Moderatorship of humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Tim Skirvin
As I've said before (and as has been stated in the threads on
the subject, and for that matter as the CFV says), I am the proposed
moderator of humanities.philosophy.objectivism. Rather than respond to
every point indiviually (which would take lots of time and begin to get
me into a bunch of threads that I'm not supposed to get into), I'll
respond with this - a more general response. If you want to bring up
indiviual points with me, either do it in email or do it in short posts;
I can't get involved in long threads of that sort.
That said...
First of all, I want to make it *very* clear that I have voted
yes for h.p.o. My "neutrality" on the issues extends to one issue only:
I have no opinions one way or another on the various splits between
Objectivists. On the operation of Usenet, I'm very opinionated: Usenet
is a good thing, and must be allowed to survive. On the survival of
this group, I'm opinionated: I'm going to do whatever's in my power (and
morals) to make sure this group survives, in the face of a whole lot of
people that seem bent on its destruction (the cudenver troll, etc).
Second, I'll clarify the moderation procedures for this group.
This group is to be robomoderated, that is, everything will be approved
until I say otherwise. I will not be reading every message; as a matter
of fact, I will be reading as few as I can get away with. It helps my
impartiality. I will be working on complaints; once I get them, I may
look over the trouble posts (and getting too many complaints from one
person may make me look over that person's record, too). As for cancels,
the best way to understand them is this: I intensely dislike cancelling
things, but I'll do it if I have to. Just don't force me to, alright?
Third, to clarify the issue of speed: all articles, before they
are posted, will be mailed to the auto-moderation bot directly. The bot
will then post virtually every article, nix a few, and (possibly) mail
me one or two for extra validation (by default, it won't be doing this,
but I'm going to leave that open just in case) - all within seconds.
Because my site is in the top 20 Usenet sites, the propagation of the
messages from here will be very rapid. Major Usenet sites will probably
get the messages within minutes, and most branch sites should get the
messages substantially faster due to a closer injection into the news pool.
Fourth, on the proposed mailing list: I haven't worked out the
details for it yet (or even if it's going to be required), so I don't
have much on it. I will give a chance for review, however, and most
likely logs will be publicly availible.
And, finally, to echo what I said above: I'm not going to get
involved in these flamewars if I can possibly avoid it. These are your
fights; my job is merely to keep the group alive. Please, try to not
drag me into these things, it's only going to hurt everything. Thanks.
(Whoa. I wrote something like *that*. Wierd.)
- Tim Skirvin (tski...@uiuc.edu)
--
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin">Skirv's Homepage</a>
<a href="http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/tskirvin/daemons/">The Daemons</a>
Steve Reed
tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>First of all, I want to make it *very* clear that I have voted yes
>for h.p.o. My "neutrality" on the issues extends to one issue only:
>I have no opinions one way or another on the various splits between
>Objectivists. On the operation of Usenet, I'm very opinionated:
>Usenet is a good thing, and must be allowed to survive.
This makes the proposed h.p.o a "good thing" because Usenet is a "good thing."
The hidden premise in such an opinion is that adding to the list of newsgroups
is essential to preserve the good qualities of Usenet. You may be making a
valid point, but you're merely asserting it. You haven't offered any reasons.
>This group is to be robomoderated, that is, everything will be approved
>until I say otherwise. I will not be reading every message; as a matter
>of fact, I will be reading as few as I can get away with.
An admirable self-restraint. But it's not required in the charter.
>I will be working on complaints; once I get them, I may look over the
>trouble posts (and getting too many complaints from one person may make
>me look over that person's record, too).
An admirable balance of attention. But it's not required in the charter.
>As for cancels, the best way to understand them is this: I intensely
>dislike cancelling things, but I'll do it if I have to. Just don't
>force me to, alright?
An admirable reluctance. But it's not required in the charter.
>[...] on the proposed [abuse topics] mailing list: I haven't worked out
>the details for it yet (or even if it's going to be required) [...]
An admirable candidness about how this mailing list is a working tool of your
own creation. But it's not provided for in the charter.
>I will give a chance for review [of what's alleged as abuse on this
>list], however, and most likely logs will be publicly available.
An admirable degree of openness. But it's not required in the charter.
