Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Golden Mean, or All Things in Moderation

Rate this topic


AlexL

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

western propaganda troll. To again distract, impede and obfuscate debate.

This is exactly what you are doing. I always justify my claims when asked (and sometimes when I am not ask), but you are rapidly taking cover and ignore the respective comments. You never really justified your claims.

Which confirms that you are a jerk.

Quote

Even to insist on posters' removal.

You seem to have found here a safe haven. @dream_weaverdoesn't seem to bother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AlexL said:

You seem to have found here a safe haven. @dream_weaverdoesn't seem to bother.

I'm sorry. I was reading Grandpa Hays' substack. I also need to run Invision's update to the forum software. I see this thread has generated about 30 pages (25 posts per page) of activity on the site, or about 725 posts. Is this thread an example of the most objective way to spend one's time?

Still, it seems to be the most active thread on the site at the moment. Other than potentially gaining a conceptual insight into what is going on halfway around the world, is this conversation going to alter the course of events over there? I suspect not.

Would you be interested in more control over the threads you start, @AlexL? I could look into what the forum software provides in that department.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

 

 

You seem to have found here a safe haven. @dream_weaverdoesn't seem to bother.

Too bad for your kind. I have seen your methods, chum, trying to stifle or divert from new evidence and argument. Every time. Are you paid by someone to propagandize for warmongers on this forum? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2023 at 8:16 PM, dream_weaver said:

Would you be interested in more control over the threads you start,

Holy hell, don't go down that road of censoring messages or users.  Dividing people up into ever smaller bubbles that only are permitted to agree with each other is unethical and impractical.  Fobbing thread moderation off onto the thread originator is giving power to the people who are the least objective about the thread.  The topic of the Ukraine war is of broad enough interest that no matter who made it there would a lot of posts, AlexL has no control over that aspect and shouldn't be held responsible for it.  

If you did follow through on this there would be multiple threads on the same topic with contrary editorial and censoring policies.  If you want duplicate threads on every controversy, then do this because that is how you get duplicate threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2023 at 2:16 AM, dream_weaver said:
On 2/13/2023 at 1:20 AM, AlexL said:

@dream_weaverdoesn't seem to bother.

I'm sorry. I was reading Grandpa Hays' substack. I also need to run Invision's update to the forum software.

There is no urgency: the two threads on Ukraine run since May or June of the last year and the problems are known since about as long as that.

Quote

I see this thread has generated about 30 pages (25 posts per page) of activity on the site, or about 725 posts. Is this thread an example of the most objective way to spend one's time?

I don't know what the "objective way to spend one's time" is. A number of persons seem to be interested in the subject.

Quote

Other than potentially gaining a conceptual insight into what is going on halfway around the world, is this conversation going to alter the course of events over there? I suspect not.

1. Gaining a conceptual insight into what is going on in Ukraine is important because it is a problem of ethics, which is fundamental for objectivists.

2. This conversation is NOT going to alter the course of events over there; NO conversation on this forum is going to alter the events anywhere, but this doesn't mean this forum is useless.

Quote

Would you be interested in more control over the threads you start, @AlexL? I could look into what the forum software provides in that department.

No. It is the responsibility of the moderator to define and maintain a uniform set of (at least) minimum standards of rational debate.

Such as: justifying one own claims when asked to, discussing counter-arguments, and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything in moderation, including moderation. — Pagan Pictures Paraphrased

How to be a good moderator.

A couple of key takeaways:

<Excerpts>

There are two types of moderators. 

1.) There are those that are the ‘host’ for an entire day, the event moderator. They are for a large part responsible for the success of a conference. 

2.) There are also panel- or session moderators. They are ‘only’ responsible for a specific session. Even though it is less work, it doesn’t make them less important. They can still make or break an event.

If you want to be a good moderator at a conference or to moderate a conference session, you need to do certain things well. You need to work on these moderation skills:

1.) Be prepared
2.) Research
3.) Get in touch with the speakers
4.) Make the speakers the center of attention
5.) Ask the right questions
6.) Pay attention
7.) Be a host

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 Key Traits of a Moderator That Every Event Planner Should Know

(Ha! Pigeon, rather than rabbit, hole.)

