User talk:JimScarver

From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Jim's Summary StarPilot 18:28, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

Here's our summary from what Jim has said on *talk* style:

  • It's nice having headers that tell you informative stuff
  • It's nice knowing who added a section before you read their stuff
  • It's nice having a summary
  • It's confusing to have anything other then chronically, serial ordered replies
  • Jim hates to add his comments anywhere but embedding them into what he is replying.
  • Long pages are hard to follow

Did I miss any Jim?

Oh yeah. On page edits: Jim says:

  • He's permitted to make changes
  • no one else is permitted to say anything he doesn't agree with.

That's how you are coming across Jim. Might just be the order of the pages I've read of your contributions though. So which is it? ConsensusByDefault means people's feelings get hurt. A lot. Remember AnewGo's NewLaw?

If Alle can't defend his own work, ConsensusByDefault means he doesn't think it has merit, and he agrees it should not be here. That's ConsensusByDefault, Jim. Either people defend their ideas, or they let others change them as they see fit. If he says "WE believe space will always be uneconomical and therefore WE should never bother with it at all", and I remove that because I disagree, that's ConsensusByDefault. If he really thinks WikiWorld shouldn't consider it, he'll put it back. You agreed to this so long ago. Are you having a change a heart? Is it you only agree with it when it suits your points (ie, when you kept editting AnewGo's material from "ALL VIOLENCE IS OUTLAWED" to "WE shall only defend ourselves and our values")?

Last edit always has the final say. Until the next edit comes along. Alle has agreed with that numerous times already, as well as agreeing with ConsensusByDefault, and thinks that is a *good system*. Check the histories. He just wants to be the one with the final say, and that's what he's been whining about. That's not ConsensusByDefault, Jim.

I participate at this site because I believe in uplifting the WE. But right now, this site isn't about the furthering the WE. It's about Alle trying to get us to comply with his system. Right now, he's abandoning it for our simple system, and in that sense, progress is being made towards a concensus. When Alle contributes a thought or a concept to this site on bettering the WE, I'll preserve that thought as I preserve all the others when I edit. But he's simply going on about *formalization* and how there's no point to trying to help improve the future. Both of those concepts are doomed to failure here, and simply waste our time. Meanwhile, he's obscuring the original thoughts, hopes, and the *feelings* of WikiWorld. I can't write the emotive statements and positions as you do, but I do my best to recover the original works while incorporating any new information, or consensi that have been reached.

So, what's it going to be? If you want, I'll send all my future contributions to Alle, and let him decide what should be posted, where, how, and what it actually says. Indeed, we should all do that. It would save us all time. We can just send him the odd message, and he can take charge of all of WikiWorld. What the hay, you pay the bills, Jim. Sound like a good idea to you? Otherwise, he is going to have to sell his ideas to us, just as we have to sell them to each other, Jim. He hasn't done that so far. So what's it going to be? No more posting by anyone other then Alle? Or are we going to be business as usual?

Alle is manic JimScarver 22:29, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

Alle is rather manic in his activities here. I do not know if he can play nice.

I sort of like the discussion norms that seemed to be emerging. I do think we have needed something like that and been seeking it for a long time.

Many people have complained to me about the rambling discussions which are hard to follow. We have not had such great success that we should not look to improve things.

Alle archived some discussion and then you wiped out the page. Alle has moved text all over the place. Nobody knows where anything is anymore. We can't keep up with Alle's manic activities and you and kenny are at wits ends.

I've tried to be inclusive and make minimalist changes to what I don't agree with. I guess I do not always succeed. But I do want to.

I am sensitive I guess about being clear about what I mean, and trying to express it clearly. I suppose you see my attempt to be precise as disagreements. It is easy for me to assume ownership of ideas I have introduced and try to get it right. I have done that with respect to WE and other things I suppose. I do make an effort to incorporate opposing ideas. I will try harder.

I do not remember why NewLaw bothered me so much. I am sure I did not wipe out any pages. I would hope I would just not participate in anewgo if they tried to dictate how i live the good life. Violence if fine amoung concenting adults and very human. We cannot legislate human nature. We can only insist that our actions obey the SocialContract. There are way too many laws. 'There ought to be a law that anyone who says "there ought to be a law" should be shot.'

Alle has us all lost at this point and he may be alone here soon the way things are going.

Things cannot change so fast that we cant follow it as a group or there is no group. WE think slow and if things are changing too rapily it is just incomprehensible noise.

I did not object to much of the progress made over the weekend. I understand how disruptive it may look coming back after two days. Alle has to slow down if he wants to work with us. Otherwise he should make his own wiki and leave us alone. That would be unfortunate, unfortunately, for all of us. He would benifit by slowing down because he could then change things once, rather than changing everything everytime something new is suggested.

Slowing down Alle van Meeteren

The points I saw in Jim's contribution:

  1. I frenzy, and have to slown down.
  2. I moved text all over the place
  3. A good discussion system is developing
  4. Jim's makes efforts to incorporate opposing ideas.

