Amending the forum rules

[DavidV]

Sorry; I was unclear. I did not mean that Greedy_Capitalist had no interest in ever changing the rules. I just meant that similar issues to those discussed in this thread have already been discussed in previous threads and no significant changes were made.

Nevertheless, I found the discussions helpful for applying the already existing rules.

[BurgessLau]

I have posted a draft of the new forum rules here:

http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/Forum_rules

[...]

I included Stephen’s suggested additions, but I have not made up my mind yet about whether to include them in the new rules.

Thank you! The draft design is very effective: (1) Dark type on light background for easy reading; (2) a "one-shot" overview outline; and (3) a combination of "bulletized" subtitles for easy visual access and concise paragraphs for explanation.

Further, if Stephen's draft, or an edited version, is adopted for the final Forum Rules (which I support), then readers will have the two ideal elements of rules: What to do (as stated positively in the statement of purpose) and what not to do (as stated in a list of prohibited behaviors).

As time passes, that list of prohibited behaviors can be a "living" list, that is, one that grows as new problems arise. My experience is that the growth in the list will slow down considerably.

[Godless Capitalist]

I looked at the Wiki. My main objection to the proposed new rules is vagueness. Rather than try to edit the vague passages myself, I would ask the rules' supporters to clarify what is meant by the following terms (ie I would like formal definitions): "David Kelley's philosophy," "promote," "libertarianism," "disrespect." To give an example, if someone encourages voting for Libertarian Party candidates, is that considered to be "promoting libertarianism"?

What'd be the benefit in having people on your ignore list?  What if you are reading something, and all of a sudden you read someone's response to someone you ignored.  You'll have no way of knowing what the 'ignored user' initially said.

I'm not sure, but I think you will still be able to read quoted passages from people you are ignoring.

[DavidV]

I'd also like to reiterate a suggestion I made in the "what to do about libertarians" thread: confine new members to the "basic questions" forum until they have shown themselves capable of rational discourse. That way the remaining forums can be kept reasonably free of blatantly irrational ideas.

The problem with this and similar ideas is that it requires too much work to be done by the moderators, and makes objective rules as to when someone is “ready” for full forum access very difficult.

[NIJamesHughes]

"Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. "

I don't agree with this part. I think that this forum should be for Objectvist's.

What do we have to gain from the irrational except for a share of their frustrations?

Also, in the rules I think that we should declare that the forum is aligned with the ARI and that no sanction will be given to other groups.

[RationalBiker]

What do we have to gain from the irrational except for a share of their frustrations?

What do we have to gain?

People, such as myself, who may be sitting on "the fence" and come here to learn more about Objectivism. I try to be helpful on this board, but if I couldn't join unless I already was an Objectivist, I may never have joined or desired to learn more. I would hazard a guess that I'm not the only former irrational person who has now become a regular member of this forum.

While it is productive to maintain rules which keep the focus of this forum limited to constructive conversations about Objectivism, I think we should guard against becoming too "incestuous" (for lack of a better word).

[BurgessLau]

"Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. "

I don't agree with this part. I think that this forum should be for Objectvist's.

What do we have to gain from the irrational except for a share of their frustrations?

[...]

Yes, the forum should be for Objectivists. However, alllowing some non-Objectivists, if they follow strict rules of etiquette, to participate is good for Objectivists, especially beginners who are not accustomed to or armed for dealing with questions about Objectivism.

When experienced Objectivists answer non-Objectivists' questions, beginners gain. This is happening now. With new, tighter Forum Rules, the drawbacks of the current situation may diminish by getting rid of those non-Objectivists who do not follow rules of etiquette. The solution also depends on more people volunteering to be moderators -- a step I am considering, and I hope you will too.

In fact, I would like to see a "stable" of non-Objectivists participate politely. Was it John Erik Snyte in The Fountainhead who had on his staff one of every style of architect -- Renaissance, Classical, and Modern? ObjectivismOnline would benefit from have a stable of Religious Fundamentalist, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth. This is the ideal. The problem is how to manage it with the very limited resources of a volunteer staff.

There is an alternative that might fit both your suggestions and mine, James: Have a "Devil's Advocate" corner where Objectivists can bring the perplexing questions and objections they encounter. The problem here is that at least one person would need to seriously take the position of the Devil's Advocate on a particular issue.

