Hiring Moderators

[SapereAude]

So I am not asking OO.NET to change. I am telling OO.NET, based on my own experiences with running large, successful forums, how I think it should change *IF* it doesn't want quality users voting with their feet.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read all the posts on this thread but as it is long I may have forgotten a point or two that you've made.

It seems to me that your suggestions for change have happened.

*It is encouraged that a mod let other mods handle a situation in which they were personally involved in conflict

*More mods were added making that much more feasible

*The mods chosen seem, to my biased eye, to be chosen from a fairly broad spectrum of posters- not any discernable "clique"

*I have personally addressed with you the issue of not getting a response from the mods

It seems like we are at the point where all you can do is stand back for a bit and see if these things have corrected the issue. So the question then becomes- why aren't you able to do that?

At this point it appears we are no longer talking about corrective actions you want taken in the way the forum is run. It seems this is now down to a specific area of conflict between yourself and David Odden.

I think you need to divorce your feelings about the overall forum from your conflict with David.

The actions that you think would make for a better user experience have been taken.

Trying to change David seems to be choosing your battles unwisely.

Can you try to see if the changes help?

The forum isn't going anywhere and you can always chime in a month from now with a "this is where these changes failed" this is what else I think needs to happen".

[Jonathan13]

It is not my opinion. It follows from the application of justice. Moderators like anyone else here have a right to fully act on their own judgment of the person they are interacting with. They need not respond with politeness to insults, for example.

As I said in my last post, I HAVE NOT had the right to fully act on my own judgment in response to persons I was interacting with. So your "like anyone else" comment is not true.

And it hasn't just been an issue of my using language that moderators have taken to be insulting or abusive. Some of my posts have been deleted not because they were insulting, but because they contained truths which were apparently uncomfortable to certain moderators, or because they challenged false statements made by people who have apparently been deemed to be above falsehood or error.

And those aren't even the most irritating encounters I've had with moderators here. Much more frustrating is when I put in a lot of effort to write an intelligent, germane criticism which encompasses a subject at a level that a moderator apparently can't grasp, and, since he doesn't grasp my point, he apparently decides that my posts aren't germane, and then keeps interfering and splitting my posts off onto new threads.

Basically, when others have had questions and comments about an aspect of the Objectivist view of art and aesthetics -- let's say they have comments about the Objectivist view of music -- and I try to get them to look at the bigger picture by thinking in principles about how, say, architecture or abstract art relate to the same problem, a moderator steps in, sees that I haven't limited my comments to music only, and then sends my post off to a new thread. It's very frustrating having your conversations interrupted by someone who insists on "organizing" the conversations at such a concrete-bound level.

It would be like someone starting a thread on the benefits of communism, and then someone else mentioning the hazards of communism and the fact that such hazards are eliminated under capitalism, and then a moderator stepping in and declaring that the topic has gone off course since the original purpose was to discuss only the benefits of communism. It seriously impedes productive intellection, and it's very irritating when the moderator in question then condescendingly responds to polite private inquiries with nothing but, "I won't discuss it further with you" when he hasn't discussed it at all to begin with.

If you want a more productive site here, which encourages higher quality discussions and a friendlier atmosphere, I'd suggest putting lighter, friendlier hands on the moderator button, and I'd suggest removing people who tend to behave like zealots or advocates and replacing them with people who behave like jurists (which isn't to say that zealotry or advocacy is a bad thing, but that it's generally not a good mindset to have as a moderator).

J

[Jonathan13]

Again, the moderators for many years now here have displayed high level of rationality publicly - if they took an action against you - there was probably just cause even if you personally did not like it.

I've also displayed a high level of rationality publicly. In fact, I've been so rational that many people here, including the moderators, can't refute my criticisms of their ideas, but perhaps have sometimes resorted to deleting my posts because they didn't like the fact that I've presented uncomfortable truths?

The fact that some won't agree with their judgment is a given. If everyone could come to their better senses on their own there would not be a need for moderators.

I don't think there is much of a need for moderators. In my experience here, they've done little more than impede the presentation of the truth in favor of their own subjective biases.

Furthermore, if I believed that I was severely unjustly treated I would not be here. If that is how you feel what are you doing here then?

