Territorial Limits For Non-Objectivists In OO.net?

[BurgessLau]

I have been trying to summarize what I know about the status of non-Objectivists in ObjectivismOnline.net. By "Objectivists" I mean individuals who agree with every element of Ayn Rand's philosophy as far as they have studied it and understood it. By non-Objectivist, I mean someone who holds a philosophy which contradicts any element of Objectivism. Examples are Kantians, Christians, moral tolerationists, eclectics, and syncretists.

1. Is the following statement true?

Non-Objectivists may participate in every part of ObjectivismOnline.net as long as they either (1) do not advocate non-Objectivist philosophical positions; or (2) ask proper questions about Objectivism; or (3) participate in the Debate Forum, debating against an Objectivist/student of Objectivism.

2. A corollary question is:

If the above statement is true, particularly part (1), then does this mean that non-Objectivists can participate in any thread that discusses the application of philosophical ideas -- for example, in current events topics -- as long as they don't advocate the non-Objectivist philosophical principles that actually underlie their positions?

3. A second corollary question is:

Is there any place in ObjectivismOnline.net where Objectivists/students of Objectivism can post with the reasonable expectation that they will be discussing or debating topics only with other Objectivists/students of Objectivism?

In other words, is there any place in ObjectivismOnline.net that is a refuge, so to speak, for Objectivists/students of Objectivism who are tired of dealing with non-Objectivists (who seem to post everywhere)? In particular, are the Premium Forums off-limits to non-Objectivists?

My purpose in asking these questions is to get a clearer idea of how I can best do what I most enjoy doing and gain the most from doing: Discussing issues with Objectivists/students of Objectivism. In particular, I am considering proposing a project for the Premium Forums, which have been inactive for a long time, but I am hesitating because I am very tired of contending with the many non-Objectivists in ObjectivismOnline.net.

Edited December 11, 2005 by BurgessLau

[JMeganSnow]

Succintly, I think the answers are:

1. yes

2. yes

3. yes: the premium forums

The reasoning behind (to my understanding) this is: in order to enforce 1 and 2 effectively, there would have to be a restriction on new members to prevent them from posting in any but the Questions/Debate forums. The problem that arises is, how does anyone know that a new member is, in fact, a non-Objectivist? Is it a good idea to place restrictions on new members that have not demonstrated that they deserve them?

If, as is currently the case, you allow them to post wherever they choose (excepting only the premium forums), do you later restrict their priviledges to only those 2 forums? Actually, I think that's a good idea; we could use a restriction that isn't "moderator preview" or "ban them", and it might help keep the questions in the forum where they belong, although I'd have to ask softwareNerd or Felipe how to implement something like that.

Does that help answer your questions at all, Mr. Laughlin? I am very interested to hear your idea for the Premium Forums, and I wouldn't mind working on that project myself. I had previously proposed that the Premium members could start discussion threads with links to other threads as desired, limiting the people involved but still discussing an issue from another thread. In my experience, most of the premium members are fairly astute and conscientious in their thinking.

[BurgessLau]

("Burgess," please.)

Jennifer,

For clarification, I have another question: Are you saying that, as of now, non-Objectivists (those who disagree with one or more elements of Objectivism) are prohibited from participating in the Premium Forums -- that is, prohibited by a written policy or rule?

If not, then a non-Objectivist can sign-up for the Premium Forum and begin posting, right? What grounds would a moderator have for refusing that privilege to the non-Objectivist?

[EC]

This is a slightly off topic comment but if it where true that only Objectivists or student of Objectivism could post in the premium forums then those forums would gain much more objective value for myself. I never joined before because I saw no added value in doing so except maybe financial support for the site which while worthy did not warrant my money at the time. An explicit rule barring non-Objectivists from that section, however, would make it worth my while and money though.

[DavidOdden]

An explicit rule barring non-Objectivists from that section, however, would make it worth my while and money though.

Maybe if that's what it takes, such a rule would be good. For the record, I have never seen any person post on the Premium Forums who I thought was a non-Objectivist so it hadn't occurred to me that there was a need for such a rule, but I don't always notice such things. I see no harm at all in having such a rule, and if it would increase participation, it would be immoral to not do it.

