RoR: Forum

Aaron asked:

"Why exactly has he [Nathan Hawking] been put into moderation?"

I'll let Linz et al answer this, but if ~I~ were in charge, I would have clamped down upon reading the following comments by Nathan:

"Why don't you run along and eat your miraculous breakfast, fruit of freedom, before an invisible hand reaches out and smacks you?"

"Some wouldn't know benevolence if it gleefully hoisted them by the neck with one hand and punched them in the face with the other."

I'm sure some prefer an innocent or benign motive for such comments, but to me they reek of a barely disguised wish to visit violence upon certain other people. And that is one of the most troubling manifestations of malevolence that I see, all too frequently, on Internet discussion groups supposedly dedicated to the ~rational~ discussion of ideas and ~civil~ interaction in general.

One such comment might be excused as misguided cuteness. Two in a single thread is a dead giveaway that somebody's negative emotions are running away with him. Linz acted entirely appropriately, IMO.

Best to all,
Roger Bissell

Post 101

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 10:15pm

Aaron: Nathan went overboard on this thread. I tried to calm him down with a little humor and it didn't work. If I were Linz I would have put him under moderation too. I would have given him a chance to get out of moderation purgatory, though, with probation. Luke and such, though, maybe Linz, I don't know, want this to be a place of Objectivism for (broad-minded?) Objectivists. I don't appreciate Luke's attitude, but I admire what Linz has done. Btw, if I had such a place as this it'd die on the vine for I don't have Linz's toleration for abuse. That's right, while he's too hot to trot when he gets angry, overall he's really an Atlas for this forum--and I don't want him to shrug.

We all, me included, need to give Linz a little slack and appreciation for what he has done here. If I were him, though, I would contact miscreants privately and punish them privately: You are under moderation because I don't like your recent postings, the term of moderation is 10 days (or whatever). Whenever you take this stuff public it all degenerates into ....

This is the only Objectivist/Ayn Rand list or forum or what-have-you that is truly viable and valuable that I have ever seen. This forum is the cornucopia of Objectivism.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 6/26, 11:34pm)

Post 102

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 10:19pm

It was indeed the second "smacking" comment that decided me. Originally, if I'm not mistaken, it was directed specifically at Cresswell, but Nathan edited it to change "you" to "some." In any event, as I said to Nathan privately, it was the last straw on the back of a camel already covered in his tedious belligerence.

Nothing to stop Nathan posting if he drops the aggro.

And that's all I'll be saying on the matter. Way better things to do.

Linz

Post 103

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 10:21pm

And thank you, Brant & Roger! :-)

Linz

Post 104

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 10:32pm

The turmoil here recently has been acknowledged and characterized by this forum's own founding principal as "unquestionably the worst we've had." In its wake we have seen the departures of a number of good people -- some of whom have not yet even made public the fact of their leaving.

In response to this serious situation, and to threads that have become increasingly acriminonious and unpleasant, I have asked on several occasions recently -- quite politely and reasonably, I thought -- for people to behave like grownups rather than adolescents. Specifically, I've asked participants to refrain from personal insults, ad hominems and bad language, and to begin to conduct themselves like guests in someone's living room. That's all.

Imagine my surprise, then, to see that the founder/owner has now characterized these simple requests for civility as an "ongoing campaign to paint SOLO as some dark malevolent place."

Oh? Recall this post of mine from only three days ago:

I certainly don't think SOLO is a cesspool, or that Linz-bashing is warranted. Quite the contrary. This is an innovative and extremely valuable forum, and Lindsay Perigo can take full credit and pride for establishing it. Lindsay is also a champion for reminding Objectivists that a philosophy of reason should not be reduced to a dry, dull, dessicated tool of detached analysis; that Objectivism is a fighting creed, and should inspire us to "the total passion for the total height." There are those who needed that reminder.

I also invite readers to scan the titles (and content) of my 740 posts to date; decide if the mere handful expressing dismay over recent divisive insult-fests and gutter language, and simply calling for better conduct, constitute an "ongoing campaign to paint SOLO as some dark malevolent place."

