Ten good reasons to vote NO on humanities.philosophy.objectivism (moderated)
Steve Reed
Usenet and its users don't need this new moderated newsgroup. It's not simply
unnecessary, but is also harmful to philosophical debate about its subject,
the Objectivist philosophy.
The biggest problem lies in its being moderated. Its proposed automatic robot
moderator is not the sole source of control, and the CFV is contradicting
itself. Human moderation is ill-defined, left open to burnout and abuse, and
doesn't fit the subject of the group.
Here are ten good reasons to vote NO on this proposal:
(1) Usenet practices are already being abused. Even before the CFV for this
group reached all Usenet servers, some proponents were soliciting votes for
its approval among Objectivists on private snail-mail lists and on IRC
channels. Voting instructions are being repeatedly given that don't make the
reading of the CFV the first priority, to provide a background for informed
votes. While this is not strictly against the accepted rules, it isn't within
the Usenet community's past standards of having knowledgeable votes, from
those who actually use newsgroups.
(2) The moderator is empowered to judge the content of all posts, as to
whether they are germane to Objectivism. This is *not* workable when the
moderator is a third party who is chosen for being neutral or uninformed about
the philosophy. Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator
one way or the other about such issues. Eventually a moderator either will
burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to judge topicality.
This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
(3) No standards are set up to define what amount or frequency of abuse will
get someone banned from this newsgroup. And, yet, those who make repeated
off-topic, abusive, commercial, or abusive posts are to be excluded from
the group. Almost no one knows in advance what will result in banning, or for
how long one will be shut out. This will require intensive rule-making, and
far too much direct content involvement, on the part of the moderator.
(4) Only one of many types of off-topic postings is even defined in the
RFD/CFV, that of "Neo-Tech." Any others will require careful identification
and definition, if the spirit and ideas of Objectivism aren't to be flouted in
the process. Again, this process of definition will hurt the impartiality of
the moderator ... unless the rule will be to exclude the targets of those who
complain the most and loudest.
(5) Philosophy as a subject doesn't lend itself to using moderators.
Objectivism lays strong claim to truth about vast areas of knowledge, from
metaphysics to esthetics. This multiplies the areas where an offended party
can make noise about others' "abuse" -- and where the moderator may not have
enough technical knowledge to judge the soundness of such complaints.
(6) Any moderated newsgroup slows down response time and ends up hurting
vigorous interchanges in debates. This isn't helped by the still-limited
acceptance of "humanities" as an additional major Usenet hierarchy. In the
present alt.philosophy.objectivism, one of the busiest current newsgroups,
posts already take from two to three days to reach all North American servers.
A moderator as a bottleneck will make this even worse.
(7) A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from other
fields of thought. This isn't quite matched by removing the lesser abuse of
posts going where they're not wanted. One current debate within Objectivism is
about how much evidence should be taken up from other sciences, such as
psychology, to validate the core philosophy. To rule out any contributions
from other professionals, in other newsgroups, is to come down on one side of
this debate. This is not being truly impartial.
(8) Banning announcements of local discussion groups or speakers from being
crossposted will make the organizers less likely to want to seek publicity in
an h.p.o. Many audiences for such events are likely to be found in politics
newsgroups or other areas. Having to post separately to an Objectivist forum
could discourage getting the word out to many likely participants about these
events.
(9) The "interminable flamewars" that have largely provoked this proposal have
been nearly absent in recent months. Occasional trolls have been present, but
these wouldn't be excluded by any principle that is set forth in the CFV. In
either case, the unconventionality of Objectivism comes out of an articulate,
forceful writing style (from Rand to the present) that encourages polarization
and strong opinions. This makes "flames" and "trolls," to some people, out of
what can be seen as statements of uncompromising consistency. Distinguishing
these abuses requires knowledge of the philosophy -- again, ruled out for the
moderator.
(10) A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose largest
apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their presence, resisting
fundamental debate. It isn't coincidental that many supporters of an h.p.o
have been the most fierce partisans on IRC channels of banning anyone who is
the least bit heterodox, even those who are well-mannered. Many articulate
people have been so excluded. Many more won't touch such forums. It would be a
loss to the growth of the philosophy, to Usenet, and to open inquiry to
encourage such attitudes once again.
The CFV for this proposed group was posted in news.announce.newgroups,
news.groups, and alt.philosophy.objectivism. Its message ID is
8322001...@uunet.uu.net.
Read the CFV for yourself, and some of the recent and more detailed debate in
a.p.o. Help us to avoid a bad mistake, and vote NO on this proposal!
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Lawrence M Sanger
I've never had the pleasure of replying to Steve on this subject, so
I'll do so now.
Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Here are ten good reasons to vote NO on this proposal:
>
>(1) Usenet practices are already being abused. Even before the CFV for this
>group reached all Usenet servers, some proponents were soliciting votes for
>its approval among Objectivists on private snail-mail lists and on IRC
>channels.
What's wrong with that?
>Voting instructions are being repeatedly given that don't make the
>reading of the CFV the first priority, to provide a background for informed
>votes.
I don't see how this is a reason to vote NO on the proposal --
at best it would be a reason for those taking the vote to take
a revote. And since, as you say,
>While this is not strictly against the accepted rules,
I don't see how this is a problem at all.
>(2) The moderator is empowered to judge the content of all posts, as to
>whether they are germane to Objectivism. This is *not* workable when the
>moderator is a third party who is chosen for being neutral or uninformed about
>the philosophy. Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator
>one way or the other about such issues. Eventually a moderator either will
>burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to judge topicality.
>This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
That's an interesting scenario, but you have failed to give any reason
to think it will actually come to pass (as opposed to many other
plausible scenarios).
>(3) No standards are set up to define what amount or frequency of abuse will
>get someone banned from this newsgroup. And, yet, those who make repeated
>off-topic, abusive, commercial, or abusive posts are to be excluded from
>the group. Almost no one knows in advance what will result in banning, or for
>how long one will be shut out. This will require intensive rule-making, and
>far too much direct content involvement, on the part of the moderator.
I don't see how defining of the amount or frequency of abuse would
constitute "intensive rule-making." If I were the moderator, I doubt
I would find it so complicated. (I have moderated several mailing
lists and so I think I know whereof I speak on this.)
>(4) Only one of many types of off-topic postings is even defined in the
>RFD/CFV, that of "Neo-Tech." Any others will require careful identification
>and definition, if the spirit and ideas of Objectivism aren't to be flouted in
>the process. Again, this process of definition will hurt the impartiality of
>the moderator [snip]
The charter doesn't mention respect for the "spirit and ideas of
Objectivism" as a criterion for anything. What will require careful
identification is whether the postings are on-topic. Of course
there will be tough calls, but so what? That isn't a good reason
to vote NO on the proposal.
>(5) Philosophy as a subject doesn't lend itself to using moderators.
>Objectivism lays strong claim to truth about vast areas of knowledge, from
>metaphysics to esthetics. This multiplies the areas where an offended party
>can make noise about others' "abuse" -- and where the moderator may not have
>enough technical knowledge to judge the soundness of such complaints.
