The Flat Earth Society
The Flat Earth Society => Suggestions & Concerns => Topic started by: Lord Wilmore on July 15, 2014, 12:21:14 AM
-
Until now I have not commented upon the split in the society, other than to say on theflatearthsociety.org that I wish this forum well, and that two active flat Earth forums can only be a good thing.
However, it has come to my attention that the Wikipedia page on the Flat Earth Society is being actively edited so as to exclude reference and/or links to theflatearthsociety.org, and to solely refer to tfes.org. Obviously this is fluid and ongoing, but I am sure someone is aware of what is happening.
No doubt this forum is well run. No doubt it is updated regularly. No doubt its library, and much of its content, is taken from the original site. So be it, no one is making any fuss. But this is a pointless and harmful charade, and it should stop. I doubt the admins/mods here are responsible for this nonsense (at least I hope not), but I hope they will weigh in appropriately. When .net and .org were separate sites we had none of this stupidness. The new site was added to the Wikipedia entry, and both existed alongside one another. This, however, is petty.
I assume this kind of silliness is beneath those running tfes.org, and that it is not the work of Parsifal, PizzaPlanet etc. It's cheap stuff, and it really ought to stop. I would appreciate some input from those with influence.
-
It is linked to now. I'm guessing that was your edit. I think we can come up with better descriptions than "2004 Flat Earth Society" and "another Flat Earth Society".
-
It is linked to now. I'm guessing that was your edit. I think we can come up with better descriptions than "2004 Flat Earth Society" and "another Flat Earth Society".
My edit was just a correction. This crap has been going on for a bit. I'm not even involved - it just keeps changing each time I check. It's utterly juvenile, and I say this as someone who was part of the .net split.
-
Incoming drama.
-
Doesn't Wikipedia log who edits a page?
-
Yes it does, but the I am unaware of the usernames involved. In any event, here is Daniel's case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flat_Earth_Society#Misleading_edits_directing_visitors_to_an_alternative_site
I really am assuming that the admins are not involved. I'd just like them to weigh in and give out about it, basically. It's not good for anyone.
-
Yes it does, but the I am unaware of the usernames involved. In any event, here is Daniel's case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flat_Earth_Society#Misleading_edits_directing_visitors_to_an_alternative_site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Flat_Earth_Society#Misleading_edits_directing_visitors_to_an_alternative_site)
I really am assuming that the admins are not involved. I'd just like them to weigh in and give out about it, basically. It's not good for anyone.
I doubt it.
Based on the user names I'd guess it's some random user. Or a troll trying to stir up trouble.
Either way, there must be some mechanism to prevent people from altering a page repeatedly.
-
I'm quite sure it's not one of the regulars here, nobody really strikes me as the type to bother with that sort of thing (also I monitor everyone's internet habits ;]), but that is a little odd. I'd agree that it's pretty dumb to not have theflatearthsociety.org listed on there at all, so hopefully whoever's doing that will stop (hint hint, whoever's doing that).
I'm curious as to what you're expecting. I mean, there's not much anyone here can do if someone is editing the page. Did you just want PP or ParsPars to confirm that they aren't the culprits, or...? I'm not insinuating anything, just genuinely want to know.
I got all excited when I saw you signed up that maybe you were joining here. :[
-
Site improvements? Nah mate, not got time for that. Someone editing the Wikipedia article? Daniel's on the case! I find that humorous.
Not sure why anyone would bother doing this, but it makes sense that it's someone here. How long has this been going on?
-
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 (https://www.facebook.com/FlatSoc). 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.
-
It is linked to now. I'm guessing that was your edit. I think we can come up with better descriptions than "2004 Flat Earth Society" and "another Flat Earth Society".
My edit was just a correction. This crap has been going on for a bit. I'm not even involved - it just keeps changing each time I check. It's utterly juvenile, and I say this as someone who was part of the .net split.
Oh yes I meant I thought the correction was your doing, not the dastardly mischief.
-
I'm with pizaaplanet. Let the Wikipedia administration mediate conflict on Wikipedia; they are the best qualified to do so.
On a lighter note, I'd like to welcome you to tfes.org, Wilmore. I do hope you'll stay for more than the inter-forum political squabbles.
-
Well, what a nasty way to meet you again. I was hoping our first conversation after the split would be somewhat different.
Well, we actually weren't having a conversation as of yet, and I specifically mentioned that I doubted you were involved. I don't really see how that's nasty. 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. I can honestly say I have no desire to be talking about this kind of petty stuff. My guess is that it's just some idiot here who thinks they're helping out, when in fact they're just causing trouble for everyone.
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?
I actually have commented upon it in public. Here's what I said:
Obviously the last 6 months haven't exactly been great on this side, either. I'm really sorry I wasn't around to help the community out during that time. Honestly, I just couldn't, but I still feel guilty about it and don't exactly feel like the greatest FES VP in the world right now. Though I probably am by default. The split is a thing that has happened, and I'm neither going to lament over it or pontificate about it. Obviously I'd like us all to be one big happy family and work out our issues (hey hey, seamless thematic link between this paragraph and the last!), but that may not be possible, and I wish those involved in tfes.org the very best. Having two lively FE sites on the internet is no bad thing really, and that's all I have to say on the matter.
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).
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.
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.
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 (https://www.facebook.com/FlatSoc). 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.
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. I'm not here to rail against this forum, and I meant what I said above.
Regarding inter-site cooperation, I am obviously open to suggestions. I was in touch with Tintagel a while back about some kind of content-based interaction, but I haven't heard back from her in a while. Looking at her profile here it seems she's been inactive for a bit (which of course is disgraceful and shameful and something I condemn in the strongest possible terms), so that's why that didn't go anywhere. If you or Parsifal have any ideas, you can always email me at flatearthtoday@gmail.com. Realistically I probably won't be coming here very often - loyalties and politics aside, I have enough difficulty logging into one flat Earth forum on a regular basis. Two might be a bit of a push.
If anyone wants to contact me about anything, really, you'll get a warm reception.
Oh yes I meant I thought the correction was your doing, not the dastardly mischief.
I think at this point we're talking about totally different things, largely because I completely misunderstood what you were talking about. I was referring to an edit of my original post above. But hi!
I'm with pizaaplanet. Let the Wikipedia administration mediate conflict on Wikipedia; they are the best qualified to do so.
On a lighter note, I'd like to welcome you to tfes.org, Wilmore. I do hope you'll stay for more than the inter-forum political squabbles.
As per the above, I am unlikely to be around much, and much as I hate to say it, most of my time here will probably be spent blustering in a formal capacity. But who knows, it might be constructive blustering. And send me an email if you have ideas etc.
-
Perhaps this is a matter for the Zetetic Council?
-
Perhaps this is a matter for the Zetetic Council?
Why do people keep saying this about every single little issue that pops up? No, it isn't, and the sooner we all forget about this stupid Zetetic Council thing the better.
-
Perhaps this is a matter for the Zetetic Council?
Why do people keep saying this about every single little issue that pops up? No, it isn't, and the sooner we all forget about this stupid Zetetic Council thing the better.
This seems like the exact reason why the zetetic council was created. Whether it has been effective in practice or not is another issue.
-
And the mass avatar changing wasn't exactly classy, was it?
Yeah that was my bad. We were quite upset and I wanted some way to show we were serious since we were getting kind of a "lol nobody's going to actually do anything about it" tone from some of the admins and that seemed like a good idea. I don't know that I really regret it, but I'll pretty openly admit it wasn't the classiest option. It was an effective one, though.
-
And the mass avatar changing wasn't exactly classy, was it?
Yeah that was my bad. We were quite upset and I wanted some way to show we were serious since we were getting kind of a "lol nobody's going to actually do anything about it" tone from some of the admins and that seemed like a good idea. I don't know that I really regret it, but I'll pretty openly admit it wasn't the classiest option. It was an effective one, though.
I certainly approved of it after the train wreck that caused the issue to begin with.
I find it interesting that anyone over there is now interested in good relations between the two societies, it has only been 7 months...
Anyway, like the others said, we don't harbor ill will toward anyone over there.
-
Perhaps this is a matter for the Zetetic Council?
Why do people keep saying this about every single little issue that pops up? No, it isn't, and the sooner we all forget about this stupid Zetetic Council thing the better.
Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Thork was behind this whole thing.
Which would mean we should vote his ass out.
-
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.
-
The moderation and technical upkeep of this forum are superior. As for the wikipedia fiasco, this isn't wikipedia is it? Maybe you should take your case there.
-
Personally, I like it here.
I don't get mods giving me warnings for flaming a noob. Hell, they enjoy it. I complain about something not working and its fixed. I don't need permission for anything and I'm not treated like a second class citizen. The whole cliquey JD, Ichi, Wilmore, Bullhorn, and no other person can ever replace them thing got very old. .org took its regulars for granted. Well, its regulars left. We had no value, so we came to a place where we found some.
I never liked Daniel. The guy is a total arse. For him to be complaining his site is now dead is an utter joke. He never did any of the things we asked to sustain it. Where the hell is my rage smiley? >o<
We are the flat earth society, because this is the place the flat earthers came to. Its our home. We built it, we own it, we don't have to ask permission to make it great.
I won't be going back to .org, Wilmore, until the day Daniel relinquishes control. He won't. that's that.
Come here, join our Zetetic council - it has problems. I'm too busy with work, Bishop is ill and the rest couldn't run a bath. I'd give you my place on the council if you had the time to work your magic. Our admin team have been magnificent though. A complete reverse of .org.
Anyhoo, miss you, shame about what happened, no regrets, life went on, on this big flat earth of ours.
-
I am on my phone currently, so I'll keep this brief. I largely agree with pizaaplanet's last post, and my intention in starting this forum was to create a place for people to post about FET that isn't riddled with constant technical problems and apathetic administration. My interests are primarily technical, not political, and my first preference would have been to work with Daniel rather than against him. That turns out not to be so practical when he ignores every attempt at communication or help for four years, however.
-
Thork, what is the council's position on the wikipedia edits and do you have any idea who is doing it?
-
Thorn, what is the council's position on the wikipedia edits and do you have any idea who is doing it?
I had no idea that any Wikipedia stuff was boiling over. I certainly have no idea who is doing it. There hasn't been any council policy on this.
Looking at the latest page, it looks like Shenton has sprayed his repugnant scent all over it again. Last I saw, there was some reference to the society fragmenting with a link to us. Shenton has been busy erasing this important part of the society's history from existence.
Fortunately, he is likely to forget all about the flat earth society for another 8 months, so I assume the correct information will be re-added and his MINE MINE MINE edits will be removed again. Its nice our logo is still there. Shame there is no link to our site from there.
Wikipedia could be covered by a number of different areas. The council, social media team or admin team for TFES.
If anyone needs words for the wiki, I'm sure the council can come up with something.
PizzaPlanet seems to have everything under control. If he needs anything from the council, just ask.
-
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. I've made my opinion clear, and it's been respectfully heard, but I do hope that this will at least give whoever's behind this silliness pause for thought. Really, it's quite counter-productive.
A few of you have chimed in defending this forum vs the other, but with all due respect that's not what I'm here to discuss. I think everyone has made their dissatisfaction clear in the plainest possible way (i.e. by moving), and I don't intend to try and persuade people to change their minds or have a pointless argument about the rights and wrongs of, well, everything. 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. 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).
-
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. I've made my opinion clear, and it's been respectfully heard, but I do hope that this will at least give whoever's behind this silliness pause for thought. Really, it's quite counter-productive.
A few of you have chimed in defending this forum vs the other, but with all due respect that's not what I'm here to discuss. I think everyone has made their dissatisfaction clear in the plainest possible way (i.e. by moving), and I don't intend to try and persuade people to change their minds or have a pointless argument about the rights and wrongs of, well, everything. 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. 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).
I would suggest that an obvious act on your part showing malice was making your title in your profile "Vice President" when you're not. Please don't make yourself out to be more than you are here.
(http://i.imgur.com/HhEZDNs.png)
-
So now we can honestly say: Either no one knows who is doing it or no one's talking.
Just a thought:
Can someone here(Thork maybe?) talk with Wilmore and at least figure out what to call each link? That, I think, would be a productive start. That way, when the wikipedia page is edited again (we all know it will be) either side can fix it and not have to worry about angering the other side with what each link is called.
-
I'd be happy to, but I think pizzaplanet is already at advanced stages of negotiation. I didn't have a clue what was going on until I read some IRC pasta late last night.
-
I'd be happy to, but I think pizzaplanet is already at advanced stages of negotiation. I didn't have a clue what was going on until I read some IRC pasta late last night.
....
So you didn't read the important announcement section for days but read CN?
-
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.
-
Someone would have to be an idiot to think that a personal title with only one lit square means anything. Not trying to derail the conversation, just saying.
-
Yeah, I think that little detail is kind of nitpicky. However, I strongly agree that any attempts at reconciliation would need to be made public. An over-reliance on secrecy is a pretty big part of what led to the split in the first place.
-
Yeah, I think that little detail is kind of nitpicky. However, I strongly agree that any attempts at reconciliation would need to be made public. An over-reliance on secrecy is a pretty big part of what led to the split in the first place.
Definitely.
-
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.
I would suggest that an obvious act on your part showing malice was making your title in your profile "Vice President" when you're not. Please don't make yourself out to be more than you are here.
With all due respect etc, as far as I am concerned I am the Vice President of the Flat Earth Society wherever I am. That may sound pompous or whatever, but I've given a lot in the society over the years, and it is something I've worked a lot on, invested a lot of time and energy in, and something I care a lot about (as I hope is evidenced by this thread). I'm really not going to apologise for being proud of that. In any event, I just copy-pasted all the fields from my other profile, so it wasn't a particularly conscious move on my part. Now that you raise it, though, I am quite happy to very consciously leave it there. Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but really, aren't there bigger things to be talked about here than my profile text? Christ, we may as well talk about your (pp's) avatar. I really hope we can avoid being antagonistic about things that absolutely don't matter, because if any real attempt at reconciliation is going to be made, it will be hard enough just dealing with the real issues.
Also: hi Gulliver!
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
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.
However, whilst the members may have genuine issues with Daniel's running of the site, 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. 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.
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). There may certainly be issues of how authority is delegated that he would take issue with, and that is a discussion which probably can/should be handled in public. But if you and Parsifal are going to be involved, then the issue of interpersonal trust absolutely is there, and I think that is something that is best handled in private. 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.