<excerpted> 

Here are 5 traits of a great moderator.

1. Proactiveness 
2. Good Time Management 
3. Attention and Listening 
4. Reactiveness 
5. Clarity 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderating 10 key skills and qualities 


10 key SAQs (skills and qualities) every moderator should practice 

1.) Build Rapport- 
2.) Be an Active Listener- 
3.) Remain Neutral yet Involved- 
4.) Be Flexible- 
5.) Use the “5-second Pause” and “Probe” Techniques- 
6.) Acknowledge and Respect- 
7.) Practice good Organization/Management Skills- 
8.) Have Knowledge of the Topic- 
9.) Be Enthusiastic and Attentive- 
10.) Have a Sense of Humor- 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Research Group: Characteristics of a great moderator?

<7 partial excerpts> 


1.) Natural curiosity. Phrases like “I don’t know,” “I guess so” and “I’m not sure” create great opportunities to any true moderator. 
2.) Ease in interacting with people. Wallflowers need not apply for the job of moderating. Nor, for that matter, should someone who has to be the center of attention enter the ring.
3.) Ability to remain impartial, open, and unbiased 
4.) Flexibility. 
5.) Strong verbal skills. Moderators should use language that is direct without being confrontational, and clear...
6.) Excited about the process of discovery.
7.) Creating comfort and trust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

2.) Ease in interacting with people. Wallflowers need not apply for the job of moderating. Nor, for that matter, should someone who has to be the center of attention enter the ring.

I hadn't thought about moderating in terms of a wallflower before. In most public gatherings, I'm usually the quiet one who listens and answers a directed question or two briefly and concisely. Now here we are with another situation akin to the CoViD noise that broke out and spread worldwide back in 2019.

Most of the points pulled in the referenced articles are for conference-style moderation platforms. Many of the suggestions apply equally as well in this setting.

When I logged into this website in 2009, this was not where I envisioned myself.

Objectivism is a philosophy for living on earth. Yes, it involves politics and even art. For Objectivism to spread, it is the ethical aspect that has to take root in the individual. In the History of Philosophy, Lecture 3, Leonard Piekoff addresses how political discussions get bogged down and seem insoluble. When there is harmony in the three antecedent branches, discord in politics usually disappears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/14/2023 at 3:23 PM, AlexL said:

No. It is the responsibility of the moderator to define and maintain a uniform set of (at least) minimum standards of rational debate.

Such as: justifying one own claims when asked to, discussing counter-arguments, and so on.

I think this is a bad trap for a bulletin board like this to fall into. It's too easy to disagree about whether the standards are being met. Further, there is always the case where evidence keeps coming in but people refuse to see or accept it.

4 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

When there is harmony in the three antecedent branches, discord in politics usually disappears.

In all the political debates I've seen in the last few years, part of the debate is about what the facts actually are (and which sources can actually be trusted). Even people who have the same principles will get different conclusions if they start with different sets of facts. If there is a dispute about the facts, it can only be resolved by going and looking to see what the facts are -- and sadly that option is not available to many of us, so at best we might end up agreeing to disagree.

Some of these "moderation standards" seem to make more sense in the context of something like a business meeting, where the purpose is to come up with actionable decisions within a limited time frame. It would be appropriate if, for example, we were a bunch of editors who, in spite of disagreeing with each other, were trying to bring out a monthly magazine, and we had to make a decision about what would go in the magazine and what would not, and we had to make the decision in time for everything to go to press so the issue could go out. (Although it is not required, a magazine might well have editors who disagree with each other about various topics, so that the magazine can cover "multiple sides" of an issue. People used to be interested in reading such magazines.) In that case you'd have a big meeting and you'd need a moderator who can prevent the various editors from arguing all day and encourage them to come up with a solution they can all accept, even if grudgingly.

I suppose some people are wishing that they were attorneys arguing before a court of law, and they'd like to say, "Objection! Ad hominem!" and have a judge say "Sustained!" or "Overruled!" or "Case dismissed!" and maybe throw people in jail for contempt every once in a while. (They also seem to want things to become Settled Law, so that they can stop any further debate about them.)

