RoR: Forum

David:

"I think more cut-and-dried moderation would solve most of this and encourage less-vitriolic posting. Any paragraphs or posts that are clearly over the line, the moderators could delete immediately, leaving in its place a comment from the moderator: '[deleted for over-the-line incivility].' There is no need to leave personal vitriol up for all eternity for everybody to stew over, . . . Even if the moderation isn't perfect, if it's clear and definitive enough, the site wouldn't get bogged down in demoralizing cat fights. You would not have any opportunities for these infinities of angst.

�Bravo! Eureka! Hallelujah! Amen!

Barbara

�

Post 81

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 8:42pm

That is true Ms Branden, but in my experience in forum moderation one has a problem when moderators post on threads. Ideally the Moderator should be an independent body who does not enter into discussions.

Persons like Hawking abound on internet fora - they say they will leave and never do because they thrive on the attention. Let his posts wither on the vine. People are encouraging him. If you don't respond he will stop posting.

Post 82

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 8:44pm

Nathan, are you absolutely determined to continue your interminable nattering until there remains no one on Solo whom you haven't bored and annoyed? I, for one, am through reading your posts.

Barbara

Post 83

Saturday, June 25, 2005 - 10:32pm

We've placed Mr. Hawking under moderation. He's been going out of his way to be a pain in the butt. Given the title of the thread, we gave him considerable latitude�reining him in could so easily have seemed like the terrible tyrants of SOLO shutting down personal criticism, as is their vicious wont�but enough is enough. We all know an attention-seeking prat when we see one, & we've just seen one.

Linz

Post 84

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 4:56am

Score for this inning:

Benefactors: 1
Malefactors: 0

Post 85

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 7:05am

Linz et al.

Bravo!!!

Post 86

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 7:41am

Thanks for stepping up to the plate Linz. I really tried to stop looking at the dude's annoying candy striped posts long ago, but they were everywhere and I always have to watch in sheer wonder as my hero swats down the bad guys, so I found myself looking way too much and I finally told Nathan to get a life.

Apparently, Michael, Luke and myself weren't the only ones annoyed by this troll. Things do work themselves out in time, but sometimes we gotta do some housekeeping. Thanks for mopping up the mess, Linz.

Post 87

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 8:49am

I am informed that Nathan has left the building.

I would like this opportunity to again call for everyone to start using some maturity in their language and to curtail gratuitous personal insults.

In answering someone's arguments, it's not necessary to always add, "...and only a jerk/moron/fascist/scumbag/etc. could possibly believe that," or "...and a person who believed that would have to be a dumb **** motivated by envy/power-lust/hatred of the good/attention-seeking/etc."

Can we simply try to make our points without constantly, constantly adding the mocking insults, psychologizing and foul language? Can we try to curtail all the juvenile one-upsmanship?

If that's what is being equated as "passion," I'll gladly cast my lot with arid, mannered Victorianism.

Post 88

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 9:43am

Robert,

Believe it or not, I agree with you, well mostly anyway.

I would just like to point out that on reading many, many articles and threads, I find what you object to happening very sporadically, not constantly. (No, I won't do the statistics on that - just open any thread at random and read.)

Solo really is a marvelous place.

Michael

Post 89

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 9:56am

If I could make one request of Joe & Linz:

Would you please consider ditching the diabolical grey-highlight editing tool? The results of its use look bloody awful!
Perhaps if you allowed people to use black-text for their words and grey-text when quoting someone else?

After trying everything else, I've come to the conclusion that quotation marks are the best way to delineate a quotation, but I guess I'm just weird like that.

Post 90

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 10:31am

Robert B,

From now on, I'm going to see what positive contributions I can make to SOLO. If we all concentrate on using our time on SOLO to post interesting, creative content, it will continue to thrive. I'll keep working on that maturity of language thing, it's an ongoing battle :-)! I'm looking forward to seeing you at the TOC Summer Seminar :-).

Jim

Post 91

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 10:39am

Too bad about Nathan. He has a lot of brains and knowledge. I don't know why he went off into the deep end. He had posted elsewhere that the acrimony on SOLO was off the wall--and then he got involved in it.

--Brant

Post 92

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 1:29pm

Brant:

"Too bad about Nathan. He has a lot of brains and knowledge. I don't know why he went off into the deep end. "

...He ran out of magic.

