RoR Software Upgrades

Joe wrote in Post 16 of this thread:

Ellen, your opinion really doesn't interest me.

I sanctioned this post just for this remark. I love it when a property owner asserts his rights in this fashion.

Speaking of sanctions and dissenters, I would go even further to suggest that marked dissenters have their privileges to grant or receive sanctions disabled. That would further curtail the efficacy of dissenters in a forum dedicated, as Robert Bidinotto puts it, to serving as "a forum intended for committed Objectivists, who prefer to probe and debate the nuances of the system." My suggestion amounts to my opinion only and may not interest Joe any more than does that of Ellen.

Post 21

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 8:01am

I predict that all the fundamental practitioners of what I have termed "verbal metaphysics" will find their way to the Dissent section. This is what causes their views and also why they appear to be conscious troublemakers--trolls-even though they are not.

The difference lies in their psychoepistemology, which is deep-seated and therefore, in a sense, honest. (The dishonesty resides in a long-ago mental detour they made.)

I have no problem with a rule that says, in effect, that if you so differ in terms of intellectual method that you end up disputing vast sections of Objectivism, you should go to another forum where those who want to tackle you with intellectual respect can do so. I think the "promoted" people will actually be pleased with the tone of "their" forum!

Post 22

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 8:13am

But I think it's a shame for Cal to be segregated as "an enemy of Objectivism," or whatever he's being classified as.

Ellen, Cal hasn't been labeled like that here. It's a mistake to assign that label yourself, using it wholesale as if everyone does.

There is nothing preventing Cal from posting to his heart's content, and for you to reply in kind. He can even make up his own threads and attempt to attract as much attention as he wishes that way, which is a far cry from banning Cal outright. "Enemies" are banned. "Dissenters" are not.

It's clear you're upset about this development, but I think your upset is misplaced. No one is hurting Cal, or you, through this method of membership assignment.

Post 23

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 8:36am

Rodney, your notion of verbal metaphysics intrigues me. Perhaps you can post an article fleshing the concept fully.

Post 24

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 9:18am

Thanks, Luke. I was thinking about doing so, when I have more time.

To give examples, I think Daniel Barnes and Next Level (old posters) had the "syndrome."

Post 25

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 9:59am

Joseph, my solution to what you have written above, will be to charge $ 10 to all the members, that will certainly keep the malintentioned people away.
This is also valid for OL, and SOLO.
You guys educate people for free.
I don't believe in free lunch.
CD

Post 26

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:12am

Ciro,

The payoff for an activist isn't in the short term :-)

Ethan

Post 27

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 11:56am

Ethan, I thought you wanted to see results before you die. :-))

Post 28

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:53am

Just in case people haven't seen it yet, I added some software to display Atlas points (scaled like on the forum) on the front page. It might be useful for zooming in on interesting topics or excellent posts. Or maybe not.

Post 29

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 11:59am

Great work Joe! When I noticed it, I thought I must have just missed it before, because I'm crazy like that :-)

Post 30

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 3:27pm

Joe, on the note of Atlas points, I'd like to propose a suggestion - at the danger of sounding like an ingrate. I genuinely think it would be nice for the Atlas points to be identified by their sanctioner.

This would automatically allow others to recognize that you've sanctioned their post/article and who has sanctioned your post/article.

Such a feature would be particularly favorable and convenient for all the silent folk here, who read more than they publicly post, and have a tendency to simply sanction rather than actively engage in current discussion.

Certainly, seeing meaningful names of real, living characters behind sanctions will further promote a more intimate atmosphere in this site as well.

Post 31

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 6:42pm

Great idea. Thanks.

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 9:08pm

Gracious! I thought it was ants or something on my screen! :)

My eyes are so shot....

Post 33

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 9:22pm

Like Ethan, I thought I had just missed it before.

L W

Post 34

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:56pm

I can't believe you guys didn't see it! It's so obvious!

Warren, it's a good suggestions, and I've actually been considering it. We originally made it more anonymous for the shy people, and because we had the legendary "No Sanction" button, where you could smite your enemies without causing a grudge match. And occasionally we hear the calls of "Bring back the unsanction!" I'll definitely think about it.

Post 35

Friday, August 11, 2006 - 5:22am

"I thought it was ants or something on my screen!"

You mean, you thought your computer was atlas-bugged?

I saw them, and the effect was startling. But I immediately figured out what happened.

An idea crossed my mind. How about anonymous sanctions, but non-ananonymous unsanctions? Not sure how that would work out.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 8/11, 10:13am)

Post 36

Friday, August 11, 2006 - 11:32am

Rodney Rawlings writes:

An idea crossed my mind. How about anonymous sanctions, but non-ananonymous unsanctions? Not sure how that would work out.

I'm sure you mean the other way around - anonymous unsanctions and known sanctions? Unless you just happen to have a penchant for stirring up fires, while being a closet-samaritan.

Post 37

Friday, August 11, 2006 - 12:48pm