... Do I sound like a broken record? If I do, it comes from one simple
question. Is this charter, and its set of rules for what the moderator is
empowered to do, something to be taken seriously -- beyond the person who is
the first moderator -- or isn't it?
All of Skirvin's examples of self-restraint are reasonable and appropriate,
almost all quite welcome. But they're HIS choices. Nothing in the charter
requires him or any future moderator to behave this way. And it still remains
that the moderator is given the unlimited authority to review all posts for
topical content, remove all posts, and ban anyone he wishes -- all with no
written restrictions and (nearly) without even any definitions.
Maybe this proposal has attracted a Skirvin. Well, the Constitution-framers of
1787 made their proposal expecting to attract a Washington. Yet that political
experiment started to fall apart with the very next President, who jailed the
opponents of his policies for practicing "sedition." If a political charter
for a continent fell into being arbitrary that quickly, what might we have
with the next set of people who work under this one?
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Russ Allbery
In news.groups, Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> writes:
> ... Do I sound like a broken record? If I do, it comes from one simple
> question. Is this charter, and its set of rules for what the moderator
> is empowered to do, something to be taken seriously -- beyond the person
> who is the first moderator -- or isn't it?
Steve, I hate to break this to you, but you're laboring under a
misapprehension. The moderator of a moderated newsgroup can practically
change the charter by fiat, and short of serious abuse on their part there
isn't a lot you can do about it. It's therefore *FAR* more important what
your opinion of the moderator is than what each particular detail of the
charter states. Creation of a moderated group is a matter of trust
between the moderator and the readership of the newsgroup.
It sounds like from all of your comments you respect and agree with Tim's
position on how the group should be moderated. Based on what I've seen of
Tim on other newsgroups, I think it's quite likely he'll do exactly what
he says he'll do. Therefore, I'd say the moderation of the group is
looking very good, and I think you're in a much better situation than you
think you are.
> Maybe this proposal has attracted a Skirvin. Well, the
> Constitution-framers of 1787 made their proposal expecting to attract a
> Washington. Yet that political experiment started to fall apart with the
> very next President, who jailed the opponents of his policies for
> practicing "sedition." If a political charter for a continent fell into
> being arbitrary that quickly, what might we have with the next set of
> people who work under this one?
Yes, there is the problem that, in addition to trusting the moderator to
fairly moderate the group, you also have to trust the moderator to appoint
a good successor when the time comes.
I'd say, based on personal experience with this, that your chances of that
working successfully are a good deal higher than the chances of the next
President being an honest person.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@cs.stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Steve Reed
Russ Allbery <r...@cs.stanford.edu> writes:
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> writes:
>>Is this charter, and its set of rules for what the moderator
>>is empowered to do, something to be taken seriously -- beyond the
>>person who is the first moderator -- or isn't it?
>Steve, I hate to break this to you, but you're laboring under a
>misapprehension. The moderator of a moderated newsgroup can practically
>change the charter by fiat, and short of serious abuse on their part there
>isn't a lot you can do about it.
You could be right. Some of what is expected about moderators on Usenet seems
to be left more open-ended than I'd realized. I have been a moderator of
discussion areas on CompuServe, where such rules (and how they're followed)
are taken far more seriously. Also, in a fleeting role, with a mailing list. I
suspect that these experiences aren't as helpful as I'd thought in getting a
handle on it all.
>It's therefore *FAR* more important what your opinion of the moderator
>is than what each particular detail of the charter states. Creation of
>a moderated group is a matter of trust between the moderator and the
>readership of the newsgroup.
So it appears. But *if* that is the more accurate description of what's going
on, we then seem to have a misrepresentation of a different sort.
If a written charter is this irrelevant, why is such deliberation taken with
its details? Why is everyone led into arguing as if it truly matters? And why
should we believe that any weak precautions to avoid choking off certain
discussions -- this charter does have two or three -- are of any importance
one way or another? If the moderator can toss all such statements aside, all
of that discussion has been a sheer waste of time.
If your contention about "a matter of trust" is accurate -- and from recent
discussion, I suspect that it's how most people are seeing it -- then we have
the voting being described in entirely the wrong way.
We're not voting about whether to institute a new newsgroup. We're voting on
whether Skirvin is to become the Discussion-King over all of the newsgroup
debates (albeit a benevolent and detached one) or not.
