GRAND ABUSE

Greetings.

I have just found out that somebody here (a Level 1 Atlas Member) has an obsessive vendetta against me. I had just been given 179 non-sanctions. Surely, it is impossible for someone to have read all of those posts before pressing the "x" key! That is, somebody has launched a vile, deliberate, ad hominem attack against me.

If it is possible to correct this absolutely unjust situation, I beseech the moderators to do so. Moreover, may I suggest a modification to the Atlas system, limiting the amount of non-sanctions that a single member can bestow on another's posts wihtin a given timeframe, so that these egregious situations do not happen again.

(And yes, Mr. Firehammer, you will find that I have returned to you the 34 Atlas Points I had once taken away.)

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 1

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 5:39pm

This is too funny. I love watching Stoli come on and complain about his latest non-sanction injustice every couple of weeks. Please, moderators, leave the Atlas Points just as they are, their entertainment value alone makes them worth keeping around.

-Andrew

Post 2

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 7:24pm

This Atlas system is a bit new to me, and a bit odd.

It seems a lot like subjectivism to me, if people are just allowed to determine another person's Atlas count without saying why and giving their reasons.

It's nice to pat another person on the back to say good job, but the potentials for abuse are clearly there.

Then again, I'm new to this world: are there factions and rivalries here, too? Or is Objectivism different as a philosophy in the sense that it has fewer personality contests, fewer subjective dislikes, and so forth?

C

Post 3

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 8:39pm

Greetings.

Charlie, welcome to SOLO. Objectivism is indeed far more factionalized than you think. I suggest to you two different perspectives on the issue, from parties that support such a mentality to those, like myself, who oppose it vigorously.

One is "The Mark of the Fanatic," my identification of the mentality that has infiltrated Objectivism, but can afflict any ideology (http://solohq.com/Forum/Dissent/0005.shtml). To some extent, as David Kelley had asserted, Objectivism has been corrupted by the same exclusionism personality-foci as the darker doctrines of Marxism, Freudianism, and the various religious sects that cannot stand each other over a minor disagreement on the interpretation of scripture.

The other is Leonard Peikoff's �Fact and Value,� the pro-schism, pro-orthodoxy, pro-alienation-of-anyone-who-does-not-think-exactly-like-you manifesto. (But then, am I telling you what to think, or should you find out for yourself? Read these, and tell me how you respond.)

As for the un-sanctioning debacle, it is the embodiment of the ultimate bane of Objectivism, the inarticulate fanatic, who cannot even state his vitriolic hatred in words, and bothers to spend valuable minutes of his time subverting what another person had earned.

Atlas Points are not purely subjective, I think. I see them as representative of value perceived by rational men in particular contributions. Simply because one dislikes somebody's ideas is no reason to penalize that individual. Rather, conduct should be the benchmark by which to distribute non-sanctions. If somebody behaves with egregious incivility, then he should be penalized, but not otherwise.

As for you, Mr. Bissell, why is it so ludicrous to call a spade a spade and recognize an injustice when I see one? The facts are these: over a period of months, numerous rational contributors to this organization have judged my work to merit 710 Atlas Points. Then, some fanatic (who does not even have a long-standing record of contributions) comes along, and reduces my Atlas Count to 530, nullifying the judgments of all those other rational men, and for no reason that he has provided nor can provide, as there is zero likelihood that he has read all 179 posts before un-sanctioning them. He even un-sanctioned some of my comments in the art gallery (among them, praise for Mr. Tower for posting a painting I especially admired! Who in his right mind would take issue with that?).

I am
G. Stolyarov II

(And do call me that, Mr. Bissell. I have not given you permission to call me "Stoli" or however else you would wish to mangle my name.)

P.S. There he went again! The non-sanctioner has struck, on this very board!

(Edited by G. Stolyarov II on 7/13, 8:40pm)

Post 4

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 9:30pm

Stolyarov,

It is mildly amusing that you are the victim of such an action primarily because you were the one who started it. The sanction/no-sanction was supposed to be based on whether the particular post was valued or not. You were the one who first "abused" the system.

