| | Lindsay and Alec, I appreciate the arguments against the Atlas point system. It's not perfect. But really, it works great! Better than ever expected! In the old days, when you wrote an article, nobody who liked it or agreed bothered to post. The only people who posted (generally) were those that disagreed with some point, or wanted to hear themselves talk. If someone agreed with everything, and didn't have anything interesting to contribute, they would just leave it. So authors never got feedback. How fun is writing for SOLO when nobody responds to your article at all? We have a system now where people get applauded for their contributions by a click of the button. And in fact, people have been posting nice things as well. Since the latter only started happening after the former was put into practice, there is possibly a connection. Despite a lot of comments in the last few days that seem to ignore everything SOLO has done, we really are making a difference to the Objectivist culture. And that doesn't even mention that people really do feel an incentive to write an intelligent post because they know it'll be appreciated (and they'll be rewarded). So yes, it may have some negative side effects, but I prefer a system where people feel good about their contributions and help create a culture of friendliness and respect.
Phil Coates, for someone who talk about benevolence, and just wrote a long, long thread somewhat related to it, you're not very benevolent here! Talk about uncharitable readings!
Everyone who thinks they can fix the system,
I've been running this for years now. I've seen these kind of events play out in many different ways, and I've learned a lot over time. Most of the ideas here have missed the real issues, or misunderstood them. There are many, many factors in play in these kind of events. If it were an easy thing to solve, every Objectivist forum would be a nice, polite, friendly environment where people discussed ideas, learned from one another, advanced Objectivist thought, etc. Take a look around. Is that what you see elsewhere?
Let me just name some of the factors involved here, to give you an idea of the complexity.
1.) People will always rally to the underdog. Maybe a leftover from their altruist pasts. Maybe hatred of the administration. But the results is the same. No matter how vicious a person is, if he claims that he's the victim, people will rally to defend him. Claiming to be a victim is an obvious ploy, but still people do it. And people line up behind them.
2.) The Seen vs. the Unseen. If you bad (or even moderate!) someone, everyone sees this one big event. But they often ignore the slow rot that comes from a vicious participant. They don't see the many good people who are intimidated from posting, or so sickened that they just leave. They don't pay attention to worthwhile threads that are destroyed because he starts participating.
3.) People hate confrontations. They get emotionally disturbed with any confrontation, no matter how justified. They'd prefer to ignore a problem then confront it. They hate it when other people confront it.
4.) People wish we could all just get along. We should be able to, right? No conflict of interests among rational men and all that? But the reality is that there are conflicts. The real question is what happens when people insist on trying to make every get along? Usually injustice. People are too willing to forgive, and expect the victims to be as well. It's similar to pacifism. The result is that the bullies run amuck and the good people leave. For people who accept this, the act of banning itself is the only real problem. It's like people in lousy marriages who don't want to get a divorce because it'll prove that their relationship is broken. It is already broken!
5.) People don't like to be reminded that this is private property. Any use of our control over our property makes them unhappy, regardless of the merit.
6.) Oversensitivity due to ARI behavior. That attitude of excommunicating them, pretending they never existed, and demanding everyone else also pretend they don't exist is enough to make anyone weary. Even simply putting someone under moderation is equated with the most vile acts.
7.) The longer a trouble-maker stays, the bigger the explosion when they leave.
8.) When someone does get banned or moderated for extremely offensive behavior, they inevitably argue that it is their ideas that are being censored. And there are always people willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, despite the fact that every idea under the sun is being promoted freely here on SOLO. The story is the same each time. The evil administration, when they're not killing babies and summoning demons, are waiting for one little slip so they have an excuse to kick you out, presumably because your ideas, which are so revolutionary that even Ayn Rand is a fool compared to you. The "straw that broke the camel's back" theory is dismissed as an ingenious and dastardly excuse.
9.) Banning/moderating/warning someone openly is seen as public humiliation. They can attack someone in public, but you can't reprimand them in public.
10.) Banning someone quietly means you're trying to hide it from everyone, which means it must be unjust.
And that's just a start. There's a lot more than that. Honestly, no matter what you do some people are going to be pissed off. No matter how vicious and disgusting the person is, some people are going to rally to his defense and others are going to attack the decision makers for not somehow converting him into a nice, friendly person. There are no easy answers here that make everyone happy. It can't be done.
|
|
