GRAND ABUSE

Oh, for phuck's sake, can we lay off the mangling of "ph-" and "f-" before somebody's head -- most likely mine -- explodes? I know that it doesn't matter whether you spell it as "philosophy" or as "filosophy", but I'm a phreakish stickler for spelling and this is driving me nucking futs.
(Edited by Matthew Graybosch on 7/14, 7:11pm)

Post 21

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 7:45pm

Mr. Stolyarov,

I don't know from sanctions and unsanctions or why anyone would want to make an "anonymous" statement. If I think someone is being a jerk, I'll probably ignore it, unless they actually solicit my opinion, which some jerks are just stupid enough to do.

If someone says something I appreciate or agree with, I will usually say so, but not often, because my opinion is very important, but only to me.

Personally, I have come to regard "unsanctions" as an affirmation of my effectiveness. If I don't receive at least one "unsanction" a day, I figure I am doing something wrong. If I ever receive "179 non-sanctions" in one day, I will feel I've hit the jackpot, and I'll take my wife out to celebrate.

Now there is something you say that annoys me, not in a personal way. (I don't mean you annoy me.) You frequently refer to what you perceive as personal attacks as ad hominems.

A personal attack or repudiation of a person's character is just that, it is not an ad hominem unless it is done as part of an argument. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy which employs an attack to undercut the integrity and credibility of an opponent's argument in a debate, the attack itself is not the ad hominem.

I don't mean to pick on you. At least I won't unsanction you for it. I wonder if anyone around here is familiar with the expression to "sanction with extreme prejudice?" and what it means.

Regi

Post 22

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 8:45pm

If any of us could accept sociology as an objective science (instead of the excuse for liberal policy that it is) then perhaps Atlas Points would make an interesting study. I personaly find this very interesting to watch (I am a drama voyure) mostly because it allows me to see how objectivist virtues are implimented or ignored during personal squabbles.

Cool Cool folks, have a nice time.

~E

Post 23

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 9:41pm

Greetings.

I did not intend for this to escalate into such an intense confrontation, though, if it did, and if I bear some responsibility, I have been amply provoked. In any case, I look forward to returning to my debate with Mr. Barnes on Popperian versus Aristotelian approaches to definitions, which I find far more attuned to my purpose here than dodging further accusations.

A few conclusive comments to Mr. Rowlands:

Mr. Rowlands: Sanctioning system is supposed to be for the individual contributions.

Mr. Stolyarov: So, you seem to be perturbed that I am getting sanctioned "regardless of merit," but you find it "mildly amusing" that I am being un-sanctioned "regardless of merit." Inconsistency???

Mr. Rowlands: 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.

Mr. Stolyarov: I owe the SOLO Administration an apology for thinking that it deliberately disenfranchised Mr. Tingley at one point. Since Mr. Perigo also represents the SOLO Administration, I will present my apology when he presents his, in public and highly prominent form, concerning the multitudes of gratuitous, tactless, infantile, and unwarranted personal attacks that he had launched at me. A recent example of this wanton smear-hurling can be found at the Mario Lanza discussion thread: http://solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0683.shtml#1. What his insult had to do with Mario Lanza (I have nothing against Mario Lanza, by the way), I know not. Naturally, I un-sanctioned that particular post.

Mr. Rowlands: 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?

Mr. Stolyarov: Why does the administration not just randomly assign Atlas counts to people based on their agreement with the party line? The result would be the same, and would defeat the point of the Atlas system, where people should make rational, informed, intelligent judgments in their evaluations. The Atlas system, even as I had used it in the past, works well when in the hands of civil and articulate individuals. I, for example, rarely give non-sanctions, and never in the event of a mere disagreement. The incident with Mr. Firehammer was the only one of its sort, and I undid the damage of the incident to his Atlas count. You seem to take issue with this as well. You think I did a wrong, and blame me for it. When I correct it, you still blame me for it. Apparently, your blame is independent of what I do, and you blame for the sake of blaming.