That's not how I feel. I wasn't "severely unjustly treated." What am I doing here? There are many people here who haven't been abusive to me. There are many people here who I think have an interest in some of the same ideas that I'm interested in. Are you suggesting that if anyone has any complaints about their treatment at the hands of certain moderators, they should just shut up and go away?

Incidentally, this is the most successful forum of this kind and a big part of it is moderation. They have done an excellent job overall.

Again, you really don't know anything about their actions as moderators. You don't know, and apparently don't care to know, what it's like to be on the receiving end. As for this forum's success, I think that would depend on how one measures success. Personally, I tend to measure it by the depth of conversations, how much new intellectual ground has been broken, how much freedom is allowed, how much importance is placed on the open pursuit of truth, and how few games are played in impeding unpopular views or questions. I'd give this forum a mixed review.

J

Edited September 2, 2010 by Jonathan13

[Jonathan13]

I think this merits addressing...I do see where you are coming...When I was first on this forum I thought I saw the same pattern...My mind changed as I posted more frequently and on more topics...I don't see that as injustice, I see that as common sense...I understand where you may be disinclined to take my word for it, but please to take a moment to consider the possibility.

Okay. Thank you! That's very reasonable and polite of you. If other moderators had responded like that to me in the past, I probably wouldn't be here today complaining about their smugness and double standards.

J

[~Sophia~]

As I said in my last post, I HAVE NOT had the right to fully act on my own judgment in response to persons I was interacting with. So your "like anyone else" comment is not true.

I am not interested in discussing your personal situation, context of which I can not judge simply based on your recollection of the events.

I general, I would say that the fact that reasonably a person need not always be polite does not mean that the moderators should not stop a thread from turning into a slur fest. Allowing that is not in the best interest of the forum.

If you do not judge moderators here as rational - you should not be here.

Edited September 2, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[Greebo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, I've read all the posts on this thread but as it is long I may have forgotten a point or two that you've made.

It seems to me that your suggestions for change have happened.

That remains to be seen, but I hope so.

*I have personally addressed with you the issue of not getting a response from the mods

Yes, but you were not a mod at the time, and by your own statement, are not looking into it. I have another discussion going, however, and I'm waiting to see how that turns out.

It seems like we are at the point where all you can do is stand back for a bit and see if these things have corrected the issue. So the question then becomes- why aren't you able to do that?

Heh - a nice way of saying, "Oh shut up already?"

Seriously though, who says I'm not able to? This thread has been a back and forth. Don't single me out for being *part* of a discussion of policy and proper attitudes/actions of moderators. I have been talking at length now about why I think politeness is important at all times from moderators, and responding to questions and comments about my reasoning. Are you suggesting I'm wrong for trying to make my reasoning clear?

At this point it appears we are no longer talking about corrective actions you want taken in the way the forum is run. It seems this is now down to a specific area of conflict between yourself and <deleted>.

Point of order - <deleted> has not outed himself and I had no intention of doing so. Yes, from our back and forth, I'm sure it could have been inferred, but I still think it appropriate to keep names out of it.

I think you need to divorce your feelings about the overall forum from your conflict with <deleted>.

The actions that you think would make for a better user experience have been taken.

Again, that remains to be seen, and the reason I think politeness from moderators is important is not based on <deleted> but upon my own extensive experience running forums. <Deleted>'s incident provides material that serves as a good example of how not to act, IMO.

Trying to change <deleted> seems to be choosing your battles unwisely.

One of us is really failing to communicate if you think that's my goal.

Can you try to see if the changes help?

The forum isn't going anywhere and you can always chime in a month from now with a "this is where these changes failed" this is what else I think needs to happen".

Yes, I can try to see - but that doesn't mean the discussion as to *WHY* is over yet.

[Greebo]

They should act rationally and sometimes that may mean not being polite. (Please note that I said sometimes - not most of the time or as a default reaction)

Perhaps we have different definitions of polite here. I'm curious as to when you think that not displaying the following is rational?

2

a : showing or characterized by correct social usage

b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy

c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities <polite literature>

I'm by no means suggesting that one cannot be FIRM - but one can be firm *and* polite, so in what situation is it rational to be firm but rude?

[~Sophia~]

I don't think there is much of a need for moderators. In my experience here, they've done little more than impede the presentation of the truth in favor of their own subjective biases.

This is absurd and shows the extend to which you lack objectivity on this issue.

I do not understand why are you still here if you truly believe this.

Again, you really don't know anything about their actions as moderators.