As a philosopher who has moderated philosophy mailing lists, I can
say from experience that there is nothing about philosophy *per se*
which prevents a very good job of moderation being done. For one
excellent example I commend Ben Kovitz, moderator of ASP-Disc, to
you -- the best moderator of any list I have ever seen (except may-
be me! ;) )
So your point would be better stated as "Objectivism is a subject
which doesn't lend itself...". But again, the moderator is going
to judge what is on-topic and what is off-topic. There may be
some tough calls there, yes, but that isn't going to require that
the moderator make judgments about what is consistent with Object-
ivism.
>(6) Any moderated newsgroup slows down response time and ends up hurting
>vigorous interchanges in debates.
No doubt a fact. Too bad. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be an
h.p.o.m. It will probably also help to cool tempers among
the Objectivists on Usenet, too, which would be a good thing.
(Do you think that debates amongst Objectivists and their
critics/fellow travellers/etc. need to be made more vigorous?)
>(7) A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from other
>fields of thought.
That is perhaps your most reasonable claim so far, but it isn't
a reason to oppose h.p.o.m; it's a reason to use a.p.o instead.
Besides, you ignore the fact that there are so many goddamn
crossposts from the politics newsgroups that the s/n ratio makes
doing (other) *philosophy* difficult.
>To rule out any contributions
>from other professionals, in other newsgroups, is to come down on one side of
>this debate. This is not being truly impartial.
That's just silly. How is it being partial, to disallow
contributions posted to h.p.o.m and other groups? Whose side
are we being partial in taking, then?
>(8) Banning announcements of local discussion groups or speakers from being
>crossposted will make the organizers less likely to want to seek publicity in
>an h.p.o.
Again, a reasonable complaint, I guess, but hardly anything that
should make someone want to vote NO on the proposal.
>(9) The "interminable flamewars" that have largely provoked this proposal have
>been nearly absent in recent months.
And your point is?
>Occasional trolls have been present, but
>these wouldn't be excluded by any principle that is set forth in the CFV.
?? Yes they would.
>In
>either case, the unconventionality of Objectivism comes out of an articulate,
>forceful writing style (from Rand to the present) that encourages polarization
>and strong opinions. This makes "flames" and "trolls," to some people, out of
>what can be seen as statements of uncompromising consistency. Distinguishing
>these abuses requires knowledge of the philosophy -- again, ruled out for the
>moderator.
The sort of trolls that would be excluded would be people like arTHra.
That doesn't require any detailed knowledge of the philosophy.
>(10) A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose largest
>apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their presence, resisting
>fundamental debate. It isn't coincidental that many supporters of an h.p.o
>have been the most fierce partisans on IRC channels of banning anyone who is
>the least bit heterodox, even those who are well-mannered. Many articulate
>people have been so excluded. Many more won't touch such forums. It would be a
>loss to the growth of the philosophy, to Usenet, and to open inquiry to
>encourage such attitudes once again.
You omit to mention that many *other* people, who have been black-
listed on the groups and channels that you mention, have *also*
supported h.p.o.m -- like me, or Jimbo Wales. I agree that the
world does not need any more #AynRand or OSG lookalikes, but
h.p.o.m wouldn't be one.
The upshot of many of these criticisms seems to be something along
these lines: "Oh! It will be so hard! The moderator will have a
hard job!" No doubt it will sometimes be hard. But that isn't a
reason to vote NO. In fact, I haven't a single good reason to vote
NO. So if these people want to get together to have a discussion
which is more civil and focused than the discussions on a.p.o have
been, you have yet to give a good reason to oppose them.
Larry Sanger
Steve Reed
Larry Sanger <lsa...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>Steve Reed writes:
>>Voting instructions are being repeatedly given that don't make the
>>reading of the CFV the first priority, to provide a background for
>>informed votes.
>I don't see how this is a reason to vote NO on the proposal --
>at best it would be a reason for those taking the vote to take
>a revote.
If this is compromised, a new RFD can't be posted for six months, let alone a
new vote. Wouldn't you all rather avoid this in the first place?
Moreover, this shows a lack of good faith about this idea. We don't have the
partisans of this new group following accepted Usenet principles about
informed votes. The irony about spamming elsewhere for votes, to establish a
group supposedly ruling out spam, should be obvious. Are proponents willing to
play by the kind of rules they want to impose?
And why should this give us any indication that the operations of h.p.o.m
would be carried out without behind-the-scenes pressure, and compromises of
the moderator's impartial status?
>>Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator one way
>>or the other about [whether posts are germane]. Eventually a moderator
>>either will burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts
>>to judge topicality. This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
>That's an interesting scenario, but you have failed to give any reason
>to think it will actually come to pass [...]
The volume of this group, 400 to 500 posts per day (when unspammed), is key to
this. How many mailing lists have this volume? Won't this wear out anyone?
And if EVERY post is not going to be judged, what's the point of placing
this in the realm of the moderator?
Is judging what's germane going to always be obvious? Many of the issues
brought up are arcane. Tim Skirvin was chosen in part because he is not an
Objectivist. Does he have the background at hand to discern your own past
subtleties, Larry, about issues of the arbitrary? That intricate distinction
of epistemology got some bitter salvos going, as I recall. How will Skirvin be
enabled to decide what fits? Whom will he rely on?
>>Almost no one knows in advance what will result in banning, or for
>>how long one will be shut out. This will require intensive rule-making,
>>and far too much direct content involvement, on the part of the moderator.
>I don't see how defining of the amount or frequency of abuse would
>constitute "intensive rule-making." If I were the moderator, I doubt
>I would find it so complicated. [Sanger ran mailing lists.]
We don't have PRINCIPLES for this. It has to be ad hoc. What standards of
judgment did you use on your mailing lists? Did you have numerical standards?
Distinctions by types of argument? Or was it the Supreme Court's "I know it
when I see it" discernment, borrowed from that for "obscenity"?
>What will require careful identification is whether the postings are
>on-topic. Of course there will be tough calls, but so what? That isn't
>a good reason to vote NO on the proposal.
They're very tough calls if you don't have any explicit standards (again,
excepting Neo-Tech). If people who post don't know in advance about the
principles of what is appropriate, how can they be expected to respect such
restrictions? It's a matter of objective rules, not ad hoc preferences.
>As a philosopher who has moderated philosophy mailing lists, I can
>say from experience that there is nothing about philosophy *per se*
>which prevents a very good job of moderation being done. For one
>excellent example I commend Ben Kovitz, moderator of ASP-Disc, to you --
>the best moderator of any list I have ever seen (except maybe me! ;) )
A double argument from "authority," Larry. You can do better than that.
>[...] the moderator is going to judge what is on-topic and what is
>off-topic. There may be some tough calls there, yes, but that isn't
>going to require that the moderator make judgments about what is
>consistent with Objectivism.
How can he judge, if he isn't familiar with it? You want a contradiction:
someone who's able to make fine distinctions about Objectivist arguments, yet
who isn't familiar with Objectivism. Not possible! He'll rely either on those
who offer expertise -- blowing up any impartiality -- or on who yells loudest.
