User blog talk:TurtleShroom/Supplication

...

You really overreacted and yes, you pretty have ruined your witness, at least in my eyes.

However I'll forgive you this time, but remember.

Look before you leap. --XTUX is on teh job! 03:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Oh, and it wasn't treachery.

They were doing the right thing, as we had too many admins that were either inactive or not good enough to be admins ( |) /-\ |\| ) --XTUX is on teh job! 03:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

SURE IS UNNECESSARY DRAMA AROUND HERE

Now you know what happens when you can't control your emotions and you refuse to discuss things in a calm and friendly manner.

Hate to say I told you so, but... Zone 04:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry

I'm not sure exactly what happened, but don't worry. I've done some pretty bad things in my life but in the end God alwyas forgives and I try to make sure I don't make the mistake again. -judge Konquer-ORDER IN THE COURT!!!-.

07:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

wat

you swore? I thought this day would never come.

link or it didn't happen. this seems so ridiculous, you swearing? when pigs fly. --refractor this is a thing<staff /> 10:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You sound sort of happy in the first entry there.

You can find my profane speech- at least, what I haven't swept clean from the Internet -in sections of the user rights' logs.

-TS

Seriously?

Why is it such a big deal? We've ALWAYS had too many chiefs, not enough Indians. I'm happy to give up my admin powers for this. Seriously though. Chill. --Austin8310 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm disapointed. --Austin8310 13:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An Essay on Consensus

And another thing:

You COULD patch things up a bit by restoring Agent Johnson and letting him go through with his plan. It's a good one and is better for the wiki.--XTUX is on teh job! 03:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Sure, like I'd want to allow the very thing that drove me to the ultimate in personal sin to make a comeback. This time, let me do it in my characteristic and proper manner of decency.

The Leader was insane to suggest punishing huge amounts of users with a brutal demotion process. Who are you to determine who is good enough to govern? I was demoted from bureaucrat and Explorer (who's not in on this) because he is a superior bureaucrat than me, and effectively proclaimed that I am incompetent at that post. "For reasons not listed", they asserted, "Explorer 767 will remain a Bureaucrat while TurtleShroom is stripped of 'crat only' powers to become a full time admin."

Essentially, the schemers, in a backroom, behind closed doors, and without my consent, while I was doing other things in my life, discussed a plan to demote all but a key few admins because there are "too many chiefs and not enough Indians", which is a pathetic excuse to punish a lot of hard-working users. Just because "no other wiki has so many administrators" doesn't mean we don't have to. We're not every other wiki, and what they do should not affect what we do. Might I add that one of my biggest reasons to approving Project Tern was to escape Staff breathing "TOO MANY SYSOPS TOO MANY SYOPS" down my neck.

Promotions are earned by merit, and limiting promotions limits the rewards we can give for merit. Anyone worthy of the promotion should get it, bar none. To deny some the right of being rewarded with power for their dedication is a sick idea, and its only excuse being that too many governors and not enough constituants would "kill the site". I also heard that if everyone was a an administrator, there'd be anarchy. Isn't that what you wanted, a world where all are equal and no man can out-vote or out-rule another? A world in which each are forced to beat each other down in the evil flame war you so disguise as consensus, until they finally meet in an agreement after a long and brutal flame war?

I will re-assert my belief that consensus is evil and NOT a proper way to govern. All consensus is, is a pompous word for arguing each other's brains out, tearing all ideas up and down, smashing each other in brutal flaming in an attempt to best the opponents until said opponents, now beat down and meek, come to the bargaining table to make a compromise with the superior flamer.

Governing must have STRUCTURE. It must have ORDER. A man above and a man below. While I am accountable for swearing, and it is my sin and my eternal burden I'll forever bare, and while I should have handled myself and my rage better, I must note that this infernal consensus- done behind my back -was exactly what Satan needed to tempt me into cursing. It is not your fault that I cursed, but it is your consensus which drove me into a situation in which my anger was enough to possess my very being.

I lost control and cursed, and for this, I am to blame. I won't blame you or Leader, or even the rule by flame war you call consensus. I swore. I could have easily handled it with my characteristic essay writing, but instead, I was overcome by rage and I cursed obscenely.

I seek to file a motion, when my work is done, to abolish consensus as the dominant means of government on this site. Consensus is a flame war, just like online debate is arguing. They are completely synonymous.

I have learned that a Christian can not actively and directly witness online because of the anonymity and protection from moral hazards that the Internet provides. People act differently online than they would before fellow men. You can't convince a man of anything on the Internet unless they want to be convinced.

Now, you too need to learn a similar method. Government can not exist without order. Some people need power and some don't. Those without power deserve to be treated with great respect, as if they themselves reigned, or those with power are not too worthy of it themselves. However, the insane notion that everyone of all opinions, creed, idea, and doctrine can come together as equals before a table and make decisions on key issues effecting all of them- even on a little website -without fighting is utopian and idealist.

Consensus is like communism. Both are beautiful on paper and would be a great world to live in. However, both defy human nature.

• In communism, every person is expected to own nothing and share everything, helping their fellow man before themselves. Not one among them is to be greedy nor hoarde their food. It's total sharing and cooperation. Human nature states that greed happens, that one should look after themselves, and that you want to own and control what you have.

• In consensus, every person is expected to be open minded and friendly. They are to listen with intent at others' ideas and defend their own maturely and with equal respect, without arguing or the least bit of defensiveness. It requires the willingness to sacrifice one's own beliefs for others, and pool each other's beliefs into one new belief for the common good. Human nature states that some moral creeds can not be compromised for any reason, that people will be defensive, that people will insult others, and that arguing will happen.

Consensus is really a flame war. It starts good, but quickly degrades as soon as someone disagrees with what opened it. Soon, it becomes little more than a battle of wits and logic. Slowly but surely, that too degrades as man battles man to prove their idea is better and that others' ideas should be incorporated to theirs, not the other way around. Even if anger isn't the result, it drains all involved, and the weaker arguers start to back out. This happens until one man remains standing, and after he wins, everyone else crawls to the table of consensus and incorporates their ideas into the winner. Consensus doesn't happen by the will to cooperate, it happens by winning and making the losers accept demands while trying to appease them by incorporating what they lost into the new rules.

I have typed books at people and felt drained, even though I wasn't angered at them or against their ideas. I just drained myself thinking of all that to say. Here, too, do I feel drained, and after this, I'll back out for a bit as I continue with my school work. (I woke up early from an uneasy sleep because the guilt and shame from cursing kept me from good rest.)

You mark my words. Consensus will destroy this site, and it will collapse what little government we have. There must be ORDER if we want this site to prosper like it once did, and I urge you to learn from my inequities. Learn from what happened to me: consensus is NOT the way we governed.

ZK, you need to remove yourself from the fantasy of consensus. Of all people, you should be able to grasp the real world: you have a job, for goodness' sakes! Consensus is against human nature when put on any scale bigger than a little club deciding on what to cook at the bake sale. Not even an institute as small as a school runs on consensus. No, smaller: student councils can't even do it. No, wait! A football team can't run on consensus! ZK, wake up and smell the hegemony!

People are not going to just hand their beliefs and ideas to a bargaining table and merge with others happily. Some people must lay down the law and some people must govern, even online. That is how life works, and we both know that consensus does not exist on a large scale anywhere on this planet.

Ideas are more than just ideas, ZK. To some without lives, they are all they have. To me, that's all I can use. I am not a strong man or an athlete. I have no social skills and little to do other than type at this machine all my life. I am not wealthy or privelaged enough to not need to worl. Here lies the problem: I must work. Without any social skills or most anything else, what will I have to work? Only my ideas, ZK, only what I propose and act on.

My ideas are all I have going, and without them, I'll never succeed. It took me seventeen years to gain enough self-confidence to believe I won't need to live in my parent's basement for the rest of my days, and I'm still trying to prove that I can handle a task as basic as driving. Heck, I couldn't tie my shoes until I was fifteen! Never before has autism proved to be a handicap as it has these days.

I am not just going to endlessly and always hand the only thing that I truly have as an advantage in this world to you to craft into a happy little compromise. My ideas are more than just my ideas: they are me. They are the only thing that will save me from failure, like Chris Chandler. I don't want to end up like a G-rated Chris Chandler.

While the ideas at the CPFW aren't going to affect my real life, the principle is the same. Without my ideas and without my means of governing, without order, I am nothing but a socially inept and mentally handicapped man with little future outside of worthless, counterproductive volunteer work about little penguins running around in a made up land of bliss and judges.

Expand this to the big picture and you must see the light. I am mentally and socially incapable of consensus, ZK and Leader. I can not, in my nature or in my mind, function the way consensus calls for. I am not an advanced or mature man. I can not rationally debate long before I start to argue. I am not you, ZK. I am not you, Leader. You are better than me because you CAN conduct consensus, and I commend you for such steps in compromise, but I am not you.

I apologize that your dream of a perfectly governed wiki is cut short by some autistic shut-in with no life and little future, but that's life.

The only way you can reach consensus as the means of this site's government is as follows. To govern by consensus, you must first eliminate me.

• I must willingly quit the site and let you run yourselves without my influence.

• I must be demoted, silenced, and otherwise removed from all debate and all site governance, having no rights save the right to edit and contribute: move me to a normal user and you can rule this site however you want... -but remember that you can't, because I earned everything I've got. Produce for me two years of your life and over twelve thousand edits, and you might be able to tell me to shut up and consensus. Yet, by the time you can, I'd have four years and twenty four thousand edits on my record!

• I must be banned and prevented from returning until consensus has so set in that it is paramount. As stability is paramount, I could no longer question it. That was how the CPW became what it became: remove TurtleShroom from the equation, and everything instantly falls into place.

ZK and Leader, you may be better people and better rulers than me, but you can't just say I'm incompetent to govern and throw me out. I am a veteran and lifetime user that deserves respect and commands authority. I have earned everything I've got, and you have no right to take that from me to advance a futile system of utopian reign.

Whether you like it or not, you are stuck with me. Considering my lack of purpose, I'll be here after you leave.

It's a long ride, folks. Will you fight me, silence me, or embrace me? I will not depart this site, so why not begin a consensus on what to do with TurtleShroom.

--† TurtleShroom™! Jesus Loves You and Died for You!! †  :)  :) ^{Dubya dubya dubya dot...} † † As I always say... ――–――――― 13:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: An Essay on Consensus

Great speach, TS. You are one of the most honest people I know. I would also like to add to this argument that our wiki's theme can be summed up by the words of Albert Einstein-- "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Let's not get too caught up in all the complecated parts of desicion making. Lets focus on the Ideas, the imagination, the happiness, and the penguins.

Voting works well enough and having a BOSS not only gives users something to work too but also something to keep this wiki under control. We are all different and we WILL NEVER be able to fully agree while keeping a cool and calculated argument (for the important things.)

Don't forget why we are here.... Just some food for thought for Everyone. ----judge Konquer-ORDER IN THE COURT!!!-. 03:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I Forgive You

However I will continue on my "crusade" to demote admins. If you request it, we'll start on a consensus about you, if you wish. --Agent Johnson |  You... 14:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: An Essay on Consensus

Sure, like I'd want to allow the very thing that drove me to the ultimate in personal sin to make a comeback. This time, let me do it in my characteristic and proper manner of decency.

The Leader was insane to suggest punishing huge amounts of users with a brutal demotion process. Who are you to determine who is good enough to govern? I was demoted from bureaucrat and Explorer (who's not in on this) because he is a superior bureaucrat than me, and effectively proclaimed that I am incompetent at that post. "For reasons not listed", they asserted, "Explorer 767 will remain a Bureaucrat while TurtleShroom is stripped of 'crat only' powers to become a full time admin."