Regardless, that is the founder's perception, and I am his guest here. So, following this post, I won't say another word about these unpleasantries. Instead, I'll merely note that how much juvenile nastiness continues will determine the level of my future participation. As Benjamin Disraeli once said, "Life is too short to be little."

Post 105

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 11:04pm

Sir Robert�allow me to dissect what you said this morning:

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

Everyone? Start? No one has even begun to use maturity right now?

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?

Constantly, constantly?

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

Exactly who is calling any juvenile stuff "passion"?

I repeat - the number of gratuitous personal insults & foul language around here is negligible.

Just so we're absolutely clear, I'm extremely proud of SOLO & the vast majority of people here. I won't say nothing while it or they are slighted unjustly, no matter by whom.

No need to draw this out. Just so we understand each other.

Linz

Post 106

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 11:18pm

To Linz, Jeff, Joe and all of your helpers: Thank you. I salute your patience, your intelligence, and your courage. You are indefatigable! The shit that you put up with would have buried mere mortals such as myself. The truth is that I'd rather slide down the edge of a rusty razor blade using my scrotum as a brake than run a website chock-full of vocal ingrates who declare - on the basis of barely a fortnight's worth of discussion postings - that SOLO lacks substance and is tired.

It must exasperate you that the contributions of Tibor Machan and others have barely registered. You sign up the incomparable Barbara Brandon for a regular written-editorial and the celebratory fan fare is drowned out by a chorus of raspberries eminating from disinterested rubber-neckers busy feeding off an ugly brawl.

The fact that you have collected 1250-odd articles in your archive alone is largely ignored. Articles written, I might add, by some of the most eloquent, passionate, intelligent and clear-minded people I've ever encountered. I suppose there would be some solace for you if these articles, FAQ sections, and forums (covering everything from art to zoology) were being dismissed. At least that would imply that your detractors had actually read a portion them prior to haughtily declaring that SOLO has become moribund or boring or both. They claim to be ojectivists afterall, establishing context should be second nature to them.

Well I for one recognise and salute your efforts.

I marvel at the fact that you have created an internet forum where - in a single page - you can read articles by Robert Bidinotto, Barbara Brandon, Tibor Machan, Chris Sciabarra, James Kilbourne etc. I am agog at the fact that you allow the ramblings of this illiterate plonker equal standing in the philosophical phalanx built by these objectivist stalwarts. There is no other site where such accomplished thinkers and writers regularly contribute to and then stick around to visit the discussion forums, posting their thoughts for free. That you have set all of this up out of your own pockets, in your own spare time, leaves me speechless.

In another part of this site people are gushing over a movie depicting a fictional super-hero. I thought it long overdue that we acknowledge once again the super-heroes in our midst. Super-heroes who have created a sanctuary for my sense of life where I can learn more about art and music from people who do not frown upon sentimentality, romance, intelligence or indulgence.

At the risk of being dismissed as a brown-nosing, Perigoon/Rowlandian lackey-lickspittle; I wish to thank you one and all for your wonderful creation as well as for the spirit and manner in which you administer it. Right now SOLO may be weathering a Winter-frost, but Spring is around the corner and the roses will bloom again in the fertile soil you have tended.

Post 107

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 11:43pm

Robert: That phrase of yours about sliding down a rusty razor blade using your scrotum as a brake has got to be one of the all time greats of Ayn Rand visualosity! But I notice that you didn't include a rough edge!

--Brant

Post 108

Sunday, June 26, 2005 - 11:48pm

SOLO can be so much fun! Especially after some tequila!

--Brant

Post 109

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 1:07am

Some people just don't understand the concept of quality control. That's what moderation is. While I agree with the essential points that Nathan was making (who doesn't?) isolated from the interminably dull, suffocating, childlike, drawnout, repetitive way in which he was making them, he managed to bore and annoy everyone. Not to mention all his unfulfilled promises to "leave it at that." After every one of his posts past the hundreth, I wanted to scream STOP NAGGING as I do to my sister or my mom when it possesses her to call and remind me, a 20 year old, to brush my teeth.

We get it, Nathan. We'll wash our hands before eating and after beating. We won't forget to floss. We'll remember to scrub between our toes in the shower. I'll even go so far as to eat some vegetables with my meal today, okay? But honestly, two threads and 5,237 reminders? That kind of behavior certainly doesn't match your faux-macho photo, now does it.

