Talk:Rocky Shoemaker call

Proposed speedy deletion

To be honest, I'm not entirely comfortable with this being here, but not for the reasons you think. While technically Virginia allows for recording calls with the consent of one party (i.e. the party that's recording), I think Rocky might be bothered by a private call being here. Unlike Chris, she most likely has an IQ greater than that of a brick and would be bothered by the invasion of her privacy and that sort of thing. Secondly, why do we have to have the entire conversation here? That's what irks me sometimes, people think we need to mirror and host everything connected with Chris. I don't think so, I think we should just cite the audio file and that's sufficient as opposed to having an entire article about the call with a full transcript. Thirdly, I think this would set a dangerous precedent, as I'd rather not see people harass people connected to Chris for content. These people, unlike Chris, probably do mind if a stranger calls them, talks about their acquaintance with Chris, however nebulous, and then posts their private call for the entire Internet to see.

I realize that this provides valuable information but I'd rather see this information obtained through other means, such as public records or that sort of thing.

If we are to keep it, I'd recommend wikifying the transcript and categorizing the call.--Champthom 04:40, 11 December 2011 (PST)

Champ is good people and I agree with him. --Ronichu 06:59, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• Thirded, really. God damn. --Shefap2 07:13, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• Nah fuck Rocky. She isn't some innocent person who got caught up in this Chris business like the Wallflower, she's been interfering with our work since day 1 and manipulating the Chandlers since time immemorial. IMO she deserves to be fucked with a lil' bit. --Thorg 13:33, 12 December 2011 (PST)

• • I felt the same way Champ, until I listened to the call and realized that Rocky isn't as "innocent" in this as she seems. I mean really. She tells this caller that she needs some ID or some consent from the lawyer before she talks...and then instead of hanging up like a good person would, she continues to gabtalk about Chris anyway. I agree that this information would have been better collected another way...and that everyone who has dealings with Chris don't necessarily need to be trolled too to get information about Chris. I guess what I'm saying is this: This doesn't need it's own page, but I believe it should be noted in the Rocky Shoemaker article that there is audio of a call between a troll pretending to be a doctor and her and that she gave some information about the Chandler's living condition. And then a link to the audio file could be given. This whole transcript isn't necessary; is it really all that shocking that the Chandler house is a filthy, invested, mess? --4Macie 08:30, 11 December 2011 (PST)
    • The infestation had everything to do with the topic of meeting at Christian's house and wasn't "gabbing". -- Mexican 08:45, 11 December 2011 (PST)
  • I agree with Champ. When push come to shove, Rocky got more resources and smarts than Chris. Having the contents of that call here might irks her. I agree with adding some snippets of the calls in a form of "Rocky said..."and let the whole audio as a reference out of the CWCki. Yes, no shit is too small but we need to think about any liability that can come from this. Griffintown 09:16, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• • • No liability would come from it, we're documenting something that was obtained from someone else, so CWCKI can't get in trouble for hosting it, same as FOX news can't get in trouble for reporting on something, even if they obtained the information from someone that stole it, unless they told the person to steal it. But I feel that this should only be reference to in the Rocky article with a link to the call, people involved with Chris don't need to be troubled by trolls.--Lylelash 12:21, 11 December 2011 (PST)

I honestly think that since, as Champthom pointed out in his post, that since Virginia is a one-party state, there are no legal repercussions to posting the full (or contents of) the transcript of the conversation online. As to the issue of whether or not the full transcript should be posted, I'm in favor of moving the transcript to a different article and setting aside this article for posting and bolding the relevant parts of the conversation and posting information about the consequences of this new information.--Osideguy92 12:27, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• Having the transcript here is important to have, but shouldn't be used as much. This definitely needs to have relevant information listed here, and wikifyed. As for Rocky realizing it's all on here, it's her own fault for gabbing with a troll. I don't think this can really be deleted, it does present some important info, I just think it needs to be cleaned up, and most of it's information posted where it needs to go. Basically, if you get rid of this article, where are you going to link the new info to? Darkspecteranon 12:54, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• • Having said that, I'm not sure what the qualifier for "Not supposed to be here yet" Means. I mean, if this was part of someone's trolling plan, then they should have had the sense not to make it publicly available. If someone ruined their own trolling plan because they leaked this stuff, again, that's their own fault, and I don't think the CwCki should have to delete an article to preserve trolling plans. Of course, if an admin or whoever feels it is important enough to delete, I'm sure that it will happen anyways. Darkspecteranon 12:57, 11 December 2011 (PST)
    • Not that it's relevant (as this guy already finished with what he was doing), but while the CWCki doesn't *have* to do anything, us being bitchy and saying "you fucked up so now we're going to ruin your trolling plans" would be counterproductive. Chronicling the information *right now* is less important than producing content.

