Amending the forum rules

[GoodOrigamiMan]

Thus allowing one pragmatist, one religionist, and so forth to enter -- assuming they follow the rules of etiquette -- would be beneficial to new students of Objectivism.

I knew your context and I disagree.

[stephen_speicher]

I'm interested in rational discussion, not personal attacks.

So you say, but then you make personal attacks through false accusations and mischaracterizations, rather than respond to my criticism of your anti-Objectivist views.

I only took you off my "ignore list" for the purpose of this thread and I am putting you back on it immediately.

You are free to continue to ignore whatever facts you like, but you are not free to get away with the inevitable consequences of ignoring those facts.

[gadfly]

Rather than respond to and defend against my criticisms of your anti-Objectivist views, you instead chose to hide behind mischaracterizing me and, from a fantasy perch on high, you proclaimed you would not respond to any of my posts. ...

[some of post removed - click on link in lower right to see the full post]

... Well, I'll be damned if I will provide something needed and wanted by someone so disingenuous, and I told you that you can wait for a reply for just as long as I am waiting for the return of Halley's comet in 2061.

I've re-read this thread in an attempt to find what in Godless_Capitalist's posts you are referring to, and cannot find any of this. Is this from some other thread?

Definitions are a legitimate request, if people are going to be expected to abide by them. Especially on a site for students of Objectivism, where clear definitions should be expected.

[stephen_speicher]

I've re-read this thread in an attempt to find what in Godless_Capitalist's posts you are referring to, and cannot find any of this. Is this from some other thread?

Yes, from several other threads during the past few weeks.

[BurgessLau]

Definitions are a legitimate request, if people are going to be expected to abide by them. Especially on a site for students of Objectivism, where clear definitions should be expected.

First, forum members are not expected to abide by the definitions, but by the rules. One way to clarify rules is to offer examples of, for example, banned items. The problem arises in deciding which examples of banned items to define and how elaborate the definitions, if any, should be.

Second, what constitutes a "clear definition"? Clear to whom and for what purpose?

These are some of the problems that the writers of rules encounter. Your contribution is welcome.

I now have more sympathy for honest legislators struggling -- through consensus, no less -- to write laws that are understandable to the general public and at the same time will pass scrutiny by courts where justices have mixed legal philosophies.

[gadfly]

First, forum members are not expected to abide by the definitions, but by the rules.

Rules contain words, which have definitions. To understand and abide by the rules we need to know the definitions of the words in them.

Second, what constitutes a "clear definition"? Clear to whom and for what purpose?

Clear to users of the forum, and for the purpose of making sure they can follow the rules.

[BurgessLau]

Rules contain words, which have definitions. To understand and abide by the rules we need to know the definitions of the words in them.

A word is a label for one or more ideas. Many words are ambiguous, that is, they label two or more ideas. A definition states the essential meaning of a particular idea, not a word. (Ayn Rand, IOE, pp. 10-11 and 163-174, for words, and Ch. 5 for definitions.)

The other question that I asked and that remains to be answered is: What constitutes a clear definition? What structure should it have; how long should it be; how formal should it be for the intended use in the forum rules?

I am working on libertarianism (though anyone is free to offer a definition of that too). So, three terms -- naming examples of ideas whose advocacy is banned -- remain: religion, communism, and moral tolerationism. (I would suggest the generic statism rather than communism.)

Gadfly, or anyone else in this forum, would you be willing to volunteer to define one of the remaining terms/ideas proposed?

[BurgessLau]

Clear to users of the forum, and for the purpose of making sure they can follow the rules.

For Gadfly or anyone else:

In the Forum Rules, should definitions of example ideas banned from advocacy be clear to all users of this forum? Does that include:

- Anti-Objectivists who use the forum but remain quiet?

- Individuals who are rationalists?

- Very young individuals who are very new to Objectivism?

- Individuals who are just now beginning to study English as a second language?

- Individuals who have a hopelessly confused psycho-epistemology and will always insist on defining the component terms/ideas of a definition ad infinitum?

[oaktree]

In the months that I have viewed this forum actively, I have found that it is excellent. For a completely open forum which does not even require an email address to register, it has been able to keep trolls at bay.

The strength of this forum is the quality of its membership. Most appear to be here for a selfish purpose and either do not waste time on trolls or give them a good "beating". There are also many members who are very knowledgeable about philosopy and its related fields. This cause false arguments to be exposed rapidly.

I do not think there is any problem with the rules. I doubt that changing the rules or making them clearer will impact the tone of the forum.

(For instance, I have never read any rules of the forum and I doubt that the bulk of the membership has. I understand the idea of making the rules clearer, but the only ones who are seriously studying the rules and people who are probably never going to be banned -- indeed, they are more like moderator material..)

[gadfly]

For Gadfly or anyone else:

In the Forum Rules, should definitions of example ideas banned from advocacy be clear to all users of this forum? Does that include:

- Anti-Objectivists who use the forum but remain quiet?