You don't know, and apparently don't care to know, what it's like to be on the receiving end.

Yes I do to both. I have been on the receiving end. I already explained that it is an error to think that because I don't see some of the aspects of moderation that I can't make a judgment about it based on what is visible to me which includes public acts of moderation.

[~Sophia~]

Perhaps we have different definitions of polite here.

Politeness is an act of showing regard. A courteous manner. A gracious consideration toward others.

[Greebo]

Politeness is an act of showing regard. A courteous manner. A gracious consideration toward others.

Good. We agree.

So when is it irrational to display these traits?

[SapereAude]

That remains to be seen, but I hope so.

Yes, but you were not a mod at the time, and by your own statement, are not looking into it. I have another discussion going, however, and I'm waiting to see how that turns out.

Yes, but what I am trying to get you to see is the value of looking forward and not being bogged down in past perceived injustices that, if looked at rationally, are kind of small potatoes in the scheme of your life

Heh - a nice way of saying, "Oh shut up already?"

I wouldn't presume.

Seriously though, who says I'm not able to? This thread has been a back and forth. Don't single me out for being *part* of a discussion of policy and proper attitudes/actions of moderators. I have been talking at length now about why I think politeness is important at all times from moderators, and responding to questions and comments about my reasoning. Are you suggesting I'm wrong for trying to make my reasoning clear?

Not at all. I'm just asking you to consider that you may be hitting a wall where you are being counterproductive to your own aims. It would be hard to see if you think the moderation is more in line with what you consider ideal while still maintaining antagonistic stance- based on something that has passed

Point of order - <deleted> has not outed himself and I had no intention of doing so. Yes, from our back and forth, I'm sure it could have been inferred, but I still think it appropriate to keep names out of it.

I wasn't "outing" that person as anything- I was referring to the argument you are having openly now in this forum. I have no knowledge of any history you may have with that moderator.

Again, that remains to be seen, and the reason I think politeness from moderators is important is not based on <deleted> but upon my own extensive experience running forums. <Deleted>'s incident provides material that serves as a good example of how not to act, IMO.

One of us is really failing to communicate if you think that's my goal.

Yes, I can try to see - but that doesn't mean the discussion as to *WHY* is over yet.

Let's say that is true, but then you seem to be agreeing by your very statement that that is a separate issue. Ultimately what I am trying to convey is that you have some valid points. Some of them have been addressed. At some point if you keep pressing forward your message is getting lost in the form of presentation you are choosing.

You have used your past experience in forum admin to highlight why your knowledge should be taken seriously. So, I will use my life experience to highlight why I think you might want to take some of my advice re: stepping back from this a little. I am a business person. I've had a good track record of success. One thing that proves true in business- and in life- is that you should only change so many things at one time. This way, you have a better handle on which changes actually made the difference. Change too many things all at once and you will find it difficult to separate valuable adjustments from superfluous ones.

I think that in the long run your experience here will be better if you let a couple things from the past go (even if only temporarily) while you see if the changes here have been meaningful to your ability to enjoy use of this forum.

You are your own man and will make your own choices, that is a given. But sometimes it is easy to lose sight of your actual point when you feel you've been dealt with unjustly (right or wrong). I think you have done just that-lost some perspective in this. My post was not meant as an order, just a little outside insight. Take it as you will.

[Jonathan13]

This is absurd and shows the extend to which you lack objectivity on this issue.

I would assume that any disagreement with you would be taken as proof of your opponents' lack of objectivity.

I do not understand why are you still here if you truly believe this.

Maybe I should declare that your inability to understand just shows the extent to which you lack objectivity on this issue? Perhaps whichever of us behaves the haughtiest, and whichever declares the loudest that the other lacks objectivity, wins the argument?

Yes I do to both. I have been on the receiving end. I already explained that it is an error to think that because I don't see some of the aspects of moderation that I can't make a judgment about it based on what is visible to me which includes public acts of moderation.

So, by that principle, if I were to see only the nice aspects of communism -- let's say that I'm invited to stay for a week at a communist leader's palace, and he and his staff treat me very well -- I can make an informed and fair judgment about communism? If people of the nation report that they were not treated as well as I was, I should just shrug it off, tell them that they lack objectivity, and express anger that they're smearing their good leaders who, from all that I've seen, are very sweet and generous?

