[Discussion] Lonestar

[Simplicius]

I'm not particularly interested in censuring the Mess, or even in putting onerous restrictions around April Fool's Pranks. I'll admit, a lot of it is because I wasn't offended by the prank, so naturally I'm not going to react as strongly as someone who was. That they got the go-ahead from Mike gives them license to duck around rules and stir up trouble, since I bet that permission would have been rescinded in an instant if a serious disruption to the board was posed. That right there eliminates the basis for any official criticism from us, and I can't support wagging the Senatorial tongue at things we just don't like.

Should there be onerous restrictions around April Fool's Pranks? I say no, provided would-be pranksters ask for administrative permission if they need to ramp up in advance, so as not to fall afoul of board rules, and provided they consider how the pranked might (or might not) take the joke and act accordingly. Bogging it down in procedure just discourages the clever bastards whose holiday 1 April is, as well as discourages the kind of elaborate tricks that stand a chance of fooling a board this canny. And what fun is April Fool's if no-one gets fooled?

[The Yosemite Bear]

erm, yea of short memories this is the SECOND time this group has done this, the first being the Rob Wilson being just a cook, prank a couple years ago. back then they said they would never use official forums to start a prank before AFD, well I guess there is a point to F. Galkin's suggestion?

then again, when I was a Supermod, I did unblock my AIM, so that I could co-ordinate the Shep's a Moderator prank.

[Knife]

I won't hide behind Mike. That said, his permission was asked and given and at some level he was keeping an eye on it since at one point a member in on the gag got a warning about going to far.

Now, *climbs out from behind Mike's dress* I'm sorry some have bad experiences that this prank rubbed raw, however you're personal history is just that. Most of this prank, as I read it in all it's forms, was directed at a sacred cow and those who would grab their shiney armor to defend it.

As far as 'funny'. Of course those who took it seriously didn't find it funny, those who are the target of AFD jokes rarely find them funny. But I'll tell you it was damn funny watching people run out and attack Lonestar the Dragon when in fact he was little more than a windmill.

As far as rule violations...meh it's a stretch. But as always the administration gets to inturprate them as they see fit. I will tell you that this Senator see's nothing wrong in what was done, as far as the letter of the laws around here, and will vote against any stupid bill brought forth to centure the Mess.

[Spyder]

Retitle the Mess "Assholes" and move on

[Chris OFarrell]

I second this movement! Someone start a vote thread!

[SirNitram]

Now, *climbs out from behind Mike's dress* I'm sorry some have bad experiences that this prank rubbed raw, however you're personal history is just that. Most of this prank, as I read it in all it's forms, was directed at a sacred cow and those who would grab their shiney armor to defend it.

What is this sacred cow? That you're not supposed to oppose homophobia? That we shouldn't seek to punish those who troll through threads and derail them? That the staff of this forum shouldn't seek to throw out anyone who actually brings an online tiff into RL?

What is this grand, pure purpose that keeps getting alluded to, or is it some stupid attempt to try and save face from a prank that pissed people off?

[Spyder]

I second this movement! Someone start a vote thread!

Motion seconded, vote thread open

[Knife]

What is this sacred cow?

Equal oppertunity, in a phrase. Gay/military if you want to be specific. Considering the huge dog pile when some one said the (right for the prank) right bits, it seemed my description of 'grab their shiney armor and fight the good fight' seemed close enough. Especially considering that all involved AFAIK have expressed in the past that they don't care if gays serve.

[SirNitram]

What is this sacred cow?

Equal oppertunity, in a phrase. Gay/military if you want to be specific. Considering the huge dog pile when some one said the (right for the prank) right bits, it seemed my description of 'grab their shiney armor and fight the good fight' seemed close enough. Especially considering that all involved AFAIK have expressed in the past that they don't care if gays serve.

If they have, it apparently wasn't in recent memory.

[Surlethe]

As far as rule violations...meh it's a stretch. But as always the administration gets to inturprate them as they see fit. I will tell you that this Senator see's nothing wrong in what was done, as far as the letter of the laws around here, and will vote against any stupid bill brought forth to centure the Mess.

Again, if we're going by letter of the law, the Imperial Rules make it pretty clear that if someone gets the direct sanction of Darth Wong, there's not really anything we can do in terms of throwing the rulebook at that person.

[CmdrWilkens]

What is this sacred cow?

Equal oppertunity, in a phrase. Gay/military if you want to be specific. Considering the huge dog pile when some one said the (right for the prank) right bits, it seemed my description of 'grab their shiney armor and fight the good fight' seemed close enough. Especially considering that all involved AFAIK have expressed in the past that they don't care if gays serve.

