Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Forum Atmosphere

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Member "JamWhite" and I exchanged a few PMs about OO.net and how it could be made better. I'm quoting a PM from him (with his permission, of course)...

He said a lot of good things. Here are my commnents:

News: I really like everything JamWhite said. Well done.

Education: I view this site primarily as an educational tool as well, but I'm opposed to any kind of formalized instruction because, to the best of my knowledge, none of us are qualified to teach Objectivism; all we are qualified to do is give our own views on any matter. Teaching requires a high level of expertise. A "study group" of sorts is a great idea. We actually attempted this with ITOE back when the Premium Forums were first made, but it kind of tapered off. I'd be interested in starting it back up, though, if others want to as well.

I'm not sure what is meant by charging for the educational content. All of the content can be considered eductational, and I think it's a mistake to charge for membership on the whole forum. Not because David doesn't deserve to have some payment (clearly, since I'm a paying member), but because of the significant decline in membership that would follow, and because it would block out the young, high school crowd, who don't have the money and are potentially the best investment of everyone's time.

Culture: I'm in basic agreement here as well, but I think it's important to note that journalistic efforts in culture-changing is more effectively directed at non-Objectivists. I see no problem with highlighting good efforts on the forum, though. Everybody likes to hear about good things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am relatively new here and I like the atmosphere. I would be severely disappointed if the moderaters allowed outright challenges to Ayn Rand's philosophy outside of the debate forum. I have witnessed some members forget tact and then write hasty personal attacks. Usually they opologize or the moderators close the thread. I applaud the alacrity with which moderators throw completely obscene posts in the trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obscene posts, blatant advertisements and the like are "no brainers". What "Sturmgeschutz" and "Knockout" are referring to is a different type of post. It is true that the reactions one gets from other members can be negative at times. On, the other hand, at other times one sees members being extremely helpful. Some reasons for this variability:

  • there are various members, with various evaluations, and levels of patience at various times
  • more often than not, the type of reaction is driven by the reactor's assumptions about the original poster's intent

Take the following 4 imaginary posts. They all say the same thing about Philosophy, but indicate different attitudes and possbily different intent. Do you think reactions will be the same? Should reactions be the same?

I know reality exists, in the sense that I bonk my head with a frying pan, and I get hurt. What I do not understand is how to validate this philosophically.

How can I prove that reality does not exist? I just don't see it? I just have to take it on belief.

Objectivists like to think that reality exists. I agree with everything in Objectivism except this. I accept Objectivism, but to me it is like a belief system.

Objectivists like feeling superior to others, thinking that their philosophy is reality-based. All said and done, there's no real way to validate reality. So, while I agree with Objectivism, I don't think we should be so sure that we're that different from others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say that I like it here. I ask lots of stupid questions. :D What I like is that I get intelligent answers. People here really think. That's good. Sometimes people are angry very early because I just don't get it, but hey, that's their free choice. They have no obligation to answer me. I'm just glad they do. I learned a lot since I started posting here and I will continue to do so. Besides, you guys have a great taste regarding movies. :thumbsup:

Sturmgeschütz, I don't think that one is attacked all the time for stupid questions. I am not and as far as I see it, most of what I do is ask stupid questions. Most people here have a thorough interest in this philosophy and a deep understanding. You can profit a lot from it, if you only try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I've been posting here for over a year. I like it here. Lately I haven't been very active, but that's because my schoolwork has been taking pretty much all of my time lately. Anyway... I am semi-comfortable posting here. I don't just post anything. If I don't feel I can contribute something important to the discussion, I'm not going to post. I think over the course of the year I've been here, I've gotten a bit more cautious about what I say. But that's not a bad thing. It's not like I have to "hide anything." It's just that here, you need to really think an idea through before you post it, or you're going to get called on it. In conclusion: I <3 OO.net.

EDIT: Weird, I got a flood control message, and when I re-posted, it entered the text twice.

Edited by non-contradictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm responding to the following:

Personally, I'd welcome a broader discussion about what should and should not be allowed, given the objectives of the forum,... and how ...and with what tone,...or with what "Viewer Discretion Advised" warnings... any ideas. Rather than do so in the body of this thread, I suggest we use the "Forum Atmosphere" thread.

