How this sub-form works! *read first*

I've asked the mods for permission to sort of 'take over' this subforum and make it my pet. I'm open to ideas what to do with it, but here's how I see it being organized:

First, the rules for brainstorming:
There are no dumb ideas. People are encouraged to come up with ANYTHING and post it in the Brainstorm Megathread. Other users are to give sincere criticisms of the idea, pointing out both the merits of the idea and the flaws. Do not criticize the person. Do not accuse them of being a plant. If you think the idea is worth a deeper look, suggest that the person who posted it post a seperate thread for it.

The purpose of the brainstorming megathread is to give the forum a little more order. A number of people have registered here to make a fly-by-night suggestion. Hell, I'm pretty sure that's how I got drawn in. As a point of fact, Anonymous is doing things pretty much right. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' But that doesn't mean we shouldn't entertain ideas. I see this megathread as a place for early, raw ideas to sink or swim. The seperate threads for the cream will be places for such ideas to be fleshed out, to determine methods of implimentation, and to make a case for that strategy. At that point, it will be ready for a solid thread in the main Activism forum.

Second, the rules for playing Devil's Advocate:
If you've ever studied the psychology of group dynamics, one fatal flaw many groups have is groupthink. This occurs most often in groups with a powerful leader who demands his subordinates agree with him - and thus kills critical thinking, skepticism, and so on. This is what killed the Nixon administration, and is presently killing the CoS. The 'solution' to preventing groupthink is to appoint 'devil's advocates', to argue against the collectively agreed-upon ideas of the group.
Fortunately, we have no leaders, so we are less prone to groupthink. Nonetheless, there is an overall consensus on these forums, and people who go against that consensus risk being osticized and called a 'plant.' I propose that, in this forum, anybody may choose to defend any pro-scientology position or oppose any generally accepted doctrine of Anonymous. If you elect to do so, post your thread as 'DA: _______________' (so we know you're playing devil's advocate for whichever position you state in the title). Anybody else reading the thread is welcome to join as a devil's advocate or to work to undermine the idea.

In this way, we can develop the most effective refutations of Scientology's arguments, and determine which of OUR arguments are strongest.

I hope we will get many of you participating. This forum is particularly interested in anybody with strong critical thinking skills, experience in logic, reason, law, philosophy or debate. In this forum, users ought to be familiar with logical fallacies and prepared to point them out when employed.

In reference to your groupthink point... wouldn't you now be the tyrannical leader?

j/k, mate, j/k.

Consensus can be over-ruled by admins, so does that make me one of the quatratyranical leaders?

Originally Posted by thequeue

Consensus can be over-ruled by admins, so does that make me one of the quatratyranical leaders?

Not if I stage a coup!

Oh. But then the OSA would come after me.

Uh... nevermind. You can be (one of) the 'quatratyranical' leader(s). Now if you can just consolidate all the different forums working as anonymous under your banner, Scientology might actually have a target they can do something about!

Oh yeah, and we'd have to stamp out independence and demand absolute dedication and obedience. I wonder if there are any manuals anywhere that might help someone achieve that end...

The Prince comes to mind.

I'm pissed of with the recent trend of people coming on these boards and flaming ideas like "i think thats a bad idea".

I think its rude, it's potentialy CO$ and throws stops in the way of people doing things.

If its not dangerous and the person can't articulate what they find wrong with an idea i think their comment should be stripped.

Originally Posted by golddigger

I'm pissed of with the recent trend of people coming on these boards and flaming ideas like "i think thats a bad idea". I think its rude, it's potentialy CO$ and throws stops in the way of people doing things. If its not dangerous and the person can't articulate what they find wrong with an idea i think their comment should be stripped.

I'm sorry, golddigger, but I have to respectfully disagree with you. On other boards, your idea might be the way they do things. But Anonymous does not generally handle things with kid gloves. Yes, I agree with you that the person who is criticizing an idea should at least be able some rationale, even if it is as weak as, "It makes my spider sense tingle." Gut reactions should be given the same airtime as other commentary, although intelligent commentary creates better understanding of why something is a bad idea.

It is the way of Anonymous to shred everything. Don't think of it as flaming, look at it as smelting the ore to get to the steel within.
And at the very instant comments are deleted just for being "rude," Enturbulation will die. If the mods decide something is worthy of the Wall of Shame, I have no problem with it being moved over there. But the comments will still exist, rather than being stripped.

If you pull out all of Anonymous's teeth and cut off his balls, then we have nothing to combat the CoS with.

I hope we will get many of you participating. This forum is particularly interested in anybody with strong critical thinking skills, experience in logic, reason, law, philosophy or debate. In this forum, users ought to be familiar with logical fallacies and prepared to point them out when employed.

point them out when employed...

