Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Public Statement From Stephen Speicher

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The outrage against the moderator here seems a bit overblown.

He is not instituting any new practice on this forum. In fact, last April I had an exchange with Stephen Speicher. In one post, I quoted a sentence of his and made a short reply. The moderator, RadCap, evidently found my reply to violate the rules, because he deleted it, but let my  post stand with Mr. Speicher's quote and the moderator's addendum "Content edited by RadCap." In other words, much the same that has now happened to Mr. Speicher.

Neither Mr. Speicher nor his wife had any objections whatsoever at the time.

Funny, no posts since April 30th. Why now, and why this topic? How did you happen to peak back so soon after your "nemesis" left? What timing! The Fox Mulder in me is stirring...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand Mr. Speicher's complaint, and will miss his posts as being in a very small category of posts that are both informative and without sneering or hostile attitudes. I have my own complaints: I have a "warning" icon that has been on my posts since an early exchange in which I engaged in too much sarcasm. I recieved no warning before the icon was attached, and have since seen other posters engage in sarcasm or worse without being so marked. It is hard not to conclude that the moderator simply didn't agree with my position. And yesterday, the thread on abortion was simply closed because the moderator judged that there was nothing "new" in the thread. Eh? No one is forced to go to a thread clearly marked "abortion". Presumably those I was debating with were interested in the debate whether the material was new or not, and so again I am left to conclude that the moderator didn't agree with my views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a new moderator, I have two observations to offer:

(1) I support those who are outraged by this incident.

(2) I invite everyone of you to volunteer to become a moderator.

ObjectivismOnline would then have enough moderators to cover every forum every day. You can volunteer to "free-range" (which is what most moderators do), or you can ask to moderate a particular forum or subforum (as I do, as of today, for Basic Questions and Miscellaneous forums).

The way to volunteer is to PM or email GreedyCapitalist, David Veksler, the lead administrator for ObjectivismOnline.

To value is to act to gain or keep something. If you value ObjectivismOnline, I hope you will volunteer. With the work load spread among 20, rather than the current 3 or 4 active moderators, the quality of the forum will continue to grow, while reducing the workload on any one moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A moderator test? Monthly moderator reviews?

Moderator Test Elaboration: - Perhaps a number of example posts and a range of choices of action to take, to be judged by Mr Veksler et al.

Edited: -

A further idea: People could offer to moderate a smaller forum, or subforum - to start with - just for explicit abuses. Problems in that forum could be addressed to the new moderator, and if the case proved taxing, that moderator could address a higher moderator. A sort of moderator tutor/buddy system. Just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the same time, this forum needs to be very picky about who to give moderator privleges to because some people just aren't qualified to arbitrate justly.

Yes, but speaking for myself, I would wonder how any manager of a forum such as this, under these circumstances, would know ahead of time who is qualified and who isn't -- until the new moderator acts and reveals himself?

The problem is made worse, I think, in such situations because there are so few volunteers, and so much need for them, that one can't be too picky at the front-end.

What we are seeing here is the classic "tragedy of the commons." Everyone wants to use the commons, but few, if any, want to work to maintain the commons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoyd Loki writes: "Funny, no posts since April 30th. Why now, and why this topic?"

Because I don't like lynch mobs, and I think people are unjustly condemnatory of the moderator, who has more or less followed established practice, as far as I can judge from my own experience. The moderating practices may obviously be debated, but this is being done in a far too emotionalist way.

"How did you happen to peak back so soon after your 'nemesis' left? What timing!"

Well, I have not been waiting for Stephen Speicher to leave so that I could dare to post again.

(By the way, "nemesis" is standard English and does not need quotation marks. In this case, it might leave the implication that it is a quote from me, which it is not.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The outrage against the moderator here seems a bit overblown.

He is not instituting any new practice on this forum. In fact, last April I had an exchange with Stephen Speicher. In one post, I quoted a sentence of his and made a short reply. The moderator, RadCap, evidently found my reply to violate the rules, because he deleted it, but let my  post stand with Mr. Speicher's quote and the moderator's addendum "Content edited by RadCap." In other words, much the same that has now happened to Mr. Speicher.

Neither Mr. Speicher nor his wife had any objections whatsoever at the time.

That is different. From the way you present it, Radcap did not insert his own words into your post. If Mr. Speicher's post had been deleted or some of its content deleted(as in the post you describe), while still extremely rude, it would not be as big of an issue. The point is that the moderator essentially used Mr. Speicher's name to post something he could have just as easily posted himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither Mr. Speicher nor his wife had any objections whatsoever at the time.

