All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part IX

[robkelk]

Money isn't a real issue in running the wiki.  We're somewhere in the range of $75 a month to run Miraheze, which is not that big of a deal to me personally.  I could pay for that on my own.  (At 2.3% interest, my student loans can wait.)

No, they can't. Pay your debts before throwing any of your own money at this (or at least reduce your debt before you need to refinance at a higher interest rate). Don't put your credit rating at risk over a hobby. And as soon as you throw money at one option, you've burned your bridges for the other.

Bob and I can make things happen, even if we have to end up doing an Indiegogo campaign. (No coffee mugs as incentives, though.)

There are advantages to owning, but for now the disadvantages are winning.

There are also advantages to time-sharing in a commercial datacentre. Let them buy the expensive hardware, and worry about depreciation and eventual replacement. If we can rent a virtual machine and enough SAN space, we'll likely save money in the long run.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[LynnInDenver]

vorticity wrote:

---

Money isn't a real issue in running the wiki.  We're somewhere in the range of $75 a month to run Miraheze, which is not that big of a deal to me personally.  I could pay for that on my own.  (At 2.3% interest, my student loans can wait.)  And instead of buying servers and doing colocation, you pretty much always want to start on someone else's infrastructure.  This means one of the many VPS providers, like RamNode (Miraheze), Digital Ocean (Orain), AWS (my work), etc.  We've never seriously discussed owning hardware at Miraheze, largely due to the odd concern of "our lead sysadmin isn't allowed in the data center because he's too young." There are advantages to owning, but for now the disadvantages are winning.

Do tackle the student loan over ATT. As Rob has noted, it's just a hobby, it can always wait.
Owning hardware is one thing... but there are virtual server options, and Miraheze is starting to manifest a potentially LARGE disadvantage, if only because the administration is starting to look like a maker of capricious decisions that may or may not cause ATT problems in the long run - John doing things like potentially starting to demand changes in the ATT code of conduct if it conflicts with the Miraheze code, and possibly demanding a move of discussion over to there. I feel like he's making an assumption he's going to get dumped on coming over here to discuss what's been going on. (To be fair, it's probably a bit true, but it's also one of those things that he's recently earned with some of his actions.) And, well, if there's to be another move, even without a dog in the fight since I'm not a contributor, I'd also advocate towards reducing the number of levels between the actual hosting and ATT by becoming the master, as Geth commented.

vorticity wrote:

---

The problem with what's being discussed here is that it puts me in a difficult situation.  I have a duty of care to two different organizations, and it's starting to look like those duties are coming into conflict.  I'll have to see if I can thread this needle, or delegate the responsibilities to someone else, or resign from one of the positions. 

Better make sure you've got that decision lined up in case you're called on it before the timing shows it's time to pull the trigger.

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

Option one is definitely off the table for me. If it ever goes on the table, I'm walking.

Given the issues it caused TVTropes (ironically it likely helped to reveal the cracks that were Fast Eddie's authoritarian tendencies), I don't blame you for wanting to go absolutely ad-free.

Bob Schroeck wrote:

---

Well, the difference between LK and Amanda is that Amanda was actively damaging the wiki farm, and LK was irritating John. From the responses to each we can infer the relative severity of these offenses.

Which I would infer that the severity doesn't merit response until John canNOT avoid doing anything about it because he's getting complaints every hour. Hence why I asked earlier about his experience with forums/social media. The implication I was trying to make is that he's had little to no experience regarding the damage an asshole, troll or otherwise, can do to what appears to be an otherwise stable community, and the measures actually required to deal with that before it becomes toxic. Read: He didn't treat Amanda's behavior as being an appropriate level of severity in terms of threat to Miraheze as a whole. Sometimes you just have to ban somebody outright, as unfair as it seems on the surface. Amanda, for instance, should have been kept on a VERY SHORT leash and the ban reinstated once the behaviors started to remanifest, instead of waiting for multiple complaints and people actively leaving. And my only beef with LK's tempban was the lack of communication regarding it when the decision was brought down.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[GethN7]

I feel the need to propose a change to ATT policy in light of something, upon consideration, John Lewis has a point on.

