Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: The **OFFICIAL** Occupy Wall Street Site

Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 29, 2011, 1:24 p.m. EST by buphiloman (840)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Like many people here, I'm afraid I have been, for some time, operating under the mistaken assumption that this url was officially linked to Occupy Wall Street.

It is not.

The actual, official, url for Occupy Wall Street is:


This forum and this website belong to a separate entity, not officially avowed (nor disavowed to my knowledge) by the NYCGA.

I find it amazing that they have made practically ZERO effort to clarify their aims and the nature of their affiliation with the movement. And that they have made EVEN LESS effort to curb the rising tide of trolling/spamming and shady behavior on these boards.

I will be much less active here, now that I know that the site is not what it appears to be, and that it is not even good at what it is ostensibly charged with doing (i.e., providing news, discussion, and development of the movement).There are better sites for all of these functions.

My best hopes for you all in the new year. May it be a peaceful and blessed one.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by jomojo (562) 12 years ago

What is the traffic count here. It would be interesting to see a graph line since it began. BTW if you're here to recruit people to your web site, (and gain ad money), worst of luck.

[-] 2 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

The history and story of this site is a lot more complicated. The site has been central to the origins and evolution of the OWS movement and predated the evolution of the GA. As you can read at the bottom and it has always been clear this site is "brought to you by various radicals" (this is at bottom of every page) and is not, nor is it meant to be, just a vehicle of the NYCGA (which itself is just an element of the movement). This site serves the global OWS movement. This site coordinates and it is a key part and important component of a decentralized and leader-full movement. The site you referenced is a work in progress and if you follow NYCGA and related you see that the GA itself and related committees and entities are also very much a work in progress...I know the structure of this movement is not traditional, centralized and hierarchical but to go from not understanding that complexity to accusing people of misleading or whatever is ignorant and careless. Do your research well first, ask around, look around, and then you will make more informed pronouncements and posts...

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

None of that site nor this one lead to any transparency. The new site looks like an effort to reinforce the NYCGA as the leading group. If not, Then why is their current site nycga.net now not enough? The claims to being decentralized and the actions of those in control of resources do not work in concert but contradict each other. I was approached about my project for a movement based news site. The email was about my being "approved" to move forward and to look for participants within the Occupy an 99% movement. My project doesn't were the Occupy name. The fact that people like you keep popping into forums with your profound knowledge of the movement and it's direction are another questions entirely. I guess what I'm saying is that if you can offer no better than this, if you cannot stand behind your comments with your real name, your statements are bullshit. The protesters are doing the right thing. The people leading these projects and groups while hiding from the public, are small minded cowards and I hope they find their faces plastered in shame all over corporate media.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

The protestors ARE the people leading these projects. You are suggesting that at one and the same time the same people are "doing the right thing," at at the same time "hiding from the public."

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

I'm talking about qualified people with the right skills and intention. Guiding policy to denounce the behavior of would be trouble makers trying to discredit the movement from within, should be crafted by qualified people. The blind leading the blind will not lead to a productive outcome and any gains may quickly be lost. I liked the decentralized bit as much as anyone but I also would like to see things get done.

I admin a project that was conceived from the decentralization, I do like it. But there are very qualified people running the working groups that could lead, and should lead.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

A very big problem is not just trolls or people hostile to the movement which do probably make up about half the active participants on this site, but also most of the very people who claim to be supporters who make up most of the other half. Most have never been to an occupation or GA and are clueless as to how they operate. As a consequence, even for people who claim to support the movement this tends to be a site for kibbitzers rather than for people who are actively engaged in the movement. I myself am a part time occupier owing to job and health responsibilities and I hang out here only when I can't be occupying.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Thats great. But nobody else can see that. Only the immediate community you operate within can see what that means. The energy you produce with no face leaves room for someone else to paste their face on it. If you are a supervisor of a working group, you should have your face on that energy so you can protect the use of that energy. Who else do you think is going to?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I've been active in several Working Groups and to my knowledge not a single one of them has a "supervisor" or anyone who would act in a similar role which would, in fact, be contrary to OWS values. All working groups I've seen operate on the same principles as a GA with a facilitator that varies from meeting to meeting.