Besides, I clearly state my reason for any amount of non-sanctions that I give, unless that same reason had already been stated beforehand. This person did not. The Atlas system fails utterly when non-rational men begin to use it to kill another's record behind the scenes. Fortunately, the rationality of other SOLO members has preempted this from happening this time, and, perhaps, gave the non-sanctioner the opposite of what he had intended to bring about. This is why SOLO is still a valuable place to exchange ideas on: there are numerous respectful contributors who know how to disagree without provoking exchanges of this nature.

Phphphphphphphphphlinz (enough "ph," there?): 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.

Mr. Stolyarov: You know very well that you can post a public comment on any thread at any time. A few days' delay should not have inhibited your posting a brief note in praise of my work. The fact that you chose not to do this, while choosing to post gratuitous insults even where I am absolutely irrelevant to the discussion (i.e. on a Mario Lanza board) demonstrates something about your motivations.

But enough of this. I do not believe further exchanges on this thread will be fruitful. The administration has its stance, and I have mine, and they cannot be reconciled. I am satisfied with the status quo, and the adminstration, given my impression of its intentions, does not wish to budge from the status quo. Different stances lead to the same outcome in practice. Let us leave it at that.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 24

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 - 11:37pm

LOL, this is one of the funniest threads we've had here in a long while. I just want to reiterate that the Atlas system is just a funny little thing we put in. Most forum software gives people stars or whatnot based on the number of posts made. I thought this would be more interesting, but really, it's all pretty meaningless. Also, it takes away us moderators having to decide for each person whether or not they should be moderated, which is a good thing, because I'm lazy and would rather have a stupid algorithm to do it, even if the results are a little stupid.

Post 25

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 1:26am

You guys are funny.

I've had several run-ins with Perigo myself. I never took it too seriously. Plenty of bright, enthusiastic people here. If only I could persuade you to abandon all that Objectivist crap.

I regard Objectivism as a kind of infantile pre-cursor to genuine rationality. Great politics, shame about the epistemology and ethics. One day you guys will come around to true rationality (Bayesian reasoning) and true ethics (Altruism). As for the future of Western civilization, that lies with Transhumanism, not Objectivism.

I do continue wonder about the extent of tolerance for dissenting views though. To what degree is there room for people like me who are Libertarians but not Objectivists? Will Perigo continue to shout us down? Or is there room for cooperation?

Post 26

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 1:26am

I was wondering about these atlas point things. I wasn't quite sure, but I thought mine had lowered at one stage recently. Now I know why - posts can be sanctioned or non-sanctioned somehow. I can't say I mind too much either way; it's just a mystery as to how it all works, for me. It doesn't surprize me that some of my posts are non-sanctioned or whatever though. I've read but 10% of Rand's work so far, so I probably step on her feet now and then.

Cool quote: "If pro is the opposite of con, then what is the opposite of progress?"

-D

Post 27

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 5:38am

I agree, this is about the funniest thing I've read in a long time! The atlas points don't mean too much to most people. They're not trying to prove they have the most points to show they're the best. They do, however, mean a great amount to "He is G. Stolyarov II ", but to others it's just a fun feature. As to why it's so funny, it's exactly why Joe said. Someone sanctions & unsanctions people based on their style of writing, or if they need encouragement (rather than what they're actually saying) and then complains when someone unsanctions him based on their dislike of him. Joe's not crying a great injustice here, (I'd think) because the only one who's having problems it seems is the person who first abused the system.

As a side note, I only ever sanction posts. Never unsanction, I feel if I disagree enough to unsanction I'd rather just post about why I think they're wrong. Or there are people's posts I don't feel the need to read. But not everyone uses the system like that. Not my issue to try to 'fix'. I don't believe that people should be sanctioned based on their politeness either, as G. Stolyarov II believes they should, so what to do? I say relax and enjoy the atlas points, or don't use it.