Moderating his nag-binge is a no-brainer. Two same-time ridiculous threads are too much for a high-quality forum to endure. If someone can't be trusted to post whatever he wants, then it only makes sense to allow only his substantive posts through, for no other reason than to maintain the integrity of the forum.

So please, don't nag about THIS decision.

Alec

Post 110

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 5:26am

Alec, you captured my thoughts perfectly. Thank you.

Brant, you wrote:

Luke and such, though, maybe Linz, I don't know, want this to be a place of Objectivism for (broad-minded?) Objectivists. I don't appreciate Luke's attitude, but I admire what Linz has done.

What exactly do you see as the essence of SOLO if not as a home for benevolent, broad-minded Objectivists and fellow travelers seeking to help each other to achieve "total passion for the total height"? How does tolerance of nastiness and nagging and general malevolence help us to achieve that worthy end?

Post 111

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 6:54am

Linz, Roger, Brant-

Thanks for the info. The first post of Nathan's you mention I had found uncharacteristically confusing: miraculous breakfast? fruit of freedom? invisible hand? I think he was constructing a reference to Smith, Bastiat and/or another thread, but it wasn't clear to me and I considered that one a too-little-sleep post. The second one I read as just a variant of the common phrase 'you wouldn't recognize x if it bit you in the ass', with the added irony of being applied to "benevolence."

Neither had struck me as actually inciting violence. I take it this means zero-tolerance for even joking or common phrases referencing violence. That could be reasonable, if it means people are made publicly aware of the policy, yet it is enforced both as consistently and privately as possible. As with Elsmore, the rule itself can play a less significant role than side issues of awareness of it, or any uneven application or public humiliation related to its enforcement.

Robert W-

Good points such as concerning Machan and Sciabarra.

Post 112

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:03am

Luke: I see the "essence of SOLO" as thinking.

--Brant

Post 113

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 8:38am

Brant, thank you for clarifying the values over which you and I differ.

Reason without purpose and self-esteem amounts to mere mind games and comes to nothing. Reason with purpose and self-esteem can create the secular equivalent of miracles.

Post 114

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 10:28am

Aaron,

I admire your search for some objectivity in all this, but I think your search is misguided. Nathan just rubbed the wrong individuals the wrong way.

Cheers,

Laj.

Post 115

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 10:48am

Laj,

Let's forget about the other places for now. Specifically on this thread, this individual tried to hijack the thread with bullshit. He was moderated to keep more bullshit from being posted, but actual content was invited. He chose not to continue or even try to find out what the problem was.

So yes, the bullshit rubbed some individuals the wrong way (check out the sanctions on the appropriate posts - those are the individuals to whom I refer).

Being told he couldn't post more bullshit rubbed him the wrong way too. So he left with both his content and his bullshit.

//;-)

Michael

Post 116

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 11:28am

The best way to fight bad speech is with more speech. Does anyone think that the only place this holds true is in public? Moderating someone who already thought that you ran this place with a hypocritical iron fist is no way to convince him.

I didn't agree with almost anything M. Hawking said. But maybe we need someone contrarian and iconoclastic to make us think. That way, the comments sections won't read like cheerleading sections (great job! way to go! hooray for our side!)

"New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common. " -John Locke-

Post 117

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 12:26pm

Steven Druckenmiller wrote:

Moderating someone who already thought that you ran this place with a hypocritical iron fist is no way to convince him.

Given the large and supportive membership base we have, we need not "convince" the occasional malefactor of anything, especially when he takes stands clearly at odds with our well-being and our philosophy.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 6/27, 12:51pm)

Post 118

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 1:14pm

Luke [post 97]: 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.

I have an idea: Can there be such a thing as a 'selective' moderation - so that those who prove irksome can post freely on the 'Dissent' board, but moderated on other boards? That way, they can engage those who'd like to debate them ad nauseum [usually won't be me] but not clutter the rest of the forum with 100+ zebra posts.

There could even be an 'Ignore Dissent' button for those who won't like to see a word from such people. This ought to quiet down some of this complaint-moderation-vicious-cycle ranting.

Post 119

Monday, June 27, 2005 - 2:49pm