Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: < Back  1 ... 305 306 [307] 308 309 ... 349  Next >
6121
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:26:34 AM »
I think it could be quite reassuring to see a post from him, even if it doesn't weigh in at all; it's just nice to have something tangible for everyone to see, even if it's just a "hi".

6122
Flat Earth Community / MOVED: I guess you guys aren't kidding.
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:20:28 AM »

6123
Suggestions & Concerns / MOVED: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:19:24 AM »

6124
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:18:44 AM »
How do you know.
I don't understand the question. How do I know that I am subject to a Facebook-wide phenomenon as much as other pages of Facebook? Well, that might be because we're talking about Facebook profiles.

6125
Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud
« on: July 20, 2014, 12:05:20 AM »
Are you sure that you aren't a victim of this?

Facebook Fraud: http://youtu.be/oVfHeWTKjag
To the same extent that they can be sure of their 1200 likes. A quick comparison of engagement levels shows promising (if less objectively comparable) results too.

6126
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« on: July 19, 2014, 10:11:24 PM »
It seems that way given his recent announcement about making a big social media presence and t-shirts.
He's probably trying to recover from the realisation that we're about to hit 3k likes after just a few months of operation, or the fact that our net social media acquisition outweighs his more than tenfold. Of course, if we were to reconcile, together we'd have well over 4k likes already, and growing even faster. Heck, we could be shooting for 5 digits soon.

Might that be a foreword for an argument on why reunion could be a good idea (assuming the community's demands are met)? I think so. If we can ensure that the reunited site and Society are ran in a way that satisfies (shooting for satisfying here, and not just satisfactory) its members, then the argument would simply be that of strength in numbers. Our differences aside, we all have some common goals, or else we would never find ourselves active on either forum. The big question for now is whether our differences can be resolved for the greater good, or if we feel that the potential benefits wouldn't outweigh any downsides.

6127
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Scottish Independence
« on: July 19, 2014, 08:58:10 AM »
They can't really make them stop. If they wanted to, they could use the US dollar or the Russian Ruble.
Well, they had better run to their local TSB branch to exchange their possibly-soon-to-be-worthless RBS notes before it's too late, then.

Using another country's currency without that country's express consent and co-operation isn't that easy, unless you're small and insignificant enough not to require a steady supply of said currency.

6128
Then what is the video trying to say? That oil spill accidents sometimes happen and therefore Shell is a bad terrible sinful company which brainwashes the feeble minds of children with insidious Lego toys to turn them pro-industry and pro-oil?
It's a surprisingly good way of killing off an industry you don't like. Just look at how much nuclear power was set back due to irrelevant arguments making it look icky.

6129
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: On the Notion of Wikipedia
« on: July 17, 2014, 08:10:15 PM »
Barring the impracticality of that I don't see why we can't have this forum be the "official" one and if Daniel really doesn't trust Steve and PP on their own server then he can keep the other forum as backup for whatever betrayal he thinks will happen.
Hopefully, we can work our way through any trust issues that may arise. However, it is important to say that we can also design a solution that doesn't really require trust.

On our forum, we currently have by-the-minute database backups. If one of the admins were to suddenly go crazy and replace everything with "e", Parsifal could very easily restore essentially everything. We used this to our advantage when someone accidentally removed a thread and asked if it could be restored.

This approach could be easily extended to provide an additional set of backups that Daniel has access to, but we don't. Together with our code being public, we could design something we couldn't break too hard even if we wanted to. Of course, this shouldn't be a replacement for mutual trust, but the option is certainly available.

Ultimately, as Parsifal said, the technical side of things is the easy part from our point of view. We do, however, need to be calculated about pretty much everything else. I still intend to work out some way for everyone here to be able to have their say in a constructive way. Currently, I don't have an exact plan for how exactly we would do this. All suggestions are welcome.

