Kip the Dip Incident

From Rationalwikiwki

Current revision as of 22:58, 15 March 2008

The "Kip the Dip" Incident was a falling out between SusanG and AKjeldsen.

Backstory

Kip the Dip joined RationalWiki apparently from Uncyclopedia in 2016 and, according to some, to continue a debate being held there. Some humor followed and SusanG posted a somewhat snarky comment.

Kip the Dip dipped out giving "Not smart enough." as his reason.

AKjeldsen felt that Susan's comment was the cause of the young pastor's passing (something which he had encouraged the lad to confirm) and blocked her for a full nine hours. Opinions vary over whether this was a malicious block

Headless Chicken

The site immediately went into its world famous Headless Chicken Mode, rapidly escalating up from HCM1 and threatening, at one point, to reach HCM5.

Susan went ape and left the site in one hell of a huff and took a shot at AKjeldsen as she slammed the door behind her. And the chickens were up and running.

Human went orbital and gave AKjeldsen a large piece of his mind. AKjeldsen didn’t want it and gave it back.

Genghis Khant and Bob M supported SusanG. Radioactive afikomen gave token criticism to all three (SusanG, AKjeldsen, and Genghis). Editor at CP tried to moderate. Many others threw in their comments either for or against AKjeldsen, SusanG, or Mike Huckabee. (The Mike Huckabee authors may have been lost.)

Then Doggedpersistence blocked AKjeldsen for an hour for blocking Susan, and Susan herself unblocked him.

Essays and debate topics sprang into life as a fierce battle began for the moral and rationalist high ground. Heat, yes. Light, no.

Aftermath and unanswered questions

By 2018 the dust seemed to have settled, without any substantial resolution of the original issues and with the site meandering along as usual. In reality the RationalWikians did not grasp the nettle and ask:

• 1. Was SuasnG’s post the primary cause of the departure of Kip the Dip or did he leave for other reasons?
• 2. If so, did this contravene site guidelines? (Probably the most important question.)
• 3. If so, was a nine hour block justified?

If the answer to these questions had been, “Yes”, then AKjeldsen would have deserved an apology from his detractors.

If the answer to these questions had been, “No”, then they should have asked:

• a) Should AKjeldsen be publicly reprimanded for his action?

If the answer to this question had been, “No”, then the question would have been:

• b) Should the community standards be stiffened to prevent any future Kips from dipping?

But this lack of clarity is quite typical of RW internal politics where "Headless Chicken" is a lot more rewarding.

On the other hand one editor feels: “At least they didn't make twelve new rules to deal with the next time a young pastor-to-be might be offended by an edit on a debate page, or feel uncomfortable around so many unbelievers.” So maybe there is some merit in the existing system.