6121

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:55:14 AM »

Turns out it is 21.

Nope.

You're also missing the part where by "most" you meant "10%".

6122

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:52:12 AM »

Look, this is just like that time when you said it's impossible to spoof an e-mail. Go do your 20 minutes of research and save us all some time.

6123

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:51:16 AM »

Also, importantly, when you say "most", you mean "less than 10%".

6124

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:50:55 AM »

There is what, 6 comments total?

No.

6125

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:47:50 AM »

Ah so you didn't learn how you can tell from the video.

I did. As the cool dude from the pop science channel said, what matters is engagement. That's why I'm comparing engagement. I'm not going to click on 3000 profiles (or 300 profiles, to get a meaningful sample) and check if they like random crap. I don't need to do that, because I don't care about the percentage as a number. I care about proportions.

Also, you may enjoy this: http://www.jonloomer.com/2014/02/11/facebook-fraud-response/

I did look at the page and it seems that most of your insights come from Lagos, Nigeria. Boy that sounds genuine.

Considering that we get comments from those people, yes, it does.

Also, importantly, when you say "most", you mean "less than 10%".

6126

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:39:16 AM »

Wow. So how do you know that your likes are genuine again?

Let's try this once again. Since the ratio of likes to approximate engagement for each page is similar, it stands to reason that the percentage of "genuine" likes on each page is similar. In other words, we are as affected or unaffected as one another.

6127

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:36:56 AM »

Because I asked you how you know and you didn't have a response that sounded like you know.

Congratulations.

You also edited your initial response.

Welcome to 2009. I edit most of my posts shortly after posting them. If that's your best comeback, consider not having a comeback.

I'm harping on as usual?

Yes.

I'm bringing to light the fact that Daniel has no reason at all to concede to what anyone is proposing and you somehow think you do because of some Facebook likes?

No.

6128

Technology & Information / Re: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:31:07 AM »

Huh? First of all why did you move this? You touted Facebook likes and then I pointed out that they might not be genuine.

Because you were turning a side comment into the subject of an ongoing serious discussion. Do not derail S&C threads. If you think others (in this case, arguably myself) have derailed an S&C thread, do not derail S&C threads anyway.

Then you said they are and you don't even know how to tell if they are genuine or not even though the video shows you how.

How do you know what I do or do not know? As I said, the engagement of each page is largely proportional to the amount of likes, ergo it speaks to reason that we are equally affected (or not affected) by the issue. You are harping about a non-factor, as usual.

6129

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".

6130

Flat Earth Community / MOVED: I guess you guys aren't kidding.

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:20:28 AM »

This topic has been moved to The Lounge.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1726.0

6131

Suggestions & Concerns / MOVED: Facebook fraud

« on: July 20, 2014, 12:19:24 AM »

This topic has been moved to Technology & Information.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1727.0

6132

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.

6133

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.

6134

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.

6135

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.

6136

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Greenpeace asks Lego to stop partnership with Shell

« on: July 19, 2014, 08:55:41 AM »

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.

6137

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.

6138

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

6139

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?

6140

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?