Guidelines for Posters

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Thu, 2005-12-01 07:50

Anyone who signs up to SOLOPassion.com is free to post here, unmoderated.

Anyone who is gratuitously rude or abusive, will, however, be moderated in the “play pen” for children, after reasonable warning.

When posting, remember the “Three Gs”—good faith, good will and good humour. If the second two are rendered impossible, the first is still a minimum requirement.

As a sign of good faith, please sign on and post under your real name with photograph, which you can upload when you register an account.

In dealing with non- or anti-Objectivists, remember the objective is to persuade rather than intimidate, bully or disgust.

Remember you are guests in Linz’s house, enjoying his hospitality for free. Do not presume to tell him how to run this site or SOLO. If you don’t enjoy being in his house … well, there is no one forcing you to stay.

Respect the privacy of others here—and your own.

If you’re a self-important grandstander, poseur, attention-seeker or blowhard monologuer who knows it all, contemplate the possibility that this might not be the place for you.

If you’re a rationally passionate romantic, seeking the stars and looking for other pilgrims in your quest, contemplate the certainty that this is definitely the place for you!

Enjoy!


( categories: )

Yes But

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

There is no excuse for someone saying when they disagree with a poster

Yes but Kyrel really is an idiot. Go read his book and you will have no doubts. There are other people on this forum, and every Objectivist forum, that post stupid things. But there is a difference between posting stupid things and being an idiot. Kyrel is the latter. I hate idiots that think otherwise. Thus my harsh language.

Focus on Ideas -- Not the People Expressing Them

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Ed makes many good points above! If you have a "discussion" or "debate" which goes "You're a dolt." "No, you are," then no actual exchange of views has taken place -- just an exchange of insults. The actual content of the conversation is null. No-one is educated or uplifted. Indeed, people in other discussions are implicitly degraded and the whole website is sullied.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that some person is remarkably low intellectually, morally, and spiritually. Well, that's bound to be reflected in what the person says. So attack his content, claims, and logic. This is almost always the best approach and strategy. This is how good triumphs over evil and knowledge over ignorance and lies. If someone is genuinely that awful then it stands to reason that his views should be exceptionally fast and easy to refute. So there's little excuse not to go that route. Ad hominem arguments are truly weak. But if you have to denigrate the person, and not his claims, then at least offer something substantive -- some sort of backing evidence and analysis -- to demonstrate and prove his intellectual, moral, and spiritual lowness. Unsupported claims and mere assertions don't convince anyone decent.

It's important to remember that no false and evil intellectual claim or line of reasoning -- however awful or self-evidently wrong -- is destroyed by mere insults to the person or the view expressed. There has to be some content -- something substantial which refutes the arguments offered. And after not-that-many refutations of this kind then the ignorant and lowly person is defeated too.

Ky is correct

edpowell's picture

There is no excuse for someone saying when they disagree with a poster, "you're an idiot" or equivalent insult. If a person says something you disagree with, and you wish to refute the statement, say, "Person X said 'Blah blah,' but in fact this is not true. For example, if you read the book "XXX" you'll see that 'blah blah' is definitively refuted. For example, when Person X said Y, in fact, based on a study by Z, the actual fact is not Y."

That's how adults communicate. Saying "you're an idiot" convinces no one. In fact, all saying "you're an idiot" does is to alienate almost all thoughtful people from your point of view. You do both your reputation, and more importantly your ideas, a great disservice by engaging in personal attacks. After all, you are posting for the purpose of convincing people of your point of view, right? Why would you post at all if the actual result of the post is to alienate your readers? Not engaging in personal attacks is not a "commandment" that should be enforced by an administrator from on high. It's a basic principle of persuasion that anyone endeavoring in intellectual discourse should understand. That's why I say it's an adolescent practice, because personal attacks on genuinely interested interlocutors is a tactic of 13-year-olds, not public intellectuals on the right, and especially not people studying Objectivism.

Freedom Of Speech

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Freedom of speech is all-important. That's why it's essential to note that treating fellow Solo Passion members with respect and courtesy radically enhances open discussion and freedom of expression. Personal insults and ad hominem attacks radically curtail them. This evil drives good and great people away, and brings the various discussions to a halt. Hateful abuse of members -- especially unbacked by evidence or reason -- creates a malevolent, social atmosphere and kills the friendly, lofty spirit of the place. Everyone on Solo Passion suffers -- even those who aren't involved, or haven't even joined yet. Insults and attacks -- devoid of actual discussion and debate -- allow the evil people to triumph over the good ones. This interpersonal depravity virtually ensures that in most conversations truth, justice, morality, and nobility will go unsought, undiscovered, undefended, and unvictorious.

Discussion Forums

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

For the life of me, I can only think of two reasons for moderating, censoring, or banning someone: 1) they're generally off-topic, because they don't know much about Objectivism, or really care to discuss it; 2) they overly insult people, especially Solo Passion members, without much employing reason or discussing the Objectivist-related issues.

I'd love to eventually live in an Objectivist world where moderating, censoring, and banning is non-existent. People see the stark malevolence and depravity of the ARIans, and think that as long as they're noticeably superior to them then they're doing okay. Not so. Objectivism demands more.

Media Release

robbo's picture

Media Release

The Police and CYF say they are entitled to contact an employer, make damaging statements and refuse to provide any evidence. On Monday 11 March 2013 Johan Aarts will be taking on the Commissioner of Police and Others in the Employment Court in Auckland.

“If the Police are allowed to get away with this then you could be next to lose your employment and career on the basis of untested and falsified evidence" says Aarts

A secret High Court hearing was held in Rotorua on 20 November 2012 from which the media and members of the public were excluded. An article was published in the Sunday Star Times of 25 November 2013 and was also published on the www.stuff.co.nz website. However the article was removed from “Stuff” the same day following a complaint from The Crown Law Office who are representing the Police and CYF in this matter.

Chief Employment Court Judge Colgan has confirmed that this hearing on Monday will be conducted in open court and the media will be allowed to report on proceedings.

Mr Aarts will be represented by lay advocate Robert Lee who has called Defendant Police Commissioner Peter Marshall as a witness.

The Privacy Commission, Ombudsman and Employment Relations Authority have all refused to order the Police to produce evidence. The Employment Court will be making a ruling on various preliminary matters including whether or not to order the Police to release the evidence.

Thoughts on Discussion Forums

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

In 2005 Lindsay admirably wrote:

"Anyone who signs up to SOLOPassion.com is free to post here, unmoderated.

Anyone who is gratuitously rude or abusive, will, however, be moderated in the “play pen” for children, after reasonable warning.

When posting, remember the “Three Gs”—good faith, good will and good humour. If the second two are rendered impossible, the first is still a minimum requirement.

As a sign of good faith, please sign on and post under your real name with photograph, which you can upload when you register an account.

In dealing with non- or anti-Objectivists, remember the objective is to persuade rather than intimidate, bully or disgust."

I think these standards are quite good, if followed. The whole notion of "moderation" and "censorship" is deeply antithetical to the philosophy of Objectivism, and to any decent discussion group.

In most respects I think a philosophy discussion group is like an evening drawing room for gentleman. Many different types appear there, and the only ones who get asked to leave are those who are intolerably rude to their fellows. But you can say whatever you like.

Even Platonists, Kantians, Christians, Muslims, Existentialists, Buddhists, Scientologists, New Agers, etc. should be allowed to discuss the issues, in my view, provided they stay somewhat on-topic and don't engage in massive ad hominem.

If a given person knows almost nothing about Objectivism and refuses to discuss it, while also disrespectfully attacking those who do understand the philosophy somewhat and are involved in debating it, then in that very unusual instance the person should be asked to leave for the simple reason that he's interfering in the discussion. But this is RARE.

Ayn Rand did something truly great when she famously said: "Judge, and be prepared to be judged," as well as "I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world." But at some point this behavior standard becomes a kind of burden and oppression, and I think it truly weighs down the Objectivist movement of today. Judgmentalising and moralizing can be socially excessive, and becomes a mistake at some point. In my view, we need to "judge" the ideas far more, and the people far less.

Even if a given individual is remarkably intellectually and morally low -- and we all fail on both, at some point -- the emphasis should be on refuting his claims, not denigrating his person. This is also far the most effective way, long term, to attack and defeat him personally.

Linz

Mark Hubbard's picture

Just sent you a PM ... self explanatory when you read it.

Mark

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Guidelines are just below blue area. I'll keep them there permanently. Your next step is to send me the thing via e-mail. Smiling

Help please.

Mark Hubbard's picture

Right, I've written my first SOLO press release which I'm hoping is suitably topical (NZ) and aphoristic. (Actually, it's very topical, so if wanted, would really need to go out early this week.)

This thread is the only guideline I can find on the site, but relates only to posting here in the forum. I know I've seen a post somewhere regarding the steps for submitting a realease, but I can't find them on a search.

So, perhaps someone can email me: mhubbard@ihug.co.nz

My apologies ...

Duncan Bayne's picture

... I didn't realise you were yanking Lindsay's chain - I promise, in the future, to wait at least five seconds for my sense of humour to kick in prior to posting Smiling

In Reply to Duncan Bayne

jriggenbach's picture

Duncan Bayne intones:

"Ignoring Lindsay's 'house rules' is, frankly, rude - and using the comments area to post personal attacks beggars belief."

I guess your powers of belief are rather easily beggared, Duncan. In any case, I can hardly be held responsible for the behavior of people like Gomez and Winefield.

Bayne intones further:

"Perhaps, if you object so strongly to Lindsay's approach . . . ."

But, Duncan, I don't object to it! Whatever gave you the idea that I did?

Admittedly, I expected to be tossed out on my ass after posting my little joke near the top of this thread. But, somewhat to my surprise, Linz seems to have recognized it for what it was -- a joke -- and restrained any impulse he may have felt to toss me out. Frankly, I admire that show of restraint. It's something you'd certainly never see from Joseph Rowlands. As a result, I've posted nothing since then that could possibly be taken by anyone as an attack on Linz or his "approach." And I submit that if you take a look at all my posts since the day I joined the group, along with the replies they've attracted, you'll find that my opponents and critics have been much ruder to me than I've been to any of them.

JR

Personally, I don't mind

Tim S's picture

Personally, I don't mind Riggenbach posting here, so far at least. He reminds me of those two old gits who sit griping in the balcony in the Muppet Show. He's isn't hiding anything and he isn't out to impress, both of which are more important qualities than whether or not he's "polite" in my view.

And anyway, I can't take his barbs seriously, & some of them are pretty damn funny in a sarcastic old bastard sort of way.

Mr. Riggenbach, please read the guidelines in their entirety ...

Duncan Bayne's picture

... in particular:

Remember you are guests in Linz’s house, enjoying his hospitality for free. Do not presume to tell him how to run this site or SOLO. If you don’t enjoy being in his house … well, there is no one forcing you to stay.

Ignoring Lindsay's 'house rules' is, frankly, rude - and using the comments area to post personal attacks beggars belief.

Perhaps, if you object so strongly to Lindsay's approach, you'd be so kind as to direct us to your lovingly created online Objectivist forum, which you've spent years of blood, sweat and tears creating, promoting, supporting and guiding? You know, the one you find so easy to run that you have the time to pop in here to periodically criticise the way Lindsay runs his?

The Play Pen

katdaddy's picture

Yesterday, I requested that someone be moderated as he came charging into the Illinois forum, insulting me and other people on a personal level. I don't need this. Is any action being taken at all?

Kat

exaggeration

Jody Gomez's picture

Robert-
I think you overestimate the size of his bag.

Observe Jeff Riggenbach well

Robert's picture

Observe Jeff Riggenbach well dear reader, he is the perfect personification of the Blivit effect.

Blivit (bli'-vit) n. Slang. "Ten gallons of shit in a five gallon bag."

Response not bothered with

jriggenbach's picture

Response not bothered with out of contempt for Robert Winefield.

Response deleted out of

Robert's picture

Response deleted out of respect for this site.

I don't think that would

Ross Elliot's picture

I don't think that would work, Andre. Instead of eight mildly offensive posts you'd end up with four vicious screeds. Besides, there are one or two here that like to post ad infinitum, ad nauseam Stare Just let the marketplace of ideas prevail.

Mechanical Suggestion

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

     I have one rather mechanical but perhaps helpful suggestion for SOLOPassion "Guidelines for Posters." It's been my observation that just about all the personal acrimony and hard feelings on the previous SOLO -- as well as everywhere, really -- seems to come about on those l-o-n-g discussion threads (above 50 or 100, say). Maybe it should be suggested that people try to confine themselves to only 3 or 4 (fairly substantive) comments per topic or article.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                 If you can't make your point or win the argument by then, then you probably need to conclude that the other person lacks the requisite intelligence and/or virtue to understand and see it your way. It may even be -- god forbid! -- that you yourself lack the intelligence and virtue to see that the other guy is correct (this has never happened to me, by the way Eye ). Either way you should probably just give up, and wait for the next time this topic resurfaces in some guise. It usually isn't long! Then try a slightly different approach on this slightly different topic or article. Even if a person is very respectful and polite (in his own mind), any comment beyond 3 or 4 per subject probably constitutes passive-aggression and badgering.    

Old Home Week

jriggenbach's picture

Ah, Jody, I've missed your scintillating wit.

JR

King of the Dungs

Jody Gomez's picture

Jeff your intellectual heir could be a dung beetle.

Blowhards and Know-It-Alls

jriggenbach's picture

"If you’re a self-important grandstander, poseur, attention-seeker or blowhard monologuer who knows it all, contemplate the possibility that this might not be the place for you."

So, then, Linz, you'll be resigning as administrator and head honcho of the new site?

Just wondering.

JR

It's about time somebody said this.

stormyeyes's picture

Remember you are guests in Linz’s house, enjoying his hospitality for free. Do not presume to tell him how to run this site or SOLO. If you don’t enjoy being in his house … well, there is no one forcing you to stay.

I've been on dozens of internet forums and mailing lists where the owner doesn't have the nerve to make it clear that the members are guests. I'm glad you were willing to make this clear, Linz; too many people aren't willing to stake a claim to their own territory and defend it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.