"where are you going to link the new info to?" If this is asking what I think it's asking, not having content here for a while longer just means those analyses and links have to wait a few days. It's not really problematic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talk • contribs) 13:06, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• I mostly agree, except that while I as a person wouldn't bother trying to harass people that Know Chris for information, I don't see anyway to really prevent trolls from doing that. I suppose by removing this it gives a point that we wouldn't post information obtained from harassing people that know Chris. This would of course, require deleting all the prank calls that involve Barb and Bob. In the end, this is a conversation that does involve Chris and the Chandler Household, and thus it should be back. Now if this was different and say, a Troll trying and failing to talk to Rocky, then yes I would support deleting this. But in the end, the call did produce info about Chris, and it should be around on here. Perhaps Rocky will learn to not gab especially after she already told the Doctor she needed dox. Darkspecteranon 13:06, 11 December 2011 (PST)

I've still not seen a compelling reason not to take this down for now - ya'll got a couple of hours or I'm taking it down. --Anonymax 13:37, 11 December 2011 (PST)

If Chris hasn't yet seen it, and learns of this because of it being on the CWCki, it might lead him to respond to deny/deflect the statements made about the house, Bob, etc. tugboatz 13:29, 11 December 2011 (PST)

I think it's important to keep this information available. Perhaps we don't need an entire page for it (especially because bringing Rocky's wrath upon us isn't wise, regardless of her actual abilities) but for those who don't visit the forums or /cwc/ this is still interesting Chris-related info. Maybe put a synopsis under a new header on Rocky's page, sans transcript and audio file? Then, if anybody desperately NEEDS To hear it, they can go dig it up elsewhere. Thoughts? -- AK27 14:31, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• I'm not agreeing with the whole "gabbing" defense as a means to keep this up. Fooling a little old church lady (who has likely been struggling with the same Chandler issues as many White Knights before her...promotion of hygiene, socialization, more hygiene) into thinking she's chatting with a legitimate doctor, (Easily done to an American when you add an English accent by the way. Just ask anyone who likes Hugh Grant movies.) and winding up finding out that a house full of garbage and old food has bugs in it may be noteworthy. That doesn't mean she's a gossip, nor does it necessarily need dedicated page. Just one Lurkers opinion. <3 --Shefap2 14:32, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• Don't take this down. I listened to the call and I found it to have some interesting info. There's no liability, as far as I can tell. And having the transcript up somewhere easily accessible is useful. I have no life, so I have plenty of time to listen to calls. But some people don't always feel like sitting through calls and want to read transcripts. Also being able to search for snippets is useful. I'm taking off the deletion template. Canine 14:52, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• Not to lawyer up, but one party consent gets really sticky when the second party is out of state or the conversation could be deemed "private" like Champ first mentioned. I gasped and cackled like any other heartless freak mind you, but this could very well be slightly mildly illegal sort of kind of. A little. --Shefap2 15:09, 11 December 2011 (PST)

Published on the public domain. Whattheygonnado? --Anonymax 16:20, 11 December 2011 (PST)

Thing is, we have a lot of calls like this. We have lots of calls with the Chandlers and all sorts of people. Like prank calls and shit. They very well might be illegal. They're either all illegal or none of them are illegal. I'm not a lawyer. I kinda don't care right now because I don't think anyone is going to complain about people publishing prank calls on the internet. Canine 16:35, 11 December 2011 (PST)