>Yes, there is the problem that, in addition to trusting the moderator to
>fairly moderate the group, you also have to trust the moderator to appoint
>a good successor when the time comes.
>I'd say, based on personal experience with this, that your chances of that
>working successfully are a good deal higher than the chances of the next
>President being an honest person.
I would like to believe you. But more than the net.experts and moderators who
have worked for the benefit of Usenet operations (such as Skirvin), I fear
those who are truly dishonest who may hang on around them and offer to "help."
I have seen too many examples of how some Objectivists have misrepresented
themselves to others (mostly newcomers) in recent years. They have insisted
that only *their* particular viewpoint can possibly be that of honest people
who admire Ayn Rand. This poisons the well for her ideas. I've noted many
instances of this in other posts.
And if any h.p.o.m newsgroup gets to the point of constantly judging content
-- as it's allowed to do -- I don't want such people, nor anyone else, to
shape the judgment of a poorly-informed moderator, by professing to be the
"true experts."
Far better to avoid that mess entirely, by voting down this proposal.
Paul Hsieh
Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>All of Skirvin's examples of self-restraint are reasonable and appropriate,
>almost all quite welcome. But they're HIS choices. Nothing in the charter
>requires him or any future moderator to behave this way.
Does this mean that if the various points you've praised were explicitly
included in the charter, then you would change your mind and vote "yes"
for hpom? Or are there still other "dealbreakers" ( and what would they
be)?
In fact, would you favor *any* sort of moderated Usenet newsgroup devoted
to the discussion of Objectivism; and if so, what would be the necessary
and sufficient conditions for you to support it?
==================== ~~~ *** ~~
|| || * * ~ ~~
|| Paul S. Hsieh || /\ ** ** _
|| <hsi...@crl.com> || _ | | ** ** __ | |
|| || __| |__|__|__ ** ** | |___| |
==================== | | | | ** ** | | | |
Steve Reed
>>All of Skirvin's examples of self-restraint are reasonable and appropriate,
>>almost all quite welcome. But they're HIS choices. Nothing in the charter
>>requires him or any future moderator to behave this way.
>Does this mean that if the various points you've praised were explicitly
>included in the charter, then you would change your mind and vote "yes"
>for hpom? Or are there still other "dealbreakers" (and what would they be)?
Since you ask: If any authority to judge whether a post is "on-topic" were
removed -- to the extent of saying, outright, that the human moderator MAY NOT
do so, under any circumstances -- I could live with a moderated h.p.o, even
to the extent of voting "yes."
Some of the other effects of moderation, if they were all followed, could
serve to inconvenience or dilute debate. This point, most of all, can be
pernicious and destructive to debate -- through self-restriction by posters,
and the fear by some of what is "correct" Objectivism at any one moment.
Removing such a restriction includes removing strictures against Neo-Tech as
a subject. I neither support the Neo-Techers, nor think that their statements
are very coherent. But the SOLE larger criterion for participation ought to be
a rational respect for the forms of decorous debate. I've seen too many "well,
it's obvious" exclusions from a forum grow steadily in scope.
Think about this analogy: Rand went against several hundred years of the
common law to say, eloquently, that the First Amendment's "no law" ought to
include no laws against "obscenity." And she was right. Defending knowledge
and debate as a discovery process means doing so even for the most unsavory.
"Hustler" shouldn't be banned for its content. Even if Frank Wallace is our
Larry Flynt, he and his acolytes shouldn't be banned for their content.
Skirvin has already said he doesn't intend to reject for content, except in
the most extreme cases. This has been praised by all proponents. I see no need
to have that authority sitting as an ideological club in the background,
either, if this is such an overwhelming Good Thing(TM).
>In fact, would you favor *any* sort of moderated Usenet newsgroup devoted
>to the discussion of Objectivism; and if so, what would be the necessary
>and sufficient conditions for you to support it?
I could *live with* the necessary removal of such a content restriction. That
doesn't mean that I would support the idea of this group. It means I wouldn't
oppose it. (There's no point to a "no" vote except for active opposition.)
I don't see any moderation (except *purely* mechanical efforts, such as the
restriction of a newsgroup to binaries, or to all but binaries) as truly
workable on Usenet. It's been graced with many quite rational moderators. But
I'd rather rely on principles than on the intentions of moderators.