[JMeganSnow]

At present, there are three member groups permitted to post in the Premium Forums:

Moderators/Admins (there IS a policy that says you can't be a Mod/Admin without significant understanding of/agreement with Objectivism, although I think this policy is relatively new)

New Intellectuals (I think Burgess is the only member currently in this category: this is a title David assigns to members that have independant philosophical publishings, such as Burgess's book The Aristotle Adventure . . . I think a few other members may qualify for this, but the deal is that you have to let David know about it)

Patrons, those being people who have purchased a membership. Thus far the Objectivist/Patron groups seem to overlap fairly closely (in my estimation). I personally don't see any reason not to restrict Patron status to people who actually are Objectivists unless there's a significant monetary issue involved.

My personal ideas on this, and keep in mind that some of these may actually be impossible to implement, since I've only been an Admin for 2 days:

1. Create a special user group for people with 0 posts ("Lurker", maybe) that prevents them from posting anywhere except the Introductions and Personal Notes forum . . . we often have Newbies appear that don't seem to have read the rules or even have any conception of what this forum is. If they have to post SOME kind of introduction before posting anywhere else, their existence will at least be fairly obvious and not so dependent upon the mods following the particular thread where they appeared.

2. Prevent unregistered users from posting, although I haven't noticed this happening very often lately, so this is more of a "well, since this appears to be the situation, let's make it a policy to keep things tidy" idea.

3. Create another user group for non-Objectivists that don't deserve outright banning ("restricted", maybe?) because putting them on Mod Preview is a real pain; every single mod and admin will have a slightly different opinion on every single one of their posts. Preview posts tend to queue up instead of being deleted/allowed, or (worse, in my opinion), one person will make a decision, only to have it later changed by a different mod/admin. Restricted users will be limited to (my thinking) the Introductions and Personal notes, Questions, Miscellaneous, and of course the Troubleshooting forums. Mod preview should be limited to people who, say, garner complaints for offensive language, poor spelling and grammar, etc., where it's very easy to tell whether a particular post does or does not contain bad words or egregious spelling mistakes and thus whether it should or shouldn't be allowed, and also it's very easy to tell over relatively few posts whether the member has made an effort to improve, so that they can be taken off Mod preview.

[BurgessLau]

Jennifer,

Thank you for laying out the situation and some of the options for improving the situation. My summary of the situation right now is that, de jure, there is in ObjectivismOnline.net no refuge for Objectivists (as distinct from non-Objectivists such as eclectics), where Objectivists can discuss or debate ideas with other Objectivists. De facto, the Premium Forums are at the moment a refuge from non-Objectivists, but because there is no written Forum Rule prohibiting entrance to non-Objectivists, that oasis may dry up at any moment.

In conclusion, there is no place in ObjectivismOnline.net for an Objectivist to go if he wants to work only with other Objectivists (whether novice or long-term students of the philosophy).

Edited December 12, 2005 by BurgessLau

[JMeganSnow]

That is correct.

[Unconquered]

In conclusion, there is no place in ObjectivismOnline.net for an Objectivist to go if he wants to work only with other Objectivists (whether novice or long-term students of the philosophy).

I've had some prior experience in dealing with these issues, in a different kind of forum (not an experience I care to repeat, personally.) The real difficulty is judging who is an Objectivist and who is not. Furthermore, as others have noted in this forum from time to time, how do you make that judgement until they *have* posted, perhaps over time? And note that it is not enough to just take somebody's word that they are an Objectivist. People can be and often are confused about what that means (or simply dishonest, but that is rarer.)

There are different ways to handle this, but the most effective way that I know about, involves a greal deal of moderator time: the approach taken on the HBL list, where a very knowledgeable Objectivist (Harry Binswanger) chooses which posts to make to the list from subscriber submissions, sometimes with his own commentary. Harry however gets $100/year/subscriber for his time to do that.

In the O.O. kind of environment - even when somebody pays money to access a forum, though that is a significant filter - I don't think you'll ever reach the point where you can be assured that you're only dealing with Objectivists, unless you want to use a looser sense of the term: Somebody who's read and understood a significant portion of the Objectivist corpus - somebody who actually takes the ideas personally seriously, in action, beyond understanding them - somebody who does not disagree with the basic principles of the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.