Essentially, the schemers, in a backroom, behind closed doors, and without my consent, while I was doing other things in my life, discussed a plan to demote all but a key few admins because there are "too many chiefs and not enough Indians", which is a pathetic excuse to punish a lot of hard-working users. Just because "no other wiki has so many administrators" doesn't mean we don't have to. We're not every other wiki, and what they do should not affect what we do. Might I add that one of my biggest reasons to approving Project Tern was to escape Staff breathing "TOO MANY SYSOPS TOO MANY SYOPS" down my neck.

Promotions are earned by merit, and limiting promotions limits the rewards we can give for merit. Anyone worthy of the promotion should get it, bar none. To deny some the right of being rewarded with power for their dedication is a sick idea, and its only excuse being that too many governors and not enough constituants would "kill the site". I also heard that if everyone was a an administrator, there'd be anarchy. Isn't that what you wanted, a world where all are equal and no man can out-vote or out-rule another? A world in which each are forced to beat each other down in the evil flame war you so disguise as consensus, until they finally meet in an agreement after a long and brutal flame war?

I will re-assert my belief that consensus is evil and NOT a proper way to govern. All consensus is, is a pompous word for arguing each other's brains out, tearing all ideas up and down, smashing each other in brutal flaming in an attempt to best the opponents until said opponents, now beat down and meek, come to the bargaining table to make a compromise with the superior flamer.

Governing must have STRUCTURE. It must have ORDER. A man above and a man below. While I am accountable for swearing, and it is my sin and my eternal burden I'll forever bare, and while I should have handled myself and my rage better, I must note that this infernal consensus- done behind my back -was exactly what Satan needed to tempt me into cursing. It is not your fault that I cursed, but it is your consensus which drove me into a situation in which my anger was enough to possess my very being.

I lost control and cursed, and for this, I am to blame. I won't blame you or Leader, or even the rule by flame war you call consensus. I swore. I could have easily handled it with my characteristic essay writing, but instead, I was overcome by rage and I cursed obscenely.

I seek to file a motion, when my work is done, to abolish consensus as the dominant means of government on this site. Consensus is a flame war, just like online debate is arguing. They are completely synonymous.

I have learned that a Christian can not actively and directly witness online because of the anonymity and protection from moral hazards that the Internet provides. People act differently online than they would before fellow men. You can't convince a man of anything on the Internet unless they want to be convinced.

Now, you too need to learn a similar method. Government can not exist without order. Some people need power and some don't. Those without power deserve to be treated with great respect, as if they themselves reigned, or those with power are not too worthy of it themselves. However, the insane notion that everyone of all opinions, creed, idea, and doctrine can come together as equals before a table and make decisions on key issues effecting all of them- even on a little website -without fighting is utopian and idealist.

Consensus is like communism. Both are beautiful on paper and would be a great world to live in. However, both defy human nature.

In communism, every person is expected to own nothing and share everything, helping their fellow man before themselves. Not one among them is to be greedy nor hoarde their food. It's total sharing and cooperation. Human nature states that greed happens, that one should look after themselves, and that you want to own and control what you have.

In consensus, every person is expected to be open minded and friendly. They are to listen with intent at others' ideas and defend their own maturely and with equal respect, without arguing or the least bit of defensiveness. It requires the willingness to sacrifice one's own beliefs for others, and pool each other's beliefs into one new belief for the common good. Human nature states that some moral creeds can not be compromised for any reason, that people will be defensive, that people will insult others, and that arguing will happen.

Consensus is really a flame war. It starts good, but quickly degrades as soon as someone disagrees with what opened it. Soon, it becomes little more than a battle of wits and logic. Slowly but surely, that too degrades as man battles man to prove their idea is better and that others' ideas should be incorporated to theirs, not the other way around. Even if anger isn't the result, it drains all involved, and the weaker arguers start to back out. This happens until one man remains standing, and after he wins, everyone else crawls to the table of consensus and incorporates their ideas into the winner. Consensus doesn't happen by the will to cooperate, it happens by winning and making the losers accept demands while trying to appease them by incorporating what they lost into the new rules.