Yes, we have a policy of telling authority to shove it when they do things in a manner of a dictator or what is perceived as such, or we otherwise have little reserve when calling out those with power who appear to be abusing theirs, but after looking over what happened with John Lewis and Lulzkiller, I want to amend that.

It was noted some of us made clear our dissent but kept it respectful in the aftermath, which was appreciated, and frankly, I think ATT should adopt the same policy. Yes, if authority is being abused by someone with authority, they should be brought to task.

With one important caveat: It remains civil and respectful. LK definitely went far past that into personal insults against John Lewis as a human being, and frankly, even I consider that beyond the pale, and that is going too damn far. Besides, you can make clear you can dissent with someone without turning into coarse mouthed monster about it, and so I strongly advise we amend our "dissent with authority" policy to reflect how it should remain at a bare minimum level of civility and decency, and that goes for all involved.

Besides (language warning for some of the ahead), you can tell me I made foolish decisions when it came to reorganizing templates and a recent extension I wanted installed screwed everything up and that I did not think that through, that's respectful dissent.

Calling me an incompetent asshole who fucked shit up and that I'm a damned fool for the same is just being a dick about the same thing, and when you can get the point across without swearing a blue streak and still being civil, you should do the latter and it should be expected to be as the latter when you express your dissent.

[Labster]

All of you telling me to pay off student loans first: I do hope you all paid off all of your credit cards, home loans, and car payments before you start spending money on a hobby.  Because that's the same thing you're telling me to do, except y'all would be paying more interest than me.  PROTIP: It is possible to make more money than the student loan interest rate simply by investing in index funds.
I think one of the reasons I didn't pick up on Lulzkiller causing real distress here is because I do real-life politics.  And real life politics is profane, because people are really passionate about their issues.  Like here are three stories from the California State Democratic Convention last weekend with heavy profanity.  I've carried a protest sign saying "Healthcare is a Human Right" and told to "fuck off" or "get over it, Trump won", or "I'm going to come back with my gun and shoot you fucking liberals" (with IRL visible ???? on his forehead).  It's no skin off my back, because it's all part of the game.
So when I read LK's statements, I was all like "that fucker really wants some policy change", when in reality John was feeling offended and harassed.  Which is not to say his experience is invalid, it's just that it's hard to tell between different communities what standards really apply.   That's really why this community missed the signs. If LK had treated me the way he treated John yesterday, well, I'm not sure how I'd react.  On rereading it, I doubt it would do much but make me angrily justify my policy positions.  Just like I angrily argued with Amanda, God rest her account.  And it's because I get angry easily that I do not take an active moderation role unless I'm uninvolved.  Or more to the point, whenever my decent INT score can be rolled instead of my dump stat WIS.
We've all decided that what LulzKiller said is not appropriate for ATT staff, because an angry tone that causes a crisis is kind of the opposite of the meaning of "moderation".  But as a general policy?  Maybe I'm OK with abrasive speech as long as people aren't feeling harassed.  It's makes a very hard-to-enforce policy, but I don't want to quash opinionated speech just because I don't like the mode it was presented.  But LK definitely crossed the line, enough to be dropped from the admin team for quite a while.  I'm not saying "never", but it had better be long enough to gain some maturity and learn from his mistakes.
But I feel like there were mistakes on the Miraheze side too:

• John opened with a post that was essentially a come-on or a troll, to go ahead try and remove him from power.  He should have seen that I was already trying to moderate LK on this forum, and asked me to go further.
  
• According to IRC logs, John had already decided that he LK should be banned after his first LK's first reply, but kept replying in-thread anyway, in an attempt to "give him enough rope" in what was essentially entrapment.
  
• John incited the incident further by including phrases like "Clearly you only care about manipulating things to make it look like you're are correct."  This is not as bad as things LK said, but it was making the debate worse.
  
