Editing Consumerium social club

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 3: Line 3:
Unlike on [[Disinfopedia]] or [[Wikipedia]] this will not be allowed to interfere with [[sysop]] decisions and the [[Consumerium buying signal]] which affects real helpless living things - things with a real body, the life of real communities, both of which overrule foolish virtual/disposable chat clubs as a priority.  However people get attached to such '''social club''s, that's fine, and they should have certain rights to continue their social relationships as a group even if these [[unequal power relationship]]s are damaging the mission of the forum they met each other in.   
Unlike on [[Disinfopedia]] or [[Wikipedia]] this will not be allowed to interfere with [[sysop]] decisions and the [[Consumerium buying signal]] which affects real helpless living things - things with a real body, the life of real communities, both of which overrule foolish virtual/disposable chat clubs as a priority.  However people get attached to such '''social club''s, that's fine, and they should have certain rights to continue their social relationships as a group even if these [[unequal power relationship]]s are damaging the mission of the forum they met each other in.   


Renaming the so-called "community" a '''social club''' helps remind people that their concerns or annoyances, say with [[troll]]s, are very petty compared with what they are trying to protect by working together, i.e. at Consumerium.  If this name is changed it should be to something even more obviously social and with no [[authoritative integrity]], like '''Consumerium dating service''' or '''Consumerium groupthinkers'''.  It should never be called a "'''Consumerium Community'''" since it is this exact terminology which seems to trigger the worst sysop behaviour.  Suddenly in order to keep themselves in charge they claim to "protect the community" by using tactics that would be only justified by protecting real bodies from real assaults.  Annoying a sysop might lose you status in a social club - it does most certainly not imply that you have nothing to contribute to "the mission".
Naming the so-called "community" a '''social club''' helps remind people that their concerns or annoyances, say with [[troll]]s, are very petty compared with what they are trying to protect.  If this name is changed it should be to something even more obviously social and with no [[authoritative integrity]], like '''Consumerium dating service''' or '''Consumerium groupthinkers'''.  It should never be called a "'''Consumerium Community'''" since it is this exact terminology which seems to trigger the worst sysop behaviour.  Suddenly in order to keep themselves in charge they claim to "protect the community" by using tactics that would be only justified by protecting real bodies from real assaults.  Annoying a sysop might lose you status in a social club - it does most certainly not imply that you have nothing to contribute to "the mission".


Consider:  would you allow someone running a political meeting to literally gag someone, and physically throw them out of the building, using some technology that no one else in the room had, with no particular process or criteria that the rest of the room agreed with completely?  If you did, would you expect that conversation in that room would thereafter reflect people's real views or tend towards [[groupthink]] just to end the pointless (obviously some things have already been decided) meeting sooner or avoid further exclusion?  Yet this is the exact behaviour that almost all [[sysop]]s apply when they are given power.
Consider:  would you allow someone running a political meeting to literally gag someone, and physically throw them out of the building, using some technology that no one else in the room had, with no particular process or criteria that the rest of the room agreed with completely?  If you did, would you expect that conversation in that room would thereafter reflect people's real views or tend towards [[groupthink]] just to end the pointless (obviously some things have already been decided) meeting sooner or avoid further exclusion?  Yet this is the exact behaviour that almost all [[sysop]]s apply when they are given power.
Please note that all contributions to Consumerium development wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 or later (see Consumerium:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)