However, I would think that an internet discussion board would be more open-ended than that, by its very nature. I am thinking back to my comment that a message board should be more like a bar or speakeasy, and people shouldn't be thrown out unless they are making the place unusable. Somebody who goes on and on about a favorite topic, but keeps it in its own thread, isn't really hurting anybody else. Further, it would be a shame to shut someone up only to find out five or ten years later that they had been right all along...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, necrovore said:
On 2/14/2023 at 9:23 PM, AlexL said:

It is the responsibility of the moderator to define and maintain a uniform set of (at least) minimum standards of rational debate.

Such as: justifying ones own claims when asked to,  discussing counter-arguments, and so on.

I think this is a bad trap for a bulletin board like this to fall into. It's too easy to disagree about whether the standards are being met.

The premise here is that there must be an agreement (whatever this means) about whether the standards were met. This is not necessary. A forum has an owner, a set of rules and a moderator who is supposed to enforce the rules. A user who signs up / registers into the forum accepts the rules and also the moderator’s decisions (with, possibly, a procedure to resolve disagreements between users and moderator). This is precisely one of the reasons one has a moderator; it is his judgment that counts. But there are good and bad moderators. Besides, a timid person is not so good as moderator.

Quote

Further, there is always the case where evidence keeps coming in but people refuse to see or accept it.

You mean keeps coming from the person making the claim? Or you mean keeps coming in the news? If latter, see below.

Quote

it would be a shame to shut someone up only to find out five or ten years later that they had been right all along...

I don’t think so. If some essential facts emerge years (or months or days) later and validate a claim, then it means that, when the claim was made, it was not based on facts, it was arbitrary. Repeated arbitrary claims should be discouraged.

Making a claim and saying that the required justification is not yet available, or implying that the author has some confidential information, is fallacious, and should be, likewise, discouraged.

Besides, you did not address my assertion that the requirement for "justifying ones own claims when asked to and discussing counter-arguments" is a mandatory part of a rational discussion. Can I assume that you do agree with it?

Do you agree that throwing claims (or links) and being unwilling to provide justification, or being unwilling to consider and answer objections is not acceptable, possibly being a form of trolling?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, AlexL said:

If some essential facts emerge years (or months or days) later and validate a claim, then it means that, when the claim was made, it was not based on facts, it was arbitrary.

That is incorrect. A fact is a fact regardless of whether it has "emerged" or not, regardless of whether it has become generally known or not. Our consciousness of the facts -- or our lack of consciousness of them -- doesn't determine what they actually are. (Thinking that it does is a primacy-of-consciousness viewpoint.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, necrovore said:
3 hours ago, AlexL said:

If some essential facts emerge years (or months or days) later and validate a claim, then it means that, when the claim was made, it was not based on facts, it was arbitrary.

That is incorrect. A fact is a fact regardless of whether it has "emerged" or not, regardless of whether it has become generally known or not. Our consciousness of the facts -- or our lack of consciousness of them -- doesn't determine what they actually are. (Thinking that it does is a primacy-of-consciousness viewpoint.)

Yes, a fact is a fact, but I was speaking about the claim and its validation, or lack of it, by the claimant.

If the claim was not justified (by the claimant) with facts the moment the claim was made, it means that the claim was advanced without validation/proof and was, therefore, arbitrary - on the part of the claimant. This  fact, the arbitrariness, cannot be changed by future discoveries.

Can I assume you agree with me on the other points I raised?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doing a rapid search on rational debates, I compiled the following – with unequal value and many repetitions. I am not very motivated to correctly structure this comment, but I think it might be useful for the reader and for @dream_weaver

 A). THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans, from Rules and Guidelines:

1. Be sure that your posts are well-grounded in facts and logic

2. Avoid mind reading -- inferring what someone is thinking or wants or feels when the person hasn't said so and then treating that inference as a fact. This is poor reasoning, presumptuous, derails discussions, leads to flame wars, and is usually wrong. 