• John gave a "final warning", but never explained what the consequences would be if that warning was not heeded.  NDKilla considered that warning to be sufficient notice, which means that John was acting as a steward in this case.
  
• John said that he would not take action as an involved party, which means that he was not a steward in this case.  If that's right, then the last point is false, and no one tried to moderate the situation before "actioning".
  
• NDKilla acted without informing the banned user of what was going on for six hours.
  
• Miraheze staff was, in general, blind to their group bias, but if you read the private logs it was definitely there.
  

I was really, really trying my hardest to be impartial here.  The truth is that I was trying to keep both sides happy.  I apologize for my failure to do that.  But just because LulzKiller was obviously in the wrong does not mean that Miraheze did not make mistakes here.  Because I criticized John does not mean that I am siding against him.  This is not about loyalty; this is about duty.  True friendship is telling your friends what they need to hear.  Of course, true friendship doesn't really exist.
I feel like Miraheze would be well served to have new policies to help prevent mistakes:

• If at all possible, if a steward is a party in a dispute, they should play no role in a disciplinary process other than as a witness.
  
• Any steward acting in a disciplinary role should explain the consequences to the relevant parties, both before and after taking action.  The "before" step should be a chance to let the behavior stop.
  
• If disciplinary actions are taking place within one of our wiki communities, stewards should give notice to local staff (particularly bureaucrats) before taking the action.
  

The main point would be to prevent mistakes, to prevent the community from thinking that the process was corrupt or whatever.  It's not saying we need an ArbCom or anything, just that we follow some sort of a procedure.  And it would be nice if we had all done Exponential Backoff Editing too, but that and a pony will get you a unicorn.  Wait... Well, you get the idea.
Honestly, I don't know what's going to happen at this point.  I've asked NDKilla to make us a backup of ATT.  I'm not sure if people are going to be comfortable around Miraheze or not.  I'm not sure I am, either.
-- ∇×V

[robkelk]

All of you telling me to pay off student loans first: I do hope you all paid off all of your credit cards, home loans, and car payments before you start spending money on a hobby.  Because that's the same thing you're telling me to do, except y'all would be paying more interest than me.

Definitely. All paid off, plus $10k and slowly growing set aside for the next car, which I don't expect to need to buy for at least a half-decade.

PROTIP: It is possible to make more money than the student loan interest rate simply by investing in index funds.

In that case, invest. But don't default on your loans, because defaulting would be bad for your credit rating.

...
We've all decided that what LulzKiller said is not appropriate for ATT staff, because an angry tone that causes a crisis is kind of the opposite of the meaning of "moderation".  But as a general policy?  Maybe I'm OK with abrasive speech as long as people aren't feeling harassed.  It's makes a very hard-to-enforce policy, but I don't want to quash opinionated speech just because I don't like the mode it was presented.  But LK definitely crossed the line, enough to be dropped from the admin team for quite a while.  I'm not saying "never", but it had better be long enough to gain some maturity and learn from his mistakes.

Agreed. LulzKiller crossed the line and has received a sanction because of it.

But I feel like there were mistakes on the Miraheze side too:

• John opened with a post that was essentially a come-on or a troll, to go ahead try and remove him from power.  He should have seen that I was already trying to moderate LK on this forum, and asked me to go further.
• According to IRC logs, John had already decided that he LK should be banned after his first LK's first reply, but kept replying in-thread anyway, in an attempt to "give him enough rope" in what was essentially entrapment.
• John incited the incident further by including phrases like "Clearly you only care about manipulating things to make it look like you're are correct."  This is not as bad as things LK said, but it was making the debate worse.
• John gave a "final warning", but never explained what the consequences would be if that warning was not heeded.  NDKilla considered that warning to be sufficient notice, which means that John was acting as a steward in this case.
• John said that he would not take action as an involved party, which means that he was not a steward in this case.  If that's right, then the last point is false, and no one tried to moderate the situation before "actioning".
  
