friend see things very differently? One possibility is to just set it all aside, as if it is unimportant, and perhaps it is.

However, this disagreement has cropped up over many, many topics, and is not merely a difference of opinion about something. There is more to it than that. It is not just about "Wikipedia." So is there something that can be done? Well, yes, if there is someone whom both people trust. Is there? Is there someone Graaf would trust?

Because something deep is being triggered here, I think, a mutual friend might decline to mediate. But it's not impossible.

Graaf is a man of his word, I'll testify to that. If he agrees to respect a mediation he will follow it, even if it's difficult.
User avatar
Abd
Modsquad
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:22 pm

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Graaf Statler » Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:58 pm

But I do agree that something is broken and that Graaf might be happier if he can address it. He loves the Orthodox monasteries and that life, but the way he behaves would never be tolerated in that atmosphere.

Me? living in a Orthodox monastery? Without roomservice and suites? Without Illy cappuccino and prosseco and lobster?
I am sorry Abd, I am a five Star+ type.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby CrowsNest » Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:33 am

Trolling is a deliberate act. There is no more such a thing as an accidental troll, as there can be an accidental burglar. In both cases, accidental intent has been misconstrued by the target/homeowner, usually not for very good reasons.

I offer no mercy to anyone who dares call me a troll, because they don't mean anything other than I have a deliberate intent to get a reaction out of people for absolutely no purpose other than getting a reaction out of people, the reaction itself not mattering a jot to me, like I'm sort of of idiot who has time to waste on nonsense like that. That is the simple reality of what the term means.

Deliberate provocation can be trolling, or it can be something else. Best way to find out, is to see the reaction to the reaction. Trolls usually respond with a simple lol or gotcha, even an admission they were simply trolling. That's what trolling is all about. People just pissing you off, don't. I deliberately provoke people all the time, it's a necessary part of the job. I have never trolled.
User avatar
CrowsNest
 
Posts: 4459
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Carrite » Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:38 am

CrowsNest wrote:Trolling is a deliberate act. There is no more such a thing as an accidental troll, as there can be an accidental burglar. In both cases, accidental intent has been misconstrued by the target/homeowner, usually not for very good reasons.
* * *
Deliberate provocation can be trolling, or it can be something else. Best way to find out, is to see the reaction to the reaction. Trolls usually respond with a simple lol or gotcha, even an admission they were simply trolling. That's what trolling is all about. People just pissing you off, don't. I deliberately provoke people all the time, it's a necessary part of the job. I have never trolled.


Excellent discussion.

RfB
User avatar
Carrite
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Graaf Statler » Tue Aug 27, 2019 8:03 am

Anyway, we can disagree on many things, Tim, but no, you are in no way a troll. Because you are truly convinced wikipedia is a perfect medium with some mistakes what can be fixed. It's simple a different opinion form Crow and me, in our opinion is Wikipedia far beyond repair.

But disagreeing is never a point, but trolling is.
User avatar
Graaf Statler
 
Posts: 3787
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 8:20 am

Re: Gamergate 2.0

Postby Carrite » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:52 pm

Graaf Statler wrote:Anyway, we can disagree on many things, Tim, but no, you are in no way a troll. Because you are truly convinced wikipedia is a perfect medium with some mistakes what can be fixed. It's simple a different opinion form Crow and me, in our opinion is Wikipedia far beyond repair.

But disagreeing is never a point, but trolling is.


It's an imperfect medium, requiring constant external and internal pressure to force course corrections. And it has become a multimillion dollar enterprise headed by a cancerous bureaucracy that would make Max Weber puke — which makes the need for constant external and internal pressure even more essential.

RfB
User avatar
Carrite
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2018 7:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wikipediocracy talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest