Only the loud survive

[jgarzik]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

[cunicula]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Singapore Inc. style. I like it.

[meowmeowbrowncow]

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

While I don't think that mods will start kicking off pariahs I do strongly believe that a reputation indicator, something more meaningful than ignore feature, should be implemented here.


It's been discussed before with the main opposing argument that rep counters can be exploited.  My rebuttal is to implement rep impact / vote that is weighted according to the voter's own rep or something similar.
And a limited number of rep votes in a period.  Not perfect, but it's needed.  Post count certainly doesn't equal quality.

[cunicula]

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

While I don't think that mods will start kicking off pariahs I do strongly believe that a reputation indicator, something more meaningful than ignore feature, should be implemented here.


It's been discussed before with the main opposing argument that rep counters can be exploited.  My rebuttal is to implement rep impact / vote that is weighted according to the voter's own rep or something similar.
And a limited number of rep votes in a period.  Not perfect, but it's needed.  Post count certainly doesn't equal quality.

I think the best system would be a limited upvotes. i.e. you can upvote 5 posts per month if you have a post history of 100 or more. Votes are easy to exhaust, therefore you have to upvote selectively. I do not think it is a good idea to weight people's judgement based on whether other people agree with them. That is a conformity detector. It is not a quality detector.

[Rudd-O]

Among our ranks float snakes and sociopaths already, Jeff.

In this very thread, one of them already posted.  He goes around the forum, bullying / attacking / defaming / provoking / shitting on people as a matter of routine.  He does not believe in the right of free association, and he does not believe that people are entitled to their ideas and to acting in congruence with them.  He has zero problems telling lies to manipulate others.  He's full of hate for what he can't understand, and he has no qualms with viciously imposing his hate on others.

It's kind of too late to prevent "rule by bullies" from happening, because "rule by bullies" is already the norm.  I'm not exposed to it because I have a fairly extensive ignore list, but others (including newcomers) are.

[Lethn]

There's an ignore list that's great to use and has made my time on this forum much more pleasant, use it, I don't register on forums or places any more that don't have a working block function, what you describe is precisely why I don't go on a lot of forums anymore, when they lose there are people out there who just try to troll/harass you off the boards.

[Rudd-O]

Yes, their whole stratagem is to provoke attrition in people, to drive them off, to generate a kind of evaporative cooling that gets rid of reasonable and decent people, leaving only themselves (the mad men) to run the show.

[TECSHARE]

It sad, because watching the development of occupy from the first few days there were questions of where to direct donations to because there had been some scam attempts. As a result people demanded "official" donation addresses (physical, digital payment, and bitcoin) which usually ended up being directed to the GA.  The perpetrators were also physically there from the first days stealing key casting equipment for the live video streams, the only thing protecting the protestors from violent assault. I could tell that the consensus by hand sparkle system was doomed to failure right away as a system for creating the illusion of collective participation and pacification, because who can feel angry waiving their hands around in the air like a fairy? Now watching the GA tear itself apart makes me realize how refined the system for infiltrating, displacing, over taking, and destroying genuine revolt has become.

[SgtSpike]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

In my mind (and I know many of you will disagree), it kind of proves the point that an elected government that tries to do things for the good of the people is better than no government at all, and letting the bullies rule because no one else is.

[Rudd-O]

It sad, because watching the development of occupy from the first few days there were questions of where to direct donations to because there had been some scam attempts. As a result people demanded "official" donation addresses (physical, digital payment, and bitcoin) which usually ended up being directed to the GA.  The perpetrators were also physically there from the first days stealing key casting equipment for the live video streams, the only thing protecting the protestors from violent assault. I could tell that the consensus by hand sparkle system was doomed to failure right away as a system for creating the illusion of collective participation and pacification, because who can feel angry waiving their hands around in the air like a fairy? Now watching the GA tear itself apart makes me realize how refined the system for infiltrating, displacing, over taking, and destroying genuine revolt has become.

Democracy is always a failure, whether it is pulling levers or waving hands.  It's easy to infiltrate it, it's easy to sabotage it, it's easy to stall it, it's just easy to ruin.  The moment it was clear that they would use a democracy/consensus process to try to arrive at a single collective decision where many independent decisions would have done just as well, I knew they were going to be irrelevant.

Now you know why protesters in the Middle East succeeded while Occupy was Co-Occupied.

[Rudd-O]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

In my mind (and I know many of you will disagree), it kind of proves the point that an elected government that tries to do things for the good of the people is better than no government at all, and letting the bullies rule because no one else is.

Occupy had a government -- a group of people in charge of making decisions on others' and others' resources behalf -- , and it was called GA.  And just like any other government, it quickly became corrupt and ineffective.  The only reason it didn't last any longer is because they had competition (the established governments of the cities) and the competition had guns.

[Dalkore]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

In my mind (and I know many of you will disagree), it kind of proves the point that an elected government that tries to do things for the good of the people is better than no government at all, and letting the bullies rule because no one else is.

Occupy had a government -- a group of people in charge of making decisions on others' and others' resources behalf -- , and it was called GA.  And just like any other government, it quickly became corrupt and ineffective.  The only reason it didn't last any longer is because they had competition (the established governments of the cities) and the competition had guns.

