On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse <supermo0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator
> On 2/4/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/4/06, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have, often.
> > As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent
patrol or simular.
Nope! Try 2001-2002. There's a reason I was
put on the arbcom.
Actually, there are a bunch, mainly because I'm a pain in the ass
about trying to figure out a better way to do things than the status
Nope! Try reading the "this year" part of the sentence. I highly doubt
vandalfighting 3-4 years ago has much traction compared to the volume
strategies of vandals today. This is part of the
problem, I think. The
method of fighting it is attempting to change, but is being met with
resistance because "We didn't do it that way when we were doing it!"
What are you saying "Nope!" to?
I think you should seriously consider that the behavior of vandals
changes in response to the change in the behavior of those fighting
Remember that my only complaints have been about the name Counter
Vandalism Unit and (secondarily) the invite-only irc channel. So I'm
not quite sure what you're dragging into the conversation here.
I'll try to make this clear.
> > As far as I can tell none of your edits
> Nope! Try 2001-2002.
2001-2002 is not this year, nor is it the past 365 days.
The behavior of vandals and of vandalfighters is going to and probably
always will consistently change over time. What you're saying is that we
should stop trying anything new, therefore the vandals won't think of any
way to get around us because it's no longer a challenge. This is just
inviting unstoppable vandalism, unstoppable because we can't evolve to fight
it. To take it further, it's like saying Microsoft should release no more
Microsoft Updates for Windows because virus makers will lose interest in
I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.