-- posted by softwareNerd here

Here's an idea: a "Borderline Trash" subforum in "Website Policy and Announcements."

Messages on the borderline between trash and nontrash could be discussed. Those who wish to categorize a particular message (as trash or as nontrash) will be able to do so from the point of view of Objectivism or from the more specific point of view of the rules of this particular message board. Even if all participants in such a discussion soon agree that a particular message is definitely trash, the discussion itself may nevertheless be helpful if it clarifies the principles of Objectivism or the rules of this particular message board (or both).

Perhaps a "Borderline Trash" subforum is a bad idea, but I am interested in knowing why it's a bad idea (if it is a bad idea).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always liked the atmosphere here, and have never had any problems. Theres a tendency for debates to become heated when both sides are passionate about what they are arguing, but this is to be expected and it very rarely spills over into aggression. Personally I prefer the OO atmosphere preferable to that of Steven Speicher's forum, which I find to be overmodded and a bit sycophantic at times.

The only problem would be a certain hostility towards new posters, although this tends to manifest itself in patronization more than anything else. The most obvious example of this would be the way which new posters are corrected when they spell Objectivism with a lower-case 'o'. Even if you wish to correct them, there are more polite ways of doing this than making snide comments like "I dont know what you mean by 'objectivism', this forum is about Objectivism", which just reek of juvenile sarcasm even if this is not how they are intended.

Edited by Hal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is ironic to see people using a negative tone to complain of negative tone. Here are some examples:

  • "juvenile sarcasm",
  • "sychophancy",
  • "the forum just dug knee deep in his ass",
  • "Many people here strike me as people that have never held a position of authority, or not much of one, so when they get a position of pseudo-authority (web site moderator) they go crazy with it like it's a new toy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the following 4 imaginary posts. They all say the same thing about Philosophy, but indicate different attitudes and possbily different intent. Do you think reactions will be the same? Should reactions be the same?
Since no one else seems to be answering this, I'll have a go at it. It's too interesting of an idea to just leave hanging.

I know reality exists, in the sense that I bonk my head with a frying pan, and I get hurt. What I do not understand is how to validate this philosophically.
More than the others, this appears to be an honest question. The person is asking for clarification, and not pretending to know something that they don't. I would hope that a person asking this question would get an honest answer.

How can I prove that reality does not exist? I just don't see it? I just have to take it on belief.
This one has a little bit more behind it that A. The person makes a statement "I just have to take it on belief." Without anything to back it up. I think people here, after having heard similar statements many times before, would probably get irritated at least a little. The difference between A and B is that A is asking a question, where B is asks a question and then answers it with an unsubstatiated claim.

Objectivists like to think that reality exists. I agree with everything in Objectivism except this. I accept Objectivism, but to me it is like a belief system.
I think this statement is just touching a nerve. It's only natural that Objectivists, being champions of reason, would not like being called a "belief system." This person may have an honest intent, but his post may be perceived as an insult, whether he knows it or not.

Objectivists like feeling superior to others, thinking that their philosophy is reality-based. All said and done, there's no real way to validate reality. So, while I agree with Objectivism, I don't think we should be so sure that we're that different from others.
Okay, this one would probably earn some snarkiness from me. The poster is insulting Objectivists and calling himself one in one go. Plus, he seems to already know what he's talking about. Why waste his time posting this if "there's no real way to validate reality."

Basically, I think that the way a poster presents his question has a lot to do with how the other members will respond. Also, I think it is justified. It'd be the same thing if we were all chatting in a coffee shop. An honest question gets an honest answer. A bundled insult gets... well, insults. I also think a lot of it has to do with how much patience you have with people. I have very little. I am also not used to people caring what I say about them. What I mean is, if I think my friends are being stupid, I will tell them. They will either ignore me, or listen. No hard feelings either way. That becomes tricky on the internet when you don't necessarily know a person's personality or whether they are going to take criticism the wrong way. Your only option is to interpret a person's intent as best you can and then act accordingly. People shouldn't let one snarky comment turn them off something anyway.

The thing I think some people forget is that this forum is geared towards a specific purpose and a specfic audience. If you don't like that purpose or that audience, you don't have to stay. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to improve what members think needs to be improved. What I mean is that saying that you're not allowed to post whatever you want here is irrelevant, because as far as I know you're not supposed to be able to post whatever you want here.