-Elizabeth

Post 28

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:20am

To the gigglers and snickerers:

Yes, let's all have a jolly laugh at Mr. Stolyarov's expense. Let's all follow the lead of the Poseur-in-Chief of SOLO of taking our time and trouble to show how silly we think all of this is. Let's not have the decency to accord a decent man a modicum of respect for what he takes seriously. Instead, let us take that tiresome post-modern ironic pose of being above it all. You know the mask I'm talking about. It's the one that immediately falls off when it is your sacred cow that is being skewered.

Some things are important even when they are symbolized by only small things. Objectivism should provide the clarity of mind to recognize these circumstances, so that you may act as justice requires. But what to do when justice means going against your clique? As Eric Tower noted, this thread provides an oppotunity to see whether or not Objectivists do apply their principles in the real world. Interesting how the cliquishness, shunning, and backslapping of high school keeps finding its way into adult life.

Regards,
Bill

Post 29

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:44am

Bill,

The only reasons we can have a laugh at Mr. Stolyarov's 'expense' is because of the way he uses/has used the system himself. I don't really like that someone unsanctioned anyone 179 times, but it means less to me because of the way that Solyarov uses sanctions & unsanctions, the way he got them in the past, and his infatuation with that 4th atlas icon. I think SOLO is a place to discuss and debate ideas, not work on sounding smart, seeing who can post the most or practice being polite (that's not aimed at anyone in particular, it's a view I sense many take of the forum). So if Stolyarov can sanction or unsanction based on how he thinks a post sounds, instead of what the content is, people should be able to sanction/unsanction him based on how his posts look or sound. Maybe they just don't like his signature pictures! Or any other number of things. Just my thoughts. But again, the fact that controversy only ever happens to Stolyarov is funny! If you think people are out to get you, don't respect your opinions, etc., leave. He's said in the past he'd leave, except that he sticks around for inspiration for his writing. Okay then, forget the atlas points. Why would you want them from people you don't even respect?

-Elizabeth

Post 30

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 6:49am

Phlinz,

A mere piphphle, a triphle, oph course, in your eyes, but you phorget the suphphering you inphlict on your phaithphul phriends with your phlip quips. Phortunately, your phriends are used to your inphamous phlaming ways and phorgive you.

Your phaithful old phart, Phirehammer

Post 31

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:05am

*SIGH*

Mr. Stolyarov, as I've said before, I admire your zeal and passion even when I disagree with you. You are typically a polite argumentor as well. Unfortunately you have handed your perceived foes a weapon to use against you. You are overly concerned with those meaninless points and how you feel (my guess here) they reflect on you and your efforts as a contibutor. Citizen Rat is correct (for once) that they matter only up to the point of getting unmoderated status. As an objectivist you should have a bit more self-confidence. My advice; don't worry about the points or icons. Your work should stand alone on its merit without badges or medals to give one official sanction.

General comment: While it is just to disagree with those whose remarks go against our beliefs, there is something to be said for polite discourse. It's a fine line to walk between using humerous sarcasm, etc and throwing irrational insults about. Personally, if I can't take the time to provide a rational rebuttal, I'll tend to refrain from hurling a quick meaningless jab in the intrest of keeping the debate rational. I am fallible of course! This is indeed the age of umbrage as Mr. Perigo has said. All to often people are concerned with others "dissing" them. This type of concern is for those who put more importance on the opinions of others than on there on rational assesment of their self-worth.

Post 32

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:12am

I find myself, surprisingly, in general agreement with Citizen Rat. I enjoy Mr. Stolyarov's formal, precise and polite style. I frequently disagree with him and think that he has put too much emphasis on the Atlas points but I think he is an asset to this board.

I don't understand how anyone could un-sanction or sanction an article more more than once. I always assumed that there was a restriction of one sanction or un-sanction per person per article, and never a sanction for your own article. I think anyone who has abused the system in such a way should look at their own ethics � after all this is supposed to be a forum concerned with the subject. Do Objectivists really require software checks to enforce such compliance?