People who have trouble seeing this need to take a day out of their busy lives and visit an occupation or a GA and see how it actually works. If they are too far from an occupation or a GA to participate regularly even on a part time basis then they need to assert their own leadership and help start a GA in their community where they can attend regularly. Using the GA model they won't have to step up to leadership long or feel overburdened with leadership responsibilities as everyone else who comes to their new GA will be a leader too, though it may take a little time for them to discover that.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

ok, a "facilitator" works just as well. It doesn't matter if it's in rotation or changes, as long as that person was appointed to be in charge for that moment. The second step in that would be the working groups as they have more of an impact than ordinary protesters.

Seriously, you prop up the idea of a leaderless structure then cannot imagine how to implement that in a real world environment... A real life fact is that people are trying to tear it down. Another real life fact, you better figure out how to implement the leaderless structure to counter that. Otherwise you will only prove it cannot be adapted to scale and as I said, everyone will be labeled with the poor actions of the few.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

People are not "appointed" in OWS. The very vocabulary you use conceptualizes this differently from the way OWS functions. Nor is it "rotating," which suggests leadership essentially passing back and forth between the same group of people. People rise to the occasion of leadership. Other people "step back," which is exactly the formulation used. Or they may "step up" if leadership appears lacking in a certain context. It actually works quite well but you have to be there to see it operate.

The structure of OWS is and has been implemented in a real world environment. First of all it is a very new movement, only weeks old, really. And it is a very small movement, only a few thousand in a nation of 300 million and perhaps only a few hundred thousand around the world.

Yet in that short time and with those small numbers it has accomplished a lot. First of all it exists and it not only exists, but small though it is it experienced an explosive growth within days of its inception. It has also created the first alliance between sections of organized labor and the left intelligentcia since the 1940s and it has reached out successfully to a number of other communities: to sections of organized religion, to the debtor class, to the homeless, to the foreclosed, to the environmental movement, to the stop stop and frisk movement. Those strike me as quite significant accomplishments for a movement so new and small and we did it with exactly the organizational structure that you find wanting.

OWS is based on the principle that everyone is responsible for themselves and for their own ideas. If you think OWS needs an organizational structure different than the one it already has then it is up to you to assert your leadership and convince others of your point of view. How do you propose to do that? It is your idea after all.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

People are not "appointed" in OWS

So you don't have "facilitators" now either?

OWS is based on the principle that everyone is responsible for themselves and for their own ideas. If you think OWS needs an organizational structure different than the one it already has then it is up to you to assert your leadership and convince others of your point of view

and now you begin drifting off into meaningless baseless bullshit because you cannot make your point. I've wasted my time on a fking loser. Kick rocks fktard.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 12 years ago

"If not, Then why is their current site nycga.net now not enough?"

Maybe they want people who google search for Occupy Wall Street to find them. As of now they find this site.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Exactly my point. If it's decentralized, why do they need broader recognition? Why not just use a subdomain occupywallstreet.nycga.net for the immediate need for SEO and online area for the NY chapter of Occupy? They are looking for broader recognition. I liked the decentralized thing quite a bit but I don't think I'm alone when I say that it's time for the leaders of the working groups to step forward as leaders of Occupy if nobody else is going to.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 12 years ago

I agree there should be an official OWS website. There ARE leaders, They just don't bask in the spotlight, so to speak.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

I used to think so but if there was any leadership, I'm sure this is outside their control at this point. I certainly did not take serious the attempt to coral my efforts. If I had felt the person Emailing me was part of a managing structure for any other project I participated in, I would have been more inclined accommodate his considerations but he was only a mod for a proprietary leg of the movement that I later found was fragile to begin with. The continuity and productivity of the existing working groups is a good resume of qualifications, paid forward.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I have been active in social movements for nearly 50 years. There are more leaders in OWS than in any social movement I have ever seen. We are all leaders.

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

Yes, I understand that notion. However, the energy of this will be nothing more than a flash in the pan if it does not begin to take a general direction. It doesn't have to be the direction called for by the talking heads, but a direction none the less.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

It has a general direction. Its general direction is extremely well articulated in the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City, which is available on the NYC GA link and elsewhere on the web. It is a short 600 words but makes the OWS vision extremely clear and is the only political document yet produced by OWS. I very clearly wants to change the world. Not the nation., not existing laws, not the government of individual states, but the entire social system of the entire world. That's a very big project that will take a lot more than one leader.