J

[Greebo]

SapereAude,

The only point I am pressing at this point is why I stand by the arguments that moderators should act in a polite fashion at all times. In my opinion, none of my other suggestions will matter if this particular one is not adopted, so I intend to make the reasoning clear and defend it.

So far, as I see it, I have given reasons supporting why moderators should be polite at all times and the consequences that will result if they choose not to be so. I have not, as yet, been presented with an argument that disproves my own, but there are people who disagree and assuming they're willing to continue talking, I intend to understand their reasoning. Yes, it's been demonstrated that they do not *have* to be polite but not that they *should not* be so.

[~Sophia~]

I would assume that any disagreement with you would be taken as proof of your opponents' lack of objectivity.

The proof is visible to anyone.

So, by that principle, if I were to see only the nice aspects of communism -- let's say that I'm invited to stay for a week at a communist leader's palace, and he and his staff treat me very well -- I can make an informed and fair judgment about communism?

This is not an equivalent. Of course you should employ correct criteria of judgment.

I am not around everyone I know in every second of the day, including people I entrust to care for my son (for example). I do not see all of their actions. I can and I do make judgments about their character and their rationality.

Edited September 2, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[RationalBiker]

With a vocal few continuing on this moderator-bashing binge, I'm getting ready to retire from this thread. I suppose if I was some fascist zealot who subjectivity deleted or closed threads that I didn't like, this thread would have been shut down long ago. So, if folks want to keep gnashing their teeth about the grave injustices served upon them by the irrational moderator team, have at it. I'm sure you are all being completely objective in your assessments and we are just a bunch of tools. Whatever... I've always endeavored to act in my capacity as a moderator according to the rules as I understood them. And I know some folks don't like my personality... I'm not here to be popular. I've spent the better part of the last 25 years of my life making unpopular decisions and assuming unpopular positions on topics.

In the six years I've been here, with almost as much time as a moderator, this site HAS grown in quantity and quality of users. I don't say this because I'm assuming myself to be the impetus of this growth, though I've been a party to it. However, we (the moderators and admins) have always been aware that the quality of moderation can and will impact the overall quality of the board. This is not some stark and fresh revelation to us. There have been times in the past when reasonable input has been offered by members and acted on by the mod team. In other cases, information was offered that was not decided to be useful for the purposes of this forum and they were subsequently dismissed. But, as has already been stated, this board is not, nor should it be, a democracy.

And as a historical point, I never offered myself as a moderator, GreeedyCapitalist asked me to be a moderator after he had a period of time to evaluate my posts, judgement, and general behavior. I've always expected that if the admins had any problem with the way I do business they would discuss it with me and/or remove my moderator status if they believed it necessary. Whether some folks believe it or not, the moderators have a vested interest in the success of this board, and I think they always try to act towards that end in their moderating decisions. The inevitable consequence, as evidenced in this thread, is that sometimes people are going to get their feelings hurt and they are not going to like action(s) taken against them. But if you want to garner my support for some proposed change to the operation of this board, you don't have to kiss my ass, but you better not whack me on the head with a whiffle bat either. Since the whiffle bat seems to be most prevalent in this thread at the moment, my interest in continuing to follow it is waning.

[Mindy]

Instead, it comes across as excessively argumentative with no clear purpose or conversation direction.

I envy you the convenience of begging the question. If you didn't read the post to which I was responding, that will help you with your difficulty in understanding the purposes of my statements. If, after reading this, the context, you still have any questions, I'll try to answer them specifically.

If this is all that is behind your complaint that I don't "pick by battles" well, well... isn't what you are doing exactly what it means to be "excessively argumentative?"

Mindy

[~Sophia~]

Good. We agree.

So when is it irrational to display these traits?

Justice demands that we treat others the way they deserve to be treated based on their actions, based on the moral character they have displayed. This implies not granting others what they don't deserve. If someone is spitting in your face, for example, it probably is irrational to respond back with respect.

Edited September 2, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[Greebo]

Justice demands that we treat others the way they deserve to be treated based on their actions, based on the moral character they have displayed. This implies not granting others what they don't deserve. If someone is spitting in your face, for example, it probably is irrational to respond back with respect.

Agreed.

So when you have a user here who behaves inappropriately, they are going to fall into one of a few categories. One of those categories will be "This user is no longer welcome here." When a user behaves inappropriately enough to fall into that category, the proper response is to ban them, and it would be up to moderator discretion as to whether or not any explanation is deserved.