6130
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wikipedia
« on: July 17, 2014, 02:47:12 PM »
First things first, I'm not looking for a mea culpa, not from you at least; but you need to understand that bearing the title that you bear (and take pride in), you will need to act as a representative. We cannot sort anything out by talking to Wilmore, the friendly guy. The only way we can sort something out here is by talking to either President or VP of your FES. I'm not looking for personal responsibility (and this is a sentiment that I explained before the split). As far as I'm concerned, the people responsible are the power structure of your FES, and as part of that, you take a share of my (and everyone else's, as it's become apparent in this thread and on IRC) anger.

I am open to all kinds of solutions, and you're kind of assuming a lot there, without much basis. In fact without any basis, given what I've tried to make happen in the past. That other people didn't agree, and that I could not persuade them, is not solely and exclusively my fault. I'm (yet again) trying here. [...]
I'm not looking for a scapegoat, but you cannot just isolate yourself from the society's decisions, even if you personally disagree with them. The issue at hand is: we suggested multiple changes to the society and the society's response (through its representative) was an impolite "go away, we don't need you, we are the only people who do something here" (this is just an example. There was more, including threatening Thork with a ban, filing out GitHub suggestion1 under "not a snowball's chance in hell" only to change it to "Soon" after the split, and then never accomplishing it anyway, etc.). The society, as a whole, needs to get its story straight. This isn't about what each person thought, or who put what efforts to get things going. I both believe and appreciate that you tried, but from a political standpoint, it doesn't mean that much. In fact, it only further exemplifies the urgent need of sorting out and formalising the FES's power structure.

Also, I think you just made it clear why closed-door discussions are terrible. You cannot expect people to magically know who tried doing what if a lot of it happens in secret.

Let me state this as clearly as I possibly can (I really thought I had made this clear, but perhaps not): I do not think the two problems should be treated as one. That is why I said "...when that work [i.e. regarding trust] is done, we can discuss how to proceed in terms of consultation/mediation/negotiation...". Maybe you're annoyed, maybe you're angry, and maybe there's a touch of 'rage-post' going on here, but you're not really giving what I've said fair consideration or representation. I just think one necessarily has to happen before the other, and that it should be handled in private. When it comes to actually discussing practical matters, I'm happy to see that done in public. I've already said as much.
Then all we're in disagreement about is the order of events. I'm of the opinion that we should establish our goals before working on their implemenation. If the people of tfes.org want us to be involved with the administration of the hypothetically-reunified site (this is something that you seem to assume, while I do not), then we need to sort our differences out. If they do not want us involved, then we have one problem less to deal with.

Keep in mind, however, that you ask the members of this forum to stop complaining about your administration here, arguing that "I would like to see the forum reunited, and I will do what I can to try and make that happen, but I think that's a conversation best handled privately, as in many ways this dispute is partly about personalities as well as policies." I am happy that we cleared the air around this.

As for Daniel: I am not treating you as a messenger (In fact, I specifically rejected you as such by asking if Daniel couldn't speak about his own views himself, instead of you posting them here). I am telling you that the only way this split can end is if Daniel starts talking to us, and starts taking his userbase seriously2. I don't know whether this is something you can influence or not, but that's what currently stands in the way. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do anything about it, I'm just saying that nothing can really happen until Daniel has a change of heart.


1 - n.b. I know and understand that you did your best there, but again, if it didn't happen, it didn't happen. Ultimately, that's what matters, not who tried and how.
2 - either that or he'd have to lose a lot of his powers and delegate them to people who can do the job


6131
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wikipedia
« on: July 17, 2014, 12:51:25 PM »
With all due respect etc, as far as I am concerned I am the Vice President of the Flat Earth Society wherever I am. [...]
Ah. Well, now I see why personalities are in play here.

Look, I'm not in any way suggesting that the people who moved didn't make that choice themselves, nor am I suggesting that a backroom deal be done and presented as a fait accompli to the members of both forums. You obviously aspire to a democratic decision-making process here, and I can completely understand that consultation with the members is important.
That's a good start.

