Jake_Ellison Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I would like to know what, in your opinion, should the minimum requirements be, in style, content, fact-checking, originality, and other criteria you wish to add, for the average post on Objectivism Online.Net and other similar forums. Also, feel free to add your personal taste of a post you're most likely to read and enjoy, length- and content-wise, and whether you appreciate humor, people adopting an informal or a familiar tone with their friends, etc. What would you consider too blunt, how would you describe a minimum level of civility (perhaps through examples), and what kind of compliments/[whatever the opposite of compliments is] are acceptable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 (edited) I think you could probably answer all of these questions for each member by just reading through their posts. At any rate, I have had no problem just observing members to answer those questions. Edited May 9, 2009 by JASKN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Just be yourself. That's good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 What would you consider too blunt, how would you describe a minimum level of civility (perhaps through examples), and what kind of compliments/[whatever the opposite of compliments is] are acceptable?You should be aware of the entailments and implications of what you say, and determine whether what you said / plan to post accurately matches your communicative intent. Calling a person an asshat can be deserved, but only in the case of willful asshattery. When your opponent is evil, they deserve condemnation. When they are clueless, they deserve something that ranges from a polite correction to a mild smack upside the head. Very often, a clueless person doesn't understand that he is clueless, and you actually cannot tell whether he is evil or just clueless. You should (if you care about the person's soul) correct them; if the correction doesn't take, you have to decide whether that is because of more deeply entrenched cluelessness, or because of evil. Presenting the person with a more stark contrast between their position and reality can be effective in eliminating asshattery. Or not, if they are too clueless. The goal is to get the other person to see "ZOMG I never realized how ridiculous my position was, so I better tune it up". A lot of the time a superficially ridiculous position is the product of a decent intent and a lack of proper mental integration. (Somcetimes, a troll is just a troll). You essentially have to judge the person's beliefs, intent and personality, and find the best course of action for you. The most recent episode of "Better off Ted" did a nice sendup of gratuitous compliments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.