>Do you think that debates amongst Objectivists and their
>critics/fellow travellers/etc. need to be made more vigorous?
More timely, yes. If this isn't done, any vigor is sapped. And, yes, it ought
to be more vigorous, in the sense of everyone being clear, not equivocating,
yet genuinely respecting what others say ... oops, I forgot, Betsy, that's
intellectual toleration, and we can't have that, can we? Maybe there IS a
reason coherent replies are being made more difficult, by increasing the time
lags through use of a moderator.
>>A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from
>>other fields of thought.
>That is perhaps your most reasonable claim so far, but it isn't
>a reason to oppose h.p.o.m; it's a reason to use a.p.o instead.
It's a reason to oppose an h.p.o.m if the group is going to become a place
where everyone preaches to the choir, sermonizing about the details of Rand's
words, apart from the rest of human thought. If this interaction with others
is valuable, why set up another public cloister? It wastes effort.
>Besides, you ignore the fact that there are so many goddamn crossposts
>from the politics newsgroups that the s/n ratio makes doing (other)
>*philosophy* difficult.
Then set this thing up with very strong topical restrictions for technical
discussion, and only that. Or simply for epistemology (etc.) and only that.
Don't simply transfer the scope of a.p.o to the new group, with new controls
and ban lists placed on top of it all. That, again, is wasting effort.
>>To rule out any contributions from other professionals, in other
>>newsgroups, is to come down on one side of this debate. This is
>>not being truly impartial.
>That's just silly. How is it being partial, to disallow contributions
>posted to h.p.o.m and other groups? Whose side are we being partial
>in taking, then?
I'll be more specific, since you ask. It's taking the side of Peikoff in how
Objectivism is to be construed: He holds that the principles are defined by,
and only extend to the limits of, Rand's writings (with few exceptions). No
new discoveries, sparked by new inductive evidence, are to even be considered
to admit into the broader structure of Objectivist thought. Kelley makes a
thorough case about how this has goes against Rand's epistemology, and how
this shuts off creative minds from pursuing many issues in Objectivism that
need more detailed attention.
To shut off crossposting is to say to the world that Objectivism neither needs
nor will accept contributory facts from other disciplines. That is, most
definitely, taking one (implicit) side of a core dispute. If the group isn't
to be concentrating on rationalistic dithering of Rand, this makes little
sense -- either in philosophical creation or in public relations.
>>[...] the unconventionality of Objectivism comes out of an articulate,
>>forceful writing style (from Rand to the present) that encourages
>>polarization and strong opinions. This makes "flames" and "trolls," to
>>some people, out of what can be seen as statements of uncompromising
>>consistency. Distinguishing these abuses requires knowledge of the
>>philosophy -- again, ruled out for the>>moderator.
>The sort of trolls that would be excluded would be people like arTHra.
By what standard? It sure ain't in that charter, Larry.
>That doesn't require any detailed knowledge of the philosophy.
Not all trolls are so ill-mannered. You should have observed that. Half of the
complaints about "trolls" come from those who complain at the drop of a hat
about all seemingly clueless newbie inquiries. It's easy to be too restrictive
about what is brought into question. Look at the obsession over this on the
IRC channels.
>>It isn't coincidental that many supporters of an h.p.o have been the
>>most fierce partisans on IRC channels of banning anyone who is the
>>least bit heterodox, even those who are well-mannered.
>You omit to mention that many *other* people, who have been blacklisted
>on the groups and channels that you mention, have *also* supported
>h.p.o.m -- like me, or Jimbo Wales.
What does that say? Nothing beyond yet another argument from "authority," but
in this case you don't even bother to "establish" the authority. I at least
made a link between the two phenomena, of IRC cloisters and this cloister.
>I agree that the world does not need any more #AynRand or OSG
>lookalikes, but h.p.o.m wouldn't be one. The upshot of many of these
>criticisms seems to be something along these lines: "Oh! It will be
>so hard! The moderator will have a hard job!"
The moderator, who knows nothing -- by intention -- in detail about the
philosophy, will have to make endless hairsplitting about what is germane? On
an average of 500 posts per day? Yes, that's a hard job. It's a damn near
impossible job. Most of all, and Skirvin isn't at fault in this, it's likely
to be an inept half-attempt at such a job.
And who will be called upon to help out? That's what I want to know. If the
OSG crew moves in to "help Skirvin out," how does this differ from OSG?
You're assuming that this new group will be "more civil and focused." Yet
it's relying on an administrator who's given an impossible task. Something
needs to be re-thought. I contend it's the whole idea of a moderator.
Steve Reed
tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>As the proposed moderator of h.p.o, I think I have an obligation
>to respond to this (or at least parts of it).
Perhaps ... but your post comes quite near to being an argument in favor of
the newsgroup. That in itself isn't being in the spirit of impartiality. It
would be more seemly, while the vote proceeds, to not say anything -- except
on the technical issues, such as your net connection. But in any case:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) writes:
>>Here are ten good reasons to vote NO on this proposal:
>>Usenet practices are already being abused.
>Abused? Probably not. So far, all I've seen is people referring
>others to the CFV. That's legitimate.
The IRC channels #AynRand and #GeekSpeak (on Undernet) are giving detailed
instructions in announcements about the mechanics of voting YES, with only
passing mention that a CFV or any background information even exists. That's
not legitimate.
>>Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator one way
>>or the other about [what is germane]. Eventually a moderator either
>>will burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to judge
>>topicality. This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
>[...] posts won't be required; I'm more than willing to use email
>for such purposes. If necessary, I'll set up a small mailing list
>for that purpose.
Should this be conducted in secret? The only situation worse than flooding the
newsgroup with such matters is to do them behind closed e-mail doors. If you
have such a list, it ought to be made absolutely explicit that anyone --
including those who are banned -- will be able to subscribe to it on request.
>I'm pretty close to an expert on the topic of net abuse - and that's
>basically what I'll be banning. It's going to take pretty major
>effort to get banned from the group, but I won't hesitate to do it
>if necessary.
From what I've seen, I have no reason to doubt your skills on discerning
abusive posts. But you're also empowered to judge what is germane to talking
about Objectivism. Would you tell us your qualifications?
>>Only one of many types of off-topic postings is even defined in the
>>RFD/CFV, that of "Neo-Tech."
>That's because it's the best example. If others come up, I'll
>deal with them, too.
But you don't have any standards in the charter for defining them. Is it a
matter of "I know it when I see it" about being off topic? If you believe that
this is compatible with the thrust of Objectivism, I submit you're mistaken.
>>Philosophy as a subject doesn't lend itself to using moderators.
>It'll do fine. My job is to keep abusers out; I'm not moderating standardly.
Your job in the charter is to be responsible for removing what's not germane,
as well. This requires standards, even implicit ones. What are yours?
>>Any moderated newsgroup slows down response time and ends up hurting
>>vigorous interchanges in debates.
>That's a non-issue for this one. Trust me on that. My site is *very*
>well connected; we might even have faster propagation times for the
>branch sites.
I'm willing to take your word that you have a good connection. It certainly
will help. But David Lawrence also undoubtedly has a good connection, and the
response time in news.announce.newgroups is often several days long. The
connection speed isn't the only factor.
>>A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from
>>other fields of thought.
>Not particularly. That was taken into account, yes - but discounted, due
>to the immense amounts of crossposted messages that were entirely irrelevant.
How did you decide they were irrelevant? Was it on the basis of any others'
judgment? It's been said repeatedly that you are made impartial partly from
not having detailed knowledge about Objectivism.
>>Banning announcements of local discussion groups or speakers from being
>>crossposted will make the organizers less likely to want to seek publicity
>>in an h.p.o.
>Then they can go elsewhere. This group is not for announcements,
>it's for discussion.
Only commercial postings are excluded. Noncommercial announcements have long
ended up as adjuncts to discussion newsgroups, especially in "talk". This has
long been a feature, by common consent, in a.p.o.
>>The "interminable flamewars" that have largely provoked this proposal
>>have been nearly absent in recent months.
>Have they? Fully? Not from what I've seen. And I *know* I've seen
>thousands of forgeries and direct attacks on the group in recent times.
Even the Neo-Tech boilerplate spamming has nearly vanished since April 1. I
admit that judgments about other matters can differ; I've seen much less
vitriol in general this spring. And I wasn't at all referring to spammers such
as "Tweety Bird," obviously sizable nuisances -- but hard to utterly prevent.
>>A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose largest
>>apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their presence,
>>resisting fundamental debate.
>Then you can ignore them and go elsewhere.
The same people are the most active proponents of both old and new
exclusionary locations. This doesn't bode well for an atmosphere of
objectivity.
>This does not need to be the only group for Objectivism, and it won't
>be. I'll personally send out newgroups for a.p.o if it's rmgrouped,
>even; nobody wants a monopoly.
I gladly welcome your view on this not being the only group. As to monopolies,
however, many have openly longed for one, and for a.p.o to die on the vine.
Many have also been bilious and corrosive towards those who question the
"obvious" virtue of this new group.
renee
Julie Hays wrote:
>
> I'd like to hear from users of this service to determine if it is the one
> to go with!! What are it's good points? What are some problems?
> Thanks, Julie
There is no support. It took me about 2 months to finally get someone to
cancel my service.
Canice
frank forman
Steve,
Even if all ten of your reasons for voting no on h.p.o. were valid, why
don't you just not participate in it. You haven't explained how you are
being made worse off by the rest of us having another NewsGroup. I'll
withhold my vote until I get your answer, though I am strongly inclined
to support it, for I think there is a real advantage in having *one*
UseNet group that does not allow cross-posting. I intend to participate
in both and have been assured that I will not be kicked off h.p.o. for
calling Ayn Rand's intellectual heir Dr. Pea Cough. I didn't ask about
Dr. Peek Off, though, nor Pope Sneak Off, as he is called by someone else.
Frank
Matt Keys
Steve Reed (jsr...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: Usenet and its users don't need this new moderated newsgroup. It's not simply
: the Objectivist philosophy.
[ snip ]
: (2) The moderator is empowered to judge the content of all posts, as to
: whether they are germane to Objectivism. This is *not* workable when the
: moderator is a third party who is chosen for being neutral or uninformed about
: the philosophy. Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator
: one way or the other about such issues. Eventually a moderator either will
: burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to judge topicality.
: This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
to me, it is obvious the "E-Team" : Betsy and Tony and Brad, will be the
moderators. they will tell Tim S. who they want kicked off the
group, and they will make some argument about how the person
violated the charter, and the person will be kicked off.
it will be a subjective decision.
: (4) Only one of many types of off-topic postings is even defined in the
: RFD/CFV, that of "Neo-Tech." Any others will require careful identification
: and definition, if the spirit and ideas of Objectivism aren't to be flouted in
: the process. Again, this process of definition will hurt the impartiality of
: the moderator ... unless the rule will be to exclude the targets of those who
: complain the most and loudest.
I'll bet there will be plenty of discussion about Neo-Tech on
the new group by Betsy and Tony and Brad. Neo-Tech will be ON-TOPIC
for the group AS LONG AS you are attacking it. DEFENDING Neo-Tech
on h.p.o will be off-topic, but attacks on Neo-Tech will be embraced.
anyone caught defending Neo-Tech, or posting Neo-Tech material that
deals with Ayn Rand and Objectivism directly, will simply be kicked off.
what the E-Team wanted all along was a place where they would
have power to kick people out of their newsgroup. no doubt about
it, h.p.o will be their newsgroup.
thanks for your thoughtful post, Steve, but I think it is good
to give the E-Team exactly what they want in this case, it only
helps them expose their own evasions about Neo-Tech, and once
people start being kicked out of h.p.o for no good reason, everyone will
realize the E-Team is a bunch of power-hungry evaders.
Vote YES for h.p.o !
--
The New-World Song http://www.neo-tech.com/prosperity/
Neo-Tech: Get Rich By 2001 http://www.neo-tech.com/world/
Paul Szpunar
In article <jsreed.23...@interaccess.com>, jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>Usenet and its users don't need this new moderated newsgroup. It's not simply
>unnecessary, but is also harmful to philosophical debate about its subject,
>the Objectivist philosophy.
I agree...
>(2) The moderator is empowered to judge the content of all posts, as to
>whether they are germane to Objectivism. This is *not* workable when the
>moderator is a third party who is chosen for being neutral or uninformed about
>the philosophy. Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator
>one way or the other about such issues. Eventually a moderator either will
>burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to judge topicality.
>This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
This is a good point. I must admit I haven't been keeping up with apo, so I
haven't seen the recent debates over this subject. Who is going to be the
moderator of this proposed newsgroup? Is he/she knowledgeable about
Objectivism? If not, how will this person decide what is or is not off-topic?
Furthermore, the use of an auto-moderator bot seems unneccessary. What will
this bot accomplish that a newsreader with good kill file abilities not
accomplish just as well, if not better?
I agree that the people who continually post Neo-Tech articles into this
newsgroup are annoying and rude. Their actions constitute serious breaches of
Usenet netiquette (especially when you consider the fact that they already
have their own dedicated newsgroup in which to post). However, if this
really does annoy you, there is no reason to start up a whole new, moderated
newsgroup. Just killfile the people who post this stuff, as well as any
subject line with a reference to NT.
Since I missed out on the initial debate on this subject, I would appreciate
it if someone could provide me with a persuasive case for establishing the new
group. In particular, what would the establishment of this group accomplish
that a good killfile wouldn't?
Paul Szpunar
roadr...@centuryinter.net
Ron Good
>Since I missed out on the initial debate on this subject, I would appreciate
>it if someone could provide me with a persuasive case for establishing the new
>group. In particular, what would the establishment of this group accomplish
>that a good killfile wouldn't?
>
As with capitalism, a new newsgroup simply increases the choices for those who
wish to use UseNet. Let the market decide.
As for the killfile bit--irrelevant.
