On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, Jay Converse supermo0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/4/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I have, often.
As far as I can tell none of your edits this year are consistent
with
RC 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 quo.
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
and
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 them.
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.
geni:
As far as I can tell none of your edits **************this
year****************
you:
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 making viruses.
-- Jay Converse I'm not stupid, just selectively ignorant.