However, whilst the members may have genuine issues with Daniel's running of the site
Could we drop this whole "there may be problems" and "the complaints might be valid" crap? We left you. The only method of unification you're interested in is us coming back. You keep dancing around the subject and avoiding that we simply had a point.

Daniel does not have issues with the members at large. He has very specific issues of trust with both you and Parsifal, and (frankly) for very understandable reasons.
Then perhaps he should address them with us - they're largely separate from this conflict.

It is simply not reasonable to say "I do not see how personalities come into play here". They very obviously do, and you need to accept and acknowledge that it is a factor. Pretending otherwise is simply not tenable.
No, this isn't about personalities. Pretending otherwise is simply not tenable. This is about John Davis saying he'll do things and then not doing things. This is about you and Daniel disappearing for 6 months at a time, then deleting 1.5 months of posts and saying "lol, sorry, carry on". This is about banning random words because some guy doesn't like it, and dismissing any discussion of how ridiculous that is. This is about making up evidence to ban users you don't like, when you don't like them. This is about you having a set of rules and then not following it yourselves. That is what this is about, and it is something you have yet to acknowledge. If you have some personal issues with us, feel free to discuss those in private, but stop polluting this conversation with those. Meanwhile, any discussion of a hypothetical reunion between the forums will be public and democratic.

Oh, and if it's Daniel that has these personal issues, then he's the one that should raise them.

It's not like Daniel is against the idea of a well-managed forum with a team of dedicated and invested admins/mods (and it's clear that you guys are).
He very clearly is, and he's proven it over and over again. We suggested tons of improvements that do not require our involvement in any way. They have been universally ignored. If you want to make progress in this conversation, you need to acknowledge and fix that. Dismissing all your screw-ups and claiming that they're all down to Daniel having some mysterious "good reasons" to distrust us won't get us anywhere.

But if you and Parsifal are going to be involved
No one said we would be - perhaps this is something that would come up if we actually started negotiating. As of now, we do not know what the members want and you're calling for closed-doors discussions. This is a perfect example of why your forum has failed. Establish your goal first, then work to achieve it. Not the other way around.

then the issue of interpersonal trust absolutely is there, and I think that is something that is best handled in private.
Yes. Daniel is welcome to e-mail me with any issues he has about me. He always has been. In fact, I reached out to him on multiple occasions, and never received a response. Frankly, it's his turn.

For one thing, I know that my experiences of private conversations with you have generally been a lot more civil and fruitful than our public ones. I think there is an extent to which the public nature of such discussions can make them more heated, and whilst that may be good for thrashing out policy, I don't think it is good when you're trying to build trust. There is absolutely no cause or need for that process to be under public scrutiny, and I think trying to do so would be highly counter-productive.
Of course, I agree, and that's why I usually reach out to you in private when I feel that things do get too heated. I also agree that we usually reach good conclusions to some issues that way. I've attempted the same with Daniel, but it won't work unless he starts responding.

What I disagree about is that the two problems should be handled as one. Addressing the userbase's issues and sorting out personal squabbles between Daniel and some of us are two completely separate issues. As long as you're clear about the fact that we will publicly discuss the userbase's issues, I don't mind having a private chat with Daniel about why he may or may not distrust me. Unfortunately, that requires for him to talk sometimes. Don't you think that it's already bad enough that you have to come here and tell us what Daniel thinks? Can he not speak for himself?

6132
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Membership suggestion
« on: July 16, 2014, 11:56:18 PM »
I don't think friends count as actual members.
Not that we should necessarily be influenced by that, but on the old site, "Friends of the Flat Earth" are the people who paid for their membership packs, while "Associate Members" are the ones who got on the roster free of charge, needing to only send a postcard. (Last I checked, the count of associate members was 5)

I agree that a membership register should be opt-in, but otherwise, I'd be happy to accommodate it from a technical side.