• NDKilla acted without informing the banned user of what was going on for six hours.
• Miraheze staff was, in general, blind to their group bias, but if you read the private logs it was definitely there.

Oh.

Oh, dear.

Do you have evidence of this preserved somewhere?

If this is accurate, John crossed the line ... but has not yet received a sanction because of it.

http://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Stewards ... _of_rights says "The person starting the vote or opening the request must provide a valid reason for removal of Steward rights (mistrust, abuse, inactivity, etc.)" The scenario as you described it is definitely abuse - abuse of power. However, I'm not about to propose a removal of steward rights without knowing that there is evidence preserved off-site that the scenario as you described it is the scenario that actually happened.

This isn't a case like Amanda, who volunteered the necessary evidence for account blocking. This is a case of somebody with bureaucrat rights on Meta who has publicly complained about people "hiding" discussion. (And I now see why he used that term - if the scenario as presented is accurate, then he was hiding discussion that affects us all along. My respect for that person has dropped significantly, and I post this here knowing full well that he will read it and might quote from it out-of-context in a venue where he has full control over who can post.)

I was really, really trying my hardest to be impartial here.  The truth is that I was trying to keep both sides happy.  I apologize for my failure to do that.  But just because LulzKiller was obviously in the wrong does not mean that Miraheze did not make mistakes here.  Because I criticized John does not mean that I am siding against him.  This is not about loyalty; this is about duty.  True friendship is telling your friends what they need to hear.  Of course, true friendship doesn't really exist.

I feel like Miraheze would be well served to have new policies to help prevent mistakes:

• If at all possible, if a steward is a party in a dispute, they should play no role in a disciplinary process other than as a witness.
• Any steward acting in a disciplinary role should explain the consequences to the relevant parties, both before and after taking action.  The "before" step should be a chance to let the behavior stop.
• If disciplinary actions are taking place within one of our wiki communities, stewards should give notice to local staff (particularly bureaucrats) before taking the action.

The main point would be to prevent mistakes, to prevent the community from thinking that the process was corrupt or whatever.  It's not saying we need an ArbCom or anything, just that we follow some sort of a procedure.  And it would be nice if we had all done Exponential Backoff Editing too, but that and a pony will get you a unicorn.  Wait... Well, you get the idea.

Honestly, I don't know what's going to happen at this point.  I've asked NDKilla to make us a backup of ATT.  I'm not sure if people are going to be comfortable around Miraheze or not.  I'm not sure I am, either.

Likewise.

Can I trust the people running the show to act in a manner benefiting the wiki farm as a whole even if that is not to the individual's best interest? What I've seen presented here makes me hesitant to answer that in the affirmative... and that means I have two wikis to worry about.

EDIT: And, yeah, I just burned a bridge behind myself.
http://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?ti ... i7hq9fbatu
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[LynnInDenver]

vorticity wrote:

---

But I feel like there were mistakes on the Miraheze side too:

• John opened with a post that was essentially a come-on or a troll, to go ahead try and remove him from power.  He should have seen that I was already trying to moderate LK on this forum, and asked me to go further.
• According to IRC logs, John had already decided that he LK should be banned after his first LK's first reply, but kept replying in-thread anyway, in an attempt to "give him enough rope" in what was essentially entrapment.
• John incited the incident further by including phrases like "Clearly you only care about manipulating things to make it look like you're are correct."  This is not as bad as things LK said, but it was making the debate worse.
• John gave a "final warning", but never explained what the consequences would be if that warning was not heeded.  NDKilla considered that warning to be sufficient notice, which means that John was acting as a steward in this case.
• John said that he would not take action as an involved party, which means that he was not a steward in this case.  If that's right, then the last point is false, and no one tried to moderate the situation before "actioning".
• NDKilla acted without informing the banned user of what was going on for six hours.
• Miraheze staff was, in general, blind to their group bias, but if you read the private logs it was definitely there.

