Amending the forum rules

Website Policy and Announcements
1

On another thread, GreedyCapitalist wrote:

If you have suggestions for forum rules or policies, you should post them on the “About the Website” forum.

I would like to suggest something along the lines of the following to be included into the forum rules of behavior.

============================================

This forum will not tolerate any disrespect towards the personnage of Ayn Rand, her philosophy of Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute or the representatives and supporters of the Institute, or the adherents of the philosophy. Further, it is not permitted to use this forum for promotion of ideas that are antithetical to Objectivism, or promotion of organizations that are considered to be enemies of Objectivism. This includes, but is not limited to, libertarianism and the Libertarian party, David Kelley’s perversion of Objectivism and his organization The Objectivist[sic] Center, religion, communism, and the like. A single instance of violation of these rules will be grounds for banning the offender from participating in this forum.

Honest questions on these subjects, and honest questions about these organizations, will be permitted to a limited degree, but since the focus of this forum is the philosophy of Objectivism, such questions are not particularly encouraged. In no case, however, will promotion of these ideas and organizations be permitted.

============================================

2

Obvious misrepresentations of what Ayn Rand wrote and said should warrant banning.

I don’t mean mistaken interpretation of what she wrote. I mean a dishonest attempt to rewrite her views.

I can almost tolerate anything but that.

3

I see no need for any change in the existing rules. Based on the existing threads on dealing with communists and libertarians, it does not seem that GreedyCapitalist does either. If he indicates some interest in changing the rules, I will comment further.

I would, however, like to suggest a crackdown on people who make posts whose only purpose is to denigrate other members.

4

Obvious misrepresentations of what Ayn Rand wrote and said should warrant  banning.

I don’t mean mistaken interpretation of what she wrote.  I mean a dishonest attempt to rewrite her views.

I can almost tolerate anything but that.

I originally included “intentional misrepresentation” but took it out because it seemed to be a difficult thing to know with surety. But, I think you are right in your concern, so perhaps something along the lines of “dishonest misrepresentations” might be included. These would have to be judgment calls on the part of the moderators, since it is not always easy to discern the difference between a confused person and one who purposefully distorts.

5

There is something in the wording of the rule that I don’t understand: “A single instance of violation of these rules will be grounds for banning the offender from participating in this forum”. Do you consider the following statement to be equivalent: “An offender will automatically be banned from participating in this forum for a single violation of these rules”? When I read the first statement, the expression “will be grounds” suggests to me that banning is not automatic, thus something else must be true in order for an offender to be banned – but I don’t know what that would be. Whereas the second statement doesn’t leave unstated any “if the offender also X’s”. Maybe you don’t feel there is any unclarity, but this is important to clear up. Since AFAIK a person who threatens the well-being of this board can already be banned (and a number have been), I want to be sure that I understand exactly how strong you propose making the rule. For instance, Hal posted a reference to a Kelleyite dissertation on philosophy of language, which would seem to me to be an instance of promoting Kelleyism (or at least smearing Objectivism by associating it with deconstructionist philosophy).

6

I see no need for any change in the existing rules. […]

I would, however, like to suggest a crackdown on people who make posts whose only purpose is to denigrate other members.

Do you report such people? If so, what rule do you cite as being violated?

7

I see no need for any change in the existing rules. Based on the existing threads on dealing with communists and libertarians, it does not seem that GreedyCapitalist does either. If he indicates some interest in changing the rules, I will comment further.

Here is some indication: (my bold emphasis)

A reminder:

If you want to do something about the behavior on this forum, I am accepting requests for new moderators.

If you have suggestions for forum rules or policies, you should post them on the “About the Website” forum.

If you have complaints about the behavior of particular members, you should use the “report” function or contact me directly.

If you think someone clearly deserves to be banned or censured, you should report that member.  Getting into an argument with him wastes your time and the moderators, and makes it a lot less likely that the offensive comments will be deleted.

A link to the forum rules is on the top of every page.

8

There is something in the wording of the rule that I don’t understand: “A single instance of violation of these rules will be grounds for banning the offender from participating in this forum”. Do you consider the following statement to be equivalent: “An offender will automatically be banned from participating in this forum for a single violation of these rules”?

No, they are not equivalent. (Or, at least, as a minimum, the former was not meant to be equivalent to the latter.) The phrase “grounds for banning” was meant to supply justification, but not as something that necesarily is automatically acted upon. This leaves some leeway for judgment by the moderator as to the sense and severity of the infraction.

For instance, Hal posted a reference to a Kelleyite dissertation on philosophy of language, which would seem to me to be an instance of promoting Kelleyism (or at least smearing Objectivism by associating it with deconstructionist philosophy).

My own assessment of Hal is that he most probably was unaware of the distinction we draw between Objectivism and the likes of Kelley, and even if he had an inkling of it he most probably did not know that that particular site was run by people who are avid Kelley supporters. So, if I were a moderator, I would consider Hal’s apparent innocence and just give him a warning, alerting him to the Kelley/Objectivism distinction that he should become more aware of.

