RoR: Forum

Philip,

You recently posted about all this here, from which I quote:

This is pretty close to the end of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. I've posted on this too many times already.

Looks like there's an awful lot of "end" left.

I want to remind you and everyone else reading this that Solo is strong and growing. It is different than other Objectivist sites and new people are showing up every day. Good serious people are included on that list. Do you have any idea about what that difference is?

OK, some good people were lost. Others stayed, though. (I personally lament the most recent loss profoundly.) Sometimes I imagine the owners have to ask a pretty hard question. What would be the price of one or another staying? Would that price be worth it? Would the Solo difference get lost in the shuffle?

You insist on pointing the finger A LOT at Linz and others and telling them how they are getting it all wrong, but still, Solo is strong and growing.

Do you maybe have any thoughts on why that is? And why that just won't change and Solo wither up and die despite one blowup or another? Or is that not too important to your message?

I look, but I don't see Philip Coates's Objectivism discussion site strong and growing.

Michael

Edit - This post just crossed with Kitten's post. We did not know that the other was going to post on this thread. It is a mere coincidence that we came out practically together here.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/23, 11:13am)

Post 81

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:12am

(Edited by robert malcom on 8/23, 11:14am)

Post 82

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 12:25pm

"Looks like there's an awful lot of "end" left. " [Michael]

Yeah. Well. Just shoot me.

Post 83

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:01pm

Why on earth would I shoot you Phil? I actually like you. I mean it.

Michael

THE END

Post 84

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:08pm

Michael-
Because you're either a republican or southerner.

Post 85

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:35pm

BANG. BANG. BANG.

BANG. BANG. BANG.

Six shots only .... dayaaam.

:-)

Post 86

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 7:37pm

Since he's lived so long in Brazil, I'd vote he's southerner... :-)

Post 87

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:21pm

Look, Phil, we get your point, we really do. How could we have missed it? You and some other SOLO posters have been singing this refrain for months now. There must be at least three times as many SOLO posts bemoaning the forums' acrimony as there are posts that actually constitute that acrimony. (There I go using slanted language again. I can see my publishing future slipping farther into oblivion with every post!)

It has quickly become clear that SOLO's Management is damned if they do, and damned if they don't, on this issue. Right now the proponents of stricter moderation are voicing the strongest criticisms because theirs is the system we have chosen not to adopt. The second we did adopt it, there would be an equally vocal and numerous subset of posters accusing us of taking sides and betraying the open spirit we have tried to engender on these forums. Lindsay, Joe, and I believe the latter group has the better case. (Which is not to say that we have allowed anything and everything to be posted ... those who clearly and demonstrably post in bad faith are moderated, the Justin Raimondo affair being an excellent case in point.)

I'll make a little confession ... even on SOLO's best threads, I usually only read about a third of the posts. I try and quickly sort through the rest, some of which are brief asides and one-liners, or compliments given to an earlier poster. Sometimes they are also catcalls, insults, and bickering, of the sort we have seen surrounding the ID debate lately. Does this mean that SOLO is awash in the muck of bickering and acrimony? Of course not. Do I let myself be "drowned out" or "driven away" by those posts? No ... as with irritating ads and earsplitting music, there is a simple solution that allows me and the occasionally-annoying (but usually valuable) catcallers to peacefully coexist on this forum: I just don't look. Maybe this is the forum skill that some SOLO posters need to learn.

Post 88

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:40pm

Hear hear Andrew.

Michael

Post 89

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 8:44pm

Agree wholeheartedly.

---Landon

Post 90

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:06pm

Andrew: “there is a simple solution that allows me and the occasionally-annoying (but usually valuable) catcallers to peacefully coexist on this forum: I just don't look. Maybe this is the forum skill that some SOLO posters need to learn.”

Michael: “Hear hear Andrew.”

Michael, I hope this means that you will no longer be reading DB’s posts. And if you don’t read them you can’t respond to them, right?

Jon

Post 91

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:20pm

Andrew wrote:

There must be at least three times as many SOLO posts bemoaning the forums' acrimony as there are posts that actually constitute that acrimony.

Damn right! (Though the apostrophe's in the wrong place. Editor. Flogging. Damn good.)

Phil—simplest thing you can do is go set up your own forum & moderate it exactly as you wish us to moderate SOLO. Good luck!

One more thing. Apart from Joe Rowlands' copious explication of our policy, there is this, from my self-description on my Profile page. Anyone who comes here & bothers doing a little research into our personnel has had about a year to pick up on this & should realise that the Forum is not always going to be as genteel as a vicar's tea-party. Writing of myself in the third person, I say:

His fervent hope is that SOLOists will find soulmates here. His expectation is that they will find their experiences on SOLOHQ exhilarating, bruising, enlightening, infuriating, inspiring, frustrating ... and always challenging. Rational passion & passionate reason!

Mission accomplished, methinks! :-)

Linz

Post 92

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:46pm

Jon,

Who?

Michael

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 9:54pm

Daniel

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:18pm

Chaka khan?

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 10:59pm

Andrew, your numbers are wrong on acrimony vs. posts against it. And, your point about dispassionately ignoring "catcallers" is psychologically unrealistic when they are insulting you or a value. It's not how humans act in the real world as we've seen.

That said, I think it's clear that we are going to disagree on "heat vs. light" balance and civility vs. acrimony balance. It's your forum. God forbid you should have to continue to deal with our arguments. So I'll probably just stop here with engaging you and Linz and Joe in debate.

I imagine I'll just stay and see how it plays out and to what extent it's a value. If the anti-intellectuality balance is too unproductive, I can always just quietly become dormant. We'll see who is right in about 6 months or a year. Solo unchanged will thrive and grow by leaps and bounds, and the fears of us prissy uptight killjoy prudes will be proven wrong. Or not.

Phil

Post 96

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:51pm

Phil–you really should get out more. Sitting at home with your trichotomy counting acrimonious vs non-acrimonious posts is not healthy. Better still, write an article for Andrew. In the time you've wasted whining about incivility you could have written several. (In fact, you did write several. :-)) Why not knock your SOLOC 4 presentation into article form?

Do it! Or we'll publish the trichotomy photos. :-)

Linz

Post 97

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 7:19am

Jon,

Oh, that asshole. Yeah, I stopped - for now, anyway. I have too many better things to do, like writing articles and getting good ideas out, which I see that many around here do not do.

Think he'll stop reading my posts too? Somehow I doubt it.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 8/24, 7:20am)

Post 98

Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 8:21am