There are also things which may need to be said that are for many reasons best kept private. To speak as candidly as I think is appropriate: I have had private discussions with Parsifal about these issues, some time ago and under very different circumstances. That they were had in private and in good faith was an important part of why they happened at all, and it was important that they happened.
I think when that work is done, we can discuss how to proceed in terms of consultation/mediation/negotiation/meditation/recrimination/yadayada. But a good chunk of this is absolutely about you, Parsifal, and Daniel, and I don't think there is any point in pretending otherwise.
-
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?
-
Look, I just want to emphasise that whilst I came here feeling annoyed about the Wikipedia issue, I'm well beyond that at this stage. I love this society, and I hate this split, and henceforth my only aim is to make things right. I'll do whatever I can to make that happen, and it's the only reason I'm here.
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.
I really don't think this is fair. I've acknowledged the problems with the other forum, in private and in public, many times in the past. I have previously made many attempts to try and involve people, including Parsifal, in the running of the site. Those were in no way satisfactory, and some of them just didn't happen, but not because I didn't want them to. I wouldn't have tried to make them happen if I didn't. I have in this very thread stated that people left because of legitimate grievances, and that they should be consulted on whatever happens (if anything does happen). What you say above simply isn't representative of what I have said, past and present.
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.
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.
I have acknowledged most, if not all of these things, indeed partly in this thread, and several times in the past. Is it a mea culpa you're looking for? I have frequently apologised for my lengthy absences. It doesn't make them OK, but it's simply not true to suggest that I haven't. You can treat me as some sort of avatar for all the problems with the other forum and harangue me until page 52 of this thread, but it's not going to get us anywhere. You have made your issues with the running of the other site extremely clear, and the fact that so many members and mods have moved over is proof (as I mentioned earlier) that those grievances were real and legitimate. If there is something more you would like me to say about that, you're going to have to spell it out, because I'm struggling to think of anything useful.
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?
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.
As for Daniel: I am not his spokesperson, his representative, or his mother. I am here as me, on my behalf, in the hope that I can end what I see as a damaging split in a community I care about. I am Daniel's friend though, and he does talk to me, so I do know how he feels and what he thinks, up to a point. Moreover, a lot of this is essentially public knowledge, so in some respects it's entirely obvious how Daniel feels about this.
Given all that, it would probably be helpful if you stopped talking to me like I'm some kind of messenger. I am trying to act as a go-between, but that's something I decided to do for my own reasons and on my own initiative. I am not responsible for the trust issues that exist, but I do recognise that they are a problem and that they need to be fixed. I want to make a go of that first, because realistically I know that nothing can happen before that does.
-
On the notion of Wikipedia
-
On the notion of Wikipedia
Indeed.
-
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 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60210.msg1554904#msg1554904)). 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" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60632.msg1568521#msg1568521) (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 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60208.msg1557428#msg1557428), 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
-
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 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60210.msg1554904#msg1554904)). 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" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60632.msg1568521#msg1568521) (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.
I don't disagree with any of this so stated. In some ways this is as much a question of approach/attitude/tone, something you and I usually have issues with in public discussions. To be clear, I am in no way trying to brush away the problems with how the other forum is run, and to be absolutely explicit: the other forum is badly run, and has been for a long time.
I feel I've acknowledged that sufficiently, and there's not really much more I can say. What I want to do is work towards some sort of reconciliation. I fully expect people to vent at me, and I've been dealing with that for a long time and don't really have a problem with it. All I'll say is that I don't think it's constructive in discussions between us, but let's leave that there.
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.
Well, to be honest that's an initial decision you guys have to make, and not something I can initiate or really participate in, so I guess that's a process you'll need to begin. Beyond that, there will need to be some trust-building, and then a separate process of actually thrashing things out. So I think it's more that we were talking about different things, I suppose.
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 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60208.msg1557428#msg1557428), 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
I broadly agree, but I think it also needs to be acknowledged that Daniel's lack of trust is something that both you and Parsifal may need to engage with and help resolve, for reasons that I think are obvious.
Anyway, I am going to leave this here for now (though I'll happily respond if people want to throw verbal tomatoes etc). I guess you guys need to make the above decision and get back to me. I'm going to send you and Parsifal an email in a purely personal capacity.
-
I think there has to be compromise on both sides.
If we are to give up our forum and return, Daniel has to give up the presidency and give control of the society back to the flat earthers. No one voted for him, he's had a very good run (10 years), its time.
He won't because he is vain. As are you. You just told us how proud you are of being vice president. Many of us have been part of the flat earth society for many years. We have contributed 100 times what Daniel has. Not only in posts and interaction, but research, materials and the things we made over the years.
Daniel sees this as about Daniel. His society, his followers, his rules. We just got sick of him. He's the problem. There can be no reconciliation without him abdicating because he won't change.
Frankly, we view him as a domain squatter at this stage. He has control over our website and its an irritation to our society.
So ask him how he feels about abdicating. If you get the belligerent no compromise crap he usually dishes out, you can consider negotiations over.
-
I see no reason why Pizza and Parsifal should reach out to Daniel about trust issues since as Pizza said, he's tried and received no response. Does Daniel even care if we reconcile our differences?
I don't care to go back under Daniel's reign unless he tries making an effort to get the ball rolling. We shouldn't go out of our way to mend things when he's the reason we left in the first place.
-
If we are to give up our forum and return...
I don't see any reason to do this at all. The other site runs like garbage. It is slow, unresponsive, and borderline unusable. Not to mention all of the other technical problems that don't get fixed, that has been covered ad nauseam.
I agree with rooster as well, there is no reason to reach out anymore than PP/Parsifal already have. Ball is in Daniel's court, where it will sit untouched for years and become deflated.
-
If we are to give up our forum and return...
I don't see any reason to do this at all. The other site runs like garbage. It is slow, unresponsive, and borderline unusable. Not to mention all of the other technical problems that don't get fixed, that has been covered ad nauseam.
I agree with rooster as well, there is no reason to reach out anymore than PP/Parsifal already have. Ball is in Daniel's court, where it will sit untouched for years and become deflated.
Oh, they'd have to let the FErs fix it. But that's something that can only happen without Daniel land-grabbing.
-
I'm going to respond to Thork's post because it's kind of directed toward me, but as I said I don't really want to interfere too much in the community discussion, because I'm obviously not a part of it and feel it's a conversation that needs to be had without me. If people want me involved, I'll contribute, but I clearly 'have a stake' so to speak, so I don't know that that's for the best.
Perhaps that discussion should be held in a different thread, so that if people want to talk to/shout at me, they can do it here, separate from the community discussion? I don't know, it's up to you guys.
I think there has to be compromise on both sides.
If we are to give up our forum and return, Daniel has to give up the presidency and give control of the society back to the flat earthers. No one voted for him, he's had a very good run (10 years), its time.
He won't because he is vain. As are you. You just told us how proud you are of being vice president. Many of us have been part of the flat earth society for many years. We have contributed 100 times what Daniel has. Not only in posts and interaction, but research, materials and the things we made over the years.
Daniel sees this as about Daniel. His society, his followers, his rules. We just got sick of him. He's the problem. There can be no reconciliation without him abdicating because he won't change.