9

No, they are not equivalent. (Or, at least, as a minimum, the former was not meant to be equivalent to the latter.) The phrase “grounds for banning” was meant to supply justification, but not as something that necesarily is automatically acted upon. This leaves some leeway for judgment by the moderator as to the sense and severity of the infraction.

My own assessment of Hal is that he most probably was unaware of the distinction we draw between Objectivism and the likes of Kelley, and even if he had an inkling of it he most probably did not know that that particular site was run by people who are avid Kelley supporters. So, if I were a moderator, I would consider Hal’s apparent innocence and just give him a warning, alerting him to the Kelley/Objectivism distinction that he should become more aware of.

Perhaps there should be a moderator’s oligarchy for situations such as this

10

Do you report such people? If so, what rule do you cite as being violated?

The content FAQ says (with emphasis added):

“This website was created for the specific purpose of coordinating and sharing information and facilitating interaction between students and fans of Objectivism. This means that this website should not be used to spread ideas contrary or unrelated to Objectivism. Agreement with Objectivism is not required to participate in the forums, as anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s ideas may join and off topic discussions are allowed – but they must not be disruptive or off-topic from the particular forum they’re in”.

In my opinion, these clauses cover the essentials, especially the disruption clause. I’m not advocating that people start flinging around charges of being disruptive lightly, but if someone actually is in the practice of posting unreasoned denunciations of other posters, then I see no reason to ignore this basic rule of the forum (and civilized society), that you should not behave like a savage. There already is a rule against using this board to advance Kantian twaddle, liberalism, religion and Platonism. It is a simple matter of presenting the facts, and stating why the actions constitute disruption and promotion of anti-Objectivist positions (the latter may be option, esp. if the poster has papal praise in his sig).

11

Looks like a lot of memebers will be banned.

I am not personally offended when a person attacks Ayn Rand. I merely ignore the statement if I do not see a point in it. I can tolerate opposing views, so long as the person is not ridiculing and thus trying to bring me down.

Let it be said that nothing bad comes out of a civil argument - you either correct yourself, or you strengthen your own belief. Listening to what other people have to say is a key element in understanding them. I find it foolish to ban a communist for simply being a communist. If someone says, “I am a communist” are you going to ban them? Is this considered promoting communism? What is considered as ‘promoting’?

Hereby disgusted,

Brian

12

Looks like a lot of memebers will be banned.

I am not personally offended when a person attacks Ayn Rand.  I merely ignore the statement if I do not see a point in it.  I can tolerate opposing views, so long as the person is not ridiculing and thus trying to bring me down.

Let it be said that nothing bad comes out of a civil argument - you either correct yourself, or you strengthen your own belief.  Listening to what other people have to say is a key element in understanding them.  I find it foolish to ban a communist for simply being a communist.  If someone says, “I am a communist” are you going to ban them?  Is this considered promoting communism?  What is considered as ‘promoting’?

Hereby disgusted,

Brian

You must have a different idea of what “attack” means. It does not merely mean "to disagree with, or put forth a differing view. It means attack. Plainly it is wrong in this forum.

13

I am not personally offended when a person attacks Ayn Rand.  I merely ignore the statement if I do not see a point in it.  I can tolerate opposing views, so long as the person is not ridiculing and thus trying to bring me down.

I am confused by your statements. I need clarification:

  1. Do you value the work and thereby the person of Ayn Rand, the greatest philosopher since Aristotle?

  2. If someone attacks her as a person, would you have no reaction?

I am offended – and being offended is personal – when someone attacks Ayn Rand, especially “if I do not see a point in it.”

14

No “disrespect” is a little too authoritarian for me. Is questioning Ayn Rand’s personal behavior disrespectful? Questioning her ideas? Some may judge it that way. And the questioner would learn nothing.

What defines “promotion”? Couldn’t any exchange of ideas be considered “promotion” since you might influence someone?

“A single instance of violation of these rules will be grounds for banning”. Too quick.

I have questioned Ayn Rand’s behavior. I have said I liked some of David Kelley’s writing, and said I was upset over his “excommunication”, as I called it. Fortunately, amid the insults that I inevitably received, were some helpful suggestions and actual information about these matters. By these rules, I may not have gotten these, and might not be writing this.

I agree with Brian. Civil arguments and discussions are fine, and I think most of us are capable of distinguishing when they have become irrational and “disruptive” (as the current rules state). None of us are hatched as full-blown Objectivists (or students of Objectivism); we all came from somewhere. I don’t want a forum full of robots, too afraid to say something “disrespectful”, I want people who have been convinced because their doubts and questions have been answered, whatever they may be.

15

I am not personally offended when a person attacks Ayn Rand.  I merely ignore the statement if I do not see a point in it.  I can tolerate opposing views, so long as the person is not ridiculing and thus trying to bring me down.

If someone says, “Ayn Rand was wrong on this issue, and here’s why…” then I am not offended. Such an attitude should be welcome to a public discussion.

But if someone slanders her, calls her names, ridicules her personally, then I get angry. Same goes for those who KNOWINGLY support those who slander her.

I’ve gotten so much value from her over the last 14 years that I hold her in very high esteem. I am perpetually indebted to her for the incredible art she created that I can enjoy again and again. I don’t mean to say she is a good writer; she is a great one. Her novels are so sublime that I get a sense of exaltation reading them that I can rarely find elsewhere. That is precious to me and I value her for giving that to me.

And then there’s the whole philosophy she generated that has improved my life in so many ways. I honestly cannot say what my life would be like today if I had never met her novels or ideas, beyond recognizing the huge benefits they’ve given me.

For these reasons, I take offense when people attack Ayn Rand. I have no patience for them.

And by the way, seeing someone attack Ayn Rand tells me something about them. Either they haven’t read anything, and hence are willing to attack without understanding beforehand; or they have read some things, and don’t understand, in which case I have nothing to learn from them; or they have read, and do understand, in which case they are vile, disgustingly evil creatures.

I want nothing to do with them. I say: ban them, ban them, and ban them again! As to the issue at hand, I think the current forum rules and moderation policies are fine. Anyone who gets banned should have given sufficient evidence of bile and irrationality in his postings.

16

I am confused by your statements. I need clarification:

  1. Do you value the work and thereby the person of Ayn Rand, the greatest philosopher since Aristotle?

  2. If someone attacks her as a person, would you have no reaction?

I am offended – and being offended is personal – when someone attacks Ayn Rand, especially “if I do not see a point in it.”

  1. Yes. Being new to Objectivism forbids me to say she is the greatest philosopher since Aristotle as of yet, but yes I do value her work and person.

  2. Depends on how much I value the person making the statements. I do not bother myself with people that attack her on the internet, I simply do not care. Why bother refuting their statements? Why bother spending my precious time reading what they have to say? If they are my friend and are concerned, that is different. However, if they present at least a logical argument on a serious issue, I am not offended, I welcome their ideas.

Why do you take it personal and bother yourself with them?

–Brian

17

Why do you take it personal and bother yourself with them?

I see two questions embedded in your query:

(1) Why, in this forum, do I take attacks on Ayn Rand – whose philosophy and person are of great personal value to me – as personally offensive?

An attack is not merely a question or a simple, honest disagreement. An attack is an attempt to demean, belittle, or destroy. A recent example – from someone apparently now banned – was an accusation that a particular Objectivist philosopher is a liar and a coward. The accuser offered no evidence whatsoever, and the accusation had no relevance to the topic. The accusation was further evidence of dishonesty.

Surely then your question, in full form, answers itself. An attack on one’s personal values is an offense against one’s values. What would you take offense at if not an attack (that is, an offensive against) your personal values? Were you not personally offended by the Islamofascist attacks on September 11, 2001? Or did you stoically distance yourself from the events?

(2) Why do I, in this forum, take initiative to stop such attacks on individuals I value?

Because taking initiative – for example, by reporting an abuse to moderators – helps protect a forum that is of value to me. I make no attempt to clean up the whole internet. I do say this forum has selfish value to offer me, and here I make my stand to protect the benefits I gain from trading with Objectivists. Please note the last words. People who attack Objectivism are not Objectivists. I have nothing to gain from people who attack my values. I gain only from those, in a given context, who share my values and then proceed to trade.

A broader principle that guides me as well is the issue of justice. In certain contexts, allowing an unjust action to go unpunished is wrong. No one has an obligation to right every injustice. Ideally an institution, such as ObjectivismOnline.net, will have a mechanism set up for dealing with pertinent injustices in a systematic way so that most individuals can go about their business.

The conversation we are having is an example of what a discussion group should offer. One person makes a statement. Another asks for clarification. Honest people go back and forth until they understand each other’s position, first, and then debate the differences remaining. The purpose of etiquette is to facilitate that trade. Forum rules are rules of etiquette. They have a selfish purpose.

18

Do you report such people? If so, what rule do you cite as being violated?

No, and its not a formal violation of the rules. However, the moderators can and have insisted that people use polite netiquette, as is requested on the rules page. ( http://ObjectivismOnline.com/content/view/13/25/ ) I’m just suggesting they do so a little more often.

Those rules by the way say “this website should not be used to spread ideas contrary or unrelated to Objectivism.” That’s a little vague but seems sufficient to me provided the moderators exercise rational judgement, which so far they have.

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

19

Here is some indication:  (my bold emphasis)

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

20

I have another suggestion, based on several recent threads: there should be a notice somewhere asking people to do a search before posting new threads. That way we won’t have to keep going over the same topics repeatedly.

Also, this site has an “ignore list” function. For those who find another user offensive, you can just put that user on your ignore list and you won’t see their posts.