Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Public Statement From Stephen Speicher

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Btw, there's only one post by Stephen in the Trash Can, so hopefully the moderator that deleted it can chime in.

I no longer have access to the trash can, as I am now "legally" focused on only two forums. I vaguely remember deleting one of Stephen's posts from the Defending Ayn Rand thread when it erupted into salvos and counter-salvos. (One result was that two members were barred from posting, one permanently, and one under probation.) At that time, I deleted a bunch of posts all in a row that were not pertinent to the thread. I was trying to put a stop to a brush fire. Did I make a mistake?

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.

Stephen will not be logging in to OO.net, even to pick up his messages. If you would like to communicate with him, please send e-mail to [email protected] .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look under the topic "Defending Ayn Rand against Attacks." The edited posts are 81, 94 and 97.

Jesus Christ! Thank you for citing these. I looked at them, and I am beginning to wonder if NIJamesHughes is bent on a vendetta against Stephen Speicher.

Hughes has been evading the continuing question: Why did he select Stephen Speicher's posts -- among all other posts that might have drawn a caution, warning, or even deletion, but not a misleading over-write?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another forum I frequent, they have a "Deleted Posts" thread. It is just a thread like any other. Posts are never deleted or edited, they are just moved to this thread. That way the process of moderation in completely transparent. Anyone can view that thread just like any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hughes has been evading the continuing question: Why did he select Stephen Speicher's posts -- among all other posts that might have drawn a caution, warning, or even deletion, but not a misleading over-write?

It has been my point from the beginning that there was nothing outstanding in those posts that warranted this action. I have read at least two of the three edited posts and they were no worse than dozens of other posts elsewhere on this board.

How such a person was given moderator status is beyond me. Before giving someone moderator status, there should be sufficient evidence that 1) the member has an adequate understanding of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and 2) the member can arbitrate objectively in forum matters. I think that even a cursory review of this member's history should have raised questions in both respects.

Now this forum has suffered a great loss for no good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't win a lynching. Time to change user-names and come back as someone else.

Non-contradictor, in post 76, as usual has asked exactly the right question. I suspect the answer is straight-forward: NIJamesHughes will no longer participate in ObjectivismOnline -- as NIJamesHughes. Perhaps he will come back with an alias, to poison the well again.

Question: Does anyone here know of a connection between NIJamesHuges and Thesweetscience, the entity who started the Defending Ayn Rand thread -- and was prevented from posting again, except under moderator review?

Is there any evidence that NIJamesHughes was acting in behalf of Thesweetscience, whose dishonesty Stephen had publicly claimed in that thread?

I have some evidence pointing in that general direction. The evidence, based on PMs, is only suggestive and not conclusive. Does anyone else see any evidence anywhere?

[Edited to add last paragraph]

Edited by BurgessLau
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.

Before someone is ACCEPTED as a moderator, I think that whoever makes such choices should, at least, check out the would-be moderator and especially postings on this forum.

If they had, in the case of NIJamesHughes, they would have found THIS thread (click here) he started where he asks forum members for advice on how to deal with the results of his drunken weekend "parties" described in his blog (click here) . They would also find another thread (click here) he started where he railed against marriage because "If a relationship is closed (by marriage or unconditional exclusivity) there is no competition and thus there is no pressure to provide value. Thus the same effects of an economic monopoly set in to a romantic monopoly." Then there's the one where he said you shouldn't pay income tax (click here).

I know Hughes is 19 and I tend to cut young people a lot of slack. Also I don't see anything wrong with having a young moderator IF he meets the minimum requirements for any moderator: demonstrated good judgment in interpersonal matters and knowledge of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my point from the beginning that there was nothing outstanding in those posts that warranted this action. I have read at least two of the three edited posts and they were no worse than dozens of other posts elsewhere on this board.

How such a person was given moderator status is beyond me. Before giving someone moderator status, there should be sufficient evidence that 1) the member has an adequate understanding of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and 2) the member can arbitrate objectively in forum matters. I think that even a cursory review of this member's history should have raised questions in both respects.

Now this forum has suffered a great loss for no good reason.

I do not know Mr. Speicher but from the way you speak of him he must be very intelligent. What seems strange about all of this is his reaction. Instead of investigating the matter and seeking to have the issue addressed to his satisfaction, he just left. That probably means that this forum is of very little value to him.

I think the moderator in question is guilty of little more than over-zealous moderating. In the final analysis what has really happened here? Is it so serious that one should just leave without further comment? The cause and effect relationship here seems to be unbalanced.

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question: Does anyone here know of a connection between NIJamesHuges and Thesweetscience, the entity who started the Defending Ayn Rand thread -- and was prevented from posting again, except under moderator review?

Is there any evidence that NIJamesHughes was acting in behalf of Thesweetscience, whose dishonesty Stephen had publicly claimed in that thread?