[-] 3 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

How much weight does that carry with no leadership to back it up. That declaration is not on all of the occupy sites. Therefore it isn't an Occupy-wide document. I can start an Occupy in my area and denounce it with more mainstream comments and gain a large amount of support.

Everything everyone wearing the Occupy brand does is a reflection on everyone else wearing the Occupy brand unless there is a central authority declaring otherwise. If you need proof, watch this summer. They will birth a central leadership or everyone supporting Occupy will do so defending the less than tasteful actions of others.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Everybody who participates in the NYC GA backs up the Declaration of the Occupation. Not to do so would mean blocking consensus which would result in a re-evaluation of the Declaration. Many other GAs have adopted the Declaration, making it the de facto manifesto of the movement and there is not a lot of point in continuing this particular thread until you actually read it as I personally believe it specifically addresses the concerns you raise.

In several books published on OWS the Declaration is included. Even where it has not been adopted, nowhere has an alternative declaration been adopted that contradicts its vision so it has tended to become the de facto manifesto of the movement by default, though it is true that there is nothing stopping the development of some alternative vision and there are even various plans afoot it various places to do exactly that, but that is the case with all social movements. There is always some dissent from its central themes.

You are absolute correct in terms of an "occupy brand." If an "occupy brand" means anything it means that we all take responsibility for ourselves and for our own ideas. If we think we have a good idea it is our responsibility to take the leadership of that idea and try to convince others, but that is exactly one of the principles embodied in the Declaration, which again, you should read before proceeding.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

"de facto" subjective at best.

You are correct in the fruitless nature of our exchange. Your convincing me has little to do with the realities I simply present.

[-] 2 points by MaryS (529) 12 years ago

richard I agree with what you're saying here. I hope ows will be open to revising some of their original thinking and be open to change. The end result of all this may look different in time but that's what happens when you grow.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I do not think our exchange is necessarily fruitless if you actually take the trouble to read the Declaration, It's only 600 words after all. I actually think it might answer many of your questions including its nature as the de facto manifesto of the movement.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) 12 years ago

whether or not I read it has no bearing on it's impact to the movement. That is a stretch of the imagination. You assume as well that I don't understand(haven't read the document) and that is why my argument is flawed. That is a child's argument.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

Quis custodiat ipsos custodes?

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

"leader-full" movement. ?

Don't you mean "leaderless" ?

[-] 2 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Leaderfull. Everyone is a leader. Well, most people are...

[-] 2 points by RobPenn (116) 12 years ago

It's not possible for every one to be a leader at all times in all things. Because then, no one's following. And a leader with no following is just a person taking a walk.

Someone has to be in charge of something at some point. Otherwise, what you get is a lot of confusion within and without.

How many people have you seen come to this site and say "What the heck do you want?" No one knows because a leaderless organization has too many voices yelling at once to communicate anything substantial.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

We are all leaders, but not everyone is a leader at all things at all times. Leadership is contingent and contextual as you could see if you spent just a single afternoon at a work group instead of just kibbitzing on this list. People take charge on an "as need" basis, but as their leadership is not ego-based it either devolves to another person in a different context or contingency or people step back from leadership when their leadership is not needed or when someone else with particular skills needed at that moment steps forward.

If you are asking "what do you want?" that is a perfectly legitimate question but the person answering can really only speak for themselves and has as much right to ask you what you want as you are as much a leader as anyone.

People come to this site saying that OWS should do this or that or shouldn't do this or that. Within the context of OWS leadfulness it is the responsibility of everyone with an idea to figure out how to make that idea work. If they lack sufficient skills to do that the first step in that process for them would be to find allies with the specific leadership skills to help them. Far from the conservative notion that we want hand outs, we want just the opposite: for everyone to take responsibility for themselves collectively and not to rely on the state.