Frankly, we view him as a domain squatter at this stage. He has control over our website and its an irritation to our society.
So ask him how he feels about abdicating. If you get the belligerent no compromise crap he usually dishes out, you can consider negotiations over.
I agree with the first line of your post, but I don't really see any actual compromise in the rest of it. Maybe I've misunderstood something?
-
I agree with the first line of your post, but I don't really see any actual compromise in the rest of it. Maybe I've misunderstood something?
I'll re-quote because I guess you didn't read it properly the first time.
I think there has to be compromise on both sides.
If we are to give up our forum and return, Daniel has to give up the presidency and give control of the society back to the flat earthers.
The blue bit is what we give up, the red bit is the bit Daniel gives up.
-
I agree with the first line of your post, but I don't really see any actual compromise in the rest of it. Maybe I've misunderstood something?
I'll re-quote because I guess you didn't read it properly the first time.
I think there has to be compromise on both sides.
If we are to give up our forum and return, Daniel has to give up the presidency and give control of the society back to the flat earthers.
The blue bit is what we give up, the red bit is the bit Daniel gives up.
Ah, you're right, I didn't, sorry. All I'll say is that I think there are other options which don't involve blue (at least not in the way I think you mean it), but I should stress that I am very much speaking hypothetically and personally. I'll leave it at that for now unless anyone addresses me directly.
-
Can I ask, why has it taken you 8 months to come to speak to us?
Either no one was around to notice we'd left from your administration in that time, or there is a thread in a super secret forum somewhere that says something along the lines of "They'll come crawling back".
I'm just curious which one.
-
As for Daniel: I am not his spokesperson, his representative, or his mother. I am here as me, on my behalf, in the hope that I can end what I see as a damaging split in a community I care about.
Wilmore, I think that your intentions are admirable, but since most of the grievances seem to be with Daniel and the way he runs things, I don't see how much you, or anyone else, can really do to heal this rift without Daniel being directly involved with the discussion.
-
Can I ask, why has it taken you 8 months to come to speak to us?
Either no one was around to notice we'd left from your administration in that time, or there is a thread in a super secret forum somewhere that says something along the lines of "They'll come crawling back".
I'm just curious which one.
To be blunt and not beat around the bush: I have had a really, really rough 7-8 months. My six-and-a-half year relationship came to an end about 8 weeks ago. Speaking personally, I have been distracted. I can't really speak for anyone else.
Wilmore, I think that your intentions are admirable, but since most of the grievances seem to be with Daniel and the way he runs things, I don't see how much you, or anyone else, can really do to heal this rift without Daniel being directly involved with the discussion.
I entirely agree, and I want to try and help to open that dialogue. Clearly, it has not been going on (or at least has been one-way). I'm here because i want to try and bridge that gap.
-
To be blunt and not beat around the bush: I have had a really, really rough 7-8 months. My six-and-a-half year relationship came to an end about 8 weeks ago. Speaking personally, I have been distracted. I can't really speak for anyone else.
Sorry about that. I hope you are over it now. You're a good-looking chap. Get some built up shoes and you'll be fine. ;)
I hope that there isn't anything else wrong. I lost my long-term girlfriend who walked out on me when I lost my job and my home. That led to a nervous breakdown. It probably took me 3 years to sort my life out. Unfortunately for you, a lot of that frustration played itself out on your forum. I'm better now though. I don't think I've had a single hissy fit since I've been here. :-*
-
If we are to give up our forum and return...
I don't see any reason to do this at all. The other site runs like garbage. It is slow, unresponsive, and borderline unusable. Not to mention all of the other technical problems that don't get fixed, that has been covered ad nauseam.
I agree with rooster as well, there is no reason to reach out anymore than PP/Parsifal already have. Ball is in Daniel's court, where it will sit untouched for years and become deflated.
Oh, they'd have to let the FErs fix it. But that's something that can only happen without Daniel land-grabbing.
Why would we go fix up another site when we already have a perfectly functional one?
This compromise makes no sense and I don't see how it's in anyone's best interest that we return to a worse platform than we're on now.
-
I think you'd just port this site to that domain and merge the databases, but meh. These are technical problems I wouldn't be dealing with.
-
I think what you're suggesting is the opposite, i.e. transferring Daniel's domain to our site.
-
Whatever.
-
I think you'd just port this site to that domain and merge the databases, but meh. These are technical problems I wouldn't be dealing with.
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.
But honestly I just like to post on a forum that has a dedicated,skilled, and quick to act staff. Everything else is irrelevant to me.
-
I think you'd just port this site to that domain and merge the databases, but meh. These are technical problems I wouldn't be dealing with.
Technical solutions are the easy part. If we end up deciding on such a compromise, I can handle the technical side of things. We definitely won't make any compromise that isn't the right thing by the community, and that means the forum won't go back to the way it was before the split, whatever happens.
-
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.
-
This approach could be easily extended to provide an additional set of backups that Daniel has access to, but we don't.
Why would we leave him with the keys again?
He is the sole reason for everything wrong at the old site. I don't want to go back if he is in charge. I don't see why we should concede that. He's not offering anything we haven't already got.
Honestly, I don't see a solution. I think we go on alone. The Daniel/Wilmore/Davis team are never there. That site will die. They need us. I don't see why we need them. Daniel wouldn't have had a bollocking off Wikipedia if he thought he had the situation under control. And he is too high and mighty to come here and talk with any of us himself. I don't want that kind of person running the society. I want a person I can hold accountable when I'm not happy.
-
I want a person I can hold accountable when I'm not happy.
Currently this person is you.
-
This is all very strange, Wilmore comes here upset about Wikipedia and no-one gives a shit, now he wants to fix things. Which is fine, but why did it take so long and for him to have some negative reason to come here to do it?
-
I want a person I can hold accountable when I'm not happy.
Currently this person is you.
Hardly. The Zetetic council is a 5 man (4 men and a woman) team. Then we have 3 admins that are ever-present. Its not a bottle-neck of frustration all depending on one absent person.
-
I feel like the zetetic council doesn't do anything and should be abolished. Nothing says "we're better than you" better than a private club.
-
Sure, we can review. Go start a thread. Tom has been ill, I started a new job, I've no idea what happened to the others. We haven't had enough time to get anything done.
If we abolish the zetetic council, are you going to do anything to help? If not, and we aren't doing anything ... what's the difference?
-
To be blunt and not beat around the bush: I have had a really, really rough 7-8 months. My six-and-a-half year relationship came to an end about 8 weeks ago. Speaking personally, I have been distracted. I can't really speak for anyone else.
I'm really sorry to hear that. :[ I hope things go well and (though we've never talked before, really) I am told I'm a good person to vent/complain to if you ever feel really low and want someone to just talk to or something. Don't know how weird you might find that, but. :P
Ah, you're right, I didn't, sorry. All I'll say is that I think there are other options which don't involve blue (at least not in the way I think you mean it), but I should stress that I am very much speaking hypothetically and personally. I'll leave it at that for now unless anyone addresses me directly.
I am curious about what you mean, exactly. I don't think you should worry too much about being part of the discussion here; I don't think that anyone particularly minds or is going to make a deal about it, and frankly it's nice to have someone from there actually attempting some sort of dialogue. Don't let people venting at you make you think it's not appreciated (at least by some of us), I for one like you and definitely do appreciate what you're trying to do.