Usenet does base itself on property rights, contra Aisa and others, those of
the server owners. But we have a structure built upon this that has a "law"
creation process of discovered principles, not imposed ones. Such a responsive
and spontaneous ordering (vide Hayek and others) underlies almost all actions
in the various markets for tangible goods.
We don't have "moderators" in real-world markets. We don't even have people
appointed to remove the effects of others who want to degrade those markets,
short of outright force or fraud. Most of the time, we find more closely held
structures to shape our actions (here, mailing lists). Or we find ways to
avoid the more random abusers without forcing the costs onto others (here,
killfiles).
I would like to see Objectivists respecting the more subtle dynamics of
markets, not withdrawing into insular self-debate rooms. A moderator (with a
distant but real, and undefined, on-topic-content club) encourages insularity.
In some structures, such as how CompuServe was set up, this isn't readily
avoidable. In Usenet, it is avoidable, though this may not be easy.
We may talk a good line about our ideas winning out in free discussion ... but
will we be as readily believed when others see us running to hide under the
wings of a net.nanny, however benevolent? I doubt it.
Lawrence M Sanger
Steve,
You write too much. Don't you have something better to do with your time?
:)
Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Removing such a restriction includes removing strictures against Neo-Tech as
>a subject. I neither support the Neo-Techers, nor think that their statements
>are very coherent. But the SOLE larger criterion for participation ought to be
>a rational respect for the forms of decorous debate.
This, I think, is your main error. You seem to think that there is
something inherently wrong with official restrictions to any subject
matter of a discussion. But if you made a rule not to have any such
restrictions, then no one would ever be free to participate in a
group where there was no fear of intrusion by loud-mouthed idiots
who want to talk about something else.
If you like analogies, as you seem to, then try this out for size.
Suppose there is a loud and raucous forum on a university campus for
discussion of traditional Christian beliefs. There is a microphone
set up in the front of the hall and everyone must wait his turn.
Now suppose a loud minority of Christian Scientists comes into the
hall and starts spewing Christian Science; when they are accused of
not talking about traditional Christianity, they say that this *is*
traditional Christianity. Naturally, everyone else disagrees. So
the Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans, or many of them, get up
and go look for another hall at another time where the microphone
use will be moderated by an agnostic who agrees to exclude the
Christian Scientists (and any other, undetermined, "non-traditional"
Christians; of course many traditional Christians think they know
what traditional Christianity is, though they disagree with each
other on what it is; but they all agree, against the Christian
Scientists, that Christian Science is not traditional Christianity).
By your lights, it appears you would want to say that the new hall
should not be set up. I think that's absurd.
Larry Sanger
Steve Reed
Larry Sanger <lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>Steve, you write too much. Don't you have something better
>to do with your time? :)
I *could* say that about our oversupply of Ph.Ds, Larry. <large grin>
Actually, I thought about doing a public reading of Rothbard's "Power and
Market" to Speicher while she was tied to her bedposts, but I didn't think she
would be quite amenable to the idea. That would have been slightly more fun.
This is easier to arrange. <larger grin>
Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>Removing such a [judgment of topical content] restriction includes
>>removing strictures against Neo-Tech as a subject [for a Usenet
>>newsgroup]. I neither support the Neo-Techers, nor think that their
>>statements are very coherent. But the SOLE larger criterion for
>>participation ought to be a rational respect for the forms of
>>decorous debate.
>This, I think, is your main error. You seem to think that there is
>something inherently wrong with official restrictions to any subject
>matter of a discussion.
Please don't make such sweeping assumptions, Larry. I was answering Paul
Hsieh's specific question about a *Usenet newsgroup.* Every medium has better
and worse prospects for how well controls on subject matter would work.
Usenet has ownership (of the servers), but it's decentralized and has only a
minimal set of joint initial rules. What has grown from this is a larger set
of principles and mores that respects opening up the spectrum of viewpoints,
where possible. (Not necessarily adding to the number of *forums* for them,
however -- except where it's functional, to keep similar topics together in
sub-forums due to message volume.)