RCR

Post 93

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 1:45pm

Sir Robert's post is part of what perplexes here. "Constant" insults & the like? That is absolute rubbish. The truth was stated by Barbara in her short essay that kicked off this thread:

" ... I read charges that SOLO oozes malevolence, that it is a cesspool of mean-spirited personal attacks and filthy language, that it must now submit to Rube-Goldberg-like moderation policies that would turn it into a timid and lifeless shell. This, my friends, is nonsense. I have been a member of SOLO for more than a year. I have been, and remain, filled with admiration for what the founders have created: by far the sunniest, happiest, and most interesting place on the Web, a place where all sane opinions (and some less than sane ones) are welcome. ..."

Now, that is the truth, as any objective examination of the evidence�everything on this board�will show incontrovertibly. So why, Sir Robert, do you & Nathan have this desire to paint SOLO as "constantly" insulting, foul-mouthed, acrimonious & the like. It is those things "sporadically," as Michael Kelly says, as any free-flowing, largely uncensored board will be. But constantly? What bollocks! To call your charges an overstatement would be an understatement. So what gives?

SOLOists flooded you with congratulations & good wishes when your new appointment was announced. The good will flowing your way was palpable. Some reciprocation might be in order, rather than this ongoing campaign to paint SOLO as some dark malevolent place which it most assuredly is not. I for one am bloody sick of this campaign.

Linz

Post 94

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 2:04pm

Linz, you are over-reacting to Robert. What he said wasn't so out of line considering what came down on several threads. It certainly wasn't "absolute rubbish." I do think he overstated the matter, but you blow up too easily; everything critical you say here because of your status weighs on the list like a ton of bricks. SOLO is slowly evaporating and I'm afraid you are the primary culprit. You created this special place and that is the source of your power: our appreciation.

--Brant

Post 95

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 2:31pm

I am usually a backer and full supporter, but suppressing expression is not the way to win an argument or convince individuals like M. Hawking of your points. In fact, it makes him all the more likely to believe about you what he and others have been saying. Whether I agree with him, that's not the point: this is a bad call.

Post 96

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 3:12pm

Sigh. Moderating is not "suppressing." It simply means he can't keep posting in a way calculated to piss people off as he's been doing. He was trying to make SOLO the dark place he was blathering about. If he's now slung his hook completely (and it's interesting to see who knows that) then that's his choice. He could choose to post in the non-aggro way he keeps paying lip-service to & he would fly through the moderation process.

As for SOLO "slowly evaporating" - again that is a perception some wish to spread & an outcome they desire. The same people who blather about it being a dark place. Ain't gonna happen. Luke's "malefactors" have shown their hand, & it's risibly weak.

I have something really, really special, something extraordinarily potent & poignant, sitting in the Article Queue for posting tonight. As you read it, one of the things that might go through your mind is, "Only on SOLO ..."

Linz

Post 97

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 3:22pm

Steven Druckenmiller wrote:

I am usually a backer and full supporter, but suppressing expression is not the way to win an argument or convince individuals like M. Hawking of your points. In fact, it makes him all the more likely to believe about you what he and others have been saying. Whether I agree with him, that's not the point: this is a bad call.

I disagree. Linz created SOLO for Objectivists, not for its critics or detractors. We have a Dissent forum for those people and I support efforts to corral them into that pen. Interested parties can attempt to "convince" them there without allowing such vociferous dissenters to bother the rest of us.

Those of us already persuaded of the merits of Objectivism do not need the nay-sayers in order to live a flourishing life. We have SOLO as a place to make friends and to exchange values with those who already share our sense of life. Nathan and his ilk do not fall into that category.

To buttress my claim that Nathan could not possibly qualify as an asset, but simply as a liability, to SOLO, allow me to share this information that MSK compiled and has generously permitted me to post here. These represent the many departures from Objectivism that Nathan Hawking vociferously advocated:

He holds that perception does not exist - all is concepts - even at the lower life form stage. He has even come close to saying that sensations do not exist.
He holds that the 3 main axiomatic concepts are woefully incomplete without his own of "order exists." ...
He holds that man cannot be defined, except approximately. Therefore a universal ethics for man cannot be formed.
He holds that The Romantic Manifesto is extremely poorly reasoned.
His overwhelmingly greatest source of information is not Ayn Rand's writings, but Wikipedia.
Now he is getting off into the behavior of the posters, having even opened a thread on suggestions for moderation.
He thinks punishment must be meeted out to those who use a dirty word. ...
Now the copyright crap. ...

Nathan acted as a troublemaking troll seeking attention. We do not need him. I would have made the same decision to moderate as the management has made.

In my not so humble opinion, anyone who wants to participate in SOLO without accepting the essentials of Objectivism had jolly well better arrive with a strong desire to learn rather than to teach. We do not need them. They need us.

Post 98

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 7:15pm

Objectivism: reality and reason.

--Brant

Post 99

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 9:04pm