[-] 2 points by RobPenn (116) 12 years ago

I totally get what you mean about the leadership thing. I'm all for that. I can operate, and have operated, and hope to operate in the future, in that sort of a leadership team. That's just not what I hear thrown around in the forums by the other occupiers.

What I typically hear is "we have no leaders, because leaders end up with a hole in their head." Which is either a very poorly articulated version of what you just said, or not like what you said at all.

As for people taking responsibility and not relying on the state, I'm not sure that I believe that that's what OWS wants. I hear a lot about independence from the state, but I also hear a lot about how the state should do more. Pay for everyone's schooling. Take more control and regulatory power over the market. There's even at least one person here who said that the government should force all employers to pay the same salary for all jobs, no matter what the job is.

I'm not saying that OWS needs a single leader to do everything all the time. But OWS does need a group of leaders to take more responsibility to oversee the collaboration of Occupy's efforts and wishes and voices, or the outsiders like me will never loose the question marks over their heads.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

The notion of a "leadership team" implies to me that there would be people outside the team, unless you mean a team of the whole, which would mean a team of the whole world, which would render the notion of a team meaningless. We are all leaders, though we have not all discovered that yet.

I am not sure where you are hearing that the primary reason OWS has not opted for a typically hierarchal structure is because leaders can be assassinated, It's not that that idea isn't around, but it most certainly does not predominate at occupations or in GAs, not is it the primary reason for rejecting hierarchal structures, The basic reason for rejecting hierarchal structures is that they are undemocratic and as such they actually tend to inhibit the development of leadership skills within the body as a whole.

The only political document that OWS has produced is the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. It is available on the NYC GA website and elsewhere on the web as well as in hard copy in several different publications. It is only 600 words long. It is not addressed to any government or government agency, or to any corporate power, or even to the people of the United States. It is addressed to the people of the world. It doesn't seem to rely on the structures of state power to get us out of the crises we are in and tends to view state power as the problem or at least a problem rather than the solution.

Individuals, especially individuals on the edges of OWS might take all kinds of positions, but unless and until somebody actually brings up a principled objection to the Declaration, that is the official position of the NYC GA which is probably the leading organized body of the movement.

OWS does have a group of leaders. They are taking the initiative in a variety of Working Groups and new Working Groups are forming all the time. If you think that what is needed is a clearly defined body of leaders why don't you start a Working Group to Advocate for a Defined Body of Leaders.

Stop being an outsider. Of course not everybody can occupy 24/7. I can't. I am a part time occupier but that amounts to only a few times a month. If you are not close enough to an occupation or a GA to participate on a more or less regular basis then start your own in your community. Assert your leadership. If you are having trouble ask the closest occupation or GA to send help, They will, though you may have to pay transportation and room and board.

[-] 2 points by RobPenn (116) 12 years ago

In the context, I was using "leadership team" to mean "A group of leaders who work as a team," but you are right about the implied meaning, I suppose. I used that term because that's what we called it when I was a student leader in my campus ministry, which did have a hierarchical structure, though it was a lot more fluid than most. Responsibilities and being in charge always came with, but didn't require, that kind of leadership "title."

I'm an outsider for no reason other than I just don't know that I want to be a part of the movement. I came here to learn what the movement was about, how it relates to my faith as a Christian, and to later take that information to other Christians. It has little to do with lack of time; there's ways around that, like Google Docs and other collaborative tools. It has little to do with distance from the nearest occupy; Again, the internet is a powerful tool. It has little to do with my inability to assert; I'm married, I know how to assert, peacefully and tactfully, and where it's pointless to do so.

In the process of learning, I fully expect to either be convinced. Of something, anything. To be a part of the movement, to be a part of the status quo, to be for the current system with a few minor tweaks, or to do something different entirely.

So, I'll stop being an outsider when I'm convinced that being an insider is the way to be. And, as of yet, I'm just not. And it's mostly because of things like that huge cloud of voices and not knowing which one is definitive, if there is a definitive one. I'm pretty open to political and economic ideas. In fact, I am learning a thing or three from my involvement here. I'm just not sure if they line up with OWS or not.

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

I thought that's what you meant !

Leader "FULL" as in full of leaders .

How many leaders can you have to have defining statements of direction so as to have a non labyrinth style path ?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Leadership is contextual and contingent. A leader at one moment and in one context might not be a leader in a different time, place or context.