I have typed books at people and felt drained, even though I wasn't angered at them or against their ideas. I just drained myself thinking of all that to say. Here, too, do I feel drained, and after this, I'll back out for a bit as I continue with my school work. (I woke up early from an uneasy sleep because the guilt and shame from cursing kept me from good rest.)

You mark my words. Consensus will destroy this site, and it will collapse what little government we have. There must be ORDER if we want this site to prosper like it once did, and I urge you to learn from my inequities. Learn from what happened to me: consensus is NOT the way we governed.

ZK, you need to remove yourself from the fantasy of consensus. Of all people, you should be able to grasp the real world: you have a job, for goodness' sakes! Consensus is against human nature when put on any scale bigger than a little club deciding on what to cook at the bake sale. Not even an institute as small as a school runs on consensus. No, smaller: student councils can't even do it. No, wait! A football team can't run on consensus! ZK, wake up and smell the hegemony!

People are not going to just hand their beliefs and ideas to a bargaining table and merge with others happily. Some people must lay down the law and some people must govern, even online. That is how life works, and we both know that consensus does not exist on a large scale anywhere on this planet.

Ideas are more than just ideas, ZK. To some without lives, they are all they have. To me, that's all I can use. I am not a strong man or an athlete. I have no social skills and little to do other than type at this machine all my life. I am not wealthy or privelaged enough to not need to worl. Here lies the problem: I must work. Without any social skills or most anything else, what will I have to work? Only my ideas, ZK, only what I propose and act on.

My ideas are all I have going, and without them, I'll never succeed. It took me seventeen years to gain enough self-confidence to believe I won't need to live in my parent's basement for the rest of my days, and I'm still trying to prove that I can handle a task as basic as driving. Heck, I couldn't tie my shoes until I was fifteen! Never before has autism proved to be a handicap as it has these days.

I am not just going to endlessly and always hand the only thing that I truly have as an advantage in this world to you to craft into a happy little compromise. My ideas are more than just my ideas: they are me. They are the only thing that will save me from failure, like Chris Chandler. I don't want to end up like a G-rated Chris Chandler.

While the ideas at the CPFW aren't going to affect my real life, the principle is the same. Without my ideas and without my means of governing, without order, I am nothing but a socially inept and mentally handicapped man with little future outside of worthless, counterproductive volunteer work about little penguins running around in a made up land of bliss and judges.

Expand this to the big picture and you must see the light. I am mentally and socially incapable of consensus, ZK and Leader. I can not, in my nature or in my mind, function the way consensus calls for. I am not an advanced or mature man. I can not rationally debate long before I start to argue. I am not you, ZK. I am not you, Leader. You are better than me because you CAN conduct consensus, and I commend you for such steps in compromise, but I am not you.

I apologize that your dream of a perfectly governed wiki is cut short by some autistic shut-in with no life and little future, but that's life.

The only way you can reach consensus as the means of this site's government is as follows. To govern by consensus, you must first eliminate me.

I must willingly quit the site and let you run yourselves without my influence.

I must be demoted, silenced, and otherwise removed from all debate and all site governance, having no rights save the right to edit and contribute: move me to a normal user and you can rule this site however you want... -but remember that you can't, because I earned everything I've got. Produce for me two years of your life and over twelve thousand edits, and you might be able to tell me to shut up and consensus. Yet, by the time you can, I'd have four years and twenty four thousand edits on my record!

I must be banned and prevented from returning until consensus has so set in that it is paramount. As stability is paramount, I could no longer question it. That was how the CPW became what it became: remove TurtleShroom from the equation, and everything instantly falls into place.

ZK and Leader, you may be better people and better rulers than me, but you can't just say I'm incompetent to govern and throw me out. I am a veteran and lifetime user that deserves respect and commands authority. I have earned everything I've got, and you have no right to take that from me to advance a futile system of utopian reign.

Whether you like it or not, you are stuck with me. Considering my lack of purpose, I'll be here after you leave.

It's a long ride, folks. Will you fight me, silence me, or embrace me? I will not depart this site, so why not begin a consensus on what to do with TurtleShroom.

I'll reply on your points later. I'm just keeping it as reference.--Agent Johnson |  You... 14:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)