[Edited to add last paragraph]

Not that I can tell (very limited resourses in that department). But, I find it odd that NIJamesHughes was in a conversation with Mr. Speicher at 1:22am (last post by NIJamesHughes at 1:05am) in the Homosexuality thread in Basic Questions. Then at 1:27am (a mere five minutes later) the first of Mr. Speicher's three posts is deleted-all three within 3 minutes. Mighty fast reading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NIJH please respond why you specifically targeted Stephen's posts for deletion, rather than someone else's. And also, please specify which posts you've edited but left a note that they were edited by you. I have just looked through 13 pages of Stephen's posts, a no easy task let me tell you, and I have seen no evidence at all of any modifications. So please indicate which posts were changed, and let's hope that Stephen can come back here and we can discuss this.

Btw, there's only one post by Stephen in the Trash Can, so hopefully the moderator that deleted it can chime in.

I read the rules, as was suggested by BL in a PM, then i went about reading threads that interested me. "Defending Ayn Rand" came up, I saw the offending posts, and took action, Thats all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't win a lynching. Time to change user-names and come back as someone else.

By the way, this isn't me, although it would be conveint for those on the forum that are taking this personally. Especially revealing is the fact they they are so quickly willing to believe it.

edit to replace mean with me

Edited by NIJamesHughes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ! Thank you for citing these. I looked at them, and I am beginning to wonder if NIJamesHughes is bent on a vendetta against Stephen Speicher.

Hughes has been evading the continuing question: Why did he select Stephen Speicher's posts -- among all other posts that might have drawn a caution, warning, or even deletion, but not a misleading over-write?

Actually evading the question would have been if i had posted and not addressed it, but since i wasn't online and didn't post before you posted this, you seem way to eager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been my point from the beginning that there was nothing outstanding in those posts that warranted this action. I have read at least two of the three edited posts and they were no worse than dozens of other posts elsewhere on this board.

How such a person was given moderator status is beyond me. Before giving someone moderator status, there should be sufficient evidence that 1) the member has an adequate understanding of the philosophy of Ayn Rand and 2) the member can arbitrate objectively in forum matters. I think that even a cursory review of this member's history should have raised questions in both respects.

Now this forum has suffered a great loss for no good reason.

What history is that Bowser? Are you refering to the few posts i have made on this forum or my entire life of which you know nothing about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Non-contradictor, in post 76, as usual has asked exactly the right question. I suspect the answer is straight-forward: NIJamesHughes will no longer participate in ObjectivismOnline -- as NIJamesHughes. Perhaps he will come back with an alias, to poison the well again.

Question: Does anyone here know of a connection between NIJamesHuges and Thesweetscience, the entity who started the Defending Ayn Rand thread -- and was prevented from posting again, except under moderator review?

Is there any evidence that NIJamesHughes was acting in behalf of Thesweetscience, whose dishonesty Stephen had publicly claimed in that thread?

I have some evidence pointing in that general direction. The evidence, based on PMs, is only suggestive and not conclusive. Does anyone else see any evidence anywhere?

[Edited to add last paragraph]

What PM's are you talkig about? I never had anything to do with "thesweetscience," and if i did, don't you think i would delete all of stevens posts? if you think i was just being disruptive, why didn't i just delete all the topics on all the forums, or ban all the members, because as a mod, i can do that. Are these facts you are willing to just ignore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know Mr. Speicher but from the way you speak of him he must be very intelligent.

He is incomparable.

What seems strange about all of this is his reaction. Instead of investigating the matter and seeking to have the issue addressed to his satisfaction,  he just left. That probably means that this forum is of very little value to him.

Let me be the first to admit that we need him more than he needs us.

In the final analysis what has really happened here? Is it so serious that one should just leave without further comment? The cause and effect relationship here seems to be unbalanced.

What happened is that there has been a breach of security if you will. Someone was given a power over the content of this site who should not have been given such rights. Their actions were unwarranted and Mr. Speicher had every reason to assume that every one of his 2,500+ posts were at risk as well. That means that the integrity of countless hours of hard work had been jeopardized. Work, I might add, that constitutes the majority of the valuable content of this site all of it done voluntarily not for pay. Why would anyone tolerate such treatment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I can tell (very limited resourses in that department). But, I find it odd that NIJamesHughes was in a conversation with Mr. Speicher at 1:22am (last post by NIJamesHughes at 1:05am) in the Homosexuality thread in Basic Questions. Then at 1:27am (a mere five minutes later) the first of Mr. Speicher's three posts is deleted-all three within 3 minutes. Mighty fast reading.

technically, if you read the post, you will see that i was consulting mr speicher because i value his judgement and knowledge, on that particular topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, this isn't mean, although it would be conveint for those on the forum that are taking this personally. Especially revealing is the fact they they are so quickly willing to believe it.