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Understood !

So , caoticism is the new normal and if I were to speak to another country on our views , I would talk about everything and not talk on one thing that represents US in the U.S. ?

And so you mean that to talk to another country on a subject , we need to have a person representing that forum speak to that , and that only ?

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

The NYC GA interacts all the time with its own Working Groups, with other GAs, with other social movements in the US and with movement groups around the world. Who exactly does that at any particular time is contingent and contextual. They may be chosen by the GA to fulfill a particular function or if the GA has not considered the issue they may step up and take their own initiative. In those rare instances where disputes arise over leadership the GA is the appropriate body to intervene, but this seldom happens precisely because leadership is not ego-based,

[-] 2 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Not ego based is a good thing since I think this is why we started the O.W.S. movement because of our elected officials' egos' .

I still think we need a representative for all views to be understood to one single person as well as representative governments of the world as a whole!

[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

[-] ropeknot 1 points 0 minutes ago

If this site , and others , were set up to address this contingency these sites alone would be as one representative for all .

A filter directing ones' concern to a direct subject and answer ( s ) area of a forum would be very helpful , and answer the grievances of many posts and comments herein !

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Since it is the vision of OWS to displace all the governments of the world with an entirely new and considerably more democratic system of self governance, its relationship to the governments of the world is not all that important to it. What is important to it, as clearly articulated in the Declaration of the Occupation is the relationship between OWS and the people of the world, which is by no means co-terminus with the governments that rule over them,

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

This site serves the global OWS movement. This site coordinates and it is a key part and important component of a decentralized and leader-full movement.

This is Bullshit. http://www.occupytogether.org does a much better job of informing and coordinating, the world-wide Occupy movement than this site. For that matter, so does GlobalRevolution and Occupy News.

I think many non-trolls like me have come here for months now on the mistaken assumption that this site was officially affliated with the NYC Occupy Movement. When in fact it is NOT.

I don't care about hierarchical structure at all. In fact, I am an anarcho-syndicalist who believes firmly in participism as the political future of humanity. But I do care about honesty and transparency and that is something obviously lacking on this site.

[-] 1 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Hu? What do you mean by "officially affiliated"? To claim that this site is not a central part of the movement is nonsense and shows a lack of understanding of the multi-centered structure and evolution of this multilayered movement. Again, just because things have not evolved in a simple linear and hierarchical manner does not mean that things are not connected to the overall movement and has really nothing to do with "honesty" and "transparency."

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

Suppose you started a website www.vatican.com, and that website was set up in such a fashion to make people who visited think that it was the an official website of the Holy See (the actual Vatican website is www.vatican.va). Suppose you made no effort to make it clear that your website was an unofficial and unrelated site.

How do you think people would react when they discovered in fact that www.vatican.va was the official site and yours was not?

They would think you were a poser. And they would be right. It has nothing to do with hierarchical structure. So you can stop piping that tune.

[-] 2 points by llf (144) 12 years ago

Suppose that you started a website with colleagues as part of a movement and that the movement grew and the forms of communication multiplied and the structures evolved so that certain groups like the NYCGA decided to start their own sites and you were not just ok with that but actually encouraged and supported it (have you really studied the evolution of this site and links to others, etc)? If that was the case, would you be a "poser?" Again: a) read the information, b) study the site and various links, and c) learn more about the structure and evolution of the OWS movement before you make accusations. That is all I have said. The reference to the Vatican is completely irrelevant for many reasons.

[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 12 years ago

When you go to this link, you will find the following excerpt:

We are the 99% and we have moved to reclaim our mortgaged future.Through a direct democratic process...points of unity that include but are not limited to: Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy...

Is everybody aware that their are factions within this movement that denounce direct democracy?

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 12 years ago

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions." -Albert Einstein 1949

"The United States economy is like a poker game where the chips have become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and where the other fellows can stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit runs out the game will stop." -Mariner Eccles Chairman of the Federal Reserve under FDR

You're probably wondering. If these guys were right and the wealth was heavily concentrated just prior to the Great Depression, how did we recover?