1.) You went on your own personal vendetta against Firehammer (and others?).
2.) You did a reverse vendetta on Citizen Rat, elevating him above moderation level. You intentionally sanctioned many of his past posts in order to make him feel welcome or something. It's the same principle you now dislike. You voted based on the person, and not the content.
3.) You offered Atlases to anyone who responded to your art contributions.

You've used your high Atlas count to threaten people, and to reward them for agreeing with you. You've torn people down, and raised people up based on your like or dislike of them. And now that someone else has turned the tables on you, you suddenly see what's wrong with it all.

We're not planning to make any changes to the system at this point. It can be abused, as many people have proven. It can also provide useful information and feedback. And making minor changes won't cut down the abuse. Whoever did these non-sanctions has an inhuman amount of patience. Does anyone really think that adding a few obstacles would have stopped this person?

Post 5

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 9:33pm

G. Stolyarov II: "P.S. There he went again! The non-sanctioner has struck, on this very board!"

LOL - such melodrama. I agree with Andrew Bissell as to the entertainment value of Atlas Points, but I'm also mystified as to the incredibly high value which people like Stolyarov place on them. All they do is reflect other people's approval. Holding the approval of others as your highest value is social metaphysics.

I confess to unsanctioning your previous post on this thread, because I thought it was stupid. I didn't, however, unsanction the other 179 posts.

Yours,
Phil the Phanatic

Post 6

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 - 9:36pm

Thanks, Mr. S, for the recommendation. I will try to read the articles tomorrow, and tell you what I think.

I have looked at a few of your essays to see why you are so strongly disliked by some people here. I've found no reason so far. The sort of disagreements you have, about, say, abortion or marriage, are the types that I argue about every day with my friends at work. This doesn't stop us from having a nice cup of coffee together afterwards!

C

Post 7

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 1:07am

Like Andrew, I phind this hilarious. Like Fil, I commend the person who took the trouble to unsanction the phrigid phormalist 179 times phor his patience ... & good taste. What I didn't realise bephore Joe's post here was that Stoly had unsanctioned Phirehammer so ophten. Why? Regi & Stoly deserve each other. They *are* each other. Iph there *is* a God, He will surely ensure that Regi, Stoly & Rat the Catholic get stuck in a lipht together ... forever.

Linz

Post 8

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 5:53am

Greetings, Mr. Stolyarov.

Yes, you are the victim of an injustice EXCEPT for one small thing. What was taken from you is utterly worthless. Beyond the ten Atlas points you need to post on this site unmoderated, they are completely without value of any sort. (Well, I take that back. For me I am amused when some frightened Rand-worshipper takes down my score for posting things every normal human being understands and accepts. It's like, as you said before, the frightened fellow is trying to ward off a hex.)

Think about it, my friend. Atlas points are a measure of what SOME people think of you. Do you really care? After all, who are these people? The serious ones usually don't bother with this sanctioning business. They will respond to you with post about what they think. It's mostly the ones who are unable to articulate a coherent approval or disapproval of what you have written and so sanction and un-sanction with the lust you have experienced. Do you really care what they think?

Of course not! If they can't handle the truth, to hell with these cowards whose only response is clicking on a little red "X". As for asses like Linz and Joe who are responsible for the system and then giggle when someone complains about its abuse, it just goes to show you how much respect they have for their own house. If they want to run a pigpen, that's their business, and it's a measure of our own benevolence/foolishness (I haven't decided which yet) that we try to point out where the messes are.

Your comrade in arms,
Wm Q. Tingley III

Post 9

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:27am

numerous rational contributors to this organization have judged my work to merit 710 Atlas Points. Then, some fanatic (who does not even have a long-standing record of contributions) comes along, and reduces my Atlas Count to 530

Mr Stolyarov,

Unless there is some glitch in the system, it seems to me that you presently have 902 atlas points. If your above quoted figures were accurate, it would appear that you have gained far more points in the past few hours than you had lost.

MH

Post 10

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 8:14am

Greetings.