Just my 2 cents, for what it's worth... <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original post from Felipe was:

I want to ask the patrons (and others who have access to this forum) what they think of the atmosphere here in the forum, and based on the response address the topic with regulars. Specifically, I would like for you to think for a minute and consider whether you feel "comfortable" posting here.

I always feel a little intimidated here. It's clear dissent and original thinking isn't much tolerated. This is why I mostly "lurk," not post.

Recently a new book came out by James Valliant which did much to set the record straight and give the other side of the story--but which was the essence of tendentious. Not impartial or objectively truth-seeking at all. But do I feel comfortable expressing that sentiment here? No, I do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this statement is just touching a nerve. It's only natural that Objectivists, being champions of reason, would not like being called a "belief system." This person may have an honest intent, but his post may be perceived as an insult, whether he knows it or not.

Not only is this bad for the reasons you state, but it also implies intellectual dishonesty because all of the Objectivist principles are based on the axioms- the axiom of existence being one of those. So he either doesn't know enough about Objectivism to accept it (which he claims to do) or he is *blanking out*. Either way, I think this comment is worse than "just touching a nerve", (though it could be my idea of just touching a nerve is much less than your idea. :()

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do I feel comfortable expressing that sentiment here? No, I do not.

Your actions indicate otherwise. Apparently, that's the only sentiment you bother to express when you come out of lurking, which makes me wonder what your motivation for being here is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Not only is this bad for the reasons you state, but it also implies intellectual dishonesty because all of the Objectivist principles are based on the axioms- the axiom of existence being one of those. So he either doesn't know enough about Objectivism to accept it (which he claims to do) or he is *blanking out*. Either way, I think this comment is worse than "just touching a nerve", (though it could be my idea of just touching a nerve is much less than your idea. :D)

That's true, but I was trying to contrast this remark to the one below it, which is worse, in my opinion. Plus, I've heard this type of statement enough for it to just be annoying. It was poor word choice on my part. It's not "just" touching a nerve, as in that's the only reason it's bad. What I meant was that even if there wasn't actually anything philosophically wrong with the post (which there is) then I would still be annoyed because calling Objectivism a "belief system" is ignorant and I don't have the patience to listen to it. Anyway, bad word choice, my fault. Remove the "just" and I think it works better. I think I have a habit of overusing that word anyway... <_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote yesterday:

I always feel a little intimidated here. It's clear dissent and original thinking isn't much tolerated. This is why I mostly "lurk," not post.

Recently a new book came out by James Valliant which did much to set the record straight and give the other side of the story--but which was the essence of tendentious. Not impartial or objectively truth-seeking at all. But do I feel comfortable expressing that sentiment here? No, I do not.

Greedy Capitalist replied:

Your actions indicate otherwise. Apparently, that's the only sentiment you bother to express when you come out of lurking, which makes me wonder what your motivation for being here is.

That is not the only sentiment I express. Anyone who reads my occasional posts can see that. In fact, that wasn't even the only sentiment I expressed yesterday--even those this whole thread is devoted to "forum atmosphere."

My goal here is to discuss Objectivism with an informed, intelligent, worthwhile audience in a way which can benefit my life. But it's a real value in discussing things to be able to really express one's true self and thoughts. This is where the intimidation factor and "Warn %" ratings and REPORT! button on every post comes in. The Valliant book mentioned above is hugely worth discussing in an open, honest and critical manner. But it helps if people could do so without having their motivation questioned.

Edited by Ariana Binetta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wrote yesterday:

Greedy Capitalist replied:

That is not the only sentiment I express. Anyone who reads my occasional posts can see that. In fact, that wasn't even the only sentiment I expressed yesterday--even those this whole thread is devoted to "forum atmosphere."

My goal here is to discuss Objectivism with an informed, intelligent, worthwhile audience in a way which can benefit my life. But it's a real value in discussing things to be able to really express one's true self and thoughts. This is where the intimidation factor and "Warn %" ratings and REPORT! button on every post comes in. The Valliant book mentioned above is hugely worth discussing in an open, honest and critical manner. But it helps if people could do so without having their motivation questioned.