The T-shirt idea comes up every now and then. When we last discussed it, everyone seemed to think it's a good idea. The main reason we're somewhat reluctant is that, frankly, we don't want people to think we're doing this for money, and the easiest way to guarantee we never get this accusation is by not having anything that costs money. But maybe it's time to give those a trial run? I have some friends at TeeGlobe - one of those companies that offer a new t-shirt every day for a period of 48 hours, they're dirt cheap, and they deliver worldwide. I could get in touch with them and see if they'd be willing to put up a design of ours. That way we could at least partially satisfy the initial need for tees among members and potentially get a little bit more attention from the outside world, and depending on how that goes, we could then decide whether or not we want to set up something long-term.

What do people think?

6133
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wikipedia
« on: July 16, 2014, 11:45:25 PM »
So you didn't read the important announcement section for days but read CN?
I think that would be better discussed outside of this thread.

It's clear to me that at the very least there's a fundamental disagreement here about what is the appropriate action for the admins to take here, and I'm not sure we're going to get any further on that front.
Sounds like it. We simply don't do things your way here. Sorry.

I think that's a conversation best handled privately, as in many ways this dispute is partly about personalities as well as policies. That is not to suggest that anyone's grievances or criticisms aren't legitimate or substantial, but I think it's definitely part of the problem (on both sides).
Personally, I disagree (albeit I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if need be). It was each and every member's decision to make the move. It would be unfair if any person or small group of persons were to be the sole deciding body on our side of things. Many members have felt personally insulted by the old administration, and I do not feel it would do them justice if anyone were to discuss a resolution behind closed doors.

I do not think it's unfair to say that the majority currently active regulars did make the move. This is a matter that the (Vice-?) President of the society needs to sort out with the members of the society and not just a personality clash between a handful of people. In fact, I do not see how personalities come into play here. This is an issue of technical and political administration, major flaws thereof and the unwillingness of the old site's administration to address them. While I understand that we can't have everyone yelling at you or Daniel, I am strongly opposed to any private discussions. As an alternative, I propose that any and all discussion/negotiations are public and hosted on tfes.org. We select our representatives, you select yours, and the representatives ensure that the views of each side of the conflict are... well, represented. The details of how each side picks their mediator

Also, I have to partially agree with Gulliver. Your profile text suggests that you hold some authority on this site. I wouldn't assume malice on your part, but it could easily cause confusion, especially to a newcomer.

6134
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wikipedia
« on: July 15, 2014, 08:27:28 PM »
Though perhaps I'm getting the wrong end of the stick here and you just mean it's a sort of nasty business to have to open with, in which case I agree.
That is all I meant. Sorry if I was unclear.

I wasn't (and couldn't) be around when the split happened, and all in all I do think it's a bad thing and that there were better options. But the fact is there are two forums, and we may as well get along. That's always been my view, as per the above, and I would like to hope that there can be a reconciliation eventually. The .org/.net split was healed after all, and that worked out well for everyone (especially me, I got loads of powers).
Then we have essentially the same intentions, you and I. None of us really wanted to set up a new forum, but we felt forced to do so, given that we weren't willing to continue dealing with the old site's issues, and Daniel/JD weren't willing to let competent and willing people contribute.

Advertising one forum on another is usually not allowed on forums, especially smaller/independent ones. Like, that was a rule on every video game forum I was ever on, and I really don't think you should be surprised about that. Indeed, advertising other sites is against the rules anyway, and has been for years. And the mass avatar changing wasn't exactly classy, was it? Regarding the forum theme, I'm not aware of what exactly was said or how things were handled, but I think it's fair enough that if you guys want to do your own thing, then maybe it should be, you know, your own thing. And not just lift the look and content of the old site.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. It is not common practice at all, not in the way you guys have done it - you had no rules against advertising other fora, and other fora (smaller and bigger than this one) have previously been advertised. JD picked on us. The fact that you guys cannot follow your own rules (mostly because you can't make them) is part of the old site's problem.

We were never trying to "do our own thing" - we're providing a competent forum for the Flat Earth Society. The only reason we even have our own logo is because Daniel forced us to. It was never our intention to split the identity of FES, so if you have any complaints about that, take them to the orchestrator of it - Daniel.