Mr. Rowlands:
1) I have returned to Mr. Firehammer everything I had taken away from him-- my initial reason for doing this was a personal insult that he had stated (which is no longer available to be seen), but our later intellectual exchanges were of such value that I chose to overlook this. Besides, 34 Atlas Points, compared to 179 (I have not given that many total non-sanctions) is quite a large difference. Mr. Firehammer, as a far as I see it, is alone worth than the entire crowd of snickering evaders here, which unfortunately includes Mr. Perigo and Mr. Rowlands.
2) I sanctioned Mr. Tingley's posts when I agreed with him or thought that he was making a worthwhile effort in discussion. For example, I considered him articulate and polite on the atheism thread, even though I did not necessarily agree with his thesis. We have since crossed paths many other times, all in a benevolent and valuable manner.
3) What is wrong with a discussion of art? Moreover, my policy was to offer Atlases to anyone who posted in the art gallery. I thought it would only be fair that, after having virtually built up the entire gallery's contents myself, I should have the benefit of enjoying and being informed about works that someone else posted. Or is self-interest now verboten here?

As for you, Mr. Perigo, you are not only a fanatic, but a dishonest and maleficent one-- I say this after having had mounds of experiential evidence. You warp the facts in order to condition within others whatever negative impressions of me you seek. You do not hesitate to utter insults against me at every possible opportunity, but when you agree with something I write or think that I did a good job (as with the Moore article), you limit yourself to sending me a private message. Why do you post publicly your smears against me, but never your praise? That is a clear indicator of your blind hatred and intense dishonesty.

In any case, there seem to be sanctioners here who have undone the damage caused by this incident. I was pleasantly surprised today when I saw that I had received an amount of sanctions equivalent to the 179 non-sanctions that were the subject of this post. I do not know what person or persons had done this, but justice still exists on this forum, even if the administration does its best to quell it. (Thank you, whoever you are, but, unless you want the credit for the action, I would suggest that you not allow yourself/selves to become a target of the non-sanctioner.)

Mr. Tingley, as always, thank you for your comments. I agree with you that this is not a life-threatening or an objectively harmful matter. The reason why I raise an issue of this is because I am offering positive values to this organization, which are numerically greater than those of any member of my hate club here. I should not be penalized, even in pure symbolism, for being good, intelligent, and productive. Every indicator, objective (my number of contributions) and subjective (my number of Atlas Points) shows that, in the mind of any rational man, I am deserving of the utmost respect. However, the administration and its goons (Mr. Howison and Mr. Bissell among them) chooses to ignore all this, because they are possessed by fear, fanaticism, and hatred of the good for being the good. There is nothing real with which they could legitimately take issue concerning me, and I would like to keep it that way by raising an issue of these deliberate character assassinations. I am sure, however, that the rest of the world will see the irrationality of my detractors, whom I find among the most despicable characters I had ever encountered. Even politically correct leftists at least have a veneer of civility behind their bigotry!

[They] were the representation of their ideal, a tribe of apathetics who deemed apathy a virtue, who flaunted their lack of self-esteem and observed a crusading resignation, a systematic campaign to inflict terror and misery, not by means of brutal repression, but by the tactic a horde of puny ants, with indignation roaming the limbs of the prodigious giant, irritating him to the point of the unbearable to provoke a hopeless collapse into their hill of muck that they would feast on his carcass.

G. Stolyarov II, Eden against the Colossus, p. 86

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 11

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 9:00am

I just want to say that these are some deeply disturbing posts that you guys are directing at each other. I truly hope that you guys are all just hotheaded and really don't mean such bitter remarks. If not, I'd want to give you all newspapers to beat each other with for a couple hours, so that you get those fighting words out without any blood. ;) But please, be more civil, and direct the bitter shit in personal correspondences. I don't want sanction points to make for mutual hatred in additional forum conversations between brilliant people like yourselves (not that there hasn't been more of it in other posts), and it sure as hell isn't fun to read! I see that a lot of it lasts a few posts and just seems to be hot-headedness, but outside readers may surely think differently. Really, have more fun with each other, guys!
-Dominic

Post 12

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 11:41am

I get sanctions, I get non-sanctions... and I have a pretty good idea of when I'll be sanctioned or non-sanctioned, and I love each and every one.

When I'm sanctioned, it clarifies that my judgements are valued.

When I'm non-sanctioned, it clarifies that my judgements are valued, but in a negative direction.