We certainly DID object and the matter was dealt with privately between us and the forum moderators and administrators.

Be that as it may, this does not address the major problem with the current situation. The author's words were completely replaced by the "moderator's" words, without any indication as to what was changed or why although the Forum Rules state --

Moderation Guidelines

If you want to *edit* a post for any reason

Please use the “Edited by” option in all cases, and leave a comment in the post regarding the general reason for the edit in bold text if you are making more than a grammatical change.  [Emphasis mine]

That was not done.

The Forum Rules also state:

If you want to rebuke someone, you should warn them using the warning options. You can also enable moderator preview if you want their posts to be moderated for some time.

That was not done. The worst offense was that a two-week old post and others were completely replaced retroactively without any warning or notice whatsoever to the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy Speicher writes: "We certainly DID object and the matter was dealt with privately between us and the forum moderators and administrators."

If that is true, I apologize. I did not know that.

I still think that it was perfectly obvious what the moderator had done in the case of your husband: deleted the content and substituted the paragraph of the moderating guidelines that explained his action. Of course, the rest of us are unable to judge the wisdom of his decision; we are only debating the *form*. But that form was hardly confusing in any substantial way. It may be debated, but is not a cause for high drama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have not been waiting for Stephen Speicher to leave so that I could dare to post again.

Sure seems that way.

(By the way, "nemesis" is standard English and does not need quotation marks. In this case, it might leave the implication that it is a quote from me, which it is not.)

It is also used for ironic or obvious exaggeration which is the obvious use here.

"Words used in an ironic sense may be enclosed in quotation mark:

Five villages were subjected to "pacification."

The "debate" resulted in three cracked heads."

Distinctive Treatment of Words: The Chicago Manual of Style 14th Edition: Irony

6.78, Page 214

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my own complaints: I have a "warning" icon that has been on my posts since an early exchange in which I engaged in too much sarcasm. I recieved no warning before the icon was attached, and have since seen other posters engage in sarcasm or worse without being so marked. It is hard not to conclude that the moderator simply didn't agree with my position.

In both of these instances, I am the moderator of which you speak.

To address you first complaint, I would offer that no "warning" is required prior to an adjustment to a person's warning rating. The "warning" that everyone is given upon joining this site consists of the forum rules. The warning rating itself largely serves to explain to other moderators what violation has been committed, and how many violations have been committed. It otherwise does not affect your ability to post or read posts unless other moderation actions are taken. This warning rating is NOT seen by other users.

See Betsy's quote above for additional on this matter.

And yesterday, the thread on abortion was simply closed because the moderator judged that there was nothing "new" in the thread. Eh? No one is forced to go to a thread clearly marked "abortion". Presumably those I was debating with were interested in the debate whether the material was new or not, and so again I am left to conclude that the moderator didn't agree with my views.
In this instance, I DID give warning, to you and to all participants that the thread would be closed if it continued to cover old ground.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=69575

Your conclusion that it's closure was based on you position is erroneous because there were also other people posting from the opposing side. Apparently whether you are warned of impending action or not is immaterial to what you consider fair.

A section of the forum rules, my bold highlight;

• Redundant questions

If you are posting a question on a prominent topic, please search (top left link) for your topic first. You may find your answer, or have something to contribute to the conversation. The moderators may may merge, close, or delete questions that are already covered by other threads. If you are new to Objectivism, you can ask basic questions here

Although not explicitly stated, I believe it is a reasonable interpretation to include Redundant Discussions as well. Posting on this forum takes up material and manpower resources. If people wish to continually debate issues that have already been discussed ad naseum without contributing new ideas to the mix, there are other resources outside the general forum (PM, email, chat) that can be used to for that purpose.

In retrospect, it took my appointment as a moderator to understand that, in light of some of my previous threads.

I take my job as a moderator seriously, and attempt to be judicious and objective in the process. I believe my actions in these two instances are reflective of that, and are reasonable. I do not exempt myself from accountability should any appeal to GreedyCapitalist be made and found to be in opposition to my actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I would like to see changed so that a situation like this never occurs again on OO.net:

1. The moderators should be prevented, by the software, from editing other members' posts.

2. If a post is somewhat inappropriate, the poster should be warned privately and the moderator may respond publicly in a separate posting.

3. If a post is deemed too offensive, the moderator may delete it and must post the reason why and inform the poster. (Perhaps this can be done automatically by the software.) The poster will then have the option of reposting without the offensive content or appealing to the other moderators and/or forum owner to have the post reinstated.

4. Under no circumstances should the original post be deleted or altered in such a way that the original content is unavailable to the moderation staff and the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoyd Loki makes a valid point about the use of quotation marks to indicate that a word is used in an ironic sense, as in "The 'debate' resulted in three cracked heads."