Look, I know it might sound like a good thing not to 'police' behaviour outside the site, and that's fine if all you're running is a forum. But you're claiming to be the Flat Earth Society.
We are a Flat Earth Society. Daniel forced us to be one by demanding the identity split rather than simply acknowledging that his members chose to make a forum of their own. Again, wrong complaint to the wrong people. I disagree with Daniel's demands as much as you do, but complaining about them to us won't help anyone.

That's more than a forum, and like it or not, the actions people take on your behalf reflect on you, and are to a degree and in a sense your responsibility.
I dunno about "people", but I understand that you do. I'm sorry that you do, but we do not take responsibility for the actions of people we do not know.

Consider: if I started making racist diatribes on other forums in a personal capacity, Daniel would probably have to disassociate both himself and the society from me.
Yes, Daniel's lack of understanding on how to run a forum is part of the reason we set up a better forum. I'm sorry, but any invocation of WWDD? (What Would Daniel Do?) is not likely to make me see things your way.

If I were found to have, say, launched an attack on this site in an attempt to give ours an advantage, he would probably have to do the same. If more junior members of our forum were found to have been attacking your site, I would distance myself from those actions and probably issue bans. Those actions would reflect on the society, and even if I wished it wasn't our problem, it would be whether I liked it or not.
That makes more sense, but no one's forum was attacked. Wikipedia has its own moderation, administration, and a dispute resolution system. It is not my intention to interfere with that, and I do not feel qualified to even attempt intervening with it.

In Wikipedia's case, if you feel that an article is being continuously vandalised, you can request that it be partially locked (for example, to restrict it to autoconfirmed users only) - that way (assuming you're in the right - I currently disagree with that, but I also see no reason to get involved either way) you can end any issues for good without invoking unnecessary and unconstructive drama.

I'm not asking anyone to do anything other than what should be obvious: namely discourage bad behaviour that is obviously being carried out by members of your forum and society on behalf of your forum and society. If you're just running a forum and not a society, fine, you can be hands-off. But you are claiming to be 'a' (if not 'the') Flat Earth Society, and as long as that is the case you cannot simply wash your hands of what your members do in your name. Sorry, but that's just how things work, and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
The administration runs the forum. The Zetetic Council is meant to run the Society, but it's currently facing a bit of a stalemate. Our sincere intention is to run a forum (you can have a look at our early posts here - it should be pretty clear). We're being forced to run a Society of our own by Daniel, who is unwilling to talk to us and ignores communication from us. Don't like it? Get Daniel to start giving a damn, or exercise your Vice-President powers and fix it yourself. We can't fix Daniel's political mess ourselves.

In terms of concrete actions, yeah, Wikipedia is obviously the correct route for getting it fixed, and I don't expect anyone here to get involved beyond the above. But I do think this needs to be flagged as bad behaviour that is discouraged. At the very least it is not conducive to good relations between the two sites, which is surely in everyone's interest.
There have been many things that were not conductive to good relations between the two sites, some of them I already highlighted for you. We're not on good terms right now, as much as it displeases us. If you'd like to change that, trust me, everyone will be happy to see that. But for that to happen, a lot of words said are gonna have to be taken back, at least as far as I'm concerned (again, others in charge may disagree).

Personally, I do not like the idea of Wikipedia vandalism. As an FES administrator, I have no interest in voicing an official stance either way. This is simply not our remit - it's Wikipedia's.

I will state the obvious: nobody really trusts anybody (your stated trust in me aside - I do take that as genuine, and thanks) at this point, and as a result there's a lot of frustration on both sides. I'm confident that if you think about this impartially, you'll understand why this incident irritates Daniel, and I'm sure you feel you have legitimate grievances too.
Of course, he has all the right to be irritated (and, indeed, was extremely open about stating it through his actions). It's just that after months of ignoring problems, he's not really in the position where his irritation is of much interest to me.

I'm not here to rail against this forum, and I meant what I said above.
Much appreciated. As I said, I do trust you personally, but the other forum has done a lot of things that were perceived as very aggressive. Coming and asking that we do your forum favours is just... not tactful, sorry.