That being said now, I don't think any solution is going to happen that doesn't involve the three Ps in charge of the forum at least. Even in conjunction with Davis maybe (that's up to them, I can't speak for them, obviously). But, frankly, I don't think any of us are willing to go back to how the forum has always been run now that we know what it's like to be on such a well-run forum that gets stuff done consistently, quickly and openly. It is simply not an option. PP and Parsiman have shown how wonderfully they can run a forum and how well they can be trusted. I'm aware that people over there have their reasons for not getting things done and not being around, and I don't blame anyone personally for that, but I don't really take it as an acceptable excuse when this is the alternative.
Sorry if I'm bringing up things that weren't even posted about, I may apparently have some excess frustration to get out still as well, but I think you can understand my points. So I am curious, do you think there is any chance Daniel would allow this? To have PP&P (maybe along with Davis if that makes him feel better) run the forum while he does...whatever he does? Frankly, them running the social media might be a good idea as well, seeing as we've already accrued twice the Facebook members as the other site, as well as the rest of the social media pages, but one thing at a time :P
-
Davis is poison. Why are people talking like they'd want Davis and Daniel in charge? that was the problem last time.
QFT
PP and Parsiman have shown how wonderfully they can run a forum and how well they can be rusted.
-
Davis is poison. Why are people talking like they'd want Davis and Daniel in charge? that was the problem last time.
I'm not going to be too mean since I don't like being mean, I can understand why people wouldn't want John back after a lot of the things he's said and his general lateness with things, I'm just putting the possibility out there of him and pizaaplanet and Parsifal running it if there isn't a chance in hell that Daniel would just allow P3 to do it themselves. Personally I'd rather it was just them, but
As for Daniel, I don't know, I don't think I mind him in charge of the society itself as long as he leaves the forum to us. I mean, it's not like he does nothing (even if the 'something' he does is rare), he's found and gotten a lot of documents while, frankly, we haven't really done anything in terms of actual FES-related moving-forward here. I'm sure we could if we tried, but the fact of the matter is that we haven't. If you have better alternatives, though, I'd genuinely like to have a good, conducive discussion about that here. I just want what's genuinely best for the Society, not just the forum. The thing is, the forum is a huge part of the society (it's most of it, in fact), and I happen to seriously love this place with all my heart, so it takes priority for me.
-
I don't mind that Daniel is in charge of the site, but in the evens that there would be a merge, Parsifal and PizaaPlanet should be administrating the forum. Not Daniel. Daniel can take care of the site for all I care, but the forum should be run by people who are capable of running a forum efficiently. This is all I have to say about this.
-
However, whilst the members may have genuine issues with Daniel's running of the site, 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. 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.
I haven't addressed this thread yet (frankly I haven't addressed much here of importance lately at all, hoo hoo) but as someone who really hasn't taken a particular side on this issue and continues to enjoy the benefits of both forums, albeit on more of a part-time basis lately, I feel like I'm in a position to address this particular argument in a fair, balanced, and unbiased way. It may very well be that Parsifal and PP started this forum in the first place because they don't like Daniel on a personal level, as a kind of "take that"; I don't pretend to be able to read their minds or divine their intentions. However, they didn't convince the majority of the forum's members to move based on such a personality clash. In the last couple years there have been some very real, very legitimate issues with the way the forum has been run that have affected all of us. I am convinced it was entirely the way the forum has been run by its administration that led to the schism.
There was a time, long ago, that despite Daniel's general absence in any personal capacity on the forums I nonetheless felt like he cared about it, and the site ran well. That time is long gone. Maybe he got bored with it. I doubt many people would blame him; look at all the people who have come, stayed a long time, made a lot of useful contributions, and then disappeared. But whatever the case may be Daniel showed nothing but apathy toward the forum for a long time, and if he now regrets his lack of involvement and interest in promoting the Society and the forums so be it, but I don't think anybody can be blamed for regarding it as being maybe a bit too little, too late. I honestly don't even think he was even aware of the split until quite some time after it actually took place. I may be wrong about that so please don't rake me over the coals over it.
Frankly I myself was upset with how things were being handled at the time and I felt JD was being something of a condescending prick when he tried to address it. He has since apologized, and I accepted the apology, but it still goes to show how deep the problems over there were/are.
I would love to see a reconciliation but the fact is that theflatearthsociety.org is still a bit of a mess and it needs cleaning up, and Parsifal is absolutely correct that if Daniel wants to fix things, he's going to have to relinquish a little control. Not to Parsifal or PP, mind you; given their histories on the old site it would probably be insane for him to even consider it. But, somebody who genuinely cares about the Society, is willing to be a constant presence, and knows what he is doing. I nominate Thork (lol j/k aren't I hilarious?).
Anyway, the Wikipedia thing is just stupid and whoever did it should feel ashamed of themselves. In fact they must or else they would have owned up to it and either apologized or tried to defend themselves. I doubt it was PP or Parsifal, but I am also quite sure it wasn't just some noob passing through.
But sorry, I really have to say that I don't think that most of the members who now post here (such as it is, it's a wasteland here) and don't post there left the other site due to any kind of clash of personalities. I think it's a lot deeper and more legitimate than that. At this point I think that to try to put the blame on such a thing to any degree is simply counter-productive, unnecessary, and frankly unfair. Just my two cents.
-
Sorry about that. I hope you are over it now. You're a good-looking chap. Get some built up shoes and you'll be fine. ;)
I hope that there isn't anything else wrong. I lost my long-term girlfriend who walked out on me when I lost my job and my home. That led to a nervous breakdown. It probably took me 3 years to sort my life out. Unfortunately for you, a lot of that frustration played itself out on your forum. I'm better now though. I don't think I've had a single hissy fit since I've been here. :-*
Thanks. I guess this isn't really the place to talk about it, but I've handled it about as well as can be expected, and I don't have any other Big Life Events going on, so I only have one front to cope with. It was just a big drawn-out spiral of unhappiness, then I thought I'd fixed it, then it turned out I hadn't fixed it and had in fact been treated very badly, then I tried really hard to make things OK, and then I was treated pretty badly again. Trickle-truth, repeated dishonesty, you get the gist. I came back to the other forum briefly in the eye of the storm, but then the rest came out and I just didn't have the energy to approach any of this.
To be blunt and not beat around the bush: I have had a really, really rough 7-8 months. My six-and-a-half year relationship came to an end about 8 weeks ago. Speaking personally, I have been distracted. I can't really speak for anyone else.
I'm really sorry to hear that. :[ I hope things go well and (though we've never talked before, really) I am told I'm a good person to vent/complain to if you ever feel really low and want someone to just talk to or something. Don't know how weird you might find that, but. :P
Thanks for the offer, and I do appreciate it. It wasn't something I really planned to bring up here, but I can understand why people might view all this as late in the day, and I felt I needed to give more than just some vague mumbling about my life outside the society.
I am curious about what you mean, exactly. I don't think you should worry too much about being part of the discussion here; I don't think that anyone particularly minds or is going to make a deal about it, and frankly it's nice to have someone from there actually attempting some sort of dialogue. Don't let people venting at you make you think it's not appreciated (at least by some of us), I for one like you and definitely do appreciate what you're trying to do.