If they have, it apparently wasn't in recent memory.

Not to be too blunt but other folks memory isn't our problem.

[SirNitram]

Not to be too blunt but other folks memory isn't our problem.

And it shouldn't be the excuse, either.

Here's a concept. Just let it be a prank. Stop pretending it's anything more than a prank by talking about object lessons and sacred cows.

[CmdrWilkens]

Not to be too blunt but other folks memory isn't our problem.

And it shouldn't be the excuse, either.

Here's a concept. Just let it be a prank. Stop pretending it's anything more than a prank by talking about object lessons and sacred cows.

Fine then don't demand that it be funny:

Main Entry: 1prank
Pronunciation: 'pra[ng]k
Function: noun
Etymology: obsolete prank to play tricks
: TRICK: a obsolete : a malicious act b : a mildly mischievous act c : a ludicrous act

Only the last definition includes funny in any way. The oldest and the next most common uses require either malaciousness or mischieviousness neither of which in any way requires that our actions be funny.

[SirNitram]

Only the last definition includes funny in any way. The oldest and the next most common uses require either malaciousness or mischieviousness neither of which in any way requires that our actions be funny.

I recall no demands it be funny, merely that it was an expectation I had, that apparently wasn't lived up to. Oh well. I hardly went on and on about it.

[Edi]

Not to be too blunt but other folks memory isn't our problem.

And it shouldn't be the excuse, either.

Here's a concept. Just let it be a prank. Stop pretending it's anything more than a prank by talking about object lessons and sacred cows.

Here's another concept, Nit: Do NOT drag an unfortunate choice of words of mine from the fucking moderator forum in here to use as a bludgeon after I have already taken them back.

The sacred cow bit was a stupid argument, because it is expected that people not put up with homophobia, racism etc. Doesn't change the fact that the Mess did (mistakenly, as it turned out) rely on collective board memory to pin this as something other than it appeared to be.

[Connor MacLeod]

I was fooled, I was embarassed and annoyed that it was all a joke. I believed Ender had been screwed over and that had pissed me off, but I also think it was rather well done insofar as a joke is, subject matter aside.

If we want to poke fun at the Mess for embarassing us in a humorous way to get back at them or embarass THEM I'm all for it. But I don't see much reason for revenge. Besides, as surlethe mentioned, if Mike approved it, there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing this.

[InnerBrat]

The oldest and the next most common uses require either malaciousness or mischieviousness neither of which in any way requires that our actions be funny.

You really haven't answered Gil, though. If something's not funny, why do it?
To put it bluntly: were your intentions malicious or humorous? If humourous, a number of people believe you failed, but that's OK. If malicious, then you're basically admitting towards hostile action towards the board as a whole, right?

Besides, as surlethe mentioned, if Mike approved it, there doesn't seem to be much point in arguing this.

Except to have our say? There's not a lot of point in saying anything in this forum except to use our voice, surely?

Actually, I'd kind of like to know what Mike thinks about the discussion at's resulted since this has been revealed as a prank. Not in a 'now you must answer for the prank you approved' way, more that I want to know what he thinks in hindsight.

[Surlethe]

Except to have our say? There's not a lot of point in saying anything in this forum except to use our voice, surely?

Sure, we can discuss it, but given the circumstances as we know them, it's not like we can, say, recommend censure or punishment and expect the administration to approve it. After all, while we are here to use our voices, we exist only in an advisory capacity.

Actually, I'd kind of like to know what Mike thinks about the discussion at's resulted since this has been revealed as a prank. Not in a 'now you must answer for the prank you approved' way, more that I want to know what he thinks in hindsight.

I'm interested in hearing what he thinks, too.

[InnerBrat]

Sure, we can discuss it, but given the circumstances as we know them, it's not like we can, say, recommend censure or punishment and expect the administration to approve it. After all, while we are here to use our voices, we exist only in an advisory capacity.

Well, exactly. We only have what powers the administration grants us, and that power as far as the Senate goes is to talk about things in this forum.

[Surlethe]

Well, exactly. We only have what powers the administration grants us, and that power as far as the Senate goes is to talk about things in this forum.

Right. I just meant that calling for things like censure or punishment is very likely going to be fruitless and therefore pointless, not that we shouldn't be arguing about it in the first place.

[InnerBrat]

Adding from a PM a non-Senator sent me:

Doesn't change the fact that the Mess did (mistakenly, as it turned out) rely on collective board memory to pin this as something other than it appeared to be.

