You surely know full well that apotheon could just as well have posted his/her remarks as the eternal, ubiquitous Anonymous Monk, or under some other name that s/he may have used into sainthood years ago -- and they should carry the same weight.

It matters not one iota what name(s) you use to post your views, or how long ago you created your name(s) here. Indeed, given the slippery, "flexible" nature of personal identity at the Monastery, I find all the remarks about "ownership" and "copyright" in this thread more than a little baffling.

It's a fair question graff. Whilst there was undoubtably an edge of irritation in my post, the questions I asked of him, remain pertinent.

Beyond his later disclaimer of a "wider context" for his remarks, I would still like to know the source of his remarks as they pertain to this site. You see, despite my having been around this place for 2 1/2 years, I haven't seen any signs of the rules in this place being ad hoc, mutable, and social in nature.

They appear to me to be predefined and for the most part immutable. I've seen good argument after good argument be squashed on the basis that this place "is not a democracy", summarially dismissed on the basis of one or other gods personal preference, or simply ignored.

If the rules are as described, I would seriously like to be pointed at the source of information. Whether it be written some where, or simply "so obvious" that anyone can recognise it, because I haven't seen nor perceived it in my time here.

Your right. apotheon could indeed be an(other) alias for someone with a much longer association with this place than is apparent. It didn't cross my mind when I posted, and quiet why anyone would do this I do not understand, but it is possible.

I apologise for allowing some irritation at what I saw as another--on the basis of the information available to me, uninformed--summary dismissal of what I felt was a rational, logical and carefully thought through response to the subject Old_Grey_Bear raised.

I do not apologise for the views I expressed. Any one who has followed this for any time will know that I am at least consistant in expressing them. I accept that my view my be a minority one, but I feel that when the subject comes up, it is appropriate to voice them. I accept (and expected) that it would be ignored and downvoted, that's par for the course.

It rattled my cage a bit that the only (public) response I received, was what I perceived (and still do) as a rather glib, wishy-washy dismisal of the very specific points I raised. That it (appeared) to come from someone who has not been around long enough to have seen the dynamics of this places or be party to previous discussion, made it harder to ignore.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon

By contrast I have been here for over 4 years and in that time I've definitely seen signs that the rules in this place are ad hoc, mutable, and social in nature.

In fact I've seen the rules mutate, I've seen them applied in an ad hoc (and differing way) to different people, and I've seen directly how they are fundamentally social.

For instance there have always been social pressures against excessive profanity in chatter. It was "enforced" by people giving feedback. In the same way that the rule against 'l33t 5p33k' is discouraged to this day. Unfortunately we had a user (IIRC Alex the Serb) who decided to ignore ad hoc social feedback, and it was decided to create a group of "power users" who could enforce community ideas about behaviour in chatter. The rule mutated - rather than it being up to you after feedback, it became up to what a limited number of people thought. And the rule remained fundamentally something decided socially.

As one of the original power users (I was removed when I went on hiatus), originally the existence of power users was regarded as a secret and bragging about being one was grounds for being removed from the club. Over time people guessed that something was going on, the secret became more open, and now it is no big deal. The social rule mutated.

This evolution continues in many small ways. For instance Re^2: Distribution of Levels and Writeups (sig) prompts questions about whether long signatures are a good thing. If lots of people feel as tye does, then feedback may convince some to shorten (or remove) their signatures. Or it may remain the same. In any case the social standards are not fixed in stone.

However the fact that they are not fixed in stone does not mean that anyone can change them. I believe that you are complaining that you have been unable to change rules that you don't like. And you're dissatisfied by that. Well that's how life works. In a social group, individuals generally can't change the rules for the group very easily. Often there is a lot of inertia. Furthermore the mechanisms by which social rules remain agreed upon are often hard to see - it is easy to see the person saying bluntly, "This will not change." It is hard to see people who, by silent agreement or apathy, make it so that it actually doesn't change.

What I am saying here is simple. Your personal experience with being unable to mutate the rules does not mean that they are immutable. Your personal perception that many rules are laid down by gods misses the fact that gods gained and maintain their position through social mechanisms. And the arbitrariness that you've complained of in the past is a result of the fact that they really do arise in an ad hoc manner.

My further statement is even simpler. I do not know of a voluntary social grouping of humans that does not likewise have a lot of ad hoc, mutable, and social rules that it operates by. Given this knowledge, I can walk into any social group and quickly make that claim with confidence. Because I know that, even if I do not (yet) understand how that is true in this group, I am sure that this group will (like other groups that I've seen) turn out to fit this description.

They appear to me to be predefined and for the most part immutable. I've seen good argument after good argument be squashed on the basis that this place "is not a democracy", summarially dismissed on the basis of one or other gods personal preference, or simply ignored.

Update: Ive commented out my original text in this node. View source if you want to read it.

BrowserUk, lots of folks here talk the talk. Very few walk the walk. When these great ideas are backed up by viable patches then the gods will consider them very seriously. Until then its all hot air. And Personally I take exception to the implication of you comment. I work damn hard for PM, and I dont think anyone can fault me for what I've done or not done. The same goes for the other active gods here.

---
demerphq

Though you know, in society, one has a right to trial, and at least notionally, the opportunity to influence the lawmakers and even change the laws. I do not see any similar mechanisms here.

You read it somewhere? PLease show me.

Responded to offline.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks.

"Efficiency is intelligent laziness." -David Dunham
"Think for yourself!" - Abigail
"Memory, processor, disk in that order on the hardware side. Algorithm, algorithm, algorithm on the code side." - tachyon