As long as people are happy to have me weigh in, I can. I'm just wary of coming across as trying to unduly influence things.
That being said now, I don't think any solution is going to happen that doesn't involve the three Ps in charge of the forum at least. Even in conjunction with Davis maybe (that's up to them, I can't speak for them, obviously). But, frankly, I don't think any of us are willing to go back to how the forum has always been run now that we know what it's like to be on such a well-run forum that gets stuff done consistently, quickly and openly. It is simply not an option. PP and Parsiman have shown how wonderfully they can run a forum and how well they can be trusted. I'm aware that people over there have their reasons for not getting things done and not being around, and I don't blame anyone personally for that, but I don't really take it as an acceptable excuse when this is the alternative.
Sorry if I'm bringing up things that weren't even posted about, I may apparently have some excess frustration to get out still as well, but I think you can understand my points. So I am curious, do you think there is any chance Daniel would allow this? To have PP&P (maybe along with Davis if that makes him feel better) run the forum while he does...whatever he does? Frankly, them running the social media might be a good idea as well, seeing as we've already accrued twice the Facebook members as the other site, as well as the rest of the social media pages, but one thing at a time :P
I suppose it's a bit early for me to say anything, and PP has made it clear that he wants the community to identify its goals before we get round to actually exchanging proposals. But broadly I think that anything is possible, and that there is real scope for real change. I know that sounds like dreadful politic-speak, but I'm hesitant to speak on Daniel's behalf at this stage.
I should also add that I am entirely aware of how unsatisfactory the administration of the other forum has been, how much disillusionment that caused for the members, and how demoralizing it was for the staff. That you're all here is proof enough of the legitimacy of those grievances, and it's entirely obvious that a return to the status quo is not something anyone here is interested in. That includes me, by the way.
However, whilst the members may have genuine issues with Daniel's running of the site, 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. 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.
I haven't addressed this thread yet (frankly I haven't addressed much here of importance lately at all, hoo hoo) but as someone who really hasn't taken a particular side on this issue and continues to enjoy the benefits of both forums, albeit on more of a part-time basis lately, I feel like I'm in a position to address this particular argument in a fair, balanced, and unbiased way. It may very well be that Parsifal and PP started this forum in the first place because they don't like Daniel on a personal level, as a kind of "take that"; I don't pretend to be able to read their minds or divine their intentions. However, they didn't convince the majority of the forum's members to move based on such a personality clash. In the last couple years there have been some very real, very legitimate issues with the way the forum has been run that have affected all of us. I am convinced it was entirely the way the forum has been run by its administration that led to the schism.
There was a time, long ago, that despite Daniel's general absence in any personal capacity on the forums I nonetheless felt like he cared about it, and the site ran well. That time is long gone. Maybe he got bored with it. I doubt many people would blame him; look at all the people who have come, stayed a long time, made a lot of useful contributions, and then disappeared. But whatever the case may be Daniel showed nothing but apathy toward the forum for a long time, and if he now regrets his lack of involvement and interest in promoting the Society and the forums so be it, but I don't think anybody can be blamed for regarding it as being maybe a bit too little, too late. I honestly don't even think he was even aware of the split until quite some time after it actually took place. I may be wrong about that so please don't rake me over the coals over it.
Frankly I myself was upset with how things were being handled at the time and I felt JD was being something of a condescending prick when he tried to address it. He has since apologized, and I accepted the apology, but it still goes to show how deep the problems over there were/are.
I would love to see a reconciliation but the fact is that theflatearthsociety.org is still a bit of a mess and it needs cleaning up, and Parsifal is absolutely correct that if Daniel wants to fix things, he's going to have to relinquish a little control. Not to Parsifal or PP, mind you; given their histories on the old site it would probably be insane for him to even consider it. But, somebody who genuinely cares about the Society, is willing to be a constant presence, and knows what he is doing. I nominate Thork (lol j/k aren't I hilarious?).
Anyway, the Wikipedia thing is just stupid and whoever did it should feel ashamed of themselves. In fact they must or else they would have owned up to it and either apologized or tried to defend themselves. I doubt it was PP or Parsifal, but I am also quite sure it wasn't just some noob passing through.
But sorry, I really have to say that I don't think that most of the members who now post here (such as it is, it's a wasteland here) and don't post there left the other site due to any kind of clash of personalities. I think it's a lot deeper and more legitimate than that. At this point I think that to try to put the blame on such a thing to any degree is simply counter-productive, unnecessary, and frankly unfair. Just my two cents.
I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here - perhaps I've been unclear. I know that the reason the members moved over was due to poor administration of the site, and I'm not at all suggesting that had anything to do with a clash of personalities. People were unhappy, this forum was better run, and so they moved. But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.
-
But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.
Do you know anything more about these personal issues concerning Parsifal specifically? Because Daniel's bizarre hear-no-evil attitude towards Parsifal has been going on for about five years now, and it's still incredibly confusing to all of us.
-
I don't see what's wrong with the Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia works by user contribution. I saw on the talk page it was argued that many of the notable members have moved here. Therefore this is now the Flat Earth Society. I see the change to the page as a simple update of fact.
As per "they're copycats stealing content" argument, I don't consider that as valid considering that I wrote a majority of the material in the original Wiki, and now I'm here.
If Daniel and his team feels that they are the 'true' Flat Earth Society, then maybe they should argue based on their notability with something other than "we posted links to some books written by previous Flat Earth Societies" and "Tom Bishop stole the wiki he wrote". They can make their case by talking about the few Flat Earth podcast episodes they did which had nothing to do with the topic of Flat Earth. Or perhaps they can talk about their engaging Flat Earth community activities, such as the annual "save the animals" charity drive panhandling.
-
I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.
-
I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.
Indeed. I was just about to post something along these lines.
Was that a confession, Tom Bishop?
-
Tom is taking his gloves off. I am glad he is feeling better. Go Tom.
-
I guess the mystery of who edited that article has been solved.
Indeed. I was just about to post something along these lines.
Was that a confession, Tom Bishop?
I did not change the page, but wouldn't have objected to it.
-
But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.
Do you know anything more about these personal issues concerning Parsifal specifically? Because Daniel's bizarre hear-no-evil attitude towards Parsifal has been going on for about five years now, and it's still incredibly confusing to all of us.
Parsifal was once a mod, and it didn't go well. Following that, there were/are suspicions regarding the numerous attacks on the site. This is all pretty much public knowledge I think. This is what I mean when I talk about trust. I do think it is something that can be addressed, however.
-
But I think the reason Parsifal and pizaaplanet have had so little headway in their communication with Daniel (including before the split) is partly down to personality issues, including the incidents you've alluded to. It's just something that we're going to have to deal with and work through.
Do you know anything more about these personal issues concerning Parsifal specifically? Because Daniel's bizarre hear-no-evil attitude towards Parsifal has been going on for about five years now, and it's still incredibly confusing to all of us.
Parsifal was once a mod, and it didn't go well. Following that, there were/are suspicions regarding the numerous attacks on the site. This is all pretty much public knowledge I think. This is what I mean when I talk about trust. I do think it is something that can be addressed, however.
If Parsifal hacks other people's forums, would he hack his own forum? Especially if he had to fix it?