That leaves those users NOT in that category who must then fall into the general category of "This user is welcome here" (sub categories of "albeit tentatively", "very", "still", "just barely" and more all potentially applying to that category but which are all irrelevant to the point, just entertaining to list).

IF a user is in need of correction due to their behavior, but remains in the "welcome here" category, then to be consistent with their presence in this category, one must show regard, have a courteous manner, and demonstrate gracious consideration toward that person. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with keeping that person in the 'welcome here' category, because acting in an impolite manner will cause a rational user to treat YOU the way deserve to be treated (ie: impolitely) based on your own actions, which in turn will prompt further correction, moving the user closer to "no loner welcome here".

As an aside, being impolite to an irrational person is irrelevant to that user, since an irrational person will act irrationally anyway and move themselves to "not welcome" on their own accord - but in the interim acting impolitely to them will only cause and/or reinforce a negative atmosphere, adversely affecting the forum as a whole.

Since being impolite to a rational user will have negative results, I posit that the only reason to be impolite to a user when acting to correct the behavior of said user is when one deliberately wants them to give themselves an excuse to move that user into the "no longer welcome here" category. And since we are people who strive to be internally consistent, this kind of manipulative behavior isn't proper. If we want a user to leave, then we must admit that they ARE in the "no longer welcome here" category, and act accordingly.

So - when acting as a moderator it is rational to treat both rational and irrational users who are being corrected with respect, provided that overall they are still welcome. It is rational to get rid of users who are not welcome, and not rational to be publicly disrespectful even to them, since doing so can harm the atmosphere of the forum which in turn affects the moderator's own job. Thus, the only time being impolite is rational is when privately evicting someone no longer welcome.

Edited September 2, 2010 by Greebo

[~Sophia~]

IF a user is in need of correction due to their behavior, but remains in the "welcome here" category, then to be consistent with their presence in this category, one must show regard, have a courteous manner, and demonstrate gracious consideration toward that person.

You mean the very same consideration and courtesy that was not granted to the moderator who volunteers his time to keep this place from turning into a mayhem?

This is a two way street. If you are here, if you read all of the forum rules, lurked for a bit and decided to stay, reasonably you have to have some minimum level of regard for the moderating team, in terms of their rationality and their knowledge of Objectivism. They come with the forum. If you don't - this place is not a good fit for you. Reason would demand that you act according to that judgment which includes (at the very minimum) withstanding from being rude towards them. We did establish that they should respond respectfully if that respect was shown to them. I assure you they are not here to "get" you and they do not get off on insulting people without cause.

People can make the mistake of forgetting that this is not a public place. This is like visiting someone's home and insulting people selected by the owner as hosts. The rules here are not up to a vote and unlike it is the case with the police - you actually can escape the jurisdiction of the "law" here and those who are selected by the owner to enforce it.

I do not agree with you that it would be reasonable to make the moderators into easy targets for rudeness because that is what your proposal boils down to in practice. As long as someone's offense would not be severe enough to warrant removal they would have to pretend in their response that someone is not being insulting. I see parents sometimes doing this with their disrespectful kids and I feel pity for them. I also have that reaction, for the same reason, when Obama speaks of Islam.

There is such an easy solution. It is so easy to never be in that situation. Don't be rude first.

Edited September 3, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[Greebo]

You mean the very same consideration and courtesy that was not granted to the moderator who volunteers his time to keep this place from turning into a mayhem?

While the principle applies to all moderator actions, not just those in which the moderator was personally involved, even in such cases, yes, I mean the very same consideration and courtesy not given the moderator or some other user.

Politeness costs nothing. Communication is not trade. Making the effort to be understood without being rude, hostile, confrontational, or otherwise unnecessarily impolite requires self discipline and the ability to force the emotions to submit to the mind. Simply responding to rudeness with rudeness requires little thought - but ample emotion. Are we saying moderators should be allowed to react emotionally instead of rationally?

This is a two way street. If you are here, if you read all of the forum rules, lurked for a bit and decided to stay, reasonably you have to have some minimum level of regard for the moderating team, in terms of their rationality and their knowledge of Objectivism. They come with the forum. If you don't - this place is not a good fit for you. Reason would demand that you act according to that judgment which includes (at the very minimum) withstanding from being rude towards them. We did establish that they should respond respectfully if that respect was shown to them. I assure you they are not here to "get" you and they do not get off on insulting people without cause.