It would appear that Edi is saying that because of the 'success' of the Rob Wilson prank that people should have remembered that and called them on this one.
However, after the aforementioned prank everyone agreed to keep AFD pranks to AFD, no lead up. Everyone else honoured this agreement, so why should we have assumed that The Mess wasn't honouring it? Is Edi insinuating that The Mess be considered untrustworthy in the future?

[Surlethe]

Judging by the context of the argument SirNitram was having with CmdrWilkens, it seems that the collective memory refers to this: "Especially considering that all [the Mess members] involved AFAIK have expressed in the past that they don't care if gays serve."

[Edi]

I'm not insinuating that the Mess should be considered untrustworthy on principle. Surlethe is correct in his assessment of the context. It should be further clarified that some of the people who were engaging in the leadup have a long and consistent record of advocating equality and acceptance of homosexuals as well as having a similarly enlightened position about a lot of other things. Collective memory in that context refers to the assumption that at least some people would have remembered it and called it.

For more context, the leadup started in the General Pace thread, which I checked when it was first posted and then when it had reached 7 pages. At that time, it had been weeks since I had last peeked my head in the Mess, so I was ignorant of it being planned. But so many people were pulling a complete 180 of their previously stated positions that the thread caused all kinds of huge "WTF! This can't be for real!" alarms to go off in my head, at which point I did check the Mess and found out about the plan, which was in full swing by that time. For the record, my post on page 7 of that thread was made after checking the Mess.

All I am saying is that there were assumptions made by those who planned it and that some of the assumptions were apparently mistaken, which caused this to become such a poisonous incident.

As for how this discussion moves forward from here, I'm going to wait for Mike to express his own opinion and to see where this goes after that.

[Coyote]

I really do think the whole thing was obvious from the start. I wanted fair play all along, and I thought the clues were glaring and obvious, if one knew what to look for.

1- As I mentioned, our bahavior was radical only in conjunction with this subject; although as Sir Nit pointed out that is not a solid clue.

2- The people participating as 'aggressors' were so wholly out of character and went against months or even years of stated opinions that I felt for sure it had to be obviously staged to a long-term observer here.

3- Our 'aggressors' were obnoxious, with such inarguable and indefensible positions and made such clowns of their arguments... and yet Mike Wong, who's banned people (even long termers) for far less and far quicker, hardly made a peep throughout it. Got Clues?

4- The Mess has a reputation for pulling this sort of thing, board-wide.

[Gil Hamilton]

You can have a prank without humor, and in a way this played well to the illogic of the "other side". We had to coach our "volunteer homophobes" how to argue a point of view that was, essentially, inarguable. The rediculousness of it made it monumentally fascinating, IMO.

That's great that you had to coach people how to copy paste information that's already out there (arguments that many of your military colleagues do make) and wouldn't be unreasonable to be coming out of their mouths anyway.

However, you didn't answer the question. If it isn't funny or ironic, what is the point? Just to prod a sensitive issue for the sake of it, something which has affected people in real life in very unfunny ways and if had been true would have been severely unfunny... for what exactly? "Jokes don't have to be funny!" is the line of someone who just told a joke badly, not a truth, you know.

Bear in mind that some of the "victims" of the prank were actually quite amused in the end. The issue does have sincere emotion attached to it by many on this board, and while that actually includes me in a way (I had to overcome homophobia myself many years ago and developed a distaste for discrimination in general) but at the same time, we are also unafraid to confront and even roast sacred cows here from time to time.

I had not idea that people getting upset over people they knew and respected revealing themselves to be scumbags and getting angry over someone getting outed in the military by a member of the board is a sacred cow. I'd think that's called being a decent human being. Which sacred cow are you roasting there? "Ha ha, you got angry about something that you rightfully should have gotten angry about, we got you"?

And, as to the "letter of the law" being what it is, like I said earlier it was at my urging that the ball got rolling so early. Any retaliation that comes of this is to had by myself, not the rest of the guys. I was the first to mention to them that we should "start laying the foundation early" so as to make "Operation Brokeback Warwolf" more believable by April 1st ...since ramping up on the 31st was "too obvious". So that's my fault.

Ah, no. The people who actually broke the rules should be punished if any rules are to be enforced in the matter. After all, they were the ones that actually did it, not you. However, I think that right there would be appropriate enough a punishment for it being your idea, to watch other people go down for it. Of course, as I said, I don't think punishments should be doled out here and it doesn't look like there would be anyway, so I suppose you can go back to patting yourself on the back for being a dickhead.