If you really wanted to take the time, I suppose that one could create a test, of sorts, for prospective "Premium Members". One that comes to mind would be to specify that they write up a personal essay that includes the material that they read, and their statement of their understanding of the basics of the 4 critical branches of the philosophy. A knowledgeable person would read the essay and decide whether to permit membership. There are several virtues to that approach. First, it would provide an indication of the person's attention to grammar and spelling. Second, it would require them to state in their own words, their understanding of the ideas, rather than a multiple choice test or just copying and pasting stuff. The chief downside would be the time requirements for judging the essay.

[softwareNerd]

I have to echo David Odden's sentiment. The Premium forums are already de facto a place of refuge. I completely understand why one would need a place like that. I posted there just recently, to limit replies to Objectivists. Still, hardly anyone posts in those forums. Indeed, most of the more experienced Objectivists do not start new threads elsewhere either; the less experienced (and non-) Objectivists end up setting the agenda.

Would more people post there if being an Objectivist were made de jure? If so, we would just need to work out the details.

There's another idea I've been mulling while pondering this thread (and a few of the related ones) over the last few days. It's not fully formed yet, so I put it out in the nature of a brain-storm...

What if we had sub-forums the revolved around a certain intellectual? This could be like "blogging inside the forum". So, for instance, when one clicked on Premium Forums, one of the sub-forums in that might be (say) "Burgess's Corner". It would be run and coordinated by him. If he wanted to use it like a blog -- in the sense of being the initiator of all topics -- he could do that; if he wanted to allow a certain sub-set of people to start topics, and another sub-set of people reply to existing topics, he could do that. If he wanted to run a tutorial sub-forum (taking questions in one thread and deciding which one's he wants to reply to), he could do that.

As I say, this is just a brain-storm. My guess is that something like that is manageable (software/admin -wise) using the features of Invision. However, the bigger question is: does it make sense?

[Needless to say, the forum owner would be judicious in who was allowed to start an run such a sub-forum.]

[Unconquered]

What if we had sub-forums the revolved around a certain intellectual? This could be like "blogging inside the forum". So, for instance, when one clicked on Premium Forums, one of the sub-forums in that might be (say) "Burgess's Corner". It would be run and coordinated by him.

Offhand I think that's a good idea, though the main objection that comes to mind is that there could be a large number of them, if just anybody could create one. It would have extra value only if true intellectuals such as Burgess were permitted to have one.

[JMeganSnow]

I was wondering how long you were going to let me twist in the wind, there, softwareNerd. "Hi! I'm a new admin! I'm going to start making broad policy statements with little or no feedback!"

My inclination is to take de facto arrangements and make them de jure first and see if that's a satisfactory solution; creating a new "rule" to solve everything, in my experience, leads to a very hostile environment, even though it might seem at first brush that this would be fair and decrease workload for everyone involved. Inefficient rules get ignored, and there's nothing like having rules you don't apply to undermine your authority. Taking a situation that already pertains and making a rule to formalize it is MUCH more effective. I learned this in a variety of environments, too, from my current job to a stint running an RPG club in college.

I like the idea of an entrance essay for the Premium Forums. I'll even volunteer to read them, since I read quickly and form impressions quickly, but I have an alternate suggestion as well: if the Premium Forums are going to be a sort of "in" club (and there's nothing wrong with that; I think everyone that's visited the forum more than just a few times develops their own idea of who the "authorities" on the site are, might as well formalize it), why not let either 2 or 3 Premium Members invite a new one?

Should there be a distinction between a Patron, who has donated money to the site, and a Premium Member?

As SoftwareNerd said, these are just some brainstorming ideas.

[EC]

Should there be a distinction between a Patron, who has donated money to the site, and a Premium Member?

I like this idea. Of course anybody should be able to donate money to the site and become a Patron. But handpicking Premium Members would nearly ensure only Objectivists get into those forums which would create a place where more efficient discussions could take place without having to stop and answer why God can't exist, the universe always has, and that I chose to learn those facts of reality (it wasn't 'determined' some how that I would know them) every other post. Having the same discussions over and over gets boring and makes one not want to post much and when one does, keeping his posts too short and and his temper even shorter sometimes.