Ariana, If your intentions are as you say, then you need to figure out why your post come across as "bait". You think Jimmy Carter is a great guy, calling him "...a kind of moral giant among politicians". You said "[Rand]... seems like a bit of a killjoy". You've told us that Objectivism has not made you any happier than you were before. You keep mentioning Nathaniel Branden favorably and say that any criticism of him reflects on Rand. You say "TOC is a friendly, generous, benevolent organization" and say this in contrast to ARI.. by which we would conclude that you think the opposite of ARI. You encourage us to go check out David Kelley. You say that Dr. Peikoff & Yaron Brook are guilty of loose, glib, cavalier strategies and moral appraisals.

Are you really surprised that people here question your intent?

With all that, and for all your complaints about the warning symbols, you have never been given a formal warning using the forum warning system. At most, you've received public posts and private messages from moderators, who have let you remain because of a lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe you're confused and mistaken.

Moderation on the forum is not always uniform. There are some present and past members who might legitimately complain about forum atmosphere and about not being given the benefit of the doubt. Your case is just the opposite. It is a clear demonstration of how lax the forum can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goal here is to discuss Objectivism with an informed, intelligent, worthwhile audience in a way which can benefit my life. But it's a real value in discussing things to be able to really express one's true self and thoughts. This is where the intimidation factor and "Warn %" ratings and REPORT! button on every post comes in. The Valliant book mentioned above is hugely worth discussing in an open, honest and critical manner. But it helps if people could do so without having their motivation questioned.

Ariana, have you ever heard the story of the princess and the pea? You've never even been warned! according to softwareNerd. You're really sensitive.

If you really want to have fun and go hog wild, set up a blog. Google provides free blog spots here http://www.blogger.com/start

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always feel a little intimidated here. It's clear dissent and original thinking isn't much tolerated. This is why I mostly "lurk," not post.
Somewhere along the following line, I imagine you'd have to disagree or at least say "that's where the problem is". I hope there's no question that reality is real, and that it is knowable. Based on that knowledge, people act in certain ways for some purpose. Because we are not omniscient, we can be mistaken about what state of affairs does result from our actions. But, because of causality, the relationship between action and result is not random. The proper way to reach a goal, when you cannot see into the future, is to act in a principled manner. Principles for action are good or bad just in case they consistently achieve or fail to achieve a goal. Let's take "living" to be the fundamental goal of humans. When a person follows good principles, those which further life, they are morally good, and when a person follows bad principles, they are morally bad.

In addition, because man has an essential nature, it is possible to objectively assess whether certain principles are good or bad, so just as it is possible for you to judge your own moral goodness, it is possible (though harder) to judge the moral goodness of another person. A person who is aware of the nature of morality cannot evade moral perception, any more than they can evade visual perception. That is, if you know what an apple is and if you are faced with a visible apple you will see and identify an apple. Equally, when you know what an immoral action is and you are faced with an immoral action, you will see and identify the act as immoral.

It would be not only strange but, depending on context, possibly wrong to sit silently, when one person sees an apple and says "That is a banana". Perhaps if you think the person is just kidding, it would not be worth commenting on. If you think that the person has made an error and has mis-identified reality, it is a kindness to that person to correct their error. You certainly have no legal obligation to correct a person's errors in fruit identification, but if that person is of any value to you, you should correct their mistake, to help them overcome whatever problem exists in their epistemology that allows them to mis-identify reality. The same holds for moral identifications, which are an aspect of identifying reality. When a person mis-identifies an action, and evaluates an evil act as good, you should correct their error -- you should judge them and critique their choice. Perhaps they are rotten to the core, in which case you should have nothing to do with them, and you should simply warn others that that is an evil person based on such-and-such fact. But let's assume we are addressing a person who is mistaken, not evil -- we don't have many evil people hanging out here. Then it is a good thing to do to help a person who has made an error (in either visual or moral perception), by correcting them. Do you agree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all that, and for all your complaints about the warning symbols, you have never been given a formal warning using the forum warning system. At most, you've received public posts and private messages from moderators, who have let you remain because of a lingering doubt that maybe, just maybe you're confused and mistaken.

Which is more than I recieved when I did MUCH less. Which leads to the next point.