-
Like I said, this is something that can be talked about and dealt with, I think. I like and trust Steve (and believe it or not, pp, though the next part of this sentence doesn't apply to him because of well-known drama), and I've been trying to get him involved in the running of things for a long time. But at the end of the day, there are trust issues there for Daniel, and they aren't groundless.
Now, pp has mentioned that there are security roundabouts that can remove those trust issues, and think they're a really good idea, but I would agree with him that those are not a replacement for trust. I think what he means is (and I entirely agree), we can get by without trust, but it would be much better if there were trust. For everyone, and for the long-term good of the society.
In any event, I've talked with pizaaplanet and Steve, and they want to sound out you guys on this, so I'll leave it there.
Edited to remove personal information at user request - Parsifal
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Presidents are elected by their constituents. If you were not elected by your constituents then the title of "president" or "vice president" is fraudulent, just like the fake presidents of some 3rd world countries. But even they know enough about the title that they need to concoct a rigged election to claim that position.
Daniel is a fraud president. I was on the forum from when it began. There was never any election. His claim of being the "President of the Flat Earth Society", which he uses as justification on the talk page, has no merit whatsoever.
-
Well, he's a part of the Shenton legacy. It isn't much, but it's something.
-
Well, he's a part of the Shenton legacy. It isn't much, but it's something.
He's not related to Samuel Shenton. Daniel Shenton is a pseudonym.
-
Strange... that is news to me.
-
Next episode, we will learn that Tom Bishop is not his real name.
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Presidents are elected by their constituents. If you were not elected by your constituents then the title of "president" or "vice president" is fraudulent, just like the fake presidents of some 3rd world countries. But even they know enough about the title that they need to concoct a rigged election to claim that position.
Daniel is a fraud president. I was on the forum from when it began. There was never any election. His claim of being the "President of the Flat Earth Society", which he uses as justification on the talk page, has no merit whatsoever.
This. I've been saying it for years. How can you be a president, have no elections and a term stretching for 10 years unchallenged?
Especially when a significant majority don't want you in charge.
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Presidents are elected by their constituents.
Is that how it works in the business world? You are treating the FES like it's a democratic nation and, hello, it's not.
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?
-
I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.
The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.
On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.
Just my 2 cents.
-
The problem with that is people like Markjo followed us here. I can't leave a few juicy worms because he and those like him would answer them all. I've no desire to debate with them. Its so boring its untrue.
-
The problem with that is people like Markjo followed us here. I can't leave a few juicy worms because he and those like him would answer them all. I've no desire to debate with them. Its so boring its untrue.
That doesn't make any sense. People like markjo are on the old site still and there is still a conversation happening there. Just because markjo can counter your arguments doesn't matter, you just need to try to make better arguments. No offense there, I'm not saying that you can't make better arguments but I am saying that you aren't doing it. Just try harder I guess?
Like I said, there are 2 steps. You need to get people to come here in the first place via advertising in whatever way that can be done and then you need to give people a reason to keep coming back. Some people who keep coming back might eventually become FE'rs. Currently though, there isn't much of a reason to keep coming back because there is no conversation happening here about FE.
-
Anyways, maybe I'm wrong about how to make your site a success. I hope it goes well for you. My main point is that Daniel has really got nothing to gain by giving away control over his site to people who apparently hate him. I don't think that your feelings toward him are not warranted, but the decision to give up that control lies with him and him only. You say that you guys have contributed and that is fantastic but what you need to realize is that people are replaceable. It happens all the time and life goes on and because the old site gets all the new traffic, it will have no problem getting new people.
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?
Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills (http://books.google.com/books?id=7uRuzP1RydAC&lpg=PT313&ots=ZVF8Fko6pr&dq=William%20Mills%20flat%20earth&pg=PT313#v=onepage&q=William%20Mills%20flat%20earth&f=false) as their president.
They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Presidents are elected by their constituents.
Is that how it works in the business world? You are treating the FES like it's a democratic nation and, hello, it's not.
Yes, that's how it works everywhere. The definition of president is an elected leader. Company presidents are elected by the shareholders of the company. If you are appointed then you are a CEO, chairman, director, or some other title, although the higher positions like CEO/CFO are often elected by the shareholders or board of directors as well.
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?
Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills (http://books.google.com/books?id=7uRuzP1RydAC&lpg=PT313&ots=ZVF8Fko6pr&dq=William%20Mills%20flat%20earth&pg=PT313#v=onepage&q=William%20Mills%20flat%20earth&f=false) as their president.
Sounds like Mills was a figurehead and Shenton did all of the real work.
They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.
John Davis claims to have his own FES group in Tennessee. What's stopping you from forming your own FES group and running it however you see fit?
-
I have a question. Who elected Daniel?
Who elected Samuel Shenton or Charles K. Johnson?
Samuel Shenton did not form a group and appoint himself president. He formed a group, appointing himself only as secretary and treasurer of affairs. The group then chose someone named William Mills (http://books.google.com/books?id=7uRuzP1RydAC&lpg=PT313&ots=ZVF8Fko6pr&dq=William%20Mills%20flat%20earth&pg=PT313#v=onepage&q=William%20Mills%20flat%20earth&f=false) as their president.
Sounds like Mills was a figurehead and Shenton did all of the real work.
They had a group. They got together for events. They had MEETINGS. The group had a say in matters. They chose their presidents. There is a distinct difference between that FES group and Daniel's fraudulent presidency.
John Davis claims to have his own FES group in Tennessee. What's stopping you from forming your own FES group and running it however you see fit?
Nothing stopped us. We did form our own group.
The admins of this forum knew enough that they couldn't just appoint themselves president and vice president and call it a day. Nor could they simply appoint someone to be the president. It is common knowledge that presidents must be elected, whether it is president of the classroom, president of the astronomy club, or president of the United States. If you appointed yourself the title of president then you are a fraud.
-
So, are the issues with Daniel relating to the administration of the other forum, or his overall leadership of the Flat Earth Society in general? Or do you consider the forum and the society to be one and the same?
-
I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.
The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.
On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.
Just my 2 cents.
Just to weigh in slightly (and briefly): I don't think anyone is really talking about a compromise of this sort. I don't see a net benefit for either side in such a scenario, and it doesn't really make any sense for anyone. The kind of reconciliation I envisage would be one along the lines of what Snupes suggested earlier.
I don't mean to unduly direct this conversation, but it would be bad if people started getting downbeat or unduly negative about the chances of a deal because they had the wrong gist.
-
The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.
I think part of the problem regarding upper fora conversation is that the regulars here often go over there to start serious FET discussions. That seems like a huge detriment to this site alone.
-
I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.
The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.
On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.
Just my 2 cents.
Just to weigh in slightly (and briefly): I don't think anyone is really talking about a compromise of this sort. I don't see a net benefit for either side in such a scenario, and it doesn't really make any sense for anyone. The kind of reconciliation I envisage would be one along the lines of what Snupes suggested earlier.
I don't mean to unduly direct this conversation, but it would be bad if people started getting downbeat or unduly negative about the chances of a deal because they had the wrong gist.
The only way I see everyone being satisfied is if elections were held, to make things fair and equal. If Daniel is truly the best choice for the society then he will be secure in his position. Only the society knows what is best for it. That would be the fairest way to handle things.