Blind bias I expect to see most places.
If John decided to do "come at me bro" and attempt entrapment, that's a whole other worrying kettle of fish at that point. One can provide opportunities to feed hanging rope without goading the party in question into taking it.
I'm with Rob; there is no way to have a discussion someplace where John can decide that people are no longer part of the discussion, or can edit away comments he doesn't think are "appropriate". If he refuses to have that discussion anyplace other than on Miraheze itself (and so far he basically has, with regards to participating in the thread here on "threat of being harrassed"), then that's another big red flag.
In fact, my recommendation with that behavior is that he really needs to step away from that, or be forced to step away.
--

"You know how parents tell you everything's going to fine, but you know they're lying to make you feel better? Everything's going to be fine." - The Doctor

[Bob Schroeck]

Guys, NDKilla has just (8 minutes ago) http://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?ti ... 5l66bz32j6]posted a note in which he says John has resigned and given up both operations access and stewardship.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

Confirmed: As of the time of this posting, southparkfan is now the only bureaucrat on Meta, and John is no longer a steward or admin. This makes a non-confidence motion against John moot.

(I'm still annoyed regarding the entrapment, mind you.)

vorticity, I'm willing to co-propose with you your suggested policy change, as a RfC on Meta.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

And I just noticed a message in my inbox which turned out to be Reception123 asking for membership so as to post their side of the story here. I've of course approved it -- the only people I've ever denied access were those spammers all those years ago, after all -- so don't be surprised when they show up. And give them every courtesy.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

Hello, Reception123, and welcome to the forums. I look forward to your posts here.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Labster]

Most of this is backed-up by the #miraheze-staff log, starting from around 9:30 AM PDT from uh... however many days ago this was.  I can't really share the evidence because it's considered private.
You can argue that my impressions were uncharitable.  If we give the benefit of the doubt, we can say that staff considered banning LK at the beginning, but decided he couldn't be involved in that decision.  Everyone took their time to finally arrive at the conclusion that in fact LK needed to be locked.  After repeated warnings to a person obviously acting outside of acceptable decorum, they finally locked the account two hours later on reaching staff consensus.
The uncharitable view is that John started the wiki discussion with the expectation that LK would backtalk in a profane way.  John started the admin conversation with talk about locking LK himself, and continued to steer the discussion towards a lock after he realized he would need to have someone else cover his action.  On wiki, John trolled LK to keep him talking, but was also acting as staff.  No one presented any alternative actions as a consequence for LK's behavior.  And a lock was finally actioned after people felt a second of their friends was insulted.  An explanation was put together far after the fact to explain why the lock was taken.
I think the evidence that I have could support both views, and that the truth is likely somewhere in-between.  That's why I want a bit of procedure here, to reduce the ambiguity.  If someone has to stop and ask, "What are the steps I need to do to accomplish this disciplinary action?" then it slows down the thought process just enough to make sure that you've justified in writing that you're doing the right thing, not just that you believe that you're doing the right thing.
-- ∇×V

[Reception123]

Thank you for approving my "membership" here. In case you didn't already read my view on the situation (which I posted 2 days ago) you may see it here http://allthetropes.org/w/index.php?ti ... 11ueyqdi1e .

[Bob Schroeck]

Welcome to the forums, Reception. While I cannot speak for others here, my personal take on matters is pretty simple. Of course, LK was over the line. But... he got perhaps 24 hours' leeway at best before being globally locked, and there is the disturbing suggestion of entrapment being involved. Whereas Amanda in all its forms and faces was tolerated at one level or another for months, and was never so thoroughly locked that it couldn't come back and plead for another chance to damage the wiki farm -- a chance that was repeatedly handed to it. Can you understand how this looks to someone like me who was mostly outside these matters and had to have his attention brought to them in the first place?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

Hello, Reception. I might be unique in being an administrator on All The Tropes who was not an editor at TVTropes before the wiki fork, so my concerns have different priorities from everyone else's here.

