No Personal Chatter?

[JMeganSnow]

I appear to have opened a can of worms and kicked a wasp's nest all at once. I don't think it's really necessary to be so hostile about some quotes. Different people use different styles. I will attempt to reduce my own quotes to a minimum.

[Cole]

Ach, not again. Honestly, I don't think this rule is worth making threats over. Are you really willing to give up the discussions here because you might have to split up some posts? I agree that this rule would make posting more complicated, but I have not yet seen many posts done this way, so I really don't know if it would improve the discussion or not. Either way, I'm willing to stick it out to see what happens, and I don't see why anyone who values this forum is not.

Not again what?

I'm not "making threats." I'm saying that, if the rule (as Felipe explained it) is enacted, then I will no longer have a reason to post here anymore. It would make reading and responding to intellectual discussions so hindersome that it wouldn't be worth the effort. There are other boards (while lacking the potential of these forums) which do not have ridiculous rules.

You shouldn't misconstrue my message to be that I don't value the forums. It is because I value the forums that I oppose this rule.

[non-contradictor]

...

True enough, I don't own the forum.  I do, however, have GC's sanction to try to improve the posting quality in the board.  We share the concern that the forum has seen a diminishing quality in posts, and we agree that this should change.  I'm doing this through the enforcement of already-existing policy (which, it appears, no one has actually been enforcing), as well as new policy which has been approved.  If specific actions of mine appear to be going above and beyond the enforcement of policy, please let me know, and I will correct the matter (as I did with the deletion of threads).

[edit: added last parenthetical comment]

I think you might have the problem here. If policy here has not been enforced correctly, then members are used to doing things in a certain way. However, ever since you have taken a more active role in promoting the rules as you see them (or as you and Mr. Veksler see them) that has started to change. Since members have always been allowed to post in the point-by-point manner before, it makes sense for them to assume that it must not violate forum rules. So now we have all this confusion on what the actual rules are. I think, since we still appear to be in a transition into a more strict following of the rules, perhaps you could be a bit more lenient with members and explain to them why they shouldn't do such-and-such before you delete their post or thread. Also, what is the *new policy*? How can we follow it if we don't know what it is? I personally have no problem with the rules being discussed if they are in fact what Mr. Veksler explicitly wants. This is his forum and I am here on his terms. However, if the Mods are going to be stricter, I think it would be helpful to post a sticky or something like that which states things that have been accepted in the past but which are now deemed unacceptable. That way, everyone will have a warning and you won't have people's posts deleted just because they didn't understand that the policy (tacit or formal) had changed.

[non-contradictor]

...I'm not "making threats."  I'm saying that, if the rule (as Felipe explained it) is enacted, then I will no longer have a reason to post here anymore. It would make reading and responding to intellectual discussions so hindersome that it wouldn't be worth the effort. There are other boards (while lacking the potential of these forums) which do not have ridiculous rules...

You are *threatening* to leave the board if the rule is as Felipe explained it. However, it was probably a bad choic of words on my part and I apologize. I was just having a bit of deja-vu from the last time there was a debate about moderation policy. What evidence do you have that this rule would "make reading and responding to intelelctual discussions so hindersome...?"

[non-contradictor]

...

You shouldn't misconstrue my message to be that I don't value the forums.  It is because I value the forums that I oppose this rule.

If you value them so much then is a rule about quoting really worth leaving over? Opposing the rule is one thing. Leaving because of it is another thing entirely.

[non-contradictor]

I would also like to note that I have been again employing the policy of splitting posts up by each point. I am doing this so that others may use this as concrete evidence for their claims one way or the other. Please do not make any more statements about the quoting rule having such grand negative affects without using some evidence.

EDIT: I would also like to add that I find this way of posting rather annoying and pointless. The posts I have been quoting are very short and could easily be addressed point-by-point in a short post. Also, it is wasting forum space for me to be splitting things up like this, and I don't think it makes it any more readable. I think maybe the real problem is with people who make such long winded posts with so many points that they are really hard to quote in an understandable manner. The people who quote such posts point-by-point can hardly be blamed for the fact that the author tried to cram so much in one post. (However, this is only the case with some of the *point-by-point* quoting posts.)

Edited March 20, 2005 by non-contradictor

[non-contradictor]

This is what my 3 posts above the last one would have looked like if I had employed the point-by-point style of quoting:

Not again what?

Not again, meaning this is precisely what people started saying in Dr. Speicher's leaving thread. We don't need that again.

I'm not "making threats."  I'm saying that, if the rule (as Felipe explained it) is enacted, then I will no longer have a reason to post here anymore. It would make reading and responding to intellectual discussions so hindersome that it wouldn't be worth the effort. There are other boards (while lacking the potential of these forums) which do not have ridiculous rules.

You are *threatening* to leave the board if the rule is as Felipe explained it. However, it was probably a bad choic of words on my part and I apologize. I was just having a bit of deja-vu from the last time there was a debate about moderation policy. What evidence do you have that this rule would "make reading and responding to intelelctual discussions so hindersome...?"

You shouldn't misconstrue my message to be that I don't value the forums.  It is because I value the forums that I oppose this rule.

If you value them so much then is a rule about quoting really worth leaving over? Opposing the rule is one thing. Leaving because of it is another thing entirely.

I hope this provides a decent comparison.