-
I'm having a hard time seeing what either side has to offer the other.
The trade-off that I've seen suggested here is that the members of this forum would move back to the old one if Daniel steps down but seeing as how Daniel is in charge of the old site, I don't see how the members that have embraced the new one simply coming back is worth losing control of something he probably doesn't want to lose control of. What matters is that the old site drives more traffic to newcomers. Discussions actually happen in the upper fora there and in due time, you'll have regulars on the FE side again. It just won't be the same people and if I was Daniel, I don't see why that would matter at all. The traffic exists because when a curious bystander looks for it on a search engine, that is where they are led.
On the other hand, keeping in mind that Daniel would probably not give the site away, I don't see why the members here should leave either. The site is functional and the domain name is good enough. The only thing missing is the traffic and the only way to change that is by working to get more people to come here instead. This means getting the word out but it also means that you have to have a conversation taking place in the upper fora. There just isn't much going on in the upper fora and unless people who like to argue for FE want to make that discussion happen, there is no reason for newcomers to keep the discussion going. There is literally 2 or 3 posts per day here in the FE discussion boards. Compare that to the old site where there is an abundant amount of activity in the upper boards. Every five minutes there is something else being added to the discussion there. You need people on the FE side here that actually care to counter RE arguments.
Just my 2 cents.
Just to weigh in slightly (and briefly): I don't think anyone is really talking about a compromise of this sort. I don't see a net benefit for either side in such a scenario, and it doesn't really make any sense for anyone. The kind of reconciliation I envisage would be one along the lines of what Snupes suggested earlier.
I don't mean to unduly direct this conversation, but it would be bad if people started getting downbeat or unduly negative about the chances of a deal because they had the wrong gist.
The only way I see everyone being satisfied is if elections were held, to make things fair and equal. If Daniel is truly the best choice for the society then he will be secure in his position. Only the society knows what is best for it. That would be the fairest way to handle things.
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
Unless he cares about what's best for the society then it would not satisfy Daniel.
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
Unless he cares about what's best for the society then it would not satisfy Daniel.
Maybe I'm wrong but how are you determining what is best for the society? Maybe he is more concerned about what is best for the site and not the society. It seems that way given his recent announcement about making a big social media presence and t-shirts.
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
Unless he cares about what's best for the society then it would not satisfy Daniel.
Maybe I'm wrong but how are you determining what is best for the society? Maybe he is more concerned about what is best for the site and not the society. It seems that way given his recent announcement about making a big social media presence and t-shirts.
I'll give you some friendly advice. Don't order a T-shirt. He'll take your money and you won't get that T-shirt for 8 months.
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?
It's not like if you're not the president or vice president you can't contribute. If you make a reputation as someone who contributes then you will be noticed and respected. A title doesn't give you reputation. A title only gives you the authority and access to get certain things done for the benefit of the society.
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?
It's not like if you're not the president or vice president you can't contribute. If you make a reputation as someone who contributes then you will be noticed and respected. A title doesn't give you reputation. A title only gives you the authority and access to get things done for the benefit of the society.
I agree. He's not really a president, but so what?
On the so what.... I see how that bothers you but I don't see why it would bother him. You say that you'd be embarrassed and I probably would be too but it all really depends on whether you guys matter to him at all and given what looks like unfettered hate toward him I'm not so sure he'd be inclined to play fair. Like I said, it may be that it's all about the site to him and NOT the society.
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
Unless he cares about what's best for the society then it would not satisfy Daniel.
Maybe I'm wrong but how are you determining what is best for the society? Maybe he is more concerned about what is best for the site and not the society. It seems that way given his recent announcement about making a big social media presence and t-shirts.
I'll give you some friendly advice. Don't order a T-shirt. He'll take your money and you won't get that T-shirt for 8 months.
I wasn't personally planning on it. I'm only bringing this up because these are the kinds of things that make the site more successful.
-
If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?
That would depend whether it was a large number of members or just a vocal few disgruntled members.
-
It seems that way given his recent announcement about making a big social media presence and t-shirts.
He's good about making announcements. I'll be more surprised when I see he actually follows through with any of them.
-
And just how does that satisfy Daniel who is ultimately the only party that can make that a possibility?
If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?
It's not like if you're not the president or vice president you can't contribute. If you make a reputation as someone who contributes then you will be noticed and respected. A title doesn't give you reputation. A title only gives you the authority and access to get things done for the benefit of the society.
I agree. He's not really a president, but so what?
On the so what.... I see how that bothers you but I don't see why it would bother him. You say that you'd be embarrassed and I probably would be too but it all really depends on whether you guys matter to him at all and given what looks like unfettered hate toward him I'm not so sure he'd be inclined to play fair.
I believe that Daniel has morals deep down inside. It's up to people like you and Wilmore to go back and remind him of that. Call for what is right for the society, and show him how embarrassing it is otherwise.
Like I said, it may be that it's all about the site to him and NOT the society.
It's called the Flat Earth Society. The site is nothing without the society.
-
If I had started a club or society, appointing myself as president, and my group members suddenly started calling for elections to change things up in order to grow and prosper I would be embarrassed to say "I'm the president. No elections!" Wouldn't you?
That would depend whether it was a large number of members or just a vocal few disgruntled members.
Then you can find out by having a yes/no vote on the main forum on who would like to see fair and open elections.
-
First of all, hi Wilmore. Nice to see you again.
I think we all have the same goals in mind, when it really comes down to it. We all want a) a quality forum with quality people and b) the advancement of TFES. I think we can also agree that the fragmentation of the society is not ideal for either of these goals. Thus, reunification is ideal. Nobody is anyone else's enemy here.
Here's my suggestion: Daniel is basically the Queen of England. He sits around and looks pretty and doesn't do much. I suggest, therefore, that we do with him what England did with its monarchy. He can still exist, but his power needs to be changed significantly. I have no problem with still calling him President or whatever. Hell, I'll call him Rumpelstiltskin if he so desires. All that really matters is that people who still care about the society and are capable of doing things be put in charge.
The Zetetic Council is a good model for what can replace him. It's like Daniel 2.0. We don't do much, but there's 5 of us and we can be replaced at any time, and it's democratic.
How's that for a compromise? Daniel still exists, but he gets Magna Carta'd.
-
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.
-
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.
I definitely agree.
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.
I also agree with this, but I am worried that he just won't be interested in participating in a discussion.
-
Daniel seems quite chatty on the wikipedia entry's talk page.
-
Isn't this all pointless without Daniel's approval? Does he even know these discussions are happening?
-
Isn't this all pointless without Daniel's approval? Does he even know these discussions are happening?
I broached the subject with Daniel shortly after I first posted here. I have spoken with him, he has read this thread, and he is aware of what's happening. The only reason he hasn't posted here is that he isn't sure if it would be a good thing or a bad thing at this point, especially as Parsifal and pizaaplanet are keen on talking to community first, us aside. He might pop in and say 'hi' in the interim, but I don't think he'll weigh in beyond that until what needs to happen here has happened.
-
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".
-
I wouldn't mind seeing Daniel. It's nice to be reminded that he exists every once in a while, and I'm genuinely interested to see what he thinks.
On a side note, hi Daniel. I hope it doesn't seem like we're overly hostile toward you. I don't think many people have anything against you personally.