Rule change: Criticism of local groups, clubs, etc.

Website Policy and Announcements
1

The following was just added as a forum rule:

Debate and criticism about the policies of a particular Objectivist club or organization should be confined to a single thread inside the Local Forums category.

Sometimes both supporters and detractors of some such local forums are members of OO.net, and one side wishes to advertise the local-group while the other wishes to caution others about it. What we are trying to avoid, via this rule, is having such differences spill into thread and sub-forums about a completely different topic.

PS: This post is self-referential :lol: , so while comments on the general policy are fine, it may not be turned into a specific criticism of a specific club.

2

What if we want to debate a larger abstract point by using the example of a concrete group, or if we want to dissect the actions of a concrete group to explain a moral point?

3

I respect and praise the efforts of our “Web God” (GreedyCapitalist) and the other moderators here. In full context, they spend an enormous amount of time working to provide us with a forum for us to virtually meet and discuss ideas at least based on a constructive interest in Objectivism. They are volunteers, they are working to promote good ideas, and I think they are genuinely trying to do their best. It is usually a thankless job. We do not praise their efforts and this forum often enough.

Regarding this new rule in particular, I think it will help limit where a certain type of discussion may take place on this forum. This will be of some help for the moderators of ObjectivismOnline.Net in “containing” certain kinds of disputes among members, but the rule does not address the more fundamental issues: how to handle disputes among members within the “containment” area regarding the subject matter of local clubs and how to handle disputes among members outside this “containment” area on any other subject matter?

The fundamental issue is justice. Ayn Rand wrote: “"To judge means: to evaluate a given concrete by reference to an abstract principle or standard. It is not an easy task; … It is fairly easy to grasp abstract moral principles; it can be very difficult to apply them to a given situation, particularly when it involves the moral character of another person.”

I’m not sure it is so easy for most of us to even grasp the abstract principle. Regarding some of the disputes we have had among the members here, I think that in principle they have become disruptive to the purposes of the forum when someone engages in inflammatory conduct toward another. I think that less than civil, inflammatory conduct is marked by disrespect toward another’s intelligence, misrepresentation of another’s position, or other personal attack. If a forum allows such to stand against another, he is likely to attribute the sanction of such inflammatory conduct to the forum as a whole and be less likely to participate.

I think this is a fundamental issue that should be moderated regarding disputes between members, regardless of where on the forum or the particular subject matter.

4

What if we want to debate a larger abstract point by using the example of a concrete group,…

I guess most such things can be discussed without accusing specific people. For instance, “Tenure stole my money, is that moral”, compared to “Caius stole my money, is that moral”.

The person posting needs to introspect and ask himself what his real purpose is: is it to warn people about Tenure, or to discuss stealing in general? If it is the former, it does not belong in the general forum. Of course, in practice, someone might claim he wants to discuss the general issue, while a moderator might suspect otherwise. Since this isn’t a court of law, moderator’s best guesses often win the day!

Also, when it comes to local Objectivist groups, there is not much variety of accusations. I’ve seldom seen someone accuse a group of engaging in something criminal etc. The typical accusations revolve around the group’s ideology: how “Objectivist” the group is, whether it is libertarian, whether it throws out people who are honest but don’t “dogmatically” agree with the group’s credo, whether it allows all and sundry in regardless of their credo, and so on.

In my opinion, most such accusations are a waste of space, because one can choose almost any Objectivist group in the country and find a few people who will criticize it as being too dogmatic or as being too tolerant. For anyone seeking a group, the sensible thing is to realize the various types of groups out there, ask themselves what they want from such a group, and then show up and figure out for themselves. There aren’t yet that many groups to make this onerous. Still, as the new rule says, if someone wants to present their evaluation in the “Local Forums” section, that’s still okay.

Obviously forum rules of politeness still apply to such topics.

5

… Since this isn’t a court of law, moderator’s best guesses often win the day!

…

… Still, as the new rule says, if someone wants to present their evaluation in the “Local Forums” section, that’s still okay.

Obviously forum rules of politeness still apply to such topics.

The forum does have an existing, general rule against personal attacks. However, a blanket prohibition against personal attacks can also be unjust. Justice demands praise or condemnation of certain conduct when there is sufficient evidence to make a judgment. The limited purposes of being a forum for discussion of ideas cannot outweigh the need for justice.

Factual misrepresentations about another (even a local club), as the untrue, are always unjust. But personal criticisms and attacks are not always so, if the basis for the attack is factually well-supported. Similarly, any negative “evaluation” or “opinion” which if published here would be likely to cause complaint by another member, should be required to be factually well-supported. This last is in the interest of promoting rational discussion as opposed to assertions of unfounded, arbitrary opinions.

It is true that a moderator has very limited time to spend on these issues, but for the moderation to be effective, a judgment must still be made in every concrete case that someone complains about and that judgment must be acted upon. Not acting is a judgment on the issue as surely as acting.

I suggest the moderator’s challenge in making these kinds of judgments can be resolved this way: a negative factual allegation, criticism, attack or even opinion against another person (including against a local club) may be permitted where there is clear and convincing evidence in specific support of it. Failing that, any such should be struck down. Recognizing a moderator’s limited time resources, the evidence must be capable of being ascertained easily and quickly and unambiguously, or it fails as clear and convincing.

Also, the moderators need not be expected to read every word posted on this large forum and to always act on their own initiative. But when a member specifically complains, a moderator must judge. In doing so – or refusing to do so – the forum’s relationship with the member is at stake.

6

I think I agree with what you’re saying Old Toad.

The only difference may be this: sometimes even if the criticism is well supported, it may be disallowed if the topic is being dragged on. In the past, we’ve (more or less) followed an unwritten policy of letting “both sides” have their say as long as it is within the bounds of politeness, but stopping it if it drags on – even if it stays polite.

Anyone interested in joining such a group can always continue their investigation via PM or email with the people who have posted their views.

If one (or both) “sides” wish to continue the debate, they can always set up a blog or something similar and carry on a more in-depth discussion there, perhaps providing a link from OO.net for anyone who is interested. OO.net does not have to be the publisher.

7

I deleted two posts, one that was inappropriate and one other, and I am closing this thread since there seems to be no further general discussion on the topic.

I also point out that there is a forum rule against insults, and members should understand that this does not just refer to direct name-calling of a specified person, it includes oblique implied insults.