P. S. -- Not everyone who is non-Objectivist is irrational, and certainly not in all areas of their lives. I have met polite individuals -- Environmentalists, Bible-thumping Christians, Egalitarians -- who would be suitable for the role of asking productive questions politely. However, there are so few such people that ObjectivismOnline need not worry about being deluged with non-Objectivists.

[Godless Capitalist]

I'm still waiting for those definitions.

Based on the current form of the wiki, the following need to be defined:

"David Kelley's philosophy," “libertarian," "tolerationist." Even people who are fairly familiar with Objectivism may not be aware of these "heresies," so some further explanation is needed.

Better yet, just stick with the original rules. Just skimming through the thread, I see only two people in favor of change, with most supporting the existing rules.

[NIJamesHughes]

I'm still waiting for those definitions.

Based on the current form of the wiki, the following need to be defined:

"David Kelley's philosophy,"  “libertarian," "tolerationist." Even people who are fairly familiar with Objectivism may not be aware of these "heresies," so some further explanation is needed.

Better yet, just stick with the original rules. Just skimming through the thread, I see only two people in favor of change, with most supporting the existing rules.

I think that the way to solve that is to define what is acceptable in terms of positives, instead of singling out every negative. an example might be:

"designed to accomodate discussion among Objectivist's, regarding the principles of Objectivism, as defined by the works of Ayn Rand and supported by the Ayn Rand Institute, and their application to various fields.

Person's and post's detracting from this cause will be removed."

[stephen_speicher]

I'm still waiting for those definitions.

And I'm still waiting for the next pass of Halley's comet in 2061,

[Godless Capitalist]

The above I believe qualifies as a post with no intellectual content, which I believe is prohibited by the existing rules. This is not the first time stephen_speicher has done this, either. I think a warning is in order.

NIJamesHughes: Thank you; I agree.

[DavidOdden]

The above I believe qualifies as a post with no intellectual content, which I believe is prohibited by the existing rules. This is not the first time stephen_speicher has done this, either. I think a warning is in order.

NIJamesHughes: Thank you; I agree.

Out of curiosity, what differentiates the last two posts?

[stephen_speicher]

The above I believe qualifies as a post with no intellectual content,

Oh, there is intellectual content, but you either cannot or do not grasp it. Let me review the context to which the content applies.

Rather than respond to and defend against my criticisms of your anti-Objectivist views, you instead chose to hide behind mischaracterizing me and, from a fantasy perch on high, you proclaimed you would not respond to any of my posts. That was fine with me, since if you are not going to defend the views that you have, then it matters not to me the particular form that your lack of response takes. But now, here in this thread that I started, you chose to enter and argue against what I have said. And you twice said further that there was something you want, and asked the supporters to provide it to you. But, as you yourself noted in this thread, there are only two supporters here, so if you wanted to address the other supporter you would have done so by name. Hence, you were addressing me, while simultaneously making believe that you were not addressing me. Well, I'll be damned if I will provide something needed and wanted by someone so disingenuous, and I told you that you can wait for a reply for just as long as I am waiting for the return of Halley's comet in 2061.

There was a lot more content in that post that I made than in your transparent, childish, and misguided attempt to discredit me.

[jedymastyr]

... I liked your argument.

Wow, nice job.

[BurgessLau]

I have a question about the status of the Forum Rules. When I click on "Forum Rules" at the top of a page of a thread, the Wiki Forum Rules appear.

If I have understood "Wiki" correctly, this means that the current draft is only a work in progress. The statement of the rules today may not match the statement tomorrow.

Will this continue indefinitely? If so, how can forum members know what the rules are, and therefore whether to report someone?

[BurgessLau]

What is the role of examples in a set of rules?

I believe that examples serve two causally related purposes.

First, examples help clarify a principle. The clarification comes from specifying instances of the principle.

Second, examples cut the amount of time that moderators must spend thinking through the application of a principle to a reported violation. If the list of examples already names an item that matches a reported violation, then the moderator needs to do little more than issue his warning or banishment.

How many examples should there be? There should be enough to show the range of applications of a principle and enough to name the most likely cases directly. Two examples might be enough to show the range. However, if three, four, or more violations occur regularly, then all of the regular occurrences should be named.

That is why I believe that naming religion and communism only is insufficient for naming examples of ideas contrary to Objectivism. Two other very common ones in online forums such as this one are: "moral tolerationism" (Kellyism) and libertarianism.

I hope the final version of the Forum Rules includes at least those two additional examples.