Actually the reason Occupy failed is exactly opposite.   Their initially was no structure or common message and this culture got embedded in the collective so when it was clear that leadership and a core message was needed, there was heavy resistance and sabotage from all side.  I knew it was going to happen after watching the first few interviews from people the media put up and quasi-representatives and they had no message and stated this was a movement without an actually leader.  It was doomed from that moment.  People have so many opinions and perspectives, that doesn't mean each one has the same merit.  Sometimes you just need someone or a body to guide the direction while its own momentum and culture develops.  It is crucial.

[TECSHARE]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

In my mind (and I know many of you will disagree), it kind of proves the point that an elected government that tries to do things for the good of the people is better than no government at all, and letting the bullies rule because no one else is.

Occupy had a government -- a group of people in charge of making decisions on others' and others' resources behalf -- , and it was called GA.  And just like any other government, it quickly became corrupt and ineffective.  The only reason it didn't last any longer is because they had competition (the established governments of the cities) and the competition had guns.

Actually the reason Occupy failed is exactly opposite.   Their initially was no structure or common message and this culture got embedded in the collective so when it was clear that leadership and a core message was needed, there was heavy resistance and sabotage from all side.  I knew it was going to happen after watching the first few interviews from people the media put up and quasi-representatives and they had no message and stated this was a movement without an actually leader.  It was doomed from that moment.  People have so many opinions and perspectives, that doesn't mean each one has the same merit.  Sometimes you just need someone or a body to guide the direction while its own momentum and culture develops.  It is crucial.

The problem with this logic is that OCCUPY DID HAVE A UNIFIED MESSAGE, that they were thru with government and corporate unaccountability, especially in regards to massive real estate fraud and the lack of action in prosecuting those responsible. The idea that OCCUPY didn't have a unified message was a synthetic creation of the media finding as many fractured, cracked, disassociated, and fringe protestors as possible while ignoring the core majority of the group: average working middle class people. They simply ignored those with a sensible message that most Americans might agree with and instead opted to create "entertainment" that sells. As a result of this synthetic pressure, there was a misdirection of resources from grassroots personal association networks towards centralized and "controlled opposition" networks. This happened under the guise of official structure that the media so unceasingly demanded, as if it weren't enough that this many people were pissed off enough to fill the streets, their disenfranchisement should be stamped and notarized.

[Dalkore]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

In my mind (and I know many of you will disagree), it kind of proves the point that an elected government that tries to do things for the good of the people is better than no government at all, and letting the bullies rule because no one else is.

Occupy had a government -- a group of people in charge of making decisions on others' and others' resources behalf -- , and it was called GA.  And just like any other government, it quickly became corrupt and ineffective.  The only reason it didn't last any longer is because they had competition (the established governments of the cities) and the competition had guns.

Actually the reason Occupy failed is exactly opposite.   Their initially was no structure or common message and this culture got embedded in the collective so when it was clear that leadership and a core message was needed, there was heavy resistance and sabotage from all side.  I knew it was going to happen after watching the first few interviews from people the media put up and quasi-representatives and they had no message and stated this was a movement without an actually leader.  It was doomed from that moment.  People have so many opinions and perspectives, that doesn't mean each one has the same merit.  Sometimes you just need someone or a body to guide the direction while its own momentum and culture develops.  It is crucial.

The problem with this logic is that OCCUPY DID HAVE A UNIFIED MESSAGE, that they were thru with government and corporate unaccountability, especially in regards to massive real estate fraud and the lack of action in prosecuting those responsible. The idea that OCCUPY didn't have a unified message was a synthetic creation of the media finding as many fractured, cracked, disassociated, and fringe protestors as possible while ignoring the core majority of the group: average working middle class people. They simply ignored those with a sensible message that most Americans might agree with and instead opted to create "entertainment" that sells. As a result of this synthetic pressure, there was a misdirection of resources from grassroots personal association networks towards centralized and "controlled opposition" networks. This happened under the guise of official structure that the media so unceasingly demanded, as if it weren't enough that this many people were pissed off enough to fill the streets, their disenfranchisement should be stamped and notarized.

I watched intently and in the first two weeks there was two gentlemen that were put up as leaders of the movement and in the official forum there was atleast not much disagreement that they are at least coordinating action for Occupy.  In all of their initially interviews they continued to state that there was many messages and Occupy could mean what each person wanted it too.  That sounds like a unified message of nothing.  It was obvious what the correct answer was and if they had any sense, they would of said it over and over again until the issue would not of been dodged.  Instead there was infighting about how this should be the start some new leaderless form of organization and I watched exactly how they went.   

The main people with any system of organization is that in the end, it will need to be run by humans and unless you luck out and actually get someone who actually sticks to his word, has common sense and listens to the people and can balance all these and make the just decision.   It will keep falling into the hands of incompetents. 

[TECSHARE]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

Did anyone NOT see this coming?

In my mind (and I know many of you will disagree), it kind of proves the point that an elected government that tries to do things for the good of the people is better than no government at all, and letting the bullies rule because no one else is.

