Talk:Coalition of Anti-Capitalist Economies/Archive

From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
< Talk:Coalition of Anti-Capitalist Economies
Revision as of 13:41, 19 November 2004 by Galdago (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAC vote (withdrawn)


Since we're all a bunch of red bastards, the CACE is going to keep our red background, thanks. --Pudding


Let's not start editing other people's entries to make petty points. I'm refereing to the edit that said that CACE makes it's decisions behind closed doors. Utter rubbish. A few people may think that way because they're been banned from the site for getting their friends to aqcuire passwords and using them to gain access to the secutiry forum - note: security, not policy - or that users are now required to register on the CACE forums before gaining acces to them. No restirictions are placed on registration (unless you're banned for the aforementioned reasons).

So please, let's not go down this road or the site will become useless.

--Celdonia 13:31, 15 Oct 2004 (GMT)


I made my point previously but it seems Rezo still want to make his petty points.

I think this site is a wonderful initiative and should be commended, but it would be Ohhhh so easy for me, or any one else I RP with, to start screwing with the entries of nations or alliances we don't see eye-to-eye with. But we haven't done it because we realise that the site would become useless if we all started screwing around with other people’s entries.

Rezo do us all a favour and just stick to your own entries and stop acting like an arse.

Celdonia 00:25, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)


I have to agree. Most of the time I've tried to be very neutral when it comes to OOC disputes, but this is beyond the heights of pettiness. Just stop it, I'm tired of the endless crap. --62.252.128.19 07:34, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)


The spirit of compromise:

The sentence which currently reads "The Coalition is a very open organization, and prides itself on transparent decision making..." apparently have caused a great deal of debate among wiki users and threaten to start an edit war - which I was about to participate in - that could undermine the NPOV sentiment of the wiki. Therefore, I propose that both sides sit down and see if we can't hammer out a compromise.

Now, Celdonia states above that the CACE, compared to many other treatied organizations, has its doors open. However, he does mention that some people have been blocked from registering due to past infractions, perhaps leading those people to feel 'locked out'. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion on this matter and a definate verb like 'is' simply won't do.

The original sentence read: "The Coalition considers itself an open organization, and prides itself on transparent decision making", which I believe satisfies the basic tenent - the Coalition considers itself indicated that outside the Coalition, opinion is not uniform. A good compromise may be "The Coalition considers itself an open organization, though some disagree, and prides itself on its almost entirely transparent decision making process..." This maintains that the CACE believes itself to be open and is proud of the fact, that some disagree with that sentiment, and it keeps the sentence from becoming too unwieldly.

Obviously, there is bound to be a great deal of disagreement from both sides. I only ask that everyone keep it civil and *try* to understand where the other person is coming from. Including myself! No flaming the mediator! ;-) -- Iansisle 01:41, 15 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Now wait just a minute here... I was going to stay out of this but it strikes me as a bit odd to go on the rightious indignation trip on the talk page while editing the actual page further and further away from the compromise suggested by Iansisle. "more transparent decision making than similar organizations on the capitalist side"??? I beg your pardon but even though it is technically stated as an opinion it is really totally NPOV *and* simply disproven. KIST, the WTO and the Martian Free Trade Agreement do NOT have compulsory registration, secret forums with password protection and an elaborate system of offsite boards for secret meetings of parts of the membership. Using a disputed text to take a direct jab at "the other side" via the Wiki just doesn't do it for me. I see two possible solutions here:

  1. Accept Iansisles compromise as is. It does not distract too much from the overall tenet of your story while not being as NPOV.
  2. Scrap the entire reference to openness. (And, obviously, the reference to being better then the evil capitalists.)

-- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 23:07, 16 Nov 2004 (GMT)


To clarify: yes, stating an "opinion" is allowed but then stating opposite opinions would also have to be done for balance (because that is how NPOV works).

To quote policy: "The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct." --NSwiki:NPOV"

However I am of the sincere belief that ADDING to YOUR belief that you are more transparent that OTHERS think THEY are more transparent is ridicilously unwieldy and totally distracting from the original point. (In addition, the same sentence would have to be placed in KIST which is beyond childish, really.) Technically, it is option #3 but it is an ugly solution. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 23:23, 16 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Funny how you don't seem to apply that policy to your own articles... Could it be hypocrisy I'm reading here? -- Constantinopolis 13:22, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)

No secret forums with password protection on the capitalist side? From what I remember of the old WBO and SATO, they had all their forums kept secret. -- Constantinopolis 13:22, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)


WBO/ SATO forums secret? Strangely enough, we did actually have CACE members posting there... And the things that WERE secret were in forums designated as 'closed', not in a completely hidden 'White Room' (And, unolike CACE, we never claimed to be open and transparent. Hence, no need to follow up to the nice theory, in order to not look like a horribly arrogant hypocrite[...]).