Huh??? Now I am really confused. What are you on about? Was it you who signed up as N1JamesHughes? If so, why did you find it necessary to quote and reply to yourself? :confused: And if you really intended to be deceptive and change your alias, then why tell us, and why change it to something so similar to your old one? You say the above post isn't mean. Who was it meant to be mean to? Who is willing to believe what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh??? Now I am really confused. What are you on about? Was it you who signed up as N1JamesHughes? If so, why did you find it necessary to quote and reply to yourself? :confused: And if you really intended to be deceptive and change your alias, then why tell us, and why change it to something so similar to your old one? You say the above post isn't mean. Who was it meant to be mean to? Who is willing to believe what?

what i meant is "me" obviously i would not change my SN to something almost the same. I did not post as N1JamesHughes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the answer is straight-forward: NIJamesHughes will no longer participate in ObjectivismOnline -- as NIJamesHughes. Perhaps he will come back with an alias, to poison the well again.

[Edited to add last paragraph]

Hmmm... he has said that he did not post as N1JamesHughes. I tend to agree because that would be absurd. I am now curious who did. It seems that the person was telling Hughes to change his alias. I think this might be the "connection" you are thinking of to thesweetscience or the other member who was banned. I can think of no other who would have a reason to post that comment. If someone can shed some light on this, please do. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is incomparable.

Let me be the first to admit that we need him more than he needs us.

What happened is that there has been a breach of security if you will. Someone was given a power over the content of this site who should not have been given such rights. Their actions were unwarranted and Mr. Speicher had every reason to assume that every one of his 2,500+ posts were at risk as well. That means that the integrity of countless hours of hard work had been jeopardized. Work, I might add, that constitutes the majority of the valuable content of this site all of it done voluntarily not for pay. Why would anyone tolerate such treatment?

He had no reason to think any of his posts other than the three that have been altered were altered, because when a post is altered a notation is placed there showing it has been changed and by who.

I think Mr. Speicher felt as though the moderator was trying to change his posts to appear as though Mr. Speicher was making those statements when in reality the moderator was trying to list the rule that was the basis for which he was deleting the post. This entirely the fault of the moderator.

If Mr. Speicher had cared to investigate and demand an explantion instead of passing final judgement and sentencing himself to permanent exile....He would have seen that no one here approves of the way this was handled and he would probably be writing something thought provoking right now about homosexuality or abortion. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know Mr. Speicher but from the way you speak of him he must be very intelligent. What seems strange about all of this is his reaction. Instead of investigating the matter and seeking to have the issue addressed to his satisfaction,  he just left. That probably means that this forum is of very little value to him.

In the past, Stephen has made it clear in numerous postings on this board that he objects to anyone altering their own postings after they are posted. He considers postings on this board part of the public record and re-writing one's own posts, after the fact, is an attempt to re-write reality. As a result, the owner of this board was persuaded to set the software so that a member can't even edit his own postings after an hour has passed.

Since Stephen's position on "re-writing reality" and his pride in his own writing is well known, it is outrageous for someone else to modify his postings -- even OLD postings -- in a way that makes them totally unavailable and irrecoverable to anyone. The worst part of all is that he wasn't even told that his postings were destroyed.

That probably means that this forum is of very little value to him.

Stephen is the most prolific poster on this forum with over 2500 postings -- almost twice that of the next highest poster. He spends a lot of time carefully researching and editing his posts for accuracy and clarity. If the time and effort someone invests in an activity is any indication of its value to him, I think the conclusion is obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... he has said that he did not post as N1JamesHughes. I tend to agree because that would be absurd. I am now curious who did. It seems that the person was telling Hughes to change his alias. I think this might be the "connection" you are thinking of to thesweetscience or the other member who was banned. I can think of no other who would have a reason to post that comment. If someone can shed some light on this, please do. :confused:

Actually no one told me to do anything, in fact the only PM i have gotten about this whole thing is from "Source" asking about the content of the last post i deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He had no reason to think any of his posts other than the three that have been altered were altered, because when a post is altered a notation is placed there showing it has been changed and by who.

As far as we know (perhaps a moderator can verify), this is entirely optional. It is a fact that you can edit your own post without this note being added (it's an option that you simply turn on or off) so I assume it's the same for moderators editing posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the past, Stephen has made it clear in numerous postings on this board that he objects to anyone altering their own postings after they are posted.  He considers postings on this board part of the public record and re-writing one's own posts, after the fact, is an attempt to re-write reality.  As a result, the owner of this board was persuaded to set the software so that a member can't even edit his own postings after an hour has passed. 

Since Stephen's position on "re-writing reality" and his pride in his own writing is well known, it is outrageous for someone else to modify his postings -- even OLD postings -- in a way that makes them totally unavailable and irrecoverable to anyone.  The worst part of all is that he wasn't even told that his postings were destroyed.

Stephen is the most prolific poster on this forum with over 2500 postings -- almost twice that of the next highest poster.  He spends a lot of time carefully researching and editing his posts for accuracy and clarity.  If the time and effort someone invests in an activity is any indication of its value to him, I think the conclusion is obvious.

btw at a glance i would have deleted these posts too if i had more time:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...674entry69674

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...673entry69673

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...421entry69421

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...