All of the above is true (though some might question the last point) but forgets one important point. The moderators here, as moderators, should hold themselves to a *higher* standard of behavior than the users because the moderators are, whether they intended to be or not, role models, by the nature of their position. This does not excuse poor behavior of the users, but does mean that when a user takes the low road, so to speak, the moderator should still take the high road. The moderator should not assume that the user in question has yet fully integrated his concepts, and may need guidance in order to do so, guidance which will not be accepted if the moderator is less than polite. If the user rejects such guidance, then the moderator can then assume the user is belligerent - but the starting position of the moderator should *never* be to assume belligerence on the user's behalf unless the user makes it *abundantly* clear that it is so.

People can make the mistake of forgetting that this is not a public place. This is like visiting someone's home and insulting people selected by the owner as hosts. The rules here are not up to a vote and unlike it is the case with the police - you actually can escape the jurisdiction of the "law" here and those who are selected by the owner to enforce it.

This is a fair point - but then again - a host who cannot maintain their own sense of decorum is also not much of a host.

I do not agree with you that it would be reasonable to make the moderators into easy targets for rudeness because that is what your proposal boils down to in practice. As long as someone's offense would not be severe enough to warrant removal they would have to pretend in their response that someone is not being insulting. I see parents sometimes doing this with their disrespectful kids and I feel pity for them. I also have that reaction, for the same reason, when Obama speaks of Islam.

You areincorrect in your assessment of what my proposal boils down to. You are again arguing that being polite equals being lax, permissive, and tolerant of bad behavior. I have already shown that it is possible to be firm and clear and resolute without being rude. I will be quite happy to refer you to forums where this mode of operation works quite successfully, should you require concrete proof.

There is such an easy solution. It is so easy to never be in that situation. Don't be rude first.

Yes, but this is hardly a realistic one. You are dealing with imperfect people here.

[~Sophia~]

Politeness costs nothing. Communication is not trade.

I don't think this is about cost. Also communication is a trade here. Value for value.

Making the effort to be understood without being rude, hostile, confrontational, or otherwise unnecessarily impolite requires self discipline and the ability to force the emotions to submit to the mind.

Simply responding to rudeness with rudeness requires little thought - but ample emotion. Are we saying moderators should be allowed to react emotionally instead of rationally?

I don't disagree with your first sentence and I do believe based on what I witnessed that such effort is being given. I was defending the position that acting impolitely is sometimes rational and within rights of the moderators.

The moderators here, as moderators, should hold themselves to a *higher* standard of behavior than the users because the moderators are, whether they intended to be or not, role models, by the nature of their position. This does not excuse poor behavior of the users, but does mean that when a user takes the low road, so to speak, the moderator should still take the high road. The moderator should not assume that the user in question has yet fully integrated his concepts, and may need guidance in order to do so, guidance which will not be accepted if the moderator is less than polite. If the user rejects such guidance, then the moderator can then assume the user is belligerent - but the starting position of the moderator should *never* be to assume belligerence on the user's behalf unless the user makes it *abundantly* clear that it is so.

Again, I don't disagree. I think judgment about person's knowledge, what can be reasonably expected, is part of the equation.

Sometimes a poster does not deserve such benefit of the doubt (although I admit that would probably be rare). I have seen situations like this.

You areincorrect in your assessment of what my proposal boils down to. You are again arguing that being polite equals being lax, permissive, and tolerant of bad behavior. I have already shown that it is possible to be firm and clear and resolute without being rude

No, I am not arguing that. It is possible but that decision, because both options are rationally justifiable when someone is objectively showing lack of respect, ought to be left to the discretion of the moderator. There is almost always a unique context to every situation and they should be able to act based on their judgment.

Yes, but this is hardly a realistic one. You are dealing with imperfect people here.

I don't think that not being rude to a handful of moderators is such a hard thing.

If you get carried away when arguing with another poster - have an expectation that it may be removed. If it was done in the heat of the moment, you can always re-post the part that was of substance.

Also, I would like to say that moderators are people too.

----------------------

It is a long weekend in Canada and I won't be active here. If I don't respond it is not because I am ignoring your arguments.

Edited September 3, 2010 by ~Sophia~

[SapereAude]

Something odd happened here.. a post I did not make came up.

