QUOTE(Sxeptomaniac @ Thu 18th September 2008, 5:18pm)
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 18th September 2008, 11:44am)
QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 18th September 2008, 1:19pm)
I am at a loss as to why Moulton continues to cite real names of people who prefer to be pseudonymous here. Doing so strengthens the argument of all who say he should not have editing privs restored
Precisely because this is a part of the Real World, and some of us here are Rational Adults, and those of us who are happen to Realize that accommodating the wishes of others to use their pseudonyms is a Courtesy that is rationally extended only to those who are Courteous in return.
Do you see how that works yet?
Jon (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)
Or perhaps because using real names is just a cheap shot used by trying to gain the upper hand or get revenge in an internet dispute.
H0: (Null Hypothesis) Assume Good Faith.
H1: (Lar) Something other than H0, but not sure what.
H2: (Jon) Reciprocity (Mimesis) is a two-way street.
H3: (Sxeptomaniac) Revenge Motive.
H4: (Moulton) Is there a Duty of Civil Disobedience (per Thoreau)?
Of the five hypotheses, one of them is falsifiable and testable by
anyone, which makes it a valid scientific hypothesis that may be tested in a synthetic community such as Wikipedia or Wikiversity.
Essay question: Does Thoreau's idea make any sense, at least in
some situations? Is the present situation one of those? Why or why not? Support your answer with evidence (e.g. from Moulton's experiment), analysis, and reasoning. Be prepared to defend your point of view, and to compare your thoughts to those of other scholars who undertake to the play The Ethics Game.
QUOTE(Floydsvoid @ Thu 18th September 2008, 5:24pm)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 17th September 2008, 4:07pm)
H1: Speculative (and as yet unproven) hypothesis that "an unknown number of (unidentified) admins requested that Jimbo be the one to make the block" on the (reliable) theory that there would then not be a consensus to overturn the block, even if the consensus were that it was improper for Jimbo to have been asked to make the block on their behalf (and improper for him to have acceded to doing so).
H
1 is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis, so I have (elsewhere) proposed a simple experiment to test it. Those here who are a systems scientist, can figure out the experimental test without much difficulty.
Ahhh, so you are performing something akin to Wiki-Collider experiments.
Cause a crash & burn and do a post-mortem analysis to see if the sequence of events conform to theory.
Seems here you had gotten started an ethical debate amongst level 5 WVers when out of the blue a level 4 WMFer swoops in with the ban-hammer and smashes everything to smithereens. Shame really, would have been interesting seeing how the WVers resolved it on their own. I don't think all is lost since there are some after-shock rumblings still going on.
You can call me grasshopper, just don't call me Bill (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/cool.gif)
Yes, I was surprised that an unregistered player of The Ethics Game came in to dramatically demonstrate the lower portions of the
Kohlberg Ladder in a way so reminiscent of
King Henry's encounter with Beckett.
That sharpened up the chasm between the 4th and 5th rungs on Kohlberg's Ladder.
The important question is what (if anything) anyone is learning from this unplanned (i.e. accidental) exercise in drama-driven learning.
This post has been edited by Moulton: