No Personal Chatter?

[JMeganSnow]

Just a friendly reminder to be a judicious and concise quoter, if you are to quote at all.  Also, personal messages like apologies and such should be handled through private messages, not through public board space.

I understand about the quotes, but I think brief personal comments should be allowable on the boards . . . if a thread is going to have any internal consistency and be at all readable it's not always possible to carry parts of the discussion off into PM's while still carrying on in the thread.

At least, that's my thought. If the post has content other than the apology etc., I think it should be all right.

Oh, and I apologize to Felipe if he feels I've unfairly maligned him.

[HaloNoble6]

Let me just say that I'm only trying to improve the quality of posting in the forum.

Also, I'd like to change the posting mentality most exhibit here. That is, the mentality of arguing with each other on a personal level. This forum should be a bastion for intellectual argumentation, not one for one-on-one show-downs. I think rampant personal chatter is a consequence of this mentality, so that is my reasoning behind my effort to combat it.

Furthermore, considering the fact that the database the forum runs on is limited, and considering the fact that the purpose of the forum is to exchange ideas, not personal messages, then personal chatter is wasteful.

With all this in consideration, I will say that minor, subtle, personal chatter is okay. I will be lenient on this policy until I have a good handle on the extent to which personal chatter is okay. If posters want to act like this is an AOL chat room, however, then there's an actual chat room for that. And, I think we agree, posts that are solely personal chatter are not allowed.

[Capitalism Forever]

Felipe, correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think you own this forum. Your job as a moderator is to enforce the owner's policies (and suggest sensible new policies to him, if you have any good ideas).

[softwareNerd]

I would like to support Felipe's intent and his underlying premise, while I object to certain specific "acts of moderation".

Let's get the criticism out of the way:

1. Misc forum: I posted about allowing this to be open to topics that did not address a general audience. Felipe said he discussed this with GC and that such usage of "Misc" is fine. Thank you, both.

2. One thread was moved to trash because it promoted a particular blog. I did not post to the thread, but I did check the blog out after reading it. I agreed with some of the negative comments about the blog. Even so, that is not relevant to whether the thread should have been trashed. I think there were two reasons not to have trashed it:

2a. First, in my judgement, this was not a huge promotion. Asking for feedback on one's blog is just slightly different from someone asking for feedback on an essay. Indeed, this site even allows members (like me -- hint, hint) to list our external blogs here.

I think the "no external link" policy needs to be refined. Strict enforcement is called for with links by trolls (Marxists, Christians, Libertarians, and others who want to "spit on our sidewalk"). It would also be called for if linking to "the competition". If someone were to post a link to the forum that is similar to this (please nobody name it), I think that link should be removed.

I would even remove anything that is not a real link, but a "manual" link: e.g. a set of words that anyone can plug into Google to go to the external site.

2b. The thread about the blog was showing potential to develop into a conversation about style and the use of profanity. It also had the potential to develop into a discussion about the purpose of blogs and on the need to "rant".

Now, with those two things out of the way, I would like to state that I too have noticed a slight decline in the quality of posts here. I put this down to the following factors:

(i) There is so much stuff on this forum, that many typical topics have already been discussed at length.

(ii) A while ago, a group of members moved to a competing forum. Others still visit here, but spend more time there. Many of these were long-time Objectivists.

This forum still has good content, but the noise-to-content ratio appears to be on the rise. Posts with a signature that's twice the size of the message! Posts with quoted text three or four times as long as the response! Yes, I know what Felipe means. I welcome any attempt to improve the content-to-noise ratio.

However, I have two points to make about such a pursuit:

(A.) Judge the posts of a member as a whole, not individual posts. If a member has a few posts like this, simply ignore it. If the poster has many posts with great content, ignore more than you would for a member who has mostly such posts. If a long-time member wants to simply say "I agree", that's different from someone who does that routinely and little else. A little chatter among friends is fine. To paraphrase Cassius (from Shakespeare): chatter is the sauce to the meat of our intellectual conversation.

(B.) Use PM's more. Having identified specific members who need to be reigned in, use PMs a few times to explain why they should post differently. I'd recommend no threats or threats about threats. Use their minds: carrots, not sticks. If PMs do not change a member's behaviour, ask in the body of the thread. Again, use carrots (and reason ). [Perhaps PMS are already being used without effect. If so, excuse my ignorance.]

More important than any of the above: Reducing noise is just one way of increasing the content-to-noise ratio. Far more important is to figure out how to increase the great content. Also, how do we leverage the great archive that this site holds?

David seems to have been thinking of this when he came up with the idea of intellectuals who could contribute to the forum and be rewarded via the payments made by Patrons. Unfortunately, there aren't enough patrons (yet) to make the money worth it. What else can we do to attract the intellectuals?

Let's take one example. Someone mentioned Dr. Hurd, the Objectivist psychologist. He runs a site where he posts regular snippets. Can we offer him a reason to post here? Our competition is trying this. While they have not been too successful, I think it is the right idea waiting for the right implementation.

Let's brainstorm more... how can we make this a site that we'd each want to visit more than we already do? How do we make it one to which "the deserters" may feel compelled to return, albeit incognito

As for ownership. Yes, Felipe does not own the site, and David is the final authority. However, I'd like to commend Felipe on "taking ownership". Let's all do so.

[AisA]

Does "minor, subtle, personal chatter " include posts that merely express agreement? I think such posts should be permitted.

The idea of handling "agreement only" posts by private mail has a flaw. To make one's agreement widely known will require numerous PMs to many different forum members.

In addition, it is often of value to me to know where various forum members stand on an issue. I respect the opinions and thoughts of many forum members, and their agreement or disagreement on an issue has, on more than one occasion, caused me to re-think my position or ask follow up questions to clarify their thinking.

[EC]

I agree. When a previous poster says, "Do you agree with idea X?" it is entirely proper to offer an answer. It would be the only way the conversation could continue and make sense to and outside observer. So while I understand the need to crack down on certain people, the free-flowing nature of this forum should not be eliminated, because the quicker pace in responses here allows for more of a discussion than at THE FORUM. While I follow rules that make rational sense I won't follow a rule that results in absurdity like the one being stated.

Also what's wrong with linking to THE FORUM if a better answer is offered there, they are not really "competition", essentially the same people are here and there, but here conversations can flow better and there you can get more detailed answers. These to forums should work together unofficially in tandem to create more understanding of Objectivism. It's a common goal and there's not really any money involved here any ways so I don't see why the supposed "competion" between the two would be seen as a bad thing. Or why any Objectivist see any "competition" in a negative light. I don't know I guess I just see the two forums as being artificially divided. Think of it this way, is it wrong to link to a dictionary site to help define a concept? The answer is no. Therefore for the same reason it is NOT wrong to link to the "competition" for the same reason.

[HaloNoble6]

Rational One of post #6:

I'm not against personal acknowledgment, but I'm against posts that are just that. If it is crucial that, in the course of discussion, one needs to make one's position clear, then include it in an overall post. Don't just post "I agree" and end of story. I don't think this rule is absurd. Furthermore, to claim a rule is "not rational" is to claim that the person who originated it is "not rational," since rules as such can't be rational or not. So, I'd suggest you be more careful with your words, Rational One. Personal insults are not welcome. I'm making an effort here to clean up and improve the posts, not to make posting impossible.

[HaloNoble6]

Software Nerd of post #4, Re: deletion of thread about a blog--

If the thread was turning out some good material, then someone could've possible started a new thread based on this material. I think the actual discussion of the blog could've been done at the actual blog, not here. What's the point of having a blog, and to discuss posts you make in it, in an outside forum?

I hope it's clear that I'm only trying to improve the quality of the posts around here, not that I'm trying to be a jerk.

[HaloNoble6]

Capitalism Forever:

True enough, I don't own the forum. I do, however, have GC's sanction to try to improve the posting quality in the board. We share the concern that the forum has seen a diminishing quality in posts, and we agree that this should change. I'm doing this through the enforcement of already-existing policy (which, it appears, no one has actually been enforcing), as well as new policy which has been approved. If specific actions of mine appear to be going above and beyond the enforcement of policy, please let me know, and I will correct the matter (as I did with the deletion of threads).

[edit: added last parenthetical comment]

Edited March 19, 2005 by Felipe

[EC]

Felipe, no personal insult was intended. I think I said I agree people shouldn't just say they agree without stating their reasons for agreement or disagreement. What I meant is that would be absurd if that was what was disallowed. Not the simple declaritive statemnt, "I agree", or "I disagree" that I would hope that you mean.

[HaloNoble6]

Rational One of post #10:

Okay, then we are in agreement. I agree that in certain contexts, a personal statement is warranted, merely because certain threads flow as actual discussions would. What I'm against, and which you seem to be with me on, are posts that contribute zero intellectual content to the thread.

[Cole]

I am unclear as to the rule regarding using quotes to post point-by-point responses to another's post, and why there is a rule against doing so.

Almost all intellectual forums (internet or otherwise) make use of a point/counterpoint style in its responses. Being that it's the most clear and efficient way to critique an idea, it seems that all intelligent discussion of ideas eventually lead to that particular style. For example, consider the Nukes and Copyrights thread. Despite the warning by Felipe, line-by-line quoting continued. This is because it would have been essentially impossible to carry on a discussion of that type without the use of that style. Outlawing the use of this method of discussion would only diminish the forum's quality by driving it away from scholary, in-dept responses- and driving it closer to more generalized, letter-writing responses.

My attempts to have this question answered in PM has been unsuccessful. And, from the looks of things, even the moderators can't agree on what the rules are.

[HaloNoble6]

First of all, notice that I'm the only one moderating, and I can't dedicate my entire day to moderation. Therefore, that is why I'm unable to universally enforce policy that, for such a long time, has not being enforced.

Now, I agree that the rule is unclear, so let me clarify.

Point-by-point responses are indicative of a post trying to address several points made by a particular poster all at once, and of quoting another post when it isn't actually necessary to quote. Consider the following two guidelines:

-Posts should generally attempt to answer one particular point at a time. Long-winded posts that try to answer multiple points are more often then not not read, simply because they are so long. People like short, to-the-point posts, not huge ones that try to answer all the points in the thread or in a particular post.

-Posts should quote another only when summarizing is difficult, or when quoting exact words is absolutely necessary.

The practice of point-by-point responses, where quote after quote is addressed, in most cases violates the above two guidelines. I have conferred with GC and he agrees.

If this isn't clear enough, I can try to be clearer.

[ex_banana-eater]

I am unclear as to the rule regarding using quotes to post point-by-point responses to another's post, and why there is a rule against doing so.

The only thing you have to be clear on is that this is not a rule, it is something Felipe has made up himself. Here are the rules on quoting in regards to our discussion:

Do NOT quote a post above you unless absolutely necessary--this wastes board space, and your post may be deleted. Keep your responses short by minimally quoting a post above or other, outside source. Quote only the particular passage you are targeting with your comments -- and no more.

In regard to point-by-point posting, there are no violations of these rules. Point by point posting breaks the argument down into bare essentials and separates each idea by minimally quoting it, and not using a huge block style quote which encompasses everything the person has written.

Outlawing the use of this method of discussion would only diminish the forum's quality by driving it away from scholary, in-dept responses- and driving it closer to more generalized, letter-writing responses.

I agree with this, of course it would. Quoting serves a very important purpose, especially in a thread that uses point-by-point posting: It allows one to respond accurately to what the previous poster has actually written, and allows all other readers to easily differentiate and validate who said what. All readers not involved in the discussion can easily skip over reading the small quotations since they are a different colour.

[HaloNoble6]

I'm afraid you are having difficulty understanding the policy.

The guideline is:

If you are replying to multiple people/topics, split up your response into multiple posts.

What part about SPLIT UP YOUR RESPONSE INTO MULTIPLE POSTS is unclear? Posts that address multiple points ARE NOT ALLOWED.

[ex_banana-eater]

What part about SPLIT UP YOUR RESPONSE INTO MULTIPLE POSTS is unclear?  Posts that address multiple points ARE NOT ALLOWED.

[Emphasis added]

The rule is not to split posts when multiple points are involved, but multiple topics. In my case, the post I just made was only addressing one fundamental topic involved in Cole's post, with multiple ideas within it. It would an egregious error to require members to make multiple posts for each idea within the discussion.

[HaloNoble6]

However, since this guideline was within the "Improper quoting and scope" section of the basic etiquette, and NOT in the "Failing to stay on topic" section where it explicitly states what you are saying (to stay within a thread, i.e. within a "topic" in forum parlance), "topic" here means idea. It is obvious, from context, that this guideline is about how to post within a specific thread. Why have two sections that prohibit one from responding to multiple "topics" (in forum technical parlance)? Long posts that address multiple points within a particular post or multiple people within a particular thread are not allowed. This is not an invention of mine. I've run this by GC and he agrees. It is a shame that the word "topic" was used. I will ask about changing this for clarity.

Now, until he steps into this thread and states clearly what is policy, I will no longer moderate in this forum nor post in this thread.

[Bryan]

However, since this guideline was within the "Improper quoting and scope" section of the basic etiquette, and NOT in the "Failing to stay on topic" section where it explicitly states what you are saying (to stay within a thread, i.e. within a "topic" in forum parlance), "topic" here means idea.  It is obvious, from context, that this guideline is about how to post within a specific thread.  Why have two sections that prohibit one from responding to multiple "topics" (in forum technical parlance)?  Long posts that address multiple points <i>within a particular post</i> or multiple people <i>within a particular thread</i> are not allowed.  This is not an invention of mine.  I've run this by GC and he agrees.  It is a shame that the word "topic" was used.  I will ask about changing this for clarity.

I agree that the point-by-point quoting technique takes away from the readability of the thread by causing the conversation to become lost. It is simple way to respond to a person, but the response is only beneficial to the person you are responding to. Anybody else would have to reconstruct the entire post and/or thread to make any sense of the small phrases inside the quotes.

I admit that I’ve been guilty of the point-by-point quoting myself, but I think it is something to be avoided.

As a side note, I noticed a new feature that seems to have been enabled sometime in the last couple weeks. When you respond to a post, all the quotes within that post are automatically embedded inside your response. Unless these embedded quotes are manually deleted when writing a post, this adds to a lot of excessive quoting in threads.

[ex_banana-eater]

"topic" here means idea.

Can you point to anything in the forum rules that supports this statement?

Here is a good example of point-to-point style posting in which quotations are heavily used to separate a mishmash of ideas crammed into a paragraph:

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...pic=2483&st=175

Go to post #196 by AisA.

In this example, all of that post is regarding the topic of foreign policy, which specifically relates to the thread. This is the point by point style posting that Felipe has railed against and has claimed is a violation of forum rules (but now has discovered the rules do not state this, and has claimed they are improperly worded). The topic is American foreign policy, and AisA stays on it. The issue of quotations arises when considering how one should separate each idea that is in the context of the topic. That (italisized) is not regulated by forum rules, except for the rules which I first posted in this thread.

If we are to follow Felipe's suggestions, those multiple "points" would all have to become their own post, which would mean probably about 9 separate consecutive posts. In other words, people would probably not bother having a discussion if they have to go through all of that trouble. And talk about wasting board space! If this was actually implemented, the signatures, bars between new posts, and ID tag on the side would account for much more used space than implementing a few quotes. On the other hand, the stifling of discussion from this rule would more than take care of space issues.

Edited March 19, 2005 by ex_banana-eater

[ex_banana-eater]

Now, an example of actual needless quoting could be Bryan's post above mine. He is quoting nearly all of what Felipe has just said the post prior, which does not need to be done since a reply right after someone else's implies you are speaking to them. In addition, he explicitly states he agrees with Felipe in the introduction, which does not require the quoting of a huge block paragraph of the post prior.

In regard to the content of your post Bryan, I do not agree that point-to-point posting causes the subject to become lost. That may happen while posting in this manner, but is not necessarily a consequence of it. I remember many people offering to start a new thread on certain things if the topic becomes derailed.

[ramKatori]

Reducing noise is just one way of increasing the content-to-noise ratio. Far more important is to figure out how to increase the great content.

Hear! hear!

Let's brainstorm more... how can we make this a site that we'd each want to visit more than we already do?

Can this forum be a palce where international objectivists like to come? Let's bring Prodos here... he's an Aussie with spirit.

I'd like to commend Felipe on "taking ownership". Let's all do so.

Hear! hear! Let us help Felipe. There are posts with too much quotation. Lazy. Help Felipe formulate a good rule.

[Cole]

Point-by-point responses are indicative of a post trying to address several points made by a particular poster all at once, and of quoting another post when it isn't actually necessary to quote.

No it's entirely necessary- for an in-depth, scholarly discussion. Otherwise, responses would be forced into muddled generalization.

Posts should generally attempt to answer one particular point at a time.

Yes, I understand that is the rule you created. What I am wondering is how this rule will cause the quality of the forums to increase. Repeating the rule offers me no explanation.

You do realize that you said "one particular point" and not "one particular topic"- and you understand what this means, correct? I just want to make sure that a "one point per post" rule is really what you're advocating, and why you would advocate such a thing.

Long-winded posts that try to answer multiple points are more often then not <i>not read</i>, simply because they are so long.

First of all, how do you know that these types of posts are not read?

Second of all, the content wouldn't be any less long- it would only be spread out into multiple posts (many, many posts, if you're going to require a new post for every point being responded to) instead of in a single post unified by a single topic. Why you decided it's acceptable to post certain content so long as it's spread out across many posts, but not acceptable when it's posted within a single post, is beyond me.

Finally, if the posts aren't being read, as you claim, then what's the problem? Surely they're not affecting people who aren't reading them. The forums gives everybody the option of ignoring posts or threads that they don't like.

People like short, to-the-point posts, not huge ones that try to answer all the points in the thread or in a particular post.

The point/counterpoint style that I am advocating is more to-the-point than the letter-writing style that you are requiring. Under your rules, everybody must either sum up and generalize their response into a large, quoteless response, or they must spread their response out into many posts, with each containing only one point being responsed to.

Don't alter the context. We're discussing repsonses that address all of the points in the post being responded to- not all of the points in the entire thread.

The practice of point-by-point responses, where quote after quote is addressed, in most cases violates the above two guidelines.  I have conferred with GC and he agrees. 

If Greedy Capitalist confirms this rule, then I will no longer post on Objectivism Online. The enforcement of such a rule (as you are describing it) would make this the most inefficient forum for intellectual discussion I have ever seen- with every single point responded to requiring its own post. Please consider what a thread such as Atheist would look like if every response to every single point required making a new, seperate post for each one.

Felipe, I urge you not to make rules for the sake of making rules- especially when you cannot explain specifically how a new rule will increase the quality of the forums.

[RationalBiker]

What part about SPLIT UP YOUR RESPONSE INTO MULTIPLE POSTS is unclear?  Posts that address multiple points ARE NOT ALLOWED.

I think you are misinterpreting that rule. It refers to multiple people and multiple topics, not multiple points within the same topic. It is ridiculous to think that during the discussion of each topic, one must break each point discussed in the topic into its own seperate post. Attempting to establish a cohesive argument that involves a complicated set of building blocks (or points) would be nearly impossible.

I'd also like to know where you get the data that suggests the following statement is true:

Long-winded posts that try to answer multiple points are more often then not not read, simply because they are so long. People like short, to-the-point posts, not huge ones that try to answer all the points in the thread or in a particular post.

Who is not reading these posts? And if they choose to not read a post that's long, though they would otherwise wish to follow the topic, shame on them. I don't care whether a post is long or short, provided it is properly structured and it offers on topic information with which I have an interest. Structure makes a post easy to read, easy follow regardless of length. The practice of minimal or bullet type quoting followed by a response is a structure that makes following a complicated single topic with multiple points easy to read. Your interpretation of the rule would unnecessarily complicate this type of posting.

[spelling Edit - RC]

Edited March 20, 2005 by RationalCop

[non-contradictor]

First of all, notice that I'm the only one moderating, and I can't dedicate my entire day to moderation.  Therefore, that is why I'm unable to universally enforce policy that, for such a long time, has not being enforced.

For clarity's sake, is this your view, Mr. Veksler's, or both?

...

-Posts should quote another only when summarizing is difficult, or when quoting exact words is absolutely necessary.

...

What is the policy on how to deal with posts that violate the quoting rule? Are they simply deleted or do you ask the person to stop quoting excessively?

[non-contradictor]

...If Greedy Capitalist confirms this rule, then I will no longer post on Objectivism Online. The enforcement of such a rule (as you are describing it) would make this the most inefficient forum for intellectual discussion I have ever seen- with every single point responded to requiring its own post. Please consider what a thread such as Atheist would look like if every response to every single point required making a new, seperate post for each one.

...

Ach, not again. Honestly, I don't think this rule is worth making threats over. Are you really willing to give up the discussions here because you might have to split up some posts? I agree that this rule would make posting more complicated, but I have not yet seen many posts done this way, so I really don't know if it would improve the discussion or not. Either way, I'm willing to stick it out to see what happens, and I don't see why anyone who values this forum is not.