- Individuals who are rationalists?

- Very young individuals who are very new to Objectivism?

- Individuals who are just now beginning to study English as a second language?

- Individuals who have a hopelessly confused psycho-epistemology and will always insist on defining the component terms/ideas of a definition ad infinitum?

Yes, all users. I take it you're suggesting that these people could not understand them? If so, the only thing the site can do is provide definitions and expect others to grasp them. If not, and they get booted, that's their tough luck. I don't know why the idea of providing definitions per se is even generating discussion... it's just a matter of being clear. But if the consensus among mods is to not provide definitions, then don't.

[redfarmer]

For Gadfly or anyone else:

In the Forum Rules, should definitions of example ideas banned from advocacy be clear to all users of this forum? Does that include:

- Anti-Objectivists who use the forum but remain quiet?

- Individuals who are rationalists?

- Very young individuals who are very new to Objectivism?

- Individuals who are just now beginning to study English as a second language?

- Individuals who have a hopelessly confused psycho-epistemology and will always insist on defining the component terms/ideas of a definition ad infinitum?

If we're going to define all of the forum rules this prescisely, why not link them to the Objectivist Wiki for the definition. For example, if they don't understand a "straw man" attack, link them to an entry for it in the Wiki.

[BurgessLau]

Should Forum Rules include a limit on the number of threads each member can post during a certain period of time?

For example, I propose:

"Limiting the Number of New Threads

No member shall post more than one new thread per week. Doing so once will be grounds for a mild warning from moderators. Doing so repeatedly deserves a formal warning."

I see three advantages in this limitation. First, it encourages new members to prioritize their many questions. It encourages them to ask themselves which possible new thread topic is either most important to them personally or most essential philosophically.

Second, this approach will reduce the number of sinking-stone threads, that is, the threads to which only one or two people respond -- and then the topic sinks down the screen and out of sight. I notice that these threads are often, though not always, closely related to other threads.

Third, this approach will reduce the number of new threads overall (perhaps by 10%), and, equally important, it will increase the average quality of the threads that do appear. In other words there will probably be fewer frivolous or repetitious threads.

Contrary views?

[Bryan]

Should Forum Rules include a limit on the number of threads each member can post during a certain period of time?

For example, I propose:

"Limiting the Number of New Threads

No member shall post more than one new thread per week. Doing so once will be grounds for a mild warning from moderators. Doing so repeatedly deserves a formal warning."

The only problem I see with the number of threads or the quality of them is with new members. It is frustrating to see someone join this forum and then on the same day "spam" the different topic areas with a bunch of meaningless posts.

Another case is people joining because they have a specific question and immediately start a thread to ask this question. A lot of the time this question has already been addressed in another thread, and sometimes the topic has been beat to death.

I would suggest possibly restricting new members to only being allowed to start threads in the "Introductions" section for around a week or so. They can then and browse the other areas and get acquainted to the forum before they can start new threads.

As for putting a definite cap on the number of threads a person can start, I don't think it’s a good idea. If someone has a lot to say, and it’s all of quality content, I don't mind him or her starting a lot of discussions. I trust the moderators here, if someone is getting over zealous and cluttering the board with meaningless threads, the moderators can use their discretion to warn them.

[DavidOdden]

No member shall post more than one new thread per week. Doing so once will be grounds for a mild warning from moderators. Doing so repeatedly deserves a formal warning."

My POV on these matters is that rules should be added in response to a clear problem, and I don't see a clear problem. RE your first argument, this problemoid could hypothetically be addressed by restricting the limitation to newbies. I have in fact noticed a few drive-by posting sprees, but they are so tightly clustered in time (i.e. someone signs up, posts a half dozen screeds, then vamooses) that no moderator-adminstrated restriction would be effective. I don't really follow the second argument. What I particularly don't get in arg. 2 is how this related to weekly frequency. While I agree that it's good for people to see how some active thread is relevant to a particular thought that pops into the brain, is there some evidence that frequent thread-initiators are violators of the principle that you should try to integrate your ideas into existing threads? I haven't detected any such tendency, though I haven't actually studied the matter here [i will say that my experience on HPO has been that statistically speaking, hyperactive thread-initiators tend to be trolls, but since we don't have the same troll problem here, I don't see the evidence of a problematic pattern]. The 2nd and 3rd arguments do point to a real concern, that people do sometimes speak without researching, but in that case, the response should be to identify particularly well-know old saw questions, and perhaps communicate with the poster, though not via a warning. Do moderators send helpful non-warning messages to members, like "You ought to do a site search on the topic because this has been talked to death in X, Y, Z threads"?

BTW for the purpose of clarity of rules, such a rule should say something like "No member shall initiate more than one thread every seven days", because I don't find the meaning of "post a new thread" totally obvious though I can figure it out, given the context of this discussion (a context that will be lost forever if this were to be enshrined as a formal rule).