Ron Good
Julie Hays
Tim Skirvin
As the proposed moderator of h.p.o, I think I have an obligation
to respond to this (or at least parts of it).
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) writes:
>Here are ten good reasons to vote NO on this proposal:
>(1) Usenet practices are already being abused.
Abused? Probably not. So far, all I've seen is people
referring others to the CFV. That's legitimate.
>(2) The moderator is empowered to judge the content of all posts, as to
>whether they are germane to Objectivism. This is *not* workable when the
>moderator is a third party who is chosen for being neutral or uninformed about
>the philosophy. Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator
>one way or the other about such issues. Eventually a moderator either will
>burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to judge topicality.
>This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
First of all, posts won't be required; I'm more than willing to
use email for such purposes. If necessary, I'll set up a small mailing
list for that purpose.
Second, I'm not planning on burning out, and I'm not going to be
relying just on the word of others. If I may say so, I'm pretty close
to an expert on the topic of net abuse - and that's basically what I'll
be banning. It's going to take pretty major effort to get banned from
the group, but I won't hesitate to do it if necessary.
>(3) No standards are set up to define what amount or frequency of abuse will
>get someone banned from this newsgroup.
That will be my perogative, yes.
>(4) Only one of many types of off-topic postings is even defined in the
>RFD/CFV, that of "Neo-Tech."
That's because it's the best example. If others come up, I'll
deal with them, too.
>(5) Philosophy as a subject doesn't lend itself to using moderators.
It'll do fine. My job is to keep abusers out; I'm not
moderating standardly. I understand, of course, why we shouldn't
standardly moderate talk.*, and this may be similar, but the process is
different.
>(6) Any moderated newsgroup slows down response time and ends up hurting
>vigorous interchanges in debates.
That's a non-issue for this one. Trust me on that. My site is
*very* well connected; we might even have faster propagation times for
the branch sites.
>(7) A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from other
>fields of thought.
Not particularly. That was taken into account, yes - but
discounted, due to the immense amounts of crossposted messages that were
entirely irrelevant.
This is going to help keep me from micro-managing. I support it
fully.
>(8) Banning announcements of local discussion groups or speakers from being
>crossposted will make the organizers less likely to want to seek publicity in
>an h.p.o.
Then they can go elsewhere. This group is not for announcements,
it's for discussion.
>(9) The "interminable flamewars" that have largely provoked this proposal have
>been nearly absent in recent months.
Have they? Fully? Not from what I've seen. And I *know* I've
seen thousands of forgeries and direct attacks on the group in recent
times.
>(10) A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose largest
>apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their presence, resisting
>fundamental debate.
Then you can ignore them and go elsewhere. This does not need to
be the only group for Objectivism, and it won't be. I'll personally
send out newgroups for a.p.o if it's rmgrouped, even; nobody wants a
monopoly.
I hope that clarifies some things.
- 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>
Gary Reichlinger
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>Usenet and its users don't need this new moderated newsgroup. It's not simply
>unnecessary, but is also harmful to philosophical debate about its subject,
>the Objectivist philosophy.
>present alt.philosophy.objectivism, one of the busiest current newsgroups,
>posts already take from two to three days to reach all North American servers.
>A moderator as a bottleneck will make this even worse.
It is interesting that on the one hand another objectivist group is
not needed, but later APO is one of the busiest current newsgroups.
What better reason could there be for subdividing this group. If HPO
is not a useful forum, APO would, as many have pointed out, still be
an option. Only if HPO turns out to be a useful group would APO be in
any way diminished.
Brad Aisa
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>Usenet and its users don't need this new moderated newsgroup. It's not
>simply unnecessary, but is also harmful to philosophical debate about its
>subject, the Objectivist philosophy.
>
>The biggest problem lies in its being moderated. Its proposed automatic
>robot moderator is not the sole source of control, and the CFV is
>contradicting itself. Human moderation is ill-defined, left open to
>burnout and abuse, and doesn't fit the subject of the group.
>
>Here are ten good reasons to vote NO on this proposal:
>
>(1) Usenet practices are already being abused. Even before the CFV for
>this group reached all Usenet servers, some proponents were soliciting
>votes for its approval among Objectivists on private snail-mail lists and
>on IRC channels. Voting instructions are being repeatedly given that don't
>make the reading of the CFV the first priority, to provide a background
>for informed votes. While this is not strictly against the accepted rules,
>it isn't within the Usenet community's past standards of having
>knowledgeable votes, from those who actually use newsgroups.
Avowed atheists used to be disqualified from giving testimony in law
courts, because they could not be expected to swear an oath on the bible.
Thus, honest atheists who admitted their view would be excluded, whereas
dishonest ones who would lie about their atheism would be allowed to
testify.
Do the math.
>(2) The moderator is empowered to judge the content of all posts, as to
>whether they are germane to Objectivism. This is *not* workable when the
>moderator is a third party who is chosen for being neutral or uninformed
>about the philosophy. Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the
>moderator one way or the other about such issues. Eventually a moderator
>either will burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts to
>judge topicality. This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
If one accepted the premise of this argument, law courts would be
impossible. Law courts exist and do function. Therefore, the premise of the
argument is false, therefore, the complaint is invalid.
>(3) No standards are set up to define what amount or frequency of abuse
>will get someone banned from this newsgroup. And, yet, those who make
>repeated off-topic, abusive, commercial, or abusive posts are to be
>excluded from the group. Almost no one knows in advance what will result
>in banning, or for how long one will be shut out. This will require
>intensive rule-making, and far too much direct content involvement, on the
>part of the moderator.
In fact, everyone knows exactly in advance what will get you banned, and
those who engage in such activities will either be (in general) aware that
they should be banned (such as "tweety bird"), or will specifically know
they should be banned (such as the NT'ers, whose idiocy is being excluded).
The newsgroup is not being designed for its enemies to abuse, it is being
designed for its supporters to use. And each side knows exactly who they
are. It is obviously expected that the enemies of the group will begin by
attempting to post abuse, but the supporters couldn't give a damn about
them, because the rules are exactly designed to eliminate the abusers.
Your readers aren't stupid Mr. Reed, and they weren't born yesterday.
>(4) Only one of many types of off-topic postings is even defined in the
>RFD/CFV, that of "Neo-Tech." Any others will require careful
>identification and definition, if the spirit and ideas of Objectivism
>aren't to be flouted in the process. Again, this process of definition
>will hurt the impartiality of the moderator ... unless the rule will be to
>exclude the targets of those who complain the most and loudest.
Mr. Reed probably doesn't understand the concept of benevolence, but the
group is designed based on the principle that posters to a newsgroup called
humanities.*philosophy*.*objectivism* will be posting on the subject of the
philosophy of Objectivism. Should posts start arriving in any volume from
an individual or bot which do not relate to this topic, then complaints
will obviously be made to the moderator, who can take action.
Mr. Kuznicki and Mrs. Speicher have both spent a great deal of time and
effort trying to secure moderator(s) who will responsibly uphold the
charter. They are to be applauded for their diligence, and sense of
responsibility. I have been auditing Mr. Skirvin's Usenet messages over the
last couple of months, and he seems emminently rational and well qualified
for this post. I think Mr. Reed's complaints are specious.