Apparently the Atlas points are assigned manually. I get them in groups, apparently delayed and not real time when they are given.

Sam

Post 33

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:24am

Bill, Elizabeth, Mr. Stolyarov, Mr. Graybosch,

I happen to like Stoly, just because he, like me, is a little eccentric. I tease him as much as anyone, because I think he is a little obsessed with some things that are not ultimately significant or important. We all have our Obsessions.

I personally take none of this seriously. This is only a forum. There is no prize to be won, ... or lost. I enjoy the interactions and vigorous rigorous intercourse as well as the all-to-rare humor. Yet, there is a nice mix of the light-hearted with the truly serious thought and discussion. Even Linz is serious, sometimes.

But it is only discussion. The worst anyone can do to anyone else is say something they don't like. BIG DEAL! I feel badly for the thin-skinned, that they suffer needlessly, but not badly enough to be constrained to spare them their irrational feelings.

Now this is a serious question. Leaving aside the conflation of decency with mistaken ideas ("all men mean well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions," to misquote GBS) why should anyone's silly ideas be respected, however right or good they are otherwise. If something is silly, it is silly. I am delighted when someone points out something silly in my life (which is pretty easy to do, actually), even if I do not think it is silly. At least I know others think it is silly, and I have to learn how portray it more seriously, if I care what others think, (a very rare thing), or learn to live with the ridicule.

Now the fact is, the "ph" thing is mostly silly. Of all the important philosophical issues in the world, English spelling is hardly the most pressing one. Exaggeration of the unimportant is always a bit humorous, that is why it is so much phun. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself).

But there is a serious note to it all. Given the state of the American dumbing-down educational system, it will not be long before Matthew Grabosch's worst nightmare is a reality--there will not be two people in the whole country who spell the same word the same way. Mr. Stolyrov's private spelling campaign is helping to move us down the road to that particular hell.

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 7/15, 9:39am)

Post 34

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 7:39am

Bill writes, Interesting how the cliquishness, shunning, and backslapping of high school keeps finding its way into adult life.

That's not interesting at all, Bill. It's pretty boring, actually. Even more boring are the repetitive assumptions and accusations thrown towards everyone but "the dissenters", by you. Yes, we all want to crucify yourself and Mr. Stolyarov. Yes, we all want to ensure your combined blasphemies never reach the light of day (though they do seem to reach a privately-owned, public forum no matter the content.) Yes, none of us can handle those reason-shattering molotovs you toss in every once in a while making sure we all know how deluded and contradictory we are.

But can't we all just get along? Pffff.....It's just a discussion forum, bro!

Maybe if Stolyarov hadn't titled this thread "GRAND ABUSE" (he actually bothered to caps-lock it) it wouldn't be so funny. Come on. They're little icons of some imaginary golden man holding up a blue and green ball. If Stolyarov thinks the system should be revamped because it's frivolous, why is it a "GRAND ABUSE" when someone thinks it's as frivolous as he does and goes around arbitrarily clicking X's? If it's the content of responses to his contributions that matter more than anonymous approval ratings, why bother fretting over the already astronomically-high count of some "corrupt" and "abuse-inviting" (my words) popularity poll?

And why is it "cliquishness, shunning, and backslapping" if some people think this is a rather minor issue? Apparently you and Stolyarov can make value judgements ((everyone but the "dissenters" is on the verge of slipping on their jack-boots and HY daggers; just on the cusp of reverting to immoral, savage children of the mind)) but no one else is allowed to say Hey, buddy! It's just some quirky icons on a free website, based thousands of miles away from where you probably live, so it can't hurt you and you shouldn't take it to heart. You could always get mauled by a ravenous pack of tree monkeys, ya know.