P. S. -- Except as noted above, the Forum Rules as of this moment are looking good, overall. Is it time for a "wrap"?

[GoodOrigamiMan]

In fact, I would like to see a "stable" of non-Objectivists participate politely. Was it John Erik Snyte in The Fountainhead who had on his staff one of every style of architect -- Renaissance, Classical, and Modern? ObjectivismOnline would benefit from have a stable of Religious Fundamentalist, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth. This is the ideal.

I thought Howard Roark was the ideal???

Objectivists can practice benevolence by taking the time to help people towards the philosophy, however I don’t think the purpose of this forum is to be a kiddy pool. Besides, the best way for people unfamiliar to Objectivism to learn is to shut up and listen – and no one is going to ban them for doing that. I agree with Stephen concerning the alteration of the rules. These alterations serve the purpose of protecting the people who contribute to this forum from those who don’t. We have some Objectivists here, some serious students of Objectivism (myself included), and others. Personally, I would approve of active measures were taken to weed out most of the others - but those measures would have to be very active, so they wouldn’t be practical unless O.O. ever became a paid service. What is practical is to have rules that give people a chance to weed themselves out and then dispense with them.

[DavidV]

I have a question about the status of the Forum Rules. When I click on "Forum Rules" at the top of a page of a thread, the Wiki Forum Rules appear.

If I have understood "Wiki" correctly, this means that the current draft is only a work in progress. The statement of the rules today may not match the statement tomorrow.

Will this continue indefinitely? If so, how can forum members know what the rules are, and therefore whether to report someone?

My initial thought was to put the rules on the Wiki for a short time, but after seeing the improvements made to it, I may allow editing for a while longer.

This does present the paradoxical possibility of someone violating the rules and then editing out the violation, or of someone changing them in a way that violates the previous version.

If the rules were created by a democratic or otherwise formal process, this would be a serious problem, but since they actually a means for me to me to unilaterally enforce my standards, my own judgment is the final authority of the rules. The Wiki is merely a practical means to communicate those standards and receive suggestions from others.

Still, I will move them away from the Wiki eventually for reliability and because I might one day formalize the website’s management. For now, let’s consider the rules “official,” keeping in mind that my judgment is the final authority on what is and isn’t allowed.

[DavidV]

Note to moderators:

You no longer need to notify me when you delete anything since the forum retains a record of deleted posts.

[BurgessLau]

I thought Howard Roark was the ideal???

The ideal what? Yes, he was Ayn Rand's ideal man in The Fountainhead. What does that have to do with the context in which I was speaking: Setting up an ideal forum in terms of debate that will benefit all students of Objectivism, especially newcomers to Objectivism?

Objectivists can practice benevolence by taking the time to help people towards the philosophy[...]

What do you mean by "benevolence" here? Is it a virtue one should practice, and if so, would you define it? Or is it a natural psychological consequence of being honest?

[Godless Capitalist]

stephen_speicher: The reason I wrote "the two supporters" was simply that it was easier than typing or copying both of your names. The reason I have been ignoring you is because of your arrogant and accusatory attitude. I'm interested in rational discussion, not personal attacks. I don't care what you think of me, so you can save yourself some time and effort and not bother with your tirades against me. I only took you off my "ignore list" for the purpose of this thread and I am putting you back on it immediately.

That is why I believe that naming religion and communism only is insufficient for naming examples of ideas contrary to Objectivism. Two other very common ones in online forums such as this one are: "moral tolerationism" (Kellyism) and libertarianism.

I have no objection to including moral tolerationism and libertarianism; I just think there should be some explanation and/or definition so people know what these mean. Since stephen_speicher has indicated his unwillingness to do so, perhaps you could.

[Godless Capitalist]

Out of curiosity, what differentiates the last two posts?

I'm sorry; I don't understand your question.

[BurgessLau]

I have no objection to including moral tolerationism and libertarianism; I just think there should be some explanation and/or definition so people know what these mean.

I will work on formulating a definition of "libertarianism," if no one else offers one in the meantime -- and if you will make a commitment to defining one of the other two examples given in the Forum Rules, Intellectual Guidelines, for ideas whose promotion (advocacy) is prohibited. Your choices are "religion" and "communism." (I must say I do not understand why "communism" is used rather than the generic "statism.")

The reason I have been reluctant to define examples in this forum is two-fold:

First, when Mr. A communicates to Mr. B, and Mr. B asks, "What are some examples of your point?" -- then the purpose of the examples is clarification of a wider abstraction. If the examples are well chosen and if the two communicants are "on the same page," then the discussion can stop at that point.