• CWC Wiki, where no shit is too minor...except when there's more than a manchild involved. Seriously, if we're supposed to document everything that happens in Christian's life, why shouldn't we keep the call? We've already got plenty of calls like this, and it's been clearly stated that there can't be any legal trouble. Of course, Rocky's privacy will be a little diminished, but not more than it already has been thanks to the forums and PVCC. As you can see in the call, she's already getting calls from trolls who are just trying too hard. I think the call should stay, if we take it down, why wouldn't we do the same with all other calls, and Rocky-related content? Also, I don't get why people get so much troll's remorse because of Rocky. Does nobody remember that she's the one who told Chris that he doesn't need therapy? Way to go. --Xavier 03:21, 12 December 2011 (PST)

You're not the first to drag up our slogan in to discussions recently. But here's the thing - it's actually a very good thing that we have discussions about new material like this. It's part of what makes a wiki good - people having different views, ideas and opinions which help to shape the content of the wiki. I made my post about wanting to bring forward the deletion in order to hasten the arguments of others so we didn't ponder for too long on the issue of deletion - at that point it seems some very good arguments had been made for deletion and not many against, and that means if it warranted deletion, it warranted a far quicker close to the discussion.

Yes we have prank calls on the CWCki already, but that's more of a maintenance of status quo rather than a concerted effort to keep them here. Similar to the fail article, people can't make up their mind one way or another. I didn't want this article to be the same and the debate to stagnate. --Anonymax 10:14, 12 December 2011 (PST)

So, to make a brief resume: we got some new, important content about Christian in the form of a phone call like many others (other calls that the CWC Wiki still hosts or mirrors), but it'll be deleted because some people feel uneasy about having it here. I can't see the logic behind all this. I think that some people are just scared about this call bringing legal trouble to the CWC Wiki (it's still a perfectly legal and valid call), and fearing that Rocky's privacy will be violated (I still don't know how, since the call doesn't reveal any personal information about Rocky). By the way, I'd like to know which are those "very good arguments". Cheers. --Xavier 11:19, 12 December 2011 (PST)

Well it won't be deleted as we resolved not to delete it. --Anonymax 13:07, 12 December 2011 (PST)

Sectioning off the call

Perhaps we should split up the transcript, i.e. like the father call, where some sections highlight what is going on in the call?

Thoughts anyone? Darkspecteranon 15:16, 12 December 2011 (PST)

That call is broken up because it's over 2 hours long. This one isn't even 20 minutes. This is something people can listen to easily in one sitting, so I don't think adding sections would be helpful. On the other hand, the only effect I can see it having is breaking the concentration of people who are reading while listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (PST)

• Well I meant obviously it wouldn't have as many sections, I just meant the possibility of splitting some of it up. Is there some sort of guideline to when it's a good idea vs when it isn't? Darkspecteranon 02:55, 13 December 2011 (PST)

Sections in transcripts are more of a sometimes-necessary evil than anything else. If people aren't having trouble navigating the call as-is, there's no real advantage to breaking it apart. As far as I'm aware, nobody's complained about this call being hard to follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecell (talk • contribs) 04:13, 13 December 2011 (PST)

I had no problem following the call while reading over my gf's shoulder as she read through too. And usually that's harder to do than reading at your own pace. Also it didn't take long at all. I'd say it doesn't need sections. BubonicTheHedgehog 11:33, 13 December 2011 (PST)

What an amazing and incredibly valuable fact for the CWCki. The call won't be split up, I guess that's the end of it. --Xavier 14:28, 13 December 2011 (PST)

Proposed page 'infestation'

Seems that an infestation is an important fact that may (if more details arise) warrant its own page. WOuld love to get some information on who is doing the fumigation and mayby cantact them afterwards to see if any more info could be had .-~ Slimz ~-. 09:32, 14 December 2011 (PST)

• there isn't really enough information for a whole page, I doubt, and the only other time I think that the subject of insects in Chris's house was addressed is Kacey Call 15. Not much to write about... Giantgroundsloth 09:37, 14 December 2011 (PST)
  • agreed, maybe a stub. I would be prety sure that its bedbugs considering lumberjack was covered with bites. We could extrapolate enough information to create a stub i think. Im going to search the wiki for any other mentions. Maybe not enough now i think there will eventually be enough to warant it. I just really think that words like "bugs" and "infestation" should at least have a home on the wiki .. EDIT also Jackie E-mails 16.-~ Slimz ~-. 09:49, 14 December 2011 (PST)

There is house. --Sonijew is back 02:40, 16 December 2011 (PST)