Moderation on the forum is not always uniform. There are some present and past members who might legitimately complain about forum atmosphere and about not being given the benefit of the doubt. Your case is just the opposite. It is a clear demonstration of how lax the forum can be.

This is somewhat the same problem I have at my work. I have some members of leadership who let anyone get away with anything, and those who over punish for minor things.

I really enjoy reading a lot of the posts here, but I'm certainly intimidated to post here, as even when I post within the context of my knowledge of Objectivism/Ayn Rand (Or my reading of), I've had moderators insinuate stupidity or attacks, even on something that is subjective within Objectivism (i.e. based on personal heirarchy of values.) Now, I mainly "lurk," which is unfortunate (for everyone who feels that way) because I think there is a lot of intelligence, and a lot of people who have good things to say, and can say them in good ways, that I don't think we're getting enough out of, because of intimidation.

My question, then, is: do the mods have a standard SOP (standard operating proceedure) to work of off, that says EXACTLY what, and what not to do? Or is it just general guidelines? I understand (being a moderator on different type of forum) that it can be quite difficult to separate a personal bias from a real issue, but we have (what I think is) a good list of exactly how the owner/admin wants it moderated. (Of course this may already be true here, but I'm not sure.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that some folks need to get a thicker skin. If you feel intimidated by what a moderator types to you on an internet forum, then you really do need to develop some coping skills.

For me, I find the atmosphere here great. It is certainly not as accepting of alternate viewpoints as the average chat room, but I don't really think that is its purpose. I don't really post that often because I don't really think that I know enough about most of the topics being discussed that I actually have much to add. That doesn't make me feel intimidated, that makes me think that I am in a place where I might actually learn something.

If this forum ever becomes a place where people feel comfortable just throwing out any old idea without being somewhat rigorous about it, then that is when I will leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is more than I received when I did MUCH less.
I wouldn't dispute the comparison; so, thanks for posting.

The only explicit, formal guidelines and SOP are those documented in the Forum rules. They do leave moderators with room to make judgments, and these judgments are not always uniform. If a post is a blatant advertisement, or extremely rude, or if something else about it indicates that the poster is just a troll visiting us with no intention to stay or to add value, then it is usually easy to identify. Moderators rarely disagree about those posts. Variation in judgment is more common when judging if a post/member meets the forum's rules in other areas: purpose of the forum, propagating anti-Objectivist ideas, misrepresenting what Objectivism says.

I disagree with the poster who proposed that the solution was to remove all rules of that type. The forum has a purpose and it would not serve its purpose if it allowed anything to be posted. For instance, suppose in the middle of the discussion about abortion, some religious member politely started to talk about God and why we should take that into account! That's far fetched, because we do not attract religious members. However, we do attract a few other non-Objectivist groups -- e.g. hedonists & anarchists. At times these folk disrupt the threads in which they comment, because they do not share some fundamental premises with Objectivists. The result is that the discussion veers away. Instead of Objectivists trying to sort out some detail based on a common premise, it becomes Objectivists trying to convince the non-Objectivist of the truth of their premise, or worse, it becomes a flame-war.

(As an aside, some members would like to argue these fundamental premises with non-Objectivists. That's why we started a "Debate forum", as a special place for debates about Objectivism.)

Would you agree with this in principle, Styles2112? If so, can you suggest how the rules can be made more objective (less open to interpretation)? Or, could you suggest an SOP that moderators could follow when they see a violation of the rules? I'm sure we can do better.

Personally, I would welcome guidelines that add objectivity and consistency without changing the principles behind the existing forum rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a fairly new member to OO.net I will put my few observations into the limelight :lol:

I think that the forum atmosphere is challenging - but to put that into context I'll emphasise a few points.

As I read the questions posted by others I will answer if I am knowledgeable enough about the subject and have something to add that has not already been addressed by another poster. I always take the time to ascertain the relevence and validity of my possible answers as I feel 'challenged' to give an answer that is as close as I can get to the generally informative and eloquent answers given by the more frequent posters.

This also holds true for questions. I tend to browse through the forums to see if a question I might have has already been asked and answered. If not, I would consider the question carefully before posting it to ensure that I formulated it correctly. I would also be prepared for criticism if it turned out that I had mis-stated the queshon.