Some forums, like this proposed one, easily have too many productive routes of
discussion cut off by contradicting themselves: a professed openness to
free-swinging discussion, accompanied by (in its practice) a reluctance to
offend the loudest "experts" who could urge that an offender be banned. I've
seen this elsewhere.
Many forums are closely controlled -- the editorship of a magazine, the owner
of a debate microphone and hall -- and have physical limits. Usenet is one of
the few forums that isn't bound in either way. To impose a structure on the
subject matter without recognizing this openness and flexibility wastes effort
for all involved.
I predict that (if approved) the volume of complaints posted in an h.p.o.m
about others' off-topic postings will, within two or three months, make
Skirvin insist that all such complaints be submitted to an out-of-direct-view
mailing list, or be cancelled by him from the newsgroup feed.
That institution, however "needed," won't support free-swinging debate in the
newsgroup (unless all can subscribe to it, making it a bit superfluous). But
like one intervention "cure" in the economy to fix the previous "cure," it's
scarcely avoidable. Institutions for controlling the scope of debate don't fit
this medium very well. As is often true in daily life, the only practical
solution is to avoid the time-wasting people altogether -- and find ways to
help individuals cope with doing that, such as better killfiles.
>But if you made a rule not to have any such restrictions, then no one
>would ever be free to participate in a group where there was no fear
>of intrusion by loud-mouthed idiots who want to talk about something else.
You forget, as most others also have, the other relevant facet of this medium:
No one can make you write, and no one can make you read. You select what to
experience in either case. This isn't the continuous medium of a newspaper
or a news broadcast, where you take the entire package. Everyone either picks
what to read or presses the "delete" key on encountering part of a download.
Or prevents seeing it in the first place, with a killfile.
So it makes little sense to talk about "intrusion." This is multiplexing. Many
strands of conversation (or nonsense) can pass by each other simultaneously.
Should such multiplexing have filters for spammers' "static"? I haven't seen
Usenet engineering that's worked well in this regard, but what's been tried so
far (robomoderation strictly for wrong-format, over-quoting, etc.) doesn't end
up trampling debate fully. I could live with that. Not with on-line editorial
authority, however well some moderator may refrain from using it.
>[long, flaccid analogy using a microphone and meeting hall snipped]
You know, the only sentence I ever utterly agreed with Ronald Reagan about
related precisely to this. In a 1980 Republican debate, he made the famous
retort about having the proper attention being given to him: "I paid for this
microphone." If that clear ownership exists, that's the first consideration.
No one person "pays" for a Usenet "microphone." It's a cooperative, shaped by
voluntary rules of decorum. That has implications for how stringent it ought
to be about heterodox viewpoints.
>By your lights, it appears you would want to say that [another] hall
>should not be set up. I think that's absurd.
Nothing says it can't be set up. But if the (self-appointed) intellectual
bouncers stationed at the entrances are too obvious or too selective as to
whom they let in, how many are going to want to take the effort to risk
coming inside? Or about being embarrassed at the doorways?
DEFanyo
In article <jsreed.25...@interaccess.com>, Steve Reed (jsr...@interaccess.com) writes:
>hsi...@crl.com (Paul Hsieh) writes:
>>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>
>>>All of Skirvin's examples of self-restraint are reasonable and appropriate,
>>>almost all quite welcome. But they're HIS choices. Nothing in the charter
>>>requires him or any future moderator to behave this way.
"Speak not to me of the goodness of men, but bind them down with
the chains of the constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson.
This is NOT to imply that Tim Skirvin is not the best of men --
it's a statement of a principle.
[snip for brevity]
>I'd rather rely on principles than on the intentions of moderators.
>We may talk a good line about our ideas winning out in free discussion ... but
>will we be as readily believed when others see us running to hide under the
>wings of a net.nanny, however benevolent? I doubt it.
And this is the crux of the matter. Either
Objectivists/objectivists are willing to look the world in the eye
or they're not -- it's one of the other. I say take on all comers.
--Dorothy Fanyo
ps... I don't have a CFV in my files of either of these groups. Can
it be reposted? (My server has recently has recently suffered from
growing pains.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have ventured to paint my happiness upon the wall.-- Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Hsieh
DEFanyo <de...@teekay.win.net> wrote:
>
>And this is the crux of the matter. Either
>Objectivists/objectivists are willing to look the world in the eye
>or they're not -- it's one of the other. I say take on all comers.