>(5) Philosophy as a subject doesn't lend itself to using moderators.
>Objectivism lays strong claim to truth about vast areas of knowledge, from
>metaphysics to esthetics. This multiplies the areas where an offended
>party can make noise about others' "abuse" -- and where the moderator may
>not have enough technical knowledge to judge the soundness of such
>complaints.
Part one would be true if philosophy were subjective. But the proponents
of this group reject that idea. Those who believe philosophy is subjective
should start their own group, or continue to post to apo, where such an
attitude seems especially prevalant.
The charges about "abuse" are specious, and I have covered this.
>(6) Any moderated newsgroup slows down response time and ends up hurting
>vigorous interchanges in debates. This isn't helped by the still-limited
>acceptance of "humanities" as an additional major Usenet hierarchy. In the
>present alt.philosophy.objectivism, one of the busiest current newsgroups,
>posts already take from two to three days to reach all North American
>servers. A moderator as a bottleneck will make this even worse.
On the contrary, messages will be far more likely to be properly
serialized. Also, this new group is designed for much more serious and
intellectual discussion than exists on apo. Philosophy is not about
"dialog" and "criticism" -- it is about building and communicating ideas
-- positives. The idea that criticism and argument are philosophic
fundamentals is a tenet of modern philosophy, not Objectivism.
In addition, technological issues can always be addressed. If the newsgroup
becomes popular, then there will be a basis for exploring additional
methods of delivery or routing.
>(7) A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from
>other fields of thought. This isn't quite matched by removing the lesser
>abuse of posts going where they're not wanted. One current debate within
>Objectivism is about how much evidence should be taken up from other
>sciences, such as psychology, to validate the core philosophy. To rule out
>any contributions from other professionals, in other newsgroups, is to
>come down on one side of this debate. This is not being truly impartial.
People who have almost zero knowledge of philosophy rarely contribute much
of value on a philosophic newsgroup, because they are ignorant of the role
of philosophy in human life and in epistemology. These are the types such
as the physicists who say QM refutes certainty, the leftists who refuse to
discuss morality or epistemology, and who assert socialism as an axiom,
etc. If such persons want to discuss philosophy on hpo, they are welcome,
but their cross-posts from other groups to apo typically contribute nothing
of value to those who are philosophically literate.
HPO is not to be a kindergarten for the philosophically illiterate. Mr.
Reed is invited to illuminate net.denizens on the nature and role of
philosophy in human life -- on apo.
>(8) Banning announcements of local discussion groups or speakers from
>being crossposted will make the organizers less likely to want to seek
>publicity in an h.p.o. Many audiences for such events are likely to be
>found in politics newsgroups or other areas. Having to post separately to
>an Objectivist forum could discourage getting the word out to many likely
>participants about these events.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the charter against
announcing events of interest or relevance to Objectivism. I can't imagine
why anyone would complain if lectures, seminars, etc. were announced.
That there could only be so many Objectivist-related announcements, that
they became a logistical problem!!! Such a "problem" would be a joy to
solve.
>(9) The "interminable flamewars" that have largely provoked this proposal
>have been nearly absent in recent months. Occasional trolls have been
>present, but these wouldn't be excluded by any principle that is set forth
>in the CFV. In either case, the unconventionality of Objectivism comes out
>of an articulate, forceful writing style (from Rand to the present) that
>encourages polarization and strong opinions. This makes "flames" and
>"trolls," to some people, out of what can be seen as statements of
>uncompromising consistency. Distinguishing these abuses requires knowledge
>of the philosophy -- again, ruled out for the moderator.
Part 1 -- myopia. The abuse/spam curve on apo has varied widely over the
last two years -- there have been many *temporary* calms.
Part 2 -- package dealing ("reasoned criticism" with "flames and trolls").
Reasoned criticism of Objectivism and attempts to disprove it are squarely
within the charter of HPO.
>(10) A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose
>largest apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their
>presence, resisting fundamental debate. It isn't coincidental that many
>supporters of an h.p.o have been the most fierce partisans on IRC channels
>of banning anyone who is the least bit heterodox, even those who are
>well-mannered. Many articulate people have been so excluded. Many more
>won't touch such forums. It would be a loss to the growth of the
>philosophy, to Usenet, and to open inquiry to encourage such attitudes
>once again.
Part 1 -- Objectivism advocates the idea that reality exists, and that
ideas can be derived from reality, and that certainty is possible. It is
the right (and absolute moral right) of those who take ideas and
truth seriously, to choose not to associate or empower those who are
advocating ideas which are known to be false or evil. Mr. Reed seems to
advocate intellectual promuscuity -- philosophical intercourse with all
comers, regardless their views or moral stature -- but this is not an
Objectivist idea, this is his own idea. HPO is being sponsored by persons
who are premising its founding on Objectivist principles. But it should be
emphasized, that this group is not being set up with the same standards as
some other private or for-profit groups -- it is being set up to provide an
abuse and cult-free place for decent, serious intellectuals to discuss
Objectivism without being flooded with nonsense and abuse. Mr. Reed seems
to revel in such a flood of detritus (almost reminding me of the excitement
Floyd Ferris seemed to get from the progressively degenerating US in Atlas
Shrugged...), but his tastes are not shared by the supporters of HPO.
Part 2 -- Ellsworth Toohey had impeccable manners and was highly
articulate. The first is an utter non-essential the second implies
amorality -- that communicating evil or heinously irrational nonsense in a
grammatical fashion is perfectly honorable and worthy of dealing with.
Part 3 -- persons who would only express themselves in a sewer, but not on
the veranda of a skyscraper are encouraged to remain in the sewer and stay
away from the veranda.
>The CFV for this proposed group was posted in news.announce.newgroups,
>news.groups, and alt.philosophy.objectivism. Its message ID is
>8322001...@uunet.uu.net.
>
>Read the CFV for yourself, and some of the recent and more detailed debate
>in a.p.o. Help us to avoid a bad mistake, and vote NO on this proposal!
Final score:
Mr. Reed: 0
HPO: 10
--
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
Ed Matthews
On Sat, 18 May 1996, Steve Reed wrote:
> tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>
> >As the proposed moderator of h.p.o, I think I have an obligation
> >to respond to this (or at least parts of it).
>
> Perhaps ... but your post comes quite near to being an argument in favor of
> the newsgroup. That in itself isn't being in the spirit of impartiality.
No, all he did was present the facts.
> >jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) writes:
>
> >>Here are ten good reasons to vote NO on this proposal:
>
> >>Usenet practices are already being abused.
>
> >Abused? Probably not. So far, all I've seen is people referring
> >others to the CFV. That's legitimate.
>
> The IRC channels #AynRand and #GeekSpeak (on Undernet) are giving detailed
> instructions in announcements about the mechanics of voting YES, with only
> passing mention that a CFV or any background information even exists. That's
> not legitimate.