1. I will try to slow down, but on the moment I have holiday and the time to work on WikiWorld. I am sorry that I scared the others, but I know what I am aiming at. I hope you noticed me compromising, after Jim made a step in my direction. StarPilot was only opposing me, and everything I suggested.
2. All I was doing was organizing discussions so that they became comprensible to me. At the start, I thought the discussions I worked with, got stale. I hoped that my handling would lead to new discussions. I guessed that should happen, according to inviting pages as WE and ConsensusByDefault. Discussion started, but mainly about my idea to organize discussion along actuality, and not in time-order. My points to organize the disccusion in that way seemed not to be heard. I build a technic which would help to compromize. This technic was too clumpsy, but I did not see other persons try out that technic to find out the (lack of) promises of that technic.
My moving text around was limited to a few pages. I remember WE, SocialContract, Writing on WikiWorld (a page I started) and their talkingpages. But this are core pages in WikiWorld.
From the moment I realized this was not so appreciated as I had hoped, I brought the discussions to my own talk-page. I guess a User talk page is one's own territory.
3. I am glad Jim's sees that there is a well-ordered discussion system developing. I hope StarPilot and Ken will also observe the rising of a system, wherein respectful and focused dialogs can be held. But, such a system has to be wrung out of nowhere. There is no experience anywhere at the moment. We have to experiment ourselves. 4. I am grateful Jim makes effort to incorporate opposing ideas. In a good dialog, people try to incorporate eachother ideas. Sometimes, I had the impression that StarPilot was not weighing my ideas at all, but just was turning them away. I realize that the stream of ideas became overwhelming. But, I was finding my way. I hope that this flood will become more quiet from now own. Things are settling.

01:43, 1 August 2006 (EDT)

Misinterpretation Alle van Meeteren

StarPilot made a summary from what Jim has said on style:

  1. talk: It's nice having headers that tell you informative stuff
  2. talk: It's nice knowing who added a section before you read their stuff
  3. talk: It's nice having a summary
  4. talk: It's confusing to have anything other then chronically, serial ordered replies
  5. talk: Jim hates to add his comments anywhere but embedding them into what he is replying.
  6. talk: Long pages are hard to follow
  7. article: He's (Jim) permitted to make changes
  8. article: no one else is permitted to say anything he doesn't agree with.

The first four points I also interpreted out of Jim's sayings. I did not met the 'hating' as worded in the fifth point. According to me, Jim has just a practical mind. So it works by him so that he works out things earlier in acts than in words. The sixth point I do not remember to have read that, but it seems logical to me. The seventh point, I do not understand. Has StarPilot really read that Jim means he is the only one who can make changes? Or is the 'he' everyone, according to our ConsensusByDefault? In interpretation eight I recognize the difficulty StarPilot has with the difference between an article-page and a talk-page. An article-page faces to the world, on an article-page we speak to eachother. It is confusing for a reader to be witness of a discussion, if he expected facts or a declaration. I should formulate this point of Jim as: on a article-page we do not place direct discussions. Those discussions can start there by declaration of the different points of view to the world, but the discussion itself is hold on a talk-page.

So, this avoiding discussions on article-pages is not to spare the feelings of the contribuants, as StarPilot suggests, but to show a pretty face to the world.

Someone who changes a text, starts a discussion about that text. The ConsensusByDefault is contradicted. In StarPilot vision handles the next ConsensusByDefault starts its work immediately. But that is not true. After the end of the first ConsensusByDefault, we have to discuss to find another consensus. That is why a new ConsensusByDefault can never start by simple changing back to a former situation. One have to consider the changes made, and find ways to compromize.

21:39, 31 July 2006 (EDT)

MoreWeddingPictures was an orphan page (nothing linking to it), before I added this comment. Would you put it into your family's web, or remove it if its data was placed in the other picture indexs? Thanks!

---StarPilot 14:34, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Breaking-poinst Alle van Meeteren 02:45, 29 July 2006 (EDT)

Jim,

StarPilot and I are reaching a breaking-point. You had to become referee on the KISS-page. StarPilot polished all my edits away, without declaration.

Alle van Meeteren reacted on a contribution of you on User talk:Alle van Meeteren archive.

It is reaction 3 in our discussion named: Destroying the signal

Alle van Meeteren 09:18, 28 July 2006 (EDT)

Jim, till now you did not give an answer to my posting. An answer is important, because the difference between an article page and a talk page, is a hot point between StarPilot and me. StarPilot sees no difference, but for me the difference is central for the WE-concept. ConsensusByDefault is meant for article-pages, where we as a collective are talking, but not for the talk-pages, where persons are ventilating their personal opinions. By ConsensusByDefault everyone of us can speak as a representative of our collective.

Another reply

I replied to your reply over at DearDiary.2006-07-14. Just letting you know. As always, delete this section when you are done. =-)

--StarPilot 17:37, 24 July 2006 (EDT)

Personal tools