That's simple but not well known. There was a partial redistribution from the mid '30's to the mid '70's.

So why are we in this mess all over again?

It's the same problem. Relatively simple.

"The income gap between the rich and the rest of the US population has become so wide and is growing so fast that it might eventually threaten the stability of democratic capitalism itself." Allen Greenspan testifying before congress in the spring of '05'.

Robert Reich and a dozen more prominent economists have gone on record with similar views.

According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 98 percent of Americans, saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.

The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion. In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009

All that progress made after the Great Depression has been reversed over the last 35 years. The richest one percent now own over 43% of America's financial wealth. That's way too much. Its causing hardship for ordinary (decent) people and economic instability. But the rich refuse to accept any responsibility. They are never satisfied. They always want more. They absolutely will not stop.

It's very similar in Europe. The rich are too rich. Period.


This site is being ruined by trolls. It's no accident. It's no game. It's about money and PR. The rich don't want our messages read. They don't want people to understand. They don't want to accept responsibility for any of this. They will say or do anything to divert our attention.

Don't let them get away with it.

Search the AM dial day and night for local call in talk radio shows. There are dozens of them. Call in and be heard by thousands at once. Its easy. I've done it over 800 times. Just don't bother with Limbaugh, Hanity, Levin, Beck, Ingraham, Savage, Doyle, Harley, Mcnamera, Bortz, or Bruce. Those guys are a waste of time. The others are ok. You are welcome to use anything I post. The quotes and statistics are accurate.

[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 12 years ago

Why didn't anyone told me earlier? But this would be a backup just in case NYCGA deviates from the "goal"

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 12 years ago

The moderators of this site are embodied by the person wearing the red robe, the hooded people are, of course, the trolls:


[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

Can there be an official OWS forum? Or, is that going against the whole gist of this movement? For me, this forum is the easiest to navigate and I think, though the hardcore trolls are extremely annoying, there are some good skeptics on here that you can have good discussions with. I see our role as spreading the message of the movement. That is impossible if everyone in the forum is already onboard.

[-] 2 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

There can be a forum that is ACTUALLY maintained by Occupy Wall Street, surely.

And since NEITHER this forum NOR this site is maintained by OWS, it would be nice to see a prominently displayed disclaimer to that affect. Sorry but the "Brought to you by various radicals" at the bottom right of each page is neither prominent nor clear enough.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

I kind of knew this all along because I read the "About" page where it says:

"OccupyWallSt.org is the unofficial de facto online resource for the growing occupation movement happening on Wall Street and around the world. We're an affinity group committed to doing technical support work for resistance movements. We're not a subcommittee of the NYCGA nor affiliated with Adbusters, anonymous or any other organization."

I think the woman who started this website is one of the originators of OWS. I think she's done a lot of work running this website. No small task.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

"I think the woman who started this website is one of the originators of OWS."

Yeah, it's public knowledge since the publication of the "New Yorker" article that Justine Tunney, a well-known 26 year-old anarchist who joined OWS early on, is the owner of occupywallst.org. She created this site and an "autonomous affinity group" to administer it. Is this group comprised mainly of anarchists such as herself? I guess it would be natural, but some of us feel that it might explain the "laissez-faire" attitude of the Mod Team, which quickly led to troll-infestation and chaos.

It would be most unfair to minimize jart's contribution and the amount of work she put into this site. But to me it seems CRUCIAL to the future of OWS that LESSONS BE LEARNED from this experiment. In a recent interview, jart herself seemed to be saying that it's time to move on :

"The movement will have other Web sites. Over the coming weeks and months, as other occupations become more prominent, ours (=our web site) will slowly become irrelevant.” She sounded as though the irrelevance of her project were both inevitable and desirable. “We can’t hold on to any of that authority,” she continued. “We don’t want to.” ("News Source", Nov. 26).

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

That is interesting. Thanks. I agree with you.