Look, Stoyarov is an asset to this forum--no one denies that. But I think he lessens himself a tad by emphasizing these Atlas things. The content of his galleries of contributions is amazing! But it doesn't make him untouchable. And someone wasting a half hour of their day to unsanction him that many times is not a "GRAND ABUSE" of Stolyarov. Maybe of an arbitrary rating system--but it in no way reflects upon the person and particulars of G. Stolyarov II. In fact, it's a good thing that I think the Atlas system isn't that important--otherwise I'm placing value in what Stolyarov himself thinks is a crappy method of debate (or non-debate)! And I think it's unhealthy in the extreme to place so much of your concern on said system. I go around on occasion and randomly pick things to sanction, just because I can. My god! He toys with the Atlas Program!?!?!?!? Yeah, that's right. I've done it, and I'll probably do it again as soon as I get some liquid courage in me. This is more controversial on an Objectivism board than, say, wanting to outlaw abortion? What?!

What's more, why is this thread still breathing??? (Catch-22 strikes again, that's why.)

It's not that bad here. And it's free. Get the hell over it, good buddies! : P

Post 35

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 9:02am

"I regard Objectivism as a kind of infantile pre-cursor to genuine rationality."

Well, if hit-and-run summations are the order of the day, then I'll say that Bayesian reasoning is stunned. I use the word advisedly.

Post 36

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 9:22am

Hi, Regi.

>>Now this is a serious question. Leaving aside the conflation of decency with mistaken ideas ("all men mean well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions," to misquote GBS) why should anyone's silly ideas be respected, however right or good they are otherwise. If something is silly, it is silly. I am delighted when someone points out something silly in my life (which is pretty easy to do, actually), even if I do not think it is silly. At least I know others think it is silly, and I have to learn how portray it more seriously, if I care what others think, (a very rare thing), or learn to live with the ridicule.<<

I believe this is directed to my last post, and I can see how I might have tweaked my words a little better. Here's my point, Regi:

You did take Mr. Stolyarov's concern seriously by telling him in a friendly manner how you would handle the matter. You and I and all the cheap-shot artists appear to agree that -- as Drew Carey says -- the points don't matter. The divide is between those who responded to Mr. Stolyarov's indignation with benevolence and those who didn't. So it is not a matter of taking a silly idea seriously, it is a matter treating a decent person decently -- it's a matter of cultivating what we value.

Regards,
Bill

P.S. You and I are in agreement that there is nothing so comfortable as a thick skin.

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 7/15, 10:54am)

Post 37

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 9:35am

Hi, Jeremy.

I may be a fool, but I think I can distinguish between good-natured teasing and ridicule. Mr. Stolyarov has been primarily the subject of the latter and not the former in this thread and elsewhere. Ridicule is a weapon with which we destroy with humor that which we should not tolerate. So why subject Mr. Stolyarov to any ridicule if his contributions to this forum are valued, as you and many others here claim?

If I am right about the ridicule, do you not think it is only a matter of justice to identify the wrong?

As for why this thread survives, it's simple. People like talking about other people. Human beings are social animals, and few things animate them more than gossip. Seeing that this is an Objectivist forum, perhaps this penchant for gossipiness can be channeled, as I have attempted, into a worthwhile discussion of broader principles.

Regards,
Bill

Post 38

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 9:48am

Hi, Elizabeth.

>>Why would you want them from people you don't even respect?<<

I don't. I'm glad you feel the same. Now don't you think that instead of laughing at Mr. Stolyarov over what you see as a ludicrous position he has taken, it would have been better -- assuming you value his participation in this forum -- to help him laugh at what you perceive as his mistake?

As an Objectivist, you certainly understand that you have no such obligation to help someone better himself. But as an Objectivist, you should also understand that you only demean yourself to ridicule without purpose. Even if none of this is the case, what did it gain you to take some fun at Mr. Stolyarov's expense? Doesn't the virtue of benevolence also work in the negative -- i.e., it stops you from taking unkind actions that do not benefit you?

Just some food for thought.

Regards,
Bill

Post 39

Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 10:38am