Edited September 3, 2010 by SapereAude

[RationalBiker]

Are we saying moderators should be allowed to react emotionally instead of rationally?

No, more like emotionally AND rationally. You are presenting an unnecessary dichotomy here. Emotional reactions are not always without rational basis.

[Jonathan13]

I've said my piece here, and then some, I guess, but wanted to make two quick closing comments.

The first is that I think that my expressing concerns about this site can be taken by fans/devotees here as vicious attacks. Some people seem to have the reaction that I'm an enemy, and that if I hate this site and Objectivism so much I should just go away. So, why do I post here? Why do I complain?

The short answer is that I would like to see Objectivism have more influence, and I don't think that's going to happen when many of its advocates make it look weak. My impression, since first joining here and repeatedly having my posts meddled with, has often been that the moderators must believe that Objectivism is so fragile that it can't bear scrutiny -- that it isn't strong enough to stand on its own on a level playing field. They've seemed to be so lacking in confidence in Objectivism that my posts, some of which weren't even critical of Rand or Objectivism, but which simply reported the historical truth, needed to be wiped from existence. I've sometimes gotten the impression that the moderators must believe that certain leaders or prominent figures within the Objectivist movement are so holy that they are not to be questioned or challenged, no matter how politely, by mere lesser mortals.

Personally, I have the opposite view of Objectivism. I think it can take open, unimpeded criticism. More importantly, I think that admitting to and addressing errors and contradictions in Objectivism is a good thing. I don't think it's a sin to say that Rand, or Peikoff or whoever, can be corrected.

My second comment is that I'd like to say publicly what I've said privately: Kudos to SapereAude. I'm very happy with the responsiveness I've gotten.

Cheers,

J

[CapitalistSwine]

The short answer is that I would like to see Objectivism have more influence, and I don't think that's going to happen when many of its advocates make it look weak. My impression, since first joining here and repeatedly having my posts meddled with, has often been that the moderators must believe that Objectivism is so fragile that it can't bear scrutiny -- that it isn't strong enough to stand on its own on a level playing field. They've seemed to be so lacking in confidence in Objectivism that my posts, some of which weren't even critical of Rand or Objectivism, but which simply reported the historical truth, needed to be wiped from existence.

I see no foundation for this suggestion. If it has been addressed recently in this thread I must have missed it, but why would you be a special case? Where is the basis for this claim given the hundreds upon hundreds of critiques of certain aspects of Objectivism, questions by liberals/socialists, anarchists, and everyone else imaginable? What could you have said that, unless it was presented inappropriately would have made your historical commentary problematic and give your posts a special moderator massaging that no one else seems to be lucky enough to get? I don't mean this in a rude way, I just want to make my skepticism about this clear.

Further, I think, regarding this particular comment, one should make sure they are not breaking any forum rules, there are some that are not basics that can just be assumed, such as:

Consistency with the purpose of this site

Participants agree not use the website to spread ideas contrary to Objectivism. Examples include religion, communism, "moral tolerationism," and libertarianism. Honest questions about such subjects are permitted.

Which, depending on the content of that post, may have been the issue. I don't know, there is no evidence either way at this point in time I would imagine, I am just stating such. I also am very critical of this suggestions that there is a lack of confidence in the system. If there was I doubt anyone here would be wasting the hours upon hours they do discussing the intricacies of it, and conversation all across this board the many months I have been here seems to back this up, rather than your view.

I've sometimes gotten the impression that the moderators must believe that certain leaders or prominent figures within the Objectivist movement are so holy that they are not to be questioned or challenged, no matter how politely, by mere lesser mortals.

This is a general issue with some Objectivists, and not particular to moderators. You might also want to make sure that it is not a response to this:

Respect for Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Participants agree to avoid making rude or insulting comments about Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy.

I would complete agree that anyone, including Rand, Peikoff, et al should not be viewed as free from error, and for the most part (I cannot say completely as I have seen repeated examples of the opposite by certain individuals)that is the view other Objectivists seem to have, at least that I have spent my time around here anyways. One must keep in mind however, that even when they make errors, sometimes what might be seen as a serious error, they often have contributed immensely to Objectivism, and the old rehashed criticisms get old to some people and as a result some people can be a bit "short" about it when discussing such things.

Edited September 3, 2010 by CapitalistSwine