Carrite wrote:That's above my pay grade, you'll have to ask the big kids about that.
That was rather my point.
Your views on the movement and general admiration of my awesomeness are not a secret of course, but it is alas more of the same toolery. Those big kids want to have their cake and eat it. They want outsiders to think their forum is a "big tent" where all views can be accommodated, while in practice operating to quite different purposes, where insiders like yourself openly admit what their reality actually is.
Unless you know different, what you're admitting contentment with here, is that I was somehow found to be incompatible with Wikipediocracy, even though while I was there I was quite meticulous in abiding by their ideas of what is and is not polite discourse. I certainly don't think I ever gave as good as I got from the in-crowd, least of all unleashed the beast, capable as I am of following rules that are sold to me as applying equally to all, for the stated mission.
Turns out their purpose is not the mission at all. Plenty of sacred cows, plenty of subjects off limits, curiously often the activities of Wikipedia Administrators. Not much mission value in Tarantino merely conceding Drmies is a massive asshole. Even less if you let people like him swan around the site, not answering legitimate questions, acting like you only provide the server space so they can continue their assholery off-wiki, if not just chillax between sessions of on-wiki assholery.
Oh how I would laugh my tits off if they even dared to try to moderate Vigilant the way they presumed to mug me off. You know they called me hostile, right? You know this is what they were trying to pull.....
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtop ... ty#p210249......before the wheels of their attempted reformation really fell off and they remembered their core business model - a caste system in support of all the house POVs they think they can realistically accommodate without scaring away too many of their Wikipedian clientele. A site whose sole intended audience is Wikipedians. Not critics with the required familiarity to understand, just Wikipedians.
Someone brave enough to advance arguments such that there can be no such thing as a good Wikipedian when they are essentially all complicit in a system that pollutes knowledge and endangers the safety of children, is not welcome there. A certain amount of pushback from the Wikipedian clientele is to be expected. Endorsement of their outright bullying, and acquiescence of the mob's request that I be removed lest they lose their breakfasts over being served a little dose of their actual reality, was not.
Fuck that Quisling bullshit. It was inevitable that other venues would spring up to address that horrific distortion of the very notion of an independent platform, including this one by some of the people directly involved in the founding of Wikipediocracy.
I exercise my freedom to light shit up from this platform because it has been explicitly granted to me by people with more integrity in regards the management of an open forum, than the current owners and operators of Wikipediocracy will ever have.
Unlike the false claims of the Wikipediocracy management, if they even dare to say it anymore, people of all faiths are welcome here. We let you post, don't we? Come one, come all. Just come correct. Don't be expecting to be able to post garbage or cult propaganda, and not be challenged. Not banned, not bullied, challenged. If you can't deal with being challenged, do as many have done, and run away, is our policy. As you have done quite often. Not that it is my place to say, but as far as I know we do not ban people for their ideology, or for merely upsetting people already here, or who we want to attract to this place. We're allowed to upset anyone, if it has a benefit to the cause of Wikipedia criticism, and criticism of the critics who are sucking the big one.
If only you had that freedom over there Timmy. You'd feel so liberated.
Embrace true independence, Timmy. Stop being a tool. You get beat on over here for what you believe in, and sometimes you even fight back. We respect to for it, honestly, even though you really do yourself no favours in how you choose to fight, for the most part. But we know that's your curse, an ingrained behavior from years of being a Wikipedian and latter day Wikipediocrat.
You get beat on over there simply because they know you're happy to take it, and you serve their needs in other ways too. And yet on both sites, we have the same status - just lowly posters. Amazing isn't it, how the management of a site can so radically alter the experience of the participants? There's a lesson there for Wikipedia. Did you see it?