[HaloNoble6]

Well, after much thought and consideration, I must admit (with the help of many here and others like Free Capitalist) that I see I've been rather draconian in my enforcement of what I interpret as the forum policy. Driven by a desire to improve the posting quality in the forum, I have gone beyond what can be clearly interpreted from the forum rules. As such, I will, as of now, only enforce what is clear from the forum rules. This means the following:

-No redundant questions

-No bad grammar, spelling and punctuation

-No posts with zero intellectual content

-No drastic deviations from the thread topic

-No improper links

-And everything in the "Prohibited behavior" section

After careful consideration, I have concluded that taking the issue of point-by-point responding, and that of posting style in general, up with the rest of the moderators and admins in the moderators forum is in order. When a conclusion is arrived at, I or someone else will make an announcement. Your input as to an appropriate rule regarding quoting is and will continue to be appreciated.

I would like to say that I in no way intended to stifle discourse, nor to make posting a hassle. I want nothing more than to see the posting quality in the forum improved.

Since this is not a personal thank you, but a thank you to many members, I'd like to say thank you to all that used reason to politely point out the errors in my reasoning.

[non-contradictor]

This is perfect. Now we know for sure what is acceptable and what is not. I am glad that confusion has been dispelled (for me at least). I never thought that anyone was acting to be a hassle or to disrupt the forum. I think all of this merely stemmed from the confusion about the rules, and I am very happy that it has been cleared up so quickly and without much *hubbub*.

[DavidV]

As for ownership. Yes, Felipe does not own the site, and David is the final authority. However, I'd like to commend Felipe on "taking ownership". Let's all do so.

I like the sentiment you express. It’s been my goal from the start to encourage others to “take ownership” of the forum in whatever way they wish to contribute. To the extent that members do so, I will facilitate and reward leadership by giving them a vote in the management of the website.

[EC]

I will say this though while I'm glad multiple quotes still seem to be allowed, I understand the reasoning behind what Felipe did. When many quotes are needed to respond to someone it usually implies that the premise that led to all the wrong thinking need to be addressed more than a long winded post. This is why you will rarely see me do multiple quotes, but instead I try and attack the weak starting premise. See my debates with GWDS for an example.

[DavidV]

I am glad to see that several of the issues in regard to the forum rules have been resolved. In future cases of disagreement, I would ask you to focus on what the rules should be rather than what they mean. Let me comment on the point/counterpoint style:

The primary purpose of establishing rules for the style and content of posts is to create an atmosphere conductive to serious intellectual conversation. While the formality of conversations varies (appropriately) according to the topic, there are some prerequisites for any rational discussion, such as adherence to logic, honesty, hierarchy, succinctness, fluency (verbal or written), and clarity. In the context of an online forum, the forum software and the forum rules attempt to maintain these values.

Among the problems of online conversation, is the tendency of a thread to stray into multiple conversations/topics, and the subsequent attempt to answer all ongoing topics in a single post. Regardless of how many quotes it uses, such a post is difficult to understand, which is why I split off new topics into separate threads and discourage excessive quoting.

A related issue is a tendency to split up a coherent argument into tiny bits that are answered piecemeal so that the overall argument is lost. This disintegrated style not only obfuscates the point of the author, but prevents the rebuttal from being coherent as well. It also creates the phenomenon called “talking past each other” which leads to accusations of stupidity and emotional outbursts. This is why there are limits on the number of quotes in a post.

Note however, that determining whether a post has too many quotes is highly contextual, which is why forming rules for quote limits is difficult. There are clear cases of abuse however – for example, quoting the reply immediately above, or quoting a long reply with a short comment. On the other hand, there are cases when a quote is necessary – such as when a reply to something said on a previous page (see my previous post.) Note also the style of this thread – after reading the entire conversation, I’ve posted a single post on each topic brought up without the need to quote a dozen people and posts.

[DavidV]

(Please note that the conversation about THE FORUM and signatures has been split here.)

[TomL]

If Greedy Capitalist confirms this rule, then I will no longer post on Objectivism Online.

Cole, its not a difficult thing to do. I understand where you're coming from because I've been one of the "worst" point/counterpoint people this forum has ever seen.

What is being asked is that first you attempt to identify and address the essence of a post, rather than each point within it separately. Or, the initial error that led to all the others. Go ahead and analyze each point in a post like you normally would, and then abstract on them. Find the underlying premise. It's just one more mental step, and it isn't that difficult, and believe me it will make you a better thinker in the long run for practicing it.

I would probably imagine that if you tried to do so and someone replied in total confusion, then going back and addressing it point/counterpoint would probably be acceptable. Or is that just wishful thinking, GC? Felipe?

[Cole]

I'll wait until the moderators are able to figure out what the rules are, and are able to make a statement without recanting it a couple of days later, before continuing the discussion.

[DavidV]

I would probably imagine that if you tried to do so and someone replied in total confusion, then going back and addressing it point/counterpoint would probably be acceptable.  Or is that just wishful thinking, GC? Felipe?

Until more specific rules are posted, the appropriateness of a point/counterpoint style depends on the context. Your example above is an example of two such contexts. If that seems too vague to you, let me assure you that no one is going to be banned for mistakenly posting with the wrong style.

Edited March 20, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist

[ex_banana-eater]

However, I'd like to commend Felipe on "taking ownership". Let's all do so.

I agree that Felipe should be applauded for his efforts in cleaning up the discussion in the forum. Despite our disagreement about how/whether a single rule should be interpreted and moderated, I think overall he has recognised the problem (of chatter) and is taking great strides to fix it to improve the quality of discussion here.

[Cole]

Until more specific rules are posted, the appropriateness of a point/counterpoint style depends on the context.

This seems like a much better rule, and one that will help preserve the quality of the forums- not diminish it.

Thank you for the clarification.

Edit: Corrected typo

Edited March 21, 2005 by Cole