I think this site has value. It is easy to navigate and there are always a lot of people on here to have, almost, live conversations with. I looked at the source code. Did you? You can get to it through the github link at the bottom. (Sorry, I think it is github, I can't see it right now because I have a another message covering it. LOL!) But, anyway, it looks like it has been quite a lot of work to get this site up and to keep it running. I can understand her/them not wanting to take ownership over what is posted or not posted here. OWS is leaderless, after all. We can only be grateful to them for taking the time to put it up in the first place (they started it in July). Why don't we beg them to keep it going? It's the most dynamic forum I've been able to find. I don't mind the regular trolls so much or the people that just disagree, but the spam and racist stuff should be stopped.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

"I can understand her/them not wanting to take ownership over what is posted or not posted here. OWS is leaderless, after all."

I beg to differ. Early on, the forum admins posted "moderating policies" which explicitly addressed "trolling" and "multiple sock puppets". Many of us bombarded the admins with reports, but as we all know, this site remains more TROLL-INFESTED than ever before and in point of fact, the WORST TROLLS are still active!!!

Maybe if I were a devoted anarchist, I would relish the chaos, but I'm not, so I don't... :)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

Yeah. I definitely see your point. I've been on here since mid-October and it has gotten much worse, I agree. I do think, though, that some of the real OWS supporters get too into it with the trolls. I've seen some crazy back and forth. Why bother cursing out and hurling ad hominem attacks at someone you don't even know? If they don't want to talk about real issues, move on. The trolls just love it when they are engaged about nonsense. That is what they want. That is why they are here. We could out-smart them if we put our minds to it. Only engage on real issues. There is no way the moderators can get rid of all the trolls, although they should definitely do something about the spam and the people who copy peoples names. That really pisses me off. And, of course, the racist, anti-semitic crap.

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

"There is no way the moderators can get rid of all the trolls".

I agree on that point. It's impossible to get rid of ALL the trolls. But it IS definitely possible to get rid of a handful of the WORST TROLLS who were clearly identified 2-3 months ago but who are still here, causing confusion and havoc on this forum.

When the Mods post official "moderating policies" that they then proceed to blissfully ignore for months, it destroys their credibility and quickly leads to anarchy. And it does a great disservice to OWS, because it makes our Movement look WEAK, UNDECISIVE and CONFUSED.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

Your last sentence is important. I forget how many freaking people are probably looking at this site. You are right! You know, I emailed the moderators a few weeks ago and never heard back. Have you ever had a response from them?

[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

It IS a crucial point. People who are Internet-savvy will more easily ignore the trolls, but the average Joe who comes to this forum out of curiosity and sympathy for the Movement, will more often than not, throw his hands up in disgust... and that is a real tragedy. This forum is one of our major battlefields for the hearts and minds of the American people and we cannot afford to neglect it!!!

As for your question: I seldom get answers from the Mods and when I get them, they are not satisfactory.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23799) 12 years ago

You remind me of the first time I got a death threat on this forum through a personal message. At first, I was like, no, I'm not going back on there. These people are nuts. And, then I said, screw that, I have something to say and they're not going to stop me. It takes a little chutzpah, though, to get past the extreme crazies. Perhaps we legitimate OWS supporters should encourage other possible OWS supporters to post. I've been trying to do that with a few people that I can tell are new to the forum.

Happy New Year! Occupy 2012!

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 12 years ago


[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

Care to elaborate on what you mean by that rather cryptic remark Fawkesnews?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 12 years ago

Thanks. If this is not an "official" site for OWS, and it is operated by a mysterious, non-moderating entity, and it is open forum for a very wide variety of topics; then there may very well be a chance, that the information harvested here may be used to quell dissent.

[-] 1 points by wiseoldowl (86) 12 years ago

This site has more OWS people involved with it then the new one. It also predates the other site. What mischief are you trying to create here?

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 12 years ago

You may be correct, but the new one seems endorsed, where this seems to have become obsolete. Mischief?


[-] 0 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

That's right Pandora, it is still being drafted, but the point remains that www.occupywallstreet.net is the OFFICIAL url for the NYC OWS group, and this site is NOT OFFICIAL. What is disturbing is that THIS SITE presents itself as though it were the OFFICIAL site and makes ZERO effort to make it clear that is the product of an unrelated autonomous group.


[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago


"Brought to you by various radicals" is hardly a clear disclaimer of affiliation with OWS, I am not alone in thinking this. Check this page at Occupy Together, one of the major online HUBs of the movement:


scroll down to the list of links and you will see that they link to this site and refer to it as "Their Site" meaning OWS's site. Even OT thinks this is the Official OWS site, and it is not.