That argument would suggest that you would be opposed to *any* moderated
newsgroup, on the grounds that participants in such a group would be
acting as if they were unwilling to "look the world in the eye".
Is that the case? Or do you merely oppose *some* moderated newsgroups?
And if so, why would a moderated Objectivism newsgroup fall into this
category?
Brad Aisa
>And this is the crux of the matter. Either
>Objectivists/objectivists are willing to look the world in the eye
>or they're not -- it's one of the other. I say take on all comers.
>
> --Dorothy Fanyo
Philosophy Party at Dorothy's place, Friday night!
Everyone is invited. Dorothy, of course, won't mind taking on all comers.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@hookup.net> web: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
Please vote YES on newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism!
"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
DEFanyo
In article <4nshsr$q...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Lawrence M Sanger (lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) writes:
>
>If you like analogies, as you seem to, then try this out for size.
>Suppose there is a loud and raucous forum on a university campus for
>discussion of traditional Christian beliefs. There is a microphone
>set up in the front of the hall and everyone must wait his turn.
>Now suppose a loud minority of Christian Scientists comes into the
>hall and starts spewing Christian Science; when they are accused of
>not talking about traditional Christianity, they say that this *is*
>traditional Christianity. Naturally, everyone else disagrees. So
>the Catholics and Baptists and Lutherans, or many of them, get up
>and go look for another hall at another time where the microphone
>use will be moderated by an agnostic who agrees to exclude the
>Christian Scientists (and any other, undetermined, "non-traditional"
>Christians; of course many traditional Christians think they know
>what traditional Christianity is, though they disagree with each
>other on what it is; but they all agree, against the Christian
>Scientists, that Christian Science is not traditional Christianity).
An analogy to be cherished, surely! :-)
Doesn't _quite_ fit, however. To be complete, each of the
traditional Christians would have a "mute" to turn off the noise of
the Christian Scientists while they talked (and disagreed!) among
themselves... :-)
As with all analogies, it breaks down sooner or later... but you
get the idea, I think.
The part I don't like is the wimpy traditional Christians running
away as though the Christian Scientists had any power other than
that given them by the traditional Christians acting as though the
Christian Scientists were indeed important enough to run away from!
--Dorothy
>
>By your lights, it appears you would want to say that the new hall
>should not be set up. I think that's absurd.
>
>Larry Sanger
Lawrence M Sanger
Never said it was a perfect analogy. Just pretty good.
In article <31...@teekay.win.net>, DEFanyo <de...@teekay.win.net> wrote:
>The part I don't like is the wimpy traditional Christians running
>away as though the Christian Scientists had any power other than
>that given them by the traditional Christians acting as though the
>Christian Scientists were indeed important enough to run away from!
That's only one explanation of the traditional Christians setting up
a new room -- i.e., that they are "running away" from the Christian
Scientists, as though they were *scared* of the Christian Scientists.
And of course, it's the wrong explanation! The real explanation is:
the presence of the Christian Scientists (along with all those people
who want to bring in outside speakers on the politics of religion)
makes the "traditional Christianity" discussion forum less of what
many traditional Christians want it to be. They want it to be a
simple, thoughtful, *relatively* polite, devotional affair... :) By
starting up a new forum with a new hall, they are able to *get more
of* what very many of them naturally want for themselves. I see
nothing obviously wrong with that.
Larry Sanger
DEFanyo
In article <4nu9t5$9...@crl10.crl.com>, Paul Hsieh (hsi...@crl.com) writes:
>
>DEFanyo <de...@teekay.win.net> wrote:
>>
>>And this is the crux of the matter. Either
>>Objectivists/objectivists are willing to look the world in the eye
>>or they're not -- it's one of the other. I say take on all comers.
>
>
>newsgroup, on the grounds that participants in such a group would be
Not so. There already *are* several moderated newsgroups.
>
>Is that the case? Or do you merely oppose *some* moderated newsgroups?
>And if so, why would a moderated Objectivism newsgroup fall into this
>category?
My main objection is one of timing. Had the suggestion for a new
group been for some objective philosophical good which is not being
filled, then I would be all for it. But this one is being formed on
the premise of protection from annoyances. Sure, they're real --
but are they worth it? I say NO.