Why? Is there something stopping you from spending your time presenting
your position on those channels? Or is it that you don't want the
proponents to present their case(s) to others who have dropped out of
a.p.o. because of the garbage that exists and may wish to join a newer,
cleaner group?
> I'm willing to take your word that you have a good connection. It certainly
> will help. But David Lawrence also undoubtedly has a good connection, and the
> response time in news.announce.newgroups is often several days long. The
> connection speed isn't the only factor.
Then wouldn't such a difference be in a.p.o's favor?
> >>The "interminable flamewars" that have largely provoked this proposal
> >>have been nearly absent in recent months.
>
> >Have they? Fully? Not from what I've seen. And I *know* I've seen
> >thousands of forgeries and direct attacks on the group in recent times.
>
> Even the Neo-Tech boilerplate spamming has nearly vanished since April 1. I
> admit that judgments about other matters can differ; I've seen much less
> vitriol in general this spring. And I wasn't at all referring to spammers such
> as "Tweety Bird," obviously sizable nuisances -- but hard to utterly prevent.
The point is, _after_ somebody engages in net-abuse, they should not be
given the opportunity to do so again. Do you object to that?
> >>A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose largest
> >>apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their presence,
> >>resisting fundamental debate.
>
> >Then you can ignore them and go elsewhere.
>
> The same people are the most active proponents of both old and new
> exclusionary locations. This doesn't bode well for an atmosphere of
> objectivity.
Then why don't you start an "inclusionary" location of your own? Then
you can benefit from everything that the "exclusionary" locations have
discarded.
It's a (semi-)free country. Nobody is stopping _you_ from setting up
your own group.
> >This does not need to be the only group for Objectivism, and it won't
> >be. I'll personally send out newgroups for a.p.o if it's rmgrouped,
> >even; nobody wants a monopoly.
>
> I gladly welcome your view on this not being the only group. As to monopolies,
> however, many have openly longed for one, and for a.p.o to die on the vine.
Like who? The proponents of h.p.o., who want another choice?
I thought monopolists wanted to reduce the number of choices, not
increase them.
Steve,
I am at a loss to see why you object to other people talking about
Objectivism someplace other than a.p.o. If there are so many people who
agree with you and wouldn't use h.p.o. even if it is created, what do you
lose? If there are many people who would use both (as I probably will),
what do you lose? If you find that h.p.o. discusses only a few aspects
of Objectivism (which I don't think will be the case), then you can
always discuss other aspects elsewhere, such as on a.p.o., so again, what
do you lose?
------------------------
Ed Matthews
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
Steve Reed
Ed Matthews writes:
>Steve Reed wrote:
>>Tim Skirvin writes:
>>>As the proposed moderator of h.p.o, I think I have an obligation
>>>to respond to this (or at least parts of it).
>>Perhaps ... but your post comes quite near to being an argument in favor of
>>the newsgroup. That in itself isn't being in the spirit of impartiality.
>No, all he did was present the facts.
Almost all. He alluded to having seen many crosspostings that he believed were
not germane, and concluded that banning all of same was a Good Thing(TM),
quite apart from advantages for group maintenance. That's not being strictly
neutral, to me.
>>The IRC channels #AynRand and #GeekSpeak (on Undernet) are giving detailed
>>instructions in announcements about the mechanics of voting YES, with only
>>passing mention that a CFV or any background information even exists. That's
>>not legitimate.
>Why? Is there something stopping you from spending your time presenting
>your position on those channels?
Yes. The people who have registered those channels with Undernet, and who have
decided that anyone who thinks David Kelley isn't a lunatic can't be accepted
into their presence, no matter how well-mannered. And who have banned all such
people they can identify, including me.
Anyone who thinks that such a ban would prevent anyone from continuing to sign
on and *read* their channels and announcements -- or both read and post to an
h.p.o.m -- has another think coming, by the way.
But that's not why it's not legitimate. (It's more of a reason why the strong
proponents of this group lack moral standing to claim that, oh no, nobody will
be excluded *here,* no siree.) It's that the accepted Usenet principles have
gone against outside solicitation, when it urges votes without reading the CFV.
>The point is, _after_ somebody engages in net-abuse, they should not be
>given the opportunity to do so again. Do you object to that?
I would rather that they not have that opportunity. But that doesn't mean that
setting up a structure to keep them out will either support genuine debate, or
end up doing the job.
By analogy, I'd rather that no one who's committed a violent crime be allowed
to come anywhere near my family. But I'm not prepared to acquiesce in the
total police state that would be needed to enforce this.
>>>>A host of other Objectivist forums are dominated by users whose largest
>>>>apparent obsession is to exclude and ban others from their presence,
>>>>resisting fundamental debate.
>>>Then you can ignore them and go elsewhere.
>>The same people are the most active proponents of both old and new
>>exclusionary locations. This doesn't bode well for an atmosphere of
>>objectivity.
>Then why don't you start an "inclusionary" location of your own? Then
>you can benefit from everything that the "exclusionary" locations have
>discarded.
I have. Join many Objectivists of all stripes on channel #AynRand on the
DALnet IRC network. (Not yet publicized much, due to lack of time. But it's
been permanently registered. No one is to be banned short of their doing
channel flooding or persistent ad-hominem abuse of others.)
>>I gladly welcome [Skirvin's] view on this not being the only group.
>>As to monopolies, however, many have openly longed for one, and for
>>a.p.o to die on the vine.
>Like who? The proponents of h.p.o., who want another choice? I
>thought monopolists wanted to reduce the number of choices, not
>increase them.
Yes, several of the proponents of h.p.o. We'd be wrong to take them at their
word about being so much in favor of choices, when this is being consistently
treaded upon over on IRC.
>Steve, I am at a loss to see why you object to other people talking about
>Objectivism someplace other than a.p.o.
I don't object to another discussion location as such, not at all. I object to
setting up yet another formal, public cloister -- one that shouts to the
Internet about how Objectivists run and hide from debate.
We've had Peikoff's indiscriminate contempt for academics, the refusal to
put the Objectivist oral culture onto paper, the endless purges of any strong
philosophical questioners, the anti-Kelley oaths for members of many local
clubs, the gratuitous abuse of anyone who sees sparks of truth or honesty in
reasonable libertarians, the obsession with banning and paranoia on IRC, and
the Second Renaissance Index of Permitted Objectivist Books.
I have had frigging enough. This absurd madness has to be resisted somewhere.
And a new group that judges postings for being germane, allowing wide holes
for bans of opponents by those who seize hard enough upon its structure ...
well, that was where it became too much for me to witness.
>If there are so many people who agree with you and wouldn't use h.p.o.
>even if it is created, what do you lose?
This new venue would have an "official" imprimatur for newcomers, and
misrepresent the confidence we have in these ideas. No thank you.
>If there are many people who would use both (as I probably will),
>what do you lose?
This will dilute the energies of intelligent people who budget their time and
don't want to have two running debates in two separate venues. No thank you.
>If you find that h.p.o. discusses only a few aspects of Objectivism
>(which I don't think will be the case), then you can always discuss
>other aspects elsewhere, such as on a.p.o., so again, what do you lose?