Wutt...I can only point them out if I am employed. I do not have a job.
Sorry...my Canadian Humour is dry. I will add that I am a Wordpen. That is the person who plays on words people have expressed, or creates catch all phrases to envoke a idea. I just wanted to give a sample of the experience in logic of words I have. I used your words as a example and not to belittle you. Critical thinking skills are gained through suggestions, trial and error, experiences, or schooling. Experience in logic can be concise and mathimatically formulated. Reason must always be open to critisism to semi-mold the options of thought. Law is subject to the land where it is applied. In this forum it is proper to guess that the whole movement is created by two Philosophies clashing. Debate is da ting you put on da hook... Sorry more bad Canadian fishing humour...Debate is the expression of convictions, verbatum, reason, knowledge, experience, and conflict of ideas presented to gain understandings or conclusions. Each of these points you made, I now expressed a little more open to look at. More tools to work with than before. I really like it here... I:)I-...I see smart people.

Originally Posted by Consensus

As a point of fact, Anonymous is doing things pretty much right. 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'

That ?

I like this, since some people trying to show another point of view are attacked with "OMG PLANT".

I think we should all wear our underwear on the outside.
See you all tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Consensus

Fortunately, we have no leaders, so we are less prone to groupthink.

I disagree with this as this place has moderators with fancy titles, it has rules and visible enforcers of those rules. Everyone has a name that can be recognised and there are people who are in good standing with the groupthink, people who are known for bad ideas, rude behaviour etc. It is possible to hold a grudge, or listen to someone more because of their position, or because you fought on the same side in a previous debate.

This is in stark contrast to the anarchistic anonymous of the imageboards, where each fragment of text has no proof of ownership (OP here. disregard that, I suck cocks), judgement can only be passed on individual posts rather than actual users, nothing is sacred because no attack can be personal and there is no fear of retaliation. Of course, someone attacking your words still feels like a personal attack, but it's silly to harbour ill feelings towards anonymous as it could have been anyone.

The statement "anonymous has no leaders" goes deeper than just having no structured leadership, the anonymous of the chans cannot have influential people, only influential words. Alliances are only forged for the duration of a thread of discussion and people are free to switch sides at any point, trolling through devils advocate is encouraged as the only punishment available is a well worded debunking or flames. This is what makes 4chan such a fruitful meme factory, every person is equal and only as strong as their words. Groupthink is minimized as the natural tendency for people to form groups is completely suppressed through forced anonymity.

Having a name next to your words makes this place more susceptible to groupthink, the fact that we need rules for playing devils advocate is because people judge each other, which leads to influential people who are in fact informal leaders.

If you guys wanted, I could look into hacking together a patch for vBulletin that forced anonymity in forums marked as anonymous, or just add the option of anonymous postings (only to users of course). I think this would go some way to keeping this faction of anonymous egoless, leaderless and free. Otherwise, I don't think you can avoid groupthink or informal leaders.

Is this subforum still relevant? It seems to me people are posting their ideas to the current protest activities subforum individually and they're sinking/swimming based on reaction there.

And I've been here for like 2 weeks and just noticed Think Tank a moment ago. If we're really supposed to post our random ideas here, maybe it should be a lot more prominent on the site.

Some of us aren't trying to be difficult about posting in the wrong place. It's just so big we are utterly confoozled

IMO think tank TT) should be where all new ideas for projects go and 'Current activism and projects' should be a forum where new threads can not be started, only moved from TT to there. The reply function should still work there though.

Devil's Advocate:

I've said this before - and so have others - "forced anonymous" never works. Why?

Look up "bigmike" on Wikichan.

And "forced anonymous" doesn't keep Anonymous leaderless. That is a fallacy and a complete generalization and over simplification of the word "leader."

There are "Leaders" who stand up and say, "Follow me! Do things my way! Here are your orders!" We don't want or need leaders like that.

Then there are people who take the initiative, get fed up with constantly talking about doing something and get off their asses and actually do something. They don't ask or demand that others follow suit - but others follow suit nonetheless. Not because of the Person who took the initiative in the first place, but because of the actions they committed to and the success or merits of those actions. This is called "leading by example." There are plenty of those types of "leaders" in Anonymous, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. I've followed the examples of plenty of other Anons and feel more confident in my own part in this fight because of this.

Anonymous keeps Anonymous leaderless. We, for the most part, are always on the lookout for individuals "barking orders" or suffering from such bloated egos that they BAAAAW at the first hint of criticism or "disrespect". Napoleon complexes tend to run rampant in leaderless societies.

And as far as "ego" goes, I believe it's kind of silly to think that just because someone doesn't have a screen name or an avatar that their "ego" isn't going to find their way into their post. After all, your words come from you, from your mind - from your ego, if you will.

"Forced anonymous" will not remove the chance of hurt feelings. I believe it will increase the amount of childish bickering and pointless flaming, in retaliation to other Anons criticising their precious ideas, and under the protection of never having to worry about besmirching their "online image."

But you know what? I could be totally wrong. I'll only know in the long run, if I'm ever "forced" to be absolutely anonymous.


- bigmike