I would like to hope that there can be a reconciliation eventually. The .org/.net split was healed after all, and that worked out well for everyone (especially me, I got loads of powers).
Personally, I am open to talks of reconciliation. Sadly, all that your side has offered so far is demands of surrender - personally, I can do nothing but offer a "tough love" approach to those. If you hope for a reconciliation, you need to accept that both sides will need to make concessions. We won't let some guy with a fake surname bully us with fake threats, sorry.

6135
Arts & Entertainment / Re: WiiU & 3DS thred
« on: July 15, 2014, 12:40:31 PM »
Why do we need another Mario character?
Because this game is coming out for the Mariotendo MarioU

6136
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Wikipedia
« on: July 15, 2014, 11:44:06 AM »
Well, what a nasty way to meet you again. I was hoping our first conversation after the split would be somewhat different. My two cents:

Until now I have not commented upon the split in the society
Not in public, at least.

I wish this forum well
Ha. Pardon my skepticism. If this is true, however, then perhaps we should have some more transparent (and hopefully more fruitful) talks about the inter-site co-operation you've brought up in the past instead of bickering about something that's happening outside of either forum?

So be it, no one is making any fuss.
Except for that time when Daniel demanded that we change our forum theme, despite owning no rights to it and us having received express permission from the author? Or the time when JD said any "advertisement" of the new site on the old site will lead to bans? C'mon Wilmore, you guys are making exactly as much fuss as you humanly can. You might not be making much of a fuss personally, but the rest of your team made sure to pick up the slack.

I would appreciate some input from those with influence.
Much like everyone else, I don't see what you expect from us here. The Wikipedia edits are not our doing, nor do we know whose doing it is. Daniel's case appears to be "my society is official and the other one isn't". As people pointed out in the edit history and on the talk page, Daniel is not in the position to decide things like that. Hilariously enough, one of his pieces of evidence is that he has 1000 fb likes. Well, we have 2700. Are we "official" now?

I'm guessing you're expecting me to say that I don't condone editing Wikipedia in our favour. I won't say that. I also won't say that I do condone it. Wikipedia is not this forum (nor is it any other resource under our administration), and we do not police people's behaviour beyond enforcing some very basic rules regarding our own services. That is probably the biggest difference between how our site is managed differently from yours in a non-technical manner, and something we're rather proud of.

I'm sorry, Wilmore, but as far as I'm concerned, you came to the wrong people with the wrong message. Addressing it on Wikipedia is the way to go. Perhaps others in charge will view it differently. Meanwhile, enjoy your stay on the forum, and if at any point you'd like to get involved, please let us know. We'd be happy to have you on board, and we view people's involvement with the other forum as irrelevant.

I'm also sorry for my overall negative tone, but you coming here and saying that you wish us well after your team has been doing everything in their power to be a pain to us is genuinely making me angry. I do trust that you, personally, have no ill intent, but... yeah.

6137
Technology & Information / Re: Xbox and Valve finally have their baby
« on: July 14, 2014, 12:54:11 AM »
I bought a Wii at a pawn store the other day and played some Mario Kart with my respectable significant other. It was fun.

That said, I don't see myself buying any more consoles anytime soon, unless they're £30 like this was.

6138
Technology & Information / Re: Xbox and Valve finally have their baby
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:36:28 PM »
Consoles can't do good strategy games, for example. They're decent for some genres, and absolutely abysmal for others.

6139
Technology & Information / Re: Desktop/Homescreen Thread
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:03:29 PM »
You misunderstand, he means the verb form of "used". He has been trying to get this new computer to be used by someone for a long time now, and finally someone has used it.
o ok

6140
Technology & Information / Re: Xbox and Valve finally have their baby
« on: July 13, 2014, 10:02:51 PM »
As well as the "No, I can't build my own PC, because that's hard :("

Pages: < Back  1 ... 305 306 [307] 308 309 ... 349  Next >