Something bad happened, with plenty of blame to go around. My primary concern is how to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Brent has an idea about that:

I feel like Miraheze would be well served to have new policies to help prevent mistakes:

• If at all possible, if a steward is a party in a dispute, they should play no role in a disciplinary process other than as a witness.
• Any steward acting in a disciplinary role should explain the consequences to the relevant parties, both before and after taking action.  The "before" step should be a chance to let the behavior stop.
• If disciplinary actions are taking place within one of our wiki communities, stewards should give notice to local staff (particularly bureaucrats) before taking the action.

The main point would be to prevent mistakes, to prevent the community from thinking that the process was corrupt or whatever.  It's not saying we need an ArbCom or anything, just that we follow some sort of a procedure.

Do you have any ideas for this?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

Don't have time right now to file a proper trouble ticket: Can't login.

Error message: "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Go back to the previous page, reload that page and then try again."

Same IP address as last successful connection, using latest version of Opera (instead of FireFox), accepting third-party cookies, ad-blocker is disabled on the wiki.

EDIT: Just thought of something, now that I'm at work and can't check: did Opera import my cookies? If it did, then that might be the issue; I was logged in persistently in FireFox.

RE-EDIT: It did, and that was the problem. Logged in now.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

Yeegus...

I get some work helping my Uncle renovate houses for a week and Miraheze'a staff has a meltdown?

Okay, so John resigned. What knock-on affects will this have on Miraheze? Is relocating ATT still on the table at this point?

[robkelk]

Miraheze just got a new steward, so losing a steward isn't as bad as it could have been.

However, John had quite a bit of corporate knowledge - if he didn't document it anywhere, that's going to hurt the wiki farm.

As for moving, well... last week, we were at defcon2; now we're at defcon3. Backups are being made and stored on a different server, but aren't necessarily being copied off-site. (puts storage-and-backup hat on) They really should be copied off-site, preferably in a city far away from either of Miraheze's server farms, though. (takes storage-and-backup hat off)

Something still needs to be done to prevent a future meltdown. What that something is, we're still working out - and "we" has to include all of the remaining stewards.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Black Aeronaut]

Regarding back-ups, there's plenty of datacenters here in Texas that I am sure would be perfectly willing to host your backups. Though now and then, I think making a tape-drive backup at home (if possible) would be a good idea as well.

And definitely try to fix things up with the code of conduct. LK may have been in the wrong, but what John did was inexcusable and I'm glad he stepped down. Although I worry that with that attitude in the highest echelons of Miraheze... well...

[Bob Schroeck]

Could someone who's more familiar with IP6 addresses please take a look at http://allthetropes.org/wiki/Topic:Trjdc1gxrgsc18r6]this and tell me if this is likely to be two different people or one with a dynamic IP? If it's the former, we need to slap down an anonymous user for hiding someone else's question.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[GethN7]

Could someone who's more familiar with IP6 addresses please take a look at http://allthetropes.org/wiki/Topic:Trjdc1gxrgsc18r6 and tell me if this is likely to be two different people or one with a dynamic IP? If it's the former, we need to slap down an anonymous user for hiding someone else's question.

Looked it up, could just be two users who ambled over from TV Tropes continuing a silly slapfight.

[Bob Schroeck]

I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on them and make sure it doesn't escalate. Don't know if banning their IPs will do much good, though...
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[LulzKiller]

I sent an email a few days ago to no response, did any of you guys get it?

[robkelk]

Could someone who's more familiar with IP6 addresses please take a look at http://allthetropes.org/wiki/Topic:Trjdc1gxrgsc18r6 and tell me if this is likely to be two different people or one with a dynamic IP? If it's the former, we need to slap down an anonymous user for hiding someone else's question.

Looked it up, could just be two users who ambled over from TV Tropes continuing a silly slapfight.

For now, I've unhidden the comment. Let's see what happens - can they play nice, or not?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

I sent an email a few days ago to no response, did any of you guys get it?

I haven't had a chance to check Gmail since I changed browsers ... (goes and looks) ... Ah, there it is.

Let me ponder on that, please.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[LulzKiller]

which browser did you switch to/from?