AND, from a purely emotional standpoint, I *hate* to see NT being
granted an unearned importance which running from them gives them.
--Dorothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have ventured to paint my happiness upon the wall.-- Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Beck
ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>In article <31...@teekay.win.net>, de...@teekay.win.net (DEFanyo) wrote:
>>And this is the crux of the matter. Either
>>Objectivists/objectivists are willing to look the world in the eye
>>or they're not -- it's one of the other. I say take on all comers.
>Philosophy Party at Dorothy's place, Friday night!
>Everyone is invited. Dorothy, of course, won't mind taking on all comers.
...certainly not as much as Brad would "mind" making the crucial
distinction between the private property of Dorothy's living room and
the public forum of Usenet.
Billy
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/free.html
"Rant" updated 4/16/96
Bruce Baugh
>Philosophy Party at Dorothy's place, Friday night!
Cool! We'll divide into two teams, the As and Not-As! Bobbing for
syllogisms! The three-lemma sack race! Pin the tail on the fallacy!
R1GHT 0N, D00D!
We now return to the h.p.o debate, already in progress.
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
Bruce Baugh
> ...certainly not as much as Brad would "mind" making the crucial
>distinction between the private property of Dorothy's living room and
>the public forum of Usenet.
A newsgroup is not a "public forum" in several important senses. Most
important of these is that it's created ex nihilo - it doesn't take
resources away from anything else. Nobody was using it for anything
before it was created, and nobody has any prior claims to the "space" it
occupies.
Under the circumstances, it's very much like creating a world in the
midst of the void. The creators can quite properly set terms of access
without infringing anyone else's rights.
DEFanyo
In article <4o2nrm$9...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Lawrence M Sanger (lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu) writes:
>That's only one explanation of the traditional Christians setting up
>a new room -- i.e., that they are "running away" from the Christian
>Scientists, as though they were *scared* of the Christian Scientists.
>And of course, it's the wrong explanation!
Oh, is it now? You're sure! "Scared" in the sense that they might
not win out in the end....
>The real explanation is:
>the presence of the Christian Scientists (along with all those people
>who want to bring in outside speakers on the politics of religion)
>makes the "traditional Christianity" discussion forum less of what
>many traditional Christians want it to be. They want it to be a
>simple, thoughtful, *relatively* polite, devotional affair... :)
Your smiley says it all -- particularly after "devotional"!
(The analogy gets better as it goes along!)
>By starting up a new forum with a new hall, they are able to *get
>more of* what very many of them naturally want for themselves. I
>see nothing obviously wrong with that.
Absolutely not -- IF the reason for setting up the new hall isn't
in any way running away from confrontation.
(I just think the timing is bad, Larry, and gives the NT'ers more
weight than they deserve.)
--Dorothhy
Paul Hsieh
DEFanyo <de...@teekay.win.net> wrote:
>AND, from a purely emotional standpoint, I *hate* to see NT being
>granted an unearned importance which running from them gives them.
I believe your emotions are leading you to make a mistake on this point.
Choosing to apply editorial standards in a moderated forum is not
necessarily the same thing as "running away" from the ideas excluded.
Many moderated newsgroups I read have exclusion criteria for off-topic
material, and appropriately so.
For instance, if there were a newsgroup "sci.astronomy.moderated", and its
charter explicitly forbade discussions of *astrology* (as well as of the
usual types of gross net-abuse), then I would not interpret such a policy
as cowardice or "running away" from the astrologers. Nor would it give
astrology an "unearned importance", in the eyes of either legitimate
astronomers or of astrologers who claimed that their field was merely
another valid extension of astronomy.
That sort of anti-astrology clause would be merely prudent editorial
policy, designed to enhance the quality of the astronomy discussions.
Some might argue, "Hey, what's the big deal? If you don't like astrology
posts in an astronomy group, just kill-file 'em! No one is making you
read 'em anyways". But if one believed that argument, then there would be
no reason to support *any* moderated newsgroup -- which (to the best of my
knowledge) is a position that no one is advocating.
DEFanyo
In article <4o7u9u$2co...@marid.friedlander-bey.org>, Bruce Baugh (br...@aracnet.com) writes:
>In article <4o0ksg$e...@loki.tor.hookup.net>, ba...@hookup.net (Brad Aisa) wrote:
>
>>Philosophy Party at Dorothy's place, Friday night!