B). From The ten rules for rational-critical argumentation (with explanations and examples)

1. Freedom rule
Parties must not prevent each other from advancing standpoints or from casting doubt on standpoints.
This rule prohibits argumentum ad baculum

2. Burden of proof rule
A party that advances a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked by the other party to do so.

3. Standpoint rule
A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

4. Relevance rule
A party may defend a standpoint only by advancing argumentation relating to that standpoint.

5. Unexpressed premise rule
A party may not deny premise that he or she has left implicit or falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party.

6. Starting point rule
A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

7. Argument scheme rule
A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.

8. Validity rule
A party may only use arguments in its argumentation that are logically valid or capable of being made logically valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.

9. Closure rule
A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it and a conclusive defense of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting its doubt about the standpoint.

10. Usage rule
A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and a party must interpret the other party’s formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

C). From Ten Commandments[?] of Rational Debate (with examples)

1. Don’t attack a person’s character, but the argument itself. (Ad hominem)

2. Don’t misrepresent or exaggerate a person’s argument in order to make them easier to attack. (Straw Man Fallacy)

3. Don’t use small numbers to represent the whole. (Hasty Generalization)

4. Don’t argue your position by assuming one of its premises is true. (Begging the Question)

5. Don’t claim that because something occurred before, it must be the cause. (Post Hoc/False Cause).

6. Don’t reduce the argument down to only two possibilities when there is a clear middle ground. (False Dichotomy)

7. Don’t argue that because of our ignorance, a claim must be true or false. (Ad Ignorantiam).

8. Don’t lay the burden of proof onto the person who is questioning the claim. (Burden of Proof Reversal).

9. Don’t assume that this follows that, when it has no logical connection. (Non Sequitur).

10. Don’t claim that because a premise is popular, therefore, it must be true. (Bandwagon Fallacy).

D). Various

- concentrating on essential(s)

- Speakers may not bring up new points in a rebuttal speech (releasing a dozen of rabbits to be chased)

- there is no obligation to have an opinion in a subject one have not researched. I have no opinion on this (yet?) is the honest attitude to have in such cases.

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” (C. Hitchens?)

“You cannot reason people out of something they were not reasoned into (Jonathan Swift?)”

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity Hanlon's razor”

“A bad argument is worse than ineffectual: it lends credence to the arguments of your opponents. A half-battle is worse than none: it does not end in mere defeat -- it helps and hastens the victory of your enemies. (Ayn Rand)”

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, AlexL said:

If the claim was not justified (by the claimant) with facts the moment the claim was made, it means that the claim was advanced without validation/proof and was, therefore, arbitrary - on the part of the claimant.

Facts are "out there" in reality; facts as such cannot be posted on any forum. (Except that you can post the words that someone else said or wrote.) Facts "out there," such as a battle that may or may not be occurring in a certain place, or a result that may or may not have been measured in a laboratory, can only be described, pointed to, cited, or something like that. If you can't see the fact for yourself then you have to make an assessment about the credibility of the source.

However, I would not assume anyone has the right to "force" that assessment upon others through the moderation system.

(I put "force" in quotes because nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head, so it isn't literally "force" in the rights-infringing sense. Maybe I should rephrase that by simply saying that I strongly prefer to make my own assessments about credibility rather than having someone else make them for me, and if other people want to make their own assessments, then they will prefer a message board where moderators don't make such assessments for them.)

Free speech -- which should be a normative value for any discussion board where controversies are regularly raised, but especially a discussion forum about Objectivism, which itself supports free speech -- requires that we allow people to make invalid arguments, on the basis that the invalidity, if it is not already apparent, will become so eventually.

It also requires that each reader be able to decide for themselves which arguments are invalid, and to be able to change their minds about that decision later, if they wish.

Free speech does not include things like harassment or spam because they render the board useless (for someone or for everyone), and it should also not include posts that can cause direct real-world harm (such as libel and "doxxing" and the like). However, excluding such things from "free speech" is an example of context-keeping, along the same lines as excluding extortion and theft from "economic activity."

33 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Can I assume you agree with me on the other points I raised?