And this, finally, says too much. If a.p.o is so valid for you, why do you
want this new venue? Should so much effort be wasted upon it? No thank you.
Steve Reed
rei...@ltec.net (Gary Reichlinger) writes:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>It is interesting that on the one hand another objectivist group is
>not needed, but later APO is one of the busiest current newsgroups.
>What better reason could there be for subdividing this group.
It's not being subdivided. Both have the same scope of topics (except for
h.p.o excluding Neo-Tech). One group is being given the "preferred" imprimatur
for newcomers. And it's the one that leaves too many holes open for excluding
those who provide challenging debate.
>Only if HPO turns out to be a useful group would APO be in any
>way diminished.
H.p.o will be a bad idea even if it gets enough debates to make it "useful."
It has too many provisions allowing for exclusion of those who aren't posting
on topic or are "abusive," and not enough principles for defining these kinds
of actions objectively.
Lawrence M Sanger
jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) writes:
>If this is compromised, a new RFD can't be posted for six months, let alone a
>new vote. Wouldn't you all rather avoid this in the first place?
Moot point -- since, as you say, nothing officially wrong has been
done (nor unofficially, as far as I can see, but I don't know as
much about the procedure as you do, apparently).
>Moreover, this shows a lack of good faith about this idea.
It shows enthusiasm about the idea, if anything. This particular
argument of yours is very weak, in any case.
>And why should this give us any indication that the operations of h.p.o.m
>would be carried out without behind-the-scenes pressure, and compromises of
>the moderator's impartial status?
You have failed to give any convincing examples of serious problems
where the moderator's impartial status might be compromised.
>>>Huge numbers of posts will be wasted to persuade the moderator one way
>>>or the other about [whether posts are germane]. Eventually a moderator
>>>either will burn out, or will rely upon unseen self-appointed experts
>>>to judge topicality. This ruins any attempt at impartiality.
>
>>That's an interesting scenario, but you have failed to give any reason
>>to think it will actually come to pass [...]
>
>The volume of this group, 400 to 500 posts per day (when unspammed), is key to
>this. How many mailing lists have this volume? Won't this wear out anyone?
This is an automoderated list. Mr. Skirvin will not have to
read everything posted, of course. (God, if he had to do that,
he should be paid $50,000 a year for the job.) I imagine he'll
only have to review posts about which there were complaints. I see
no very good reason to think that the number of complaints will be
impossibly large to handle, especially once the nature of h.p.o.m
has become clear to the present denizens of a.p.o. Being an intell-
igent fellow, moreover, he will learn how to deal with complaints
so that he himself is not bothered by frivolous complaints. (Well,
one hopes this, for his sake.)
>Does he have the background at hand to discern your own past
>subtleties, Larry, about issues of the arbitrary? That intricate distinction
>of epistemology got some bitter salvos going, as I recall. How will Skirvin be
>enabled to decide what fits? Whom will he rely on?
He wouldn't have to decide such things, because no one would com-
plain about it. I think you are seeing problems where there will
be none.
>>I don't see how defining of the amount or frequency of abuse would
>>constitute "intensive rule-making." If I were the moderator, I doubt
>>I would find it so complicated. [Sanger ran mailing lists.]
>
>We don't have PRINCIPLES for this. It has to be ad hoc. What standards of
>judgment did you use on your mailing lists?
My mailing lists were much more highly moderated than h.p.o.m will be.
My standards concerned, first, politeness, and second, a minimal level
of philosophical coherence. There were some tough calls. I did not
have any exact standards; nor did I see any particular need for them.
I used a rather vague sort of standard, to the effect of, "If this
post would be obviously a waste of nearly everyone's time, on account
of its philosophical ineptness, then it should be rejected." But I
did not go to the trouble, for the relatively few problem cases I
encountered, of formulating more exact principles about when the ante-
cedent of this standard would apply in any given case.
Do you have any good reason to believe that such exact standards
*are* necessary? Necessary for what purpose?
>>What will require careful identification is whether the postings are
>>on-topic. Of course there will be tough calls, but so what? That isn't
>>a good reason to vote NO on the proposal.
>
>They're very tough calls if you don't have any explicit standards (again,
>excepting Neo-Tech).
They're explicit enough, I think. There are levels of explicitness.
Perhaps you can say which points are the points which are not explicit
enough for you, so we can see whether you are nit-picking or not.
>>As a philosopher who has moderated philosophy mailing lists, I can
>>say from experience that there is nothing about philosophy *per se*
>>which prevents a very good job of moderation being done. For one
>>excellent example I commend Ben Kovitz, moderator of ASP-Disc, to you --
>>the best moderator of any list I have ever seen (except maybe me! ;) )
>
>A double argument from "authority," Larry. You can do better than that.
You misunderstood; I wasn't using Ben or myself as an authority
(in that case, my argument would be: "I recommend that you believe
that p, because Ben and I say that p"). I was using ASP-Disc and
my other mailing lists as *examples* of moderated philosophy forums
that actually *benefitted* from being moderated.
>>[...] the moderator is going to judge what is on-topic and what is
>>off-topic. There may be some tough calls there, yes, but that isn't
>>going to require that the moderator make judgments about what is
>>consistent with Objectivism.
>
>How can he judge, if he isn't familiar with it?
That's a good question. I am sure there is an answer. He will
probably end up having to consult some of the works of Rand
(being referred to passages in them by people engaged in some
dispute, the topicality of which he has to decide). What a guy.
He oughta be paid.
>He'll rely either on those
>who offer expertise -- blowing up any impartiality -- or on who yells loudest.
How do *you* know that? Do you know him?
>>>A ban on crossposting ignores the fertilizing elements of ideas from
>>>other fields of thought.
>
>>That is perhaps your most reasonable claim so far, but it isn't
>>a reason to oppose h.p.o.m; it's a reason to use a.p.o instead.
>
>It's a reason to oppose an h.p.o.m if the group is going to become a place
>where everyone preaches to the choir, sermonizing about the details of Rand's
>words, apart from the rest of human thought. If this interaction with others
>is valuable, why set up another public cloister? It wastes effort.
The persons involved in the discussion will not, I think, always
regard it as a waste of effort. (So I guess you will disagree with
them, and recommend that they expend their effort elsewhere?) That's
really not the important point; the important point is that h.p.o.m
will not be a place where "everyone preaches to the choir." After
all, I'll be allowed there. :)
>>Besides, you ignore the fact that there are so many goddamn crossposts
>>from the politics newsgroups that the s/n ratio makes doing (other)
>>*philosophy* difficult.
>
>Then set this thing up with very strong topical restrictions for technical
>discussion, and only that. Or simply for epistemology (etc.) and only that.
Huh? Why would we want to do that? We want to talk about all aspects
of *Objectivism*.
>Don't simply transfer the scope of a.p.o to the new group, with new controls
>and ban lists placed on top of it all. That, again, is wasting effort.
As though h.p.o.m would not have any purpose at all, and is thus a
waste of effort!
Honestly, you seem to be grasping at straws.
>>That's just silly. How is it being partial, to disallow contributions
>>posted