Either vote clarifies for me that I either belong or do not belong, and gives me one more valuable directional arrow away from misery and toward my eventual, happy niche which may be out there somewhere, just waiting for me. But whatever that verdict turns out to be, I then have to re-examine whether I should belong or not to that said group, and simultaneously, if I could stand to change something about my own character.

If I then decide that they're wrong and I'm right, I leave and may possibly decide that they're worth crafting a grand and denouncing exit speech for... but I do leave.

But if I oppositely decide that they're right and I'm wrong, I can either choose to make the effort to swallow my pride, change and stay for that reason, or stay just for delusional, spiteful reasons and attempt to give them ulcers, hair loss, and possibly some form of cancer.

Either way, I think it's a pretty simple algorithm when you get right down to it, and so far I'm actually pretty comfortable here. That's a "not common" thing for me.

PS: What is a Level 1 Atlas member?

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 7/14, 11:57am)

Post 13

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 12:17pm

Stolyarov,

What exactly was your original complaint about again? At first I thought you were complaining that people were using the Atlas' to judge people, not their content. You said "Atlas Points are not purely subjective, I think. I see them as representative of value perceived by rational men in particular contributions."

But you don't seem to be complaining that someone sanctioned you a ton of times last night (although it had nothign to do with your particular contributions, as you well know). Now your Atlas count is higher than ever, since dislike votes count half of what like votes do. And yet you claim there's justice now!

You and your new friend just don't seem to get it. The Sanctioning system is supposed to be for the individual contributions. When someone goes to see what a good quote is now, your will have more Atlases regardless of merit.

And you claim to have remedied your past actions by sanctioning Firehammer. But once again, you had to sanction posts you wouldn't otherwise posts, again going against your major complaint that people are judging the person, not their contributions. And you compound that injustice by saying that you only remedied it because you now like Firehammer.

Explain your theory of justice again?

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know anything about justice. You still owe me an apology, which you said you wouldn't give until someone else apologized to you.

So one more time. Explain what your complaint is? You don't seem to mind that you're up by about 100 Atlas points since yesterday. Are you just complaining that people don't like you? Or do you really think there's a problem with the system?

Now here's an idea. Tell me what you think. I can personally subtract 10,000 Atlases from anyone who abuses the Atlas system, or has done so in the past. What do you think?

Post 14

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 12:47pm

Stoly, old bean - lighten up, for heaven's sake. Initially I found the thought really funny that someone would take the trouble to unsanction you 179 times. You should have thought so too. I would be flattered if someone bothered to do that to *my* articles. But now this matter is becoming a federal issue, which it shouldn't be.

For the record, I never unsanction anything - if I object to something I'll say so up front - but I often sanction, in keeping with praising the good for being the good. The reason I wrote you privately, Stoly, about your Moore article, & never said anything publicly, was that I was at TOC Vancouver when it got posted. I wrote you the private note prior to my departure, having just loaded the Moore piece into the Article Queue. Now, if I had it in for you the way you think, I wouldn't have processed your article to begin with - that or any other by you.

Now, I suggest everyone takes a deep breath & gets on with more important matters!! :-)

Linz

Post 15

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 5:46pm

I have been taken down 3 notches for my post on this thread! Blasfemy!

Post 16

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 6:38pm

Phear not, dear Andrew. I just gave you a tick. I think one of mine is worth *phour* notches. Hahaha!

Post 17

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 6:38pm

I'm soooo glad to be back!!! : P

Really, I am. I just finished "Catch-22" and this fits so nicely into the theme of "inanity for inanity's sake".

I love it!

Post 18

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 6:45pm

Linz,

Just when I was growing phond of you ...

Like Andrew, I phind this hilarious. Like Fil, I commend the person who took the trouble to unsanction the phrigid phormalist 179 times phor his patience ... & good taste. What I didn't realise bephore Joe's post here was that Stoly had unsanctioned Phirehammer so ophten. Why? Regi & Stoly deserve each other. They *are* each other. Iph there *is* a God, He will surely ensure that Regi, Stoly & Rat the Catholic get stuck in a lipht together ... forever.

OH NO! Not that! It wouldn't be phair. (By the way, you mispelt phorever.)

(Good grief, I did a spell check and it looks someone peed all over this.)

Your phriend, Regi

Post 19

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:00pm