The people like myself who arrive here as beginners in the study of Objectivism can find numerous insightful comments on various topics from intellectually accomplished individuals, but we also should expect to be held to the same standards as those we look for in other posters when getting actively involved in the forums by posting questions and answers.

Though the more frequent posters have no monopoly on intellectual accomplishment, they have had, more often than not, more time to study and understand Objectivism, and since this is why we are all here, new members like myself should pay attention to not only their answers, but also the instances when they remarked negatively about a post. In these cases I find it wiser to re-read and try to check the premises of the poster to see if I can find for myself what has illicited such a response.

Anyway, this was only going to be a short response, but I got carried away, so forgive the length of my post :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just found this forum a week ago, and from my 'newbie experience', I do see how posting on here can be intimidating. I went through a few older threads, and did notice people being painfully proven wrong or foolish. Not that I mind, if anything - it makes me think twice before actually posting something. I do consider myself lucky for not being taken as a troll when I posted my first question about Objectivism, but got useful responses instead. My only reservation regarding the forum is that members do not post that often, but I'll take quality over quantity at any time. Overall, I do enjoy it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(As an aside, some members would like to argue these fundamental premises with non-Objectivists. That's why we started a "Debate forum", as a special place for debates about Objectivism.)

Which, I think, was a great idea.

Would you agree with this in principle, Styles2112? If so, can you suggest how the rules can be made more objective (less open to interpretation)? Or, could you suggest an SOP that moderators could follow when they see a violation of the rules? I'm sure we can do better.

Well, I probably don't have the knowledge, or experience to suggest a full SOP, but I have, at least, one suggestion (related to the discussed example). I think it should be a requirement to have a mod PM the member with questioned posts to either: clarify a miscommunication on the part of the member (not all of us are brilliant with words and can sometimes say one thing and mean something COMPLETELY different) (This would also help the member feel more at ease in posting as the mods are willing to help CLARIFY issues as opposed to just banning and trashing members/posts that might be actually trying to learn/say something.), get a better judge of member's intent (in my case, I was trying to understand MY interpretation of Ms. Rand as opposed to other's with a certain issue, which lead to me being called an Anti-American Troll, which is something that I am not {Especially not the first one, and definitely not the last one}. I recieved no PM, or even a suggestion that I should discontinue the arguement/debate and was booted. Admin was kind enough to look at my case and reverse the decision, but it should have never come to that. If I had just been PM, saying that I was going against forum rules, and why, I simply would've dropped the argument/or changed my wording, and moved on.). If the PM is not responded to, or the situation is not resolved or worsened, then I think the mod THEN has the right/duty to either trash the post/ban the member (and even banning should be done on a documented three strike deal, or the like).

Edited by Styles2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Styles2112, One problem with not using the warning system is a lack of good record, particularly because we have quite a few moderators and all are doing this part-time as volunteers. When a moderator sees an offending post, they can see that the user has been warned (by someone else) and will therefore know that the issue is resolved. Or, the moderator might see that the member had been warned about something very similar a few weeks ago, and is repeating the same thing.

If you think of the warning system as a "Member-Moderator Communication Record system", you'll see that it makes sense to have such a record. No non-moderator can see if another member has a warning or not. Only the member himself can see it. I can understand that if one did something innocently, the ever present "20% warning" by one's name can be a nag. If a member objects to a moderator's action, moderators will almost always discuss it with other moderators to get a second opinion. Sometimes, we have even gone back and removed a warning if it was old, even if we thought it was appropriate at the time it was made. That takes time.

Knowing that the "warning" can be seen as nagging, moderators on the forum have increasingly used PMs rather than the formal warning system to warn members in "borderline" cases. BTW, that has it's own problems, because sometimes that becomes an independent PM-based discussion (or flame-war).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand that if one did something innocently, the ever present "20% warning" by one's name can be a nag.

Just a thought - why not gradually lower user's warning level after a certain amount of time has passed? Sort of like the penalty point system on your driver's licence - as long as you're driving safely, the points you've already gained are slowly being deducted. Didn't Ayn Rand say something to the effect of "rewarding the Good is much important than punishing the Evil". Seems to me that gradually lowering user's warning level as long as they "drive safe" would go in the spirit of that statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...