Placing a small, vague, disclaimer in the bottom left corner of each page is insufficient and a waste of time. Much better would a large, prominent, utterly clear, statement at the top of the page:



[-] 1 points by ropeknot (359) 12 years ago

Correct , and they don't have a forum icon .

[-] 1 points by FawkesNews (1290) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by KingVegetax (51) 12 years ago

ha ha ha ha ha ha ........hahahahahahaha ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaah


[-] 0 points by TIOUAISE (2526) 12 years ago

I agree with your post, especially the following two paragraphs:

"This forum and this website belong to a separate entity, not officially avowed (nor disavowed to my knowledge) by the NYCGA.

I find it amazing that they have made practically ZERO effort to clarify their aims and the nature of their affiliation with the movement. And that they have made EVEN LESS effort to curb the rising tide of trolling/spamming and shady behavior on these boards."

This forum has become so TROLL-INFESTED and CHAOTIC that it looks more and more like an ANTI-OWS HATE SITE. I'm sure it has turrned off tens of thousands of potential supporters, contributors and donors - and that is a tragedy for the Movement. This forum is total anarchy - in the worst sense of the word - and conveys an image of WEAKNESS and INDECISIVENESS (in Spanish we say "vacilacion"), which is an absolute disgrace.

I just followed your link: http://www.occupywallstreet.net and explored the site, which is still under construction. I was interested to read: "Those seeking to capitalize on this movement or undermine it by appropriating its message or symbols are not a part of Occupy Wall Street." Is that intended as a slap in the face of occupywallst.org ?

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 12 years ago

DOES ANYONE who is a regular on the "official" Occupy Wall Street have the courage or the integrity to post ONE link and have an honest, open discussion about it? Just ONE. One logical, sincere, really wants to find a solution to this mess PERSON is ALL it would take.


I'm dying to know TWO things- IS there even ONE person like that HERE that is willing to post it over there? WILL ANYONE on the site over be willing to recognize AND stand up for it?

[-] 0 points by wiseoldowl (86) 12 years ago

More conpiracy theories? If it's not the Anunakki Reptile Men or the hidden Freemasons behind the Federal Reserve it's now about the secret 1% behind an OWS site for an organization that claims to be OPEN SOURCE. When will the disinfo end??

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

It's hardly engaging in conspiracy theory to point the public to the actual NYC OWS website. Nor is it engaging in conspiracy theory to point out that this site presents itself as something it is not and therefore lacks sufficient transparency.

[-] 0 points by DanMich (49) 12 years ago

Hey thanks for the link and I am not sure which link will end first, this one? or the newly created future site??

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago


I'm not surprised at all, but that's me.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

I'm disappointed more than surprised. I do think that the manner in which this site presents itself as the public face of the NYCGA when they are anything but, is seriously misleading and unethical. There is plenty of room at the top of the page for a one line statement of the Unofficial nature of the site.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

I think at the outset they did have members from Freedom Square participating in the setup and moderation. Whether that is still true or not I don't know.

If you haven't read

  • When Prophecy Fails

    • Festinger et. al. 1961

you might want to. I think it helps explain a lot about the set up here - sort of.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 12 years ago

I was linked here in the early days by OWS members in the communications working group in Zucotti. I was chatting with them on Livestream as they broadcast from one of their tents in the dead of night, and they mentioned this site. So I signed up in mid-October (2 months ago)

Of course, in those days, this with a Conspiracy-nutter/troll dominated forum.

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

It's natural that the Occupy Movement itself does have members from the fringe, people who have been saying for years that things are a mess. The only way to account for the rise of conspiracy theorists is by accepting the fact of conspiracy itself -

  • it is human nature to conspire

  • there are more people in the U.S. - and on the planet - than at any time in recorded history

  • we have drugs widely available in every city in the U.S. - itself a fact and result of conspiracy

I have confidence that the state of the Union today is such that the Occupy Movement will naturally grow far beyond this single demographic, and that our message will resonate deep into the ranks of even the one percent themselves.