I want to ask the patrons (and others who have access to this forum) what they think of the atmosphere here in the forum, and based on the response address the topic with regulars. Specifically, I would like for you to think for a minute and consider whether you feel “comfortable” posting here. What I mean is do you feel you are posting, generally, with a defensive posture, anticipating antagonism, or what? Additionally, do you think the way people generally address each other here is curteous and respectful, or not curteous and disrespectful? Finally, based on the overall level of understanding and application of Objectivism of the majority of active forum members, do you feel like posting difficult, perhaps highly specialized, questions/topics on Objectivism stands to be out of place here in this forum? Is there at all a sense of reluctance with regard to the nature of questions and/or with regard to the intellectual level of communication you feel is out of place here? Do you feel that the present audience here detracts from perhaps the goal to ask more difficult questions or engage others in a more sophisticated manner? Aside from these questions, any comments regarding your overall response to the forum would be appreciated, particularly if they are in terms of how we can help change or improve things around here.
I think the forum is “pretty comfortable”. By this I mean that it is somewhere between a typical Internet forum on the one hand and (say) chatting with a close friend on the other hand. There are things I would not say in a public forum, and the fact that substantially all members are Objectivists (or “students of…”) will not change that. An email or PM between two members who have established a relationship, being relatively private, would be a more “comfortable” setting.
Apart from the fact that it is public and “forever saved in cyberspace”, there are certain things I might say to a close friend that I might not say to an acquaintance or to an “Internet friend”.
As for your question about “difficult” topics: do you mean difficult as in “more detailed and technical philosophy”, or do you mean “controversial”? If the former, I do not think I’d be hesitant. Of course, one realizes that the people here are not professional philosophers. Still, whatever question I might have, there’s probably at least one member who has thought about it already and at least has some tentative answer. If you mean “controversial”, then I suppose my previous remarks apply.
As for the broader question: how to change and improve things? I think the best way to approach that is to answer: why am I here on this forum? why is it of value to me? what value do I get that I do not get elsewhere? what other value would I like to get? if I had to design an ideal Internet forum just for my own “needs”, what would it look like?
I’ll post more about that later.
What I mean is do you feel you are posting, generally, with a defensive posture, anticipating antagonism, or what? Additionally, do you think the way people generally address each other here is curteous and respectful, or not curteous and disrespectful?
I wouldn’t say that I generally feel that way, but there is a small malevolent presence. Even though it is very small, any amount of antagonism or negativity is unpleasant; it was enough to make me stop participating on this forum, in favor of one where there is almost no malevolent presence whatsoever.
There are two sides to what I mean by “malevolent presence.” One side is the antagonist, uncourteous, disrespectful attitude you mentioned (i.e. the poor sense of life held by some individuals). The other side is the intrinsic/dogmatic attitude, which is really the one that makes me want to 
, and even then, it’s only when I see that attitude in people whom I think should know better.
Both are something common to those who are new to Objectivism. Since one of the functions of this site is to aid those people in learning about the philosophy I think you kind of have to take the good with the bad. What recently made me decide to start posting here again was the realization that OO.net’s educational capacity is achieved through “veterans” demonstrating by example.
The intrinsic/dogmatic attitude is best combatted by pointing it out where it’s encountered; I don’t think it’s ever going to go away, though. As Don Watkins once wrote on Diana Hsieh’s blog, “intrinsicism is our common cold.” The disrespectful, antagonistic attitude could be relieved a little by increasing moderation, but there’s only so far one can go in this arena before it becomes counterproductive to the purposes of this site.
Finally, based on the overall level of understanding and application of Objectivism of the majority of active forum members, do you feel like posting difficult, perhaps highly specialized, questions/topics on Objectivism stands to be out of place here in this forum? Is there at all a sense of reluctance with regard to the nature of questions and/or with regard to the intellectual level of communication you feel is not out of place here? Do you feel that the present audience here detracts from perhaps the goal to ask more difficult questions or engage others in a more sophisticated manner?
I am generally reluctant to ask a lot of questions here. Not because of the malevolent presence, but because of the overwhelming “noobishness.” If there’s something very technical that I don’t understand, I don’t want to wade through a bunch of b.s. that are essentially irrelevant or completely wrong; I want useful answers.
But again, this site has a very large presence online, so it draws in a lot of new people, and it is one of the best tools out there for people just starting to learn about Objectivism.
I think the Premium Forums were originally created with this in mind, but there just aren’t enough patrons to make asking questions on them very worthwhile, as opposed to other forums where the average level of knowledge is higher throughout the entire membership.
There are a fair number of patrons, that I’ve noticed, and they tend to be the most prolific posters.
Anyone else wishing to post their thoughts, please do so now – this thread is now open to everyone.
There are a fair number of patrons, that I’ve noticed, and they tend to be the most prolific posters.
Saying there’s a fair number is a relative measurement. At risk of sounding like a subjectivist: what counts as a fair number to me and what counts as a fair number to you (or anyone else) may be, and often are, two different things.
My count is 12 patrons, only 7 of whom have been active within the last month.
In all fairness, I haven’t been asking that many questions lately anywhere , on any forum. I don’t want to make it seem like I have this great bounty of highly-specialized philsophical discussions that I’m withholding from all of you. I really don’t. But, if I did, I would begin the discussion wherever I was getting the most bang for my buck, so to speak.
Felipe-
What is your reason for bringing all of this up? Had you personally made some observations that raised some concern? Have other people been expressing some great concern to you?
I also want to re-emphasize that I think any problems in the forum atmosphere are very minor. For the most part, I think things are fine. But, it never hurts to shoot for perfection. :dough:
A particular member who used to post here quite frequently but doesn’t any more, and friend of mine, often comments on the difference in atmosphere’s between this forum and “THE FORUM.” Additionally, I’ve personally seen a few people here who get real nasty, and felt like that effected my view of the atmosphere here. For example, some people seem to think that the best way to deal with people who are confused, new, wrong, etc., is to treat them rudely so they don’t come back.
Some of my thoughts about OO.net:
I’m mostly a lurker here, and while I do post occasionally, I mostly visit this site to read interesting conversations and debates. When I first found this site, I liked the serious debate and high standards which were missing from the other “Objectivist” sites I had participated in before. In any case, from what I see, the atmosphere is as friendly and safe as one can expect from a forum which still allows the benefit of the doubt to newbies who may turn out to be trolls. If you ask an honest question stemming from genuine confusion without trying to pick a fight, people will for the most part treat you civilly.
Yes, from time to time a beginner has been struck down a bit hashly. Often a beginner will bring up a topic that some feel is hackneyed or even dishonest. At other times, a theoretical question is construed as a dishonest question [how do I know reality exists? why can’t I kill my own kid?]. On the whole I’d say that people are treated politely here, with minor exceptions.
The nature of the forum is debate and argument, so it’s understandable that tempers will fly from time to time.
If I were the “Web God”, I would disallow pictures which move such as the “dough” smilie 
and hunterrose’s new avatar. Moving things tend to distract my attention from whatever I am trying to read or think about.
… whether you feel “comfortable” posting here.
Some members seem to be incapable of admitting that they are wrong. This would not be so bad, if they would just shut-up when they realize that they are wrong. But in some cases, they have imputed motives or beliefs to me which I do not hold, and effectively accused me of being intellectually dishonest. This is infuriating. If someone did this frequently, then I would conclude that he was a troll.
Examples:
-
“Is your purpose here in denying the reality of stolen concept to attempt to obliterate its meaning so that you can try and convince Objectivists that an actual ‘infinity’ actually exists? That question is rhetorical, and the answer is yes.”
-
“… I interpret this tangential question as a way of granting that your first statement about speed was in error, without explicitly saying ‘Oops, I meant something else’. So the speed question is clearly closed.”
A particular member who used to post here quite frequently but doesn’t any more, and friend of mine, often comments on the difference in atmosphere’s between this forum and “THE FORUM.” Additionally, I’ve personally seen a few people here who get real nasty, and felt like that effected my view of the atmosphere here. For example, some people seem to think that the best way to deal with people who are confused, new, wrong, etc., is to treat them rudely so they don’t come back.
I see. I’m sure you gathered that THE FORUM was the one I referred to as having “next to no malevolent presence whatsoever.” I don’t think it’s a good idea to judge this forum by comparison to the Speichers’. The two are very, very different, and have different values to offer.
There are some great things going on here that just aren’t happening on THE FORUM. The same goes for THE FORUM in comparison to here. While I completely understand your friend’s preference (I shared it for several months), I don’t think it’s indicative of any real problems here; it’s just personal preference. There are several regular posters here who, after a brief visit to THE FORUM, made the opposite choice.
I’m not really a big fan of public comparisons of this nature, so I’m not going to go into a big analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each forum. I’ve seen you lurking around there. You’re a smart guy. I’m sure you can figure out where the differences are fundamentally.
As a final note, I want to make clear that I’m against trying to morph OO.net into something that can match the virtues of THE FORUM. I think doing so would be a detriment to the virtues of this one.
I like the fact that there is no dictator type here deciding which post will stand and which ones get sent back. Most of these forums are similar to talk radio. If you listen to talk radio for awhile you will notice that the callers who agree with the host get help in formulating their ideas, but when an opposing view starts to show that the host is wrong (especially when the caller’s position is logical and well presented) the host will shut him down by employing a variety of techniques. If I am going to read, post questions, and state my case, I want to know that everyone is treated equally.
The dictator type moderator will tend to form a group of supporters who he will allow to post just about anything they want in any way they want. Then when an outsider comes along and disagrees with the clique the outsider’s posts get the heavy hand of the law. In other words a double standard is applied.
This forum, based on my limited experience, does not appear to be run that way. So far so good – keep up the good work!
I like the fact that there is no dictator type here deciding which post will stand and which ones get sent back…The dictator type moderator will tend to form a group of supporters who he will allow to post just about anything they want in any way they want. Then when an outsider comes along and disagrees with the clique the outsider’s posts get the heavy hand of the law. In other words a double standard is applied.
Be wary of making allusions to those who are not here to defend themselves, particularly in the presence of those whose respect and admiration the parties in question have earned many times over. I doubt I’m alone in making this warning.
Be wary of making allusions to those who are not here to defend themselves, particularly in the presence of those whose respect and admiration the parties in question have earned many times over. I doubt I’m alone in making this warning.
The question was asked, I answered it honestly and stand by my words.
The question was asked, I answered it honestly and stand by my words.
It is not so much what you said as how you said it. Not the underlying content, but the slur implied by the term “dictator”. One could as well say that we at OO.net have a whole slew of “dictators” 
Anyhow, I’d rather not veer Felipe’s thread away from the core topic.
I’m not really a big fan of public comparisons of this nature, so I’m not going to go into a big analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of each forum.
I agree about the “public comparison” part.
On the other hand, just looking at this forum and no other, what do you think are OO.net’s strengths and weaknesses? What do we do that we should continue to do, hopefully even better? What do we do that we ought to change? What do we not do that we ought to?
Yes, let’s not get off course here. However, just for the public record, RSalar, did you mean to say that THE FORUM is run by a “dictator?” No need to elaborate on why or how or validate your claim, I just want to know what your claim is. Anything beyond a “yes” or “no” answer will be deleted, as well as any more discussion publicly evaluating any other forum besides this one.
Furthermore, I want to make it clear that no one has asked for anyone to evaluate other forums, you did this on your own and now I ask that you come out and say exactly who it is you’re evaluating, since you’ve already underhandedly done so. Your evaluation is yours and yours alone, and you will be judged accordingly.
One of the main strengths IMO of this forum is the amount of discussion that takes place regarding the real world application of philosophy, something lacking in other forums. That gives an opportunity to debate hotly as well as learn.
I had stopped visiting this site a few months back due to a massive degradation of the quality of discussions. Thankfully the problem was solved due to intensive moderation.
On the other hand, due to the lack of a large group of experienced and integrated Objectivists, the atmosphere is not very conducive to discussions pertaining to say abstract philosophy.
On the other hand, just looking at this forum and no other, what do you think are OO.net’s strengths and weaknesses? What do we do that we should continue to do, hopefully even better? What do we do that we ought to change? What do we not do that we ought to?
Fundamentally, OO.net’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness: its visibility. I don’t mean to say that visibility as such is a strength or weakness, but rather all of the things to which that leads. That is the reason we have so many people new to Objectivism wanting to learn, and it is also the reason for the comparitively (although, thanks to moderation, still low) high number of undesirables.
There are a number of things that could be done to increase visibility, which I think were already discussed in another thread several months back. It’s important to realize, though, that with every increase in visibility comes an increase in the level of moderation required to avoid chaos, and if moderation gets too strict, it will hamper the newbie-come-learn atmosphere which is so important here.
I don’t really have any ideas on what can be done for improvement at present, but I’ll keep the wheels churning in the back of my mind. For now, off to school. Ciao!
I agree on the fact of visibility as well as its pros and cons. Really a two edged sword. One problem on the downside is that at some level of “noise” more experienced members could “emigrate” 
, which only exacerbates the problem.
The only solution that I see is: once we achieve a level of allowable “noise”, we “counter” by more “quiet conversation” and sharing of values. Easier said than done, because it’s a forum, and content does not flow from an editorial staff.
I think the question for OO.net is this: what value does it provide people who are confirmed Objectivists, past the need to get a lot of things clarified.
I think the question for OO.net is this: what value does it provide people who are confirmed Objectivists, past the need to get a lot of things clarified.
It is a tool to work toward changing the culture by sharing our understanding with those who are just starting to learn.