>
>Cool! We'll divide into two teams, the As and Not-As! Bobbing for
>syllogisms! The three-lemma sack race! Pin the tail on the fallacy!
>R1GHT 0N, D00D!
By Invitation Only!
The soul selects her own society,
Then shuts the door;
On her divine majority
Obtrude no more.
-- Emily Dickinson
An HPO Preview! Bouncers on the premises!
--Dorothy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I have ventured to paint my happiness upon the wall.-- Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
J. J. Petrale
Is this also open, to new age therapies? For example, Est, Forum, Course
in Miracles, Zen, Meditation, Scieintology, Coricorpia, and others?
I am involved with a number of them, after searching through the the items
listed withoin your newsgroup. Unfortionatly, it lead me anywhere. With
the new age stuff, you are that much closer to the beginning of the
creation.
--
J. J. Petrale
Good, luck and let me know if you receive this message.
Russ Allbery
>> Steve, I hate to break this to you, but you're laboring under a
>> misapprehension.
Jeez, that sounds arrogant. Sorry about that. I didn't intend to come
across that way at all.
>> The moderator of a moderated newsgroup can practically change the
>> charter by fiat, and short of serious abuse on their part there isn't a
>> lot you can do about it.
> You could be right. Some of what is expected about moderators on Usenet
> seems to be left more open-ended than I'd realized. I have been a
> moderator of discussion areas on CompuServe, where such rules (and how
> they're followed) are taken far more seriously. Also, in a fleeting
> role, with a mailing list. I suspect that these experiences aren't as
> helpful as I'd thought in getting a handle on it all.
Unfortunately, no; the major on-line services like CompuServe are a
different world. That's because they're all owned by someone, who
therefore has the power to enforce certain standards and who is presumably
neutral. Usenet isn't owned by any one person or organization, and is
therefore free of any institutional censorship as is seen from time to
time on the on-line services. However, that also means that there aren't
any real officials to enforce anything.
>> It's therefore *FAR* more important what your opinion of the moderator
>> is than what each particular detail of the charter states. Creation of
>> a moderated group is a matter of trust between the moderator and the
>> readership of the newsgroup.
> So it appears. But *if* that is the more accurate description of what's
> going on, we then seem to have a misrepresentation of a different sort.
> If a written charter is this irrelevant, why is such deliberation taken
> with its details? Why is everyone led into arguing as if it truly
> matters?
Joe Bernstein's explanation of this is the best that I've seen. Forming a
moderated group is similar to a marriage between the readers and the
moderators in that it involves an exchange of trust. As such, discussing
matters beforehand is a Good Thing.
There's also the point that problems between the moderators and the
readers can be caused by two different things: the moderators can have a
different conception of the purpose or charter of the group than the
readers, or the moderators can simply not follow the charter of the
group. The second is where trust comes in; you have to trust that the
moderators aren't going to just violate the charter when they feel like
it. Discussion can help a lot with the first, since it makes sure
everyone is on the same page.
> We're not voting about whether to institute a new newsgroup. We're
> voting on whether Skirvin is to become the Discussion-King over all of
> the newsgroup debates (albeit a benevolent and detached one) or not.
To a large extent, yes, that's right. The charter is your contract with
him and details the things he intends to enforce.
I like moderation, by and large. I think it can be a great service to the
readership of a group, filtering out trash and keeping things on topic.
But there is a level of trust involved, and I think everyone needs to be
aware of that. It's not a *lot* of trust as these things are measured in
real life; it's just a newsgroup, after all, and you can always go off and
create an unmoderated forum, or continue using the one which already
exists. But there is certainly an issue of trust.
Brad Aisa
In article <4obnlo$4...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>,
jjpet...@usa.pipeline.com(J. J. Petrale) wrote:
>Is this also open, to new age therapies? For example, Est, Forum, Course
>in Miracles, Zen, Meditation, Scieintology, Coricorpia, and others?
If 'this' means proposed newsgroup humanities.philosophy.objectivism, then
the answer is, "No."
The Charter explains that the purpose of the newsgroup is to discuss
Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, and ideas of material relation to
it.