[Dismuke]

Here is my two cents worth of ideas on how to possibly set something up along those lines:

1) Create a sub forum for "Advanced Members." Only Advanced Members would have posting privileges - but everyone may read the postings. Advanced Membership would be by invitation only. The determination of who qualifies for such an invitation would be determined by Forum management. Such an invitation would be based on a potential member's previous postings on this Forum as well any postings on other Objectivist forums that members of Forum management might be aware of plus whatever other public writings they may have done - for example articles in a local or campus Objectivist club newsletter. Basically, an invitation could be potentially sent out to anyone that Forum management has determined, by whatever means it deems appropriate, to be worthy of it.

2) There would be no formal "application process" to become an Advanced Member. If one wishes to become such a member, then their best bet is to put up plenty of quality postings to the Forum so as to eventually attract the attention and respect of Forum management. For potential candidates who have a history of posting here, I would also include posting etiquette as something to also be taken into consideration as such people ought to be setting a good example for others.

3) It might even be a good idea to actively recruit qualified people one discovers in other forums or through one's acquaintance who are NOT currently members of this Forum and extend them an invitation to join in as an Advanced Member. The larger number of such individuals who are Advanced Members, the more interesting the threads will likely be - especially if Forum management is able to recruit some REALLY high quality individuals to post in the Advanced section from time to time (i.e. established Objectivist intellectuals).

4) Those who are non-Advanced Members and wish to respond to threads in the Advanced section are free to start similar threads in the appropriate subject forum elsewhere on the board so that everyone may participate - including any Advanced Members who might be interested in doing so.

4) I think calling it a subforum for "Advanced Members" is better than calling it "Objectivists Only." My concern is that the latter might be misinterpreted by Objectivist newbies as meaning that such members postings somehow qualify as "official Objectivist doctrine." I have known over the years a few committed, serious and sincere Objectivists who were perfectly capable of regurgitating the correct Objectivist position in any number of areas - but when it came to applying Objectivist principles to a given concrete issue or situation......well, let's just say that there are a LOT of instances of rationalism among very decent, knowledgeable and even advanced students of the philosophy.

5) Let's always be very careful and concerned about the overall experience that non-Objectivist newbies have once they discover this Forum and choose to participate in it. I understand that some of the standard false philosophical premises that all newbies, to one degree or another, hold can sometimes be a bit frustrating, especially if one's goal is to interact with people who share one's own intellectual context. But I think it is VERY important that knowledgeable Objectivists make every reasonable effort to be patient with non-Objectivists and newbies. After all, where are future Objectivists going to come from? Obviously from the ranks of those who are non-Objectivists. I think we can all agree that the world is most desperately in need of as many people becoming knowledgeable Objectivists as possible. Obviously, any forum such as this is going to attract its share of trolls, nihilists and other hostile types. But our default assumption should always be to initially err on the side of the person being merely confused or inarticulate as opposed to dishonest or hostile - because if the worst turns out to be the case, one can always ban them the next time. It is much more difficult to regain credibility for one's self and Objectivism when one erroneously pronounces a person as dishonest when he is merely confused. I have always believed that if one is going to identify one's self with the philosophy of Objectivism in public, one has a profound moral responsibility to be a good ambassador for that philosophy - because, like it or not, when you identify yourself as an Objectivist, you are such an ambassador. A good example that comes to mind is when Diana Hsieh wrote that, as an uninformed newbie, she jumped over to the David Kelley camp based in large part on the obnoxious behavior of a couple of people she encountered who allied themselves with ARI. I have yet to see any uncorrected examples of inappropriate behavior towards newbies on this Forum or, otherwise, I wouldn't be here. But I do think that any time the topic of "limits" on non-Objectivists is discussed, it is a issue worth keeping in mind. We should all be very grateful for the large number of non-Objectivists who are interested in this Forum - it is a great sign that the ideas that we support and admire are having an impact and are starting to spread.

6) Board management would be wise to not discuss or answer questions about exactly how it goes about determining who it invites as Advanced Members or why. Anyone who makes an issue of it or keeps pestering to become an Advanced Member is probably, by virtue of such behavior alone, not a good candidate for it.

[JMeganSnow]

Those are some interesting suggestions.