No, I have not had time to address them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/12/2023 at 7:20 PM, AlexL said:

You seem to have found here a safe haven. @dream_weaverdoesn't seem to bother.

This website effectively has no moderator. Or more like, all DW really does is clean up spam. I was a moderator for a while, until DW took that away for no particular reason because I disagreed with him about some topic a while ago. There actually isn't much to do, but being a moderator also means in some way influencing or impacting conversation to push it towards more productive or valuable discussion. 

You end up with goofy threads like this as some kind of elaborate joke about not moderating. "I'm not moderating? I will show you moderating! Look at me, splitting a thread for no reason. See how dumb this is? Now leave me alone."

There isn't much to moderate anyway, there are not very many people here anymore. There isn't much need to direct the conversation. Although, it's not helping things when the moderator doesn't care anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, necrovore said:
1 hour ago, AlexL said:

If the claim was not justified (by the claimant) with facts the moment the claim was made, it means that the claim was advanced without validation/proof and was, therefore, arbitrary - on the part of the claimant.

Facts are "out there" in reality; facts as such cannot be posted on any forum.

Justifying claims with facts means, in your view, posting facts??? You are kidding!!! Or not?

28 minutes ago, necrovore said:

However, I would not assume anyone has the right to "force" that assessment upon others through the moderation system.

No, the role of the moderator is, in particular, to insure that the debates remain rational. He enforces the rules, the rules of civilized and rational debates.

33 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Free speech -- which should be a normative value for any discussion board where controversies are regularly raised, but especially a discussion forum about Objectivism, which itself supports free speech

There is no free speech on a private forum. 

35 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Free speech ... requires that we allow people to make invalid arguments, on the basis that the invalidity, if it is not already apparent, will become so eventually.

Are you sure about your wording? Instead of "invalidity" did you mean validity? Besides, I was speaking about arbitrary claims, those which were presented without proof/justification even after such justification was demanded.

46 minutes ago, necrovore said:

It [freedom of speech] also requires that each reader be able to decide for themselves which arguments are invalid, and to be able to change their minds about that decision later, if they wish.

Again, I was speaking about compliance with the rules (this is in addition to the fact that there is no freedom of speech on a private forum.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This website effectively has no moderator... There actually isn't much to do, but being a moderator also means in some way influencing or impacting conversation to push it towards more productive or valuable discussion. 

Yes. And a more productive or valuable discussion is, in particular, the one in which participants justify their claims - at least when asked to. And this shouldn't be optional, it should be actively discouraged.

Besides making the discussions more productive, this would make them also more valuable by teaching the rules of specifically rational debates.

But if @dream_weaveris not willing in making efforts in this direction, I can live with this too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, AlexL said:

There is no free speech on a private forum. 

There's a balance to be had what to permit and not permit. My absolute hard limit would be Q-believers and anyone being on the level of an actual admitted fascist, or straight up racists. Those are the people that I think poison the well and you need no further proof that they will be acting in bad faith every time they open their mouth. Then there is throwing out the ban hammer just because someone said something that you thought was a really bad take. Not very productive to do that.

It makes sense to have some toleration for those people with bad takes, but you can still inject influence into the discussion and actively encourage better and more rational thinking. Or more benevolent thinking. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AlexL

Another one of Objectivism Online's less often enforced rules. <---for a full list, click the underlined.

Reporting violations of the rules

Do not post complaints about the behavior of any member on the forum - report them to the moderators. Public complaints about other members will be treated as a personal attack and may be deleted!

If you think someone deserves a warning, please use the "Report!" link found on every post. The offender will not know who reported him.

 

Edited by dream_weaver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

Are you sure about your wording? Instead of "invalidity" did you mean validity?

Well obviously free speech also requires that we allow people to post valid arguments. But yes, I meant invalidity.

3 hours ago, AlexL said:

Besides, I was speaking about arbitrary claims, those which were presented without proof/justification even after such justification was demanded.

Sometimes people have decided that they can deem facts they don't like to be "arbitrary" just so that they can then demand that those facts be removed from consideration and debate.

I think each person should be able to make their own assessment about what is "arbitrary" because that's just another form of making their own assessment about what is "invalid."

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...