But what is his point in this connection? Since he seems to imply that Stephen Speicher *is* my nemesis, it makes no sense for him to distance himself from the literal meaning of the word. By contrast, it would make perfect sense if *I*used the word ironically, as in "Thoyd Loki seems to think that I regard Stephen Speicher as my 'nemesis.'"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what is his point in this connection? Since he seems to imply that Stephen Speicher *is* my nemesis, it makes no sense for him to distance himself from the literal meaning of the word. By contrast, it would make perfect sense if *I*used the word ironically, as in "Thoyd Loki seems to think that I regard Stephen Speicher as my 'nemesis.'"

Nobody is paying attention to our side skirmish here. So, I don't know who you are addressing other than me.

I don't, and made no attempt to distance myself from the word. I merely had to explain it to you, and my proper use of quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Betsy, although I hope Stephen will check his PMs here, I am not willing to take any chances, so please let him know that I sent him two important messages about this issue.

As for everyone else of you guys, rest assured that this issue is being taken care of in the most expeditious manner possible.

That is good. Since this board has let an irresponsible 19year old kid cause the departure of this board's most esteemed member, I don't find much reason myself to come here other than to pick spurious arguments for no reason. But, that can be done on any run of the mill forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is good. Since this board has let an irresponsible 19year old kid cause the departure of this board's most esteemed member, I don't find much reason myself to come here other than to pick spurious arguments for no reason. But, that can be done on any run of the mill forum.

First of all, all I did was delete 3 worthless posts.

Secondly, if you think that enforcing the rules is irresponsible, I'll give you that one.

Third, If you want to bring my age into the (non)issue, I'll just go ahead and dismiss your irrationality out of hand.

Fourth, If anyone else has a problem, why not PM me, rather than gossip and speculate?

And lastly, if that is all the value the forum gives to you, no one should be bothered to see you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The author's words were completely replaced by the "moderator's" words, without any indication as to what was changed or why although the Forum Rules state --

That was not done.

I did not replace SS's words with my own. I replaced them with the rule that provided for its deletion, as has been done by many moderators, many times. That being said, I covered both parts of your objection;

1) I didn't replace his words with my own

and;

2) I did give the reason for the correction, by way of copying the rule that applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, all I did was delete 3 worthless posts.

Secondly, if you think that enforcing the rules is irresponsible, I'll give you that one.

Third, If you want to bring my age into the (non)issue, I'll just go ahead and dismiss your irrationality out of hand.

Fourth, If anyone else has a problem, why not PM me, rather than gossip and speculate?

And lastly, if that is all the value the forum gives to you, no one should be bothered to see you go.

Your "lastly" here is invalid. The second clause was conditional upon the first. Since A, then B. Since this forum has done this, now it means this to me.

Maybe you should read the posts more carefully before you decide that they are: 1) worthless 2) they mean what you think they mean since you have just demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. I offer into evidence your misunderstanding of my simple conditional sentence that you quoted in your post #46.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your "lastly" here is invalid. The second clause was conditional upon the first. Since A, then B. Since this forum has done this, now it means this to me.

Maybe you should read the posts more carefully before you decide that they are: 1) worthless 2) they mean what you think they mean since you have just demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension. I offer into evidence your misunderstanding of my simple conditional sentence that you quoted in your post #46.

actually if you read #2 you would have noticed that i granted you the fact that you thought enforcing the rules was irresponsible, and thus conceded to you your premise and its conclusion (that the forum is valueless). Nice try though. On a further note, this will be the last time I haggle with anyone on anything of this nature so please, don't waste your time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not replace SS's words with my own. I replaced them with the rule that provided for its deletion, as has been done by many moderators, many times. That being said, I covered both parts of your objection;

1) I didn't replace his words with my own

and;

2) I did give the reason for the correction, by way of copying the rule that applied.

(partial repost from Moderators Forum)

I would like to see what preceeding moderator action is commensurate to your actions here. I don't believe there are any, but I'm open to your proof. Some posts have been deleted (which means removed from the thread but still available to moderators in the trash can) but I don't recall ever seeing any moderator action where the entirety of the post was destroyed, beyond recovery, and replaced by a rule citing and no other information. Editing out the contents of a post is NOT the same as deleting the post.

What you fail to see is how your implementation of the rules has destroyed the evidence that either supports your moderation efforts, or holds your moderation activity accountable. You have altered (or again I stress destroyed) the historical documentation that establishes a user's posting history, character and credibility.

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...