[softwareNerd]

I have moved the most recent posts to the thread on "Forum Atmosphere". This is not the thread to discuss rules for newbies.

People participate in this forum for various reasons. Helping newbies may be one of those reasons for some people. Discussion about how to do that can be addressed in the on "Forum Atmosphere" thread.

However, one important reason Objectivists participate in the forum is to talk to other Objectivists: to share values with them and to explore more detailed philosophy and applications of philosophy. This thread is about that particular purpose: i.e. where on the forum is there a "sanctuary" that can serve this purpose.

The preceding discussion has been about ways in which to create such a place and how one would determine rules and membership. That's the context for this thread. With that context, I've been thinking about how to make the "Premium Forums" an area where one can de jure not be "fly swatting". I came up with the following draft rule:

The premium forums are meant for discussions that assume the basics of Objectivism to be true. Basics, as used here, means Ayn Rand's "standing on one leg" summary of Objectivism. While questions about the basics of Objectivism may be allowed elsewhere on the forum, the Premium forum is not the place for them.

The Premium Forum is not a place to learn or argue the basics of Objectivism. It is a place to get a deeper understanding of Objectivism, to explore its practical applications, and to speak to people to share one's basic philosophy.

(Edited: Fixed faulty link)

Edited December 24, 2005 by softwareNerd

[JMeganSnow]

I'd put in "or argue" after learn in the second paragraph.

(Edit: Incorporated. Thx. sN)

Edited December 24, 2005 by softwareNerd

[DavidV]

My primary motivation for creating the Premium Forums was to create a place to have quality discussions, not necessarily a place to have discussions exclusively by Objectivists. I personally do not value talking exclusively to Objectivists that much beyond taking to people who are interested in having serious conversations about Objectivism.

If I am alone in this valuation, I would like to know about it. However, I don’t believe that the Premium Forums are threatened by a flood of anti-Objectivists paying money to harass us – and if they were, I would happily take their money - and then ban them. (In fact, the moderators have done so when necessary.) If that does become a problem, we can reconsider the rules as necessary.

Furthermore, I personally find it a value to discuss Objectivism with people who are brand new to Objectivism, yet very interested in it, and if they demonstrate their interest with their wallet, I don’t think that is such a bad idea.

By the way, if someone does feel that creating an Objectivists-only forum is a good idea, I think a poll would be in order. If they are enough votes, I will consider doing so. If you are a leader in an Objectivist group, you could also establish a private forum under Local Forums, that will follow your own moderation standards.

[Free Thinker]

Let me first say that this is probably a deviation from your discussion(s) above, but I didn't want to star a new thread on the same subject matter.

I have been hearing a lot over the months about the type of audience/membership this forum has and their influence on this forum's atmosphere. For instance, this thread, and here, here, here, and I could probably find a million more. But hey, don't get me wrong. If that's what's on your mind, then by all means post away. To me, however, this debate is getting kind of tired - and I really don't see what it is practically trying to accomplish. A forum, by definition, will attract many different types of people, with a wide variety of temprements, personalities, philosophies, etc., etc. That's to be expected. This forum, as I understand it, is here to facilitate specifically study in Objectivism. So, people who do not facilitate that goal (either by trolling, or being rude, etc.) should rightfully be banned or warned. The problem for me, however, is this uncomfortable line between having healthy debate about things, and still having the focus be on developing knowledge in Objectivism. Okay, so here's what I am getting at. Suppose you are on a thread, and someone is annoying you. Instead of trying to get more restrictions, let's say, on the types of people who can participate on this forum, or here they can participate, etc., etc., why don't you remind yourself on what options you DO have? You can ignore him (an option I think is often forgotten), you can report him, you can send him a stern PM, etc., etc.. Why hasn't that worked? I say "hasn't worked", because I see the same issues rising up again and again, and people trying to solve it.

I hope I don't come across as angry, because I'm not, but I am just curious.

Thoughts?

[dondigitalia]

Instead of trying to get more restrictions, let's say, on the types of people who can participate on this forum, or here they can participate, etc., etc., why don't you remind yourself on what options you DO have?

That's one of the best statements I think anyone has made on this subject.

[Free Thinker]

That's one of the best statements I think anyone has made on this subject.

Thanks!