Second, I have seen situations where Mr. A offers examples, and then Mr. B says, "Well, what do you mean by Example 1." And then Mr. A explains Example 1 as being XYZ. Then Mr. B says, "But what do you mean by Y?" And so on and on.

That infinite series is absurd in personal communication. If it happens, something is fundamentally wrong in the communication setup. I won't go into all the permutations. They should be easy to imagine.

If Mr. A is communicating to a rational, and equally educated audience, he doesn't need to engage in an infinite series of explanations. Note that honest legislators (yes, there are some) face the same problem of stating laws in words that their audiences will understand.

No legislator can write a bullet-proof law that every individual -- rational/irrational, educated/ignorant -- will automatically understand. Trying to do so is what I call the fallacy of omniscribence: Expecting a writer to write in such a manner that everyone will completely understand, without any further questions or study.

So, with all that as background, for "libertarianism" I will try formulating a definition -- whose succinctness and formality are suitable for the moderators and honest participants I expect might use it. Don't expect quick results. I am a very slow thinker. That leaves plenty of space for someone else to try as well.

[GoodOrigamiMan]

The ideal what? Yes, he was Ayn Rand's ideal man in The Fountainhead. What does that have to do with the context in which I was speaking: Setting up an ideal forum in terms of debate that will benefit all students of Objectivism, especially newcomers to Objectivism?

going back to what I responded to…

In fact, I would like to see a "stable" of non-Objectivists participate politely. Was it John Erik Snyte in The Fountainhead who had on his staff one of every style of architect -- Renaissance, Classical, and Modern? ObjectivismOnline would benefit from have a stable of Religious Fundamentalist, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth. This is the ideal.

You drew in analogy (if only in one respect) between John Erik Snyte and your vision of the ideal forum. I just couldn’t help pointing out that John Erik Snyte was not an ideal man, which was reflected in part by attitude towards blending different styles. My response, “I though John Galt was the ideal??? “ implied that your vision of the forum is not ideal.

Frankly I can’t believe that you are think this forum would benefit from having a “stable of Religious Fundamentalists, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth.” There are enough of them on the outside of this forum, please don’t let them in here.

What do you mean by "benevolence" here? Is it a virtue one should practice, and if so, would you define it? Or is it a natural psychological consequence of being honest?

I was talking about benevolence as a virtue. My understanding of benevolence is giving people the benefit of the doubt that they are good – a benevolent man premise – innocent until proven guilty; and since you are giving them the benefit of the doubt you invest some of your time in people you know very little of. Benevolence has psychological consequences, helping someone makes you feel happy – but the only way to stay happy in the long run is if you understand where benevolence stands as a virtue and don’t sacrifice your more important things or waist your time on people who you know not to be worth the investment. I will make this clear too… just because someone could become an Objectivist does not make them worth the investment – there is the big question of “how are they going to become and Objectivist.” aka, whose time and energy is going to be spent?

I also want to reiterate that the matter what you believe being polite, appreciative and respectful will no doubt keep you safe from being kicked off this forum. Stricter rules don’t mean some kind of witch-hunt – the rules are passive, they come into play when someone is stepping out of line. The purpose is to protect the contributors from attacks from the non-contributors - which means protecting Ayn Rand, ARI and upholders of Objectivism, from “Religious Fundamentalists, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth.”

[BurgessLau]

Frankly I can’t believe that you are think this forum would benefit from having a “stable of Religious Fundamentalists, Communist, Pragmatist, and so forth.”  There are enough of them on the outside of this forum, please don’t let them in here.

Do you remember what I wrote in post 32? Do you remember the context? I was speaking of helping new students of Objectivism by giving them an opportunity to observe experienced Objectivists discussing or debating a variety of issues with a variety of non-Objectivists. This can be one effective way, among others, to show new students how to answer standard attacks.

The purpose of debate generally isn't to "change the mind" of the opponent, but to influence the audience. New students of Objectivism would be an audience for such a debate. What I have in mind are the videotaped debates between Drs. Ridpath, Peikoff, and Binswanger versus various socialists on the other side. They are instructive, not only in content but in etiquette and approach.

Thus allowing one pragmatist, one religionist, and so forth to enter -- assuming they follow the rules of etiquette -- would be beneficial to new students of Objectivism.