Occupy had a government -- a group of people in charge of making decisions on others' and others' resources behalf -- , and it was called GA.  And just like any other government, it quickly became corrupt and ineffective.  The only reason it didn't last any longer is because they had competition (the established governments of the cities) and the competition had guns.

Actually the reason Occupy failed is exactly opposite.   Their initially was no structure or common message and this culture got embedded in the collective so when it was clear that leadership and a core message was needed, there was heavy resistance and sabotage from all side.  I knew it was going to happen after watching the first few interviews from people the media put up and quasi-representatives and they had no message and stated this was a movement without an actually leader.  It was doomed from that moment.  People have so many opinions and perspectives, that doesn't mean each one has the same merit.  Sometimes you just need someone or a body to guide the direction while its own momentum and culture develops.  It is crucial.

The problem with this logic is that OCCUPY DID HAVE A UNIFIED MESSAGE, that they were thru with government and corporate unaccountability, especially in regards to massive real estate fraud and the lack of action in prosecuting those responsible. The idea that OCCUPY didn't have a unified message was a synthetic creation of the media finding as many fractured, cracked, disassociated, and fringe protestors as possible while ignoring the core majority of the group: average working middle class people. They simply ignored those with a sensible message that most Americans might agree with and instead opted to create "entertainment" that sells. As a result of this synthetic pressure, there was a misdirection of resources from grassroots personal association networks towards centralized and "controlled opposition" networks. This happened under the guise of official structure that the media so unceasingly demanded, as if it weren't enough that this many people were pissed off enough to fill the streets, their disenfranchisement should be stamped and notarized.

I watched intently and in the first two weeks there was two gentlemen that were put up as leaders of the movement and in the official forum there was atleast not much disagreement that they are at least coordinating action for Occupy.  In all of their initially interviews they continued to state that there was many messages and Occupy could mean what each person wanted it too.  That sounds like a unified message of nothing.  It was obvious what the correct answer was and if they had any sense, they would of said it over and over again until the issue would not of been dodged.  Instead there was infighting about how this should be the start some new leaderless form of organization and I watched exactly how they went.   

The main people with any system of organization is that in the end, it will need to be run by humans and unless you luck out and actually get someone who actually sticks to his word, has common sense and listens to the people and can balance all these and make the just decision.   It will keep falling into the hands of incompetents. 

As I mentioned, the declaration of these so called leaders of the movement was not only driven by the media, wag the dog style, but I am of the belief that the organizers of the GA never had OCCUPY's interests in mind. Additionally not everyone supported the GA, in fact most people resented the centralization proccess of the movement because once that is done it is a simple task to subvert. There was strong indication from very early on that Soro's related groups were attempting to hijack and subvert the movement from its grass roots support. The exact same formula was used on the Tea Party, which I also believe to have been a genuine grass roots movement at its start, later subverted and destroyed just like OCCUPY. How do you organize a group to resist the most well funded and anal retentively organized group there is: bankers? Seems to me there was quite a bit of sabotage going on cast as incompetence. Additionally might I ask thru what media you "watched intently"?

[Monster Tent]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

How do you prevent people making 50 accounts and downvoting people so they get banned ?

[Raoul Duke]

Title: A Eulogy for #Occupy
URL: http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/12/a-eulogy-for-occupy/all/

This says a lot about bitcointalk.org:

Because the GA had no way to reject force, over time it fell to force. Proposals won by intimidation; bullies carried the day. What began as a way to let people reform and remake themselves had no mechanism for dealing with them when they didn’t. It had no way to deal with parasites and predators. It became a diseased process, pushing out the weak and quiet it had meant to enfranchise until it finally collapsed when nothing was left but predators trying to rip out each other’s throats.

Let us just hope that BitcoinTalk.org figures out that freedom of association is also a right, and as a private website BitcoinTalk.org has the freedom to not associate with users that an overwhelming majority of site users downvote or ignore.

How do you prevent people making 50 accounts and downvoting people so they get banned ?

Don't worry. When Jeff's wishes come true I'll unleash my bots on him and have him banned. eheheheheheheh

j/k...














...or not....

[deeplink]

As I mentioned, the declaration of these so called leaders of the movement was not only driven by the media, wag the dog style, but I am of the belief that the organizers of the GA never had OCCUPY's interests in mind. Additionally not everyone supported the GA, in fact most people resented the centralization proccess of the movement because once that is done it is a simple task to subvert. There was strong indication from very early on that Soro's related groups were attempting to hijack and subvert the movement from its grass roots support. The exact same formula was used on the Tea Party, which I also believe to have been a genuine grass roots movement at its start, later subverted and destroyed just like OCCUPY. How do you organize a group to resist the most well funded and anal retentively organized group there is: bankers? Seems to me there was quite a bit of sabotage going on cast as incompetence. Additionally might I ask thru what media you "watched intently"?

Bitcoin Foundation anyone?

[iCEBREAKER]

Wired reporting on Occupy creates a feedback loop of irrelevancy, a failed useless magazine reporting on a failed useless movement.

N O B O D Y  C A R E S !