Furthermore, 1. the WBO has, for all practical purposes, ceased to exist as a political entity, same goes for SATO (Which, I might add, isn't a 'capitalist' organisation). All other cappy organisations (The ones Knoot mentioned) are, indeed, completely non- secret.

Unlike CACE.

So, to put it quite simple: Your argument is incorrect. Or, to put it even simpler, flatly wrong.

Furthermore, well, I love being considered an 'arse'. Unfortunately, it isn't my fault when an ooc based information system (NSwiki) is abused for IC propaganda that is, as mentioned above, simply incorrect.

Also I might be a little idealistic, since I will admit that there is more than enough evidence of CACE being nothing but an inflamatory bunch of wannabe- revolutionaries considering NS to be their personal war for anticapitalism, rather than a game, constantly (Behind closed, yet sneaked at, doors) insulting other players, moderators, and occasionally admins, while revelling in their own 'greatness'.

Which might explain why they fail to understand the basic principle behind a wiki, refusing to allow edits from outsiders (Which guarantees NPOV), as well as doing edits for others (Agaibn, guaranteeing NPOV), but instead preferring to bitch.

Which is, as I have realised a while ago, it's primary reason to exist.

Considering all this, I will admit that editing this article in order to allow for NPOV was indeed the wrong idea, since I have, apparently, overestimated the ability of the average CACEer to realise 1. What a wiki is, 2. What ooc is, 3. What NPOV is, 4. What a game is and 5. What respect for fellow human beings is.

This said, consider this to be my official apology. I was wrong, you were right.

Somewhat.

Rezo 13:46, 17 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Everyone. [Be quiet]. NOW. That way we all win. By pointing out what the Coalition believes itself, we've objectively stated just that, the Coalition believes it is X. I've removed the reference to other capitalist organizations. I don't know why we'd mention anything but the CACE in the CACE wiki. This isn't compare and contrast day, because that obviously begs bias. All of you [please stop]. Let's not all rehash how CACE feels about WBO/SATO and the converse of said situation. This is old news and that hatchet always seems to have freshly moved dirt covering it. --Galdago


(Directed at everyone, especially Rezo) No personal attacks, please. --Goobergunch|? 21:23, 18 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Again, thank you Galdago. :)

As I said above I have no trouble with the page but for the "better then the cappies" addition which was added in the middle of a NPOV dispute. Now that said addition has been removed, I can live with the entry as is. It follows the spirit of the Iansisle proposal and the Wiki rules. Though I nominally disagree with the claim that the CACE is open I do not think it is worth all of these strong emotions on both sides. So lets leave it at this, k? :) -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 13:15, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Oh, puh shaw Knoot. We have entry requirements. If you meet them, you're in. We don't all take a vote as to whether we want to allow X person entry. That's pretty open by anyone's standards, and if you're still referring to our decision-making, private forums aren't where decisions are made. That's 4CACE, which is on a public thread somewhere in NS. Private forums are for private rants when we'd rather not air our dirty laundry. You don't have to believe me but I've got zero incentive to lie to all of you. Please, enough with anyone's qualms about the "openness of CACE." :-\ --Galdago


Reverted edit of 4.178.42.128, changed back to last version by Frisbeeteria - this is getting tedious. Reverted for sheer inability to compromise, deliberately trying to enflame and starting an edit war. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:20, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Trying to start an edit war over what we feel is a deliberate tarnishing of our image from individuals who have qualms with this organization? That's nonsense. We challenge you to adequately explain how the current explanation of how this organization is open and transparent is less-than-adhering to the objective truth. Would it be an edit war if we did something like this to a WBO/SATO page? Assaulting it about some minutia on its page that has no over-aggrandizing NPOV effect on its quality? --Galdago


Slightly edited Galdagos change for semantics. Putting NPOV notice back up until everyone agrees with this. -- |Knoot|KNOOtalk 17:51, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)


May I have your attention please: Knoot has stated on this talk page that in an article that is a factual piece describing a certain organisation, it is perfectly appropriate to insert extensive quotes from statements made by members of that organization, as examples of what they think. I like to call this the "Knoot Doctrine". So far it would seem that the Knoot Doctrine is supported by the majority of non-CACE NSwiki users. In light of our democratic principles, we CACE members should respect the decision of the majority and support the Knoot Doctrine ourselves.

As such, I expect all CACE members to contribute in making this article a comprehensive presentation of the CACE's views on a wide range of issues. Thank you. -- Constantinopolis 18:20, 19 Nov 2004 (GMT)


Dude, lay off. It's a page about a religion. How do you explain a religion without explaining what they believe? That's all the thing is... a belief system. Get over yourself already. Knoot should probably remove the lengthy texts, as most expository articles on religions don't have that sort of stuff included, but still, who cares for the most part? I'll be adding my two cents there.

On the note of Knoot's small edit to my semantics, please be assured it was purely cosmetic and had no overarching affect on the article. I believe all will agree that I've provided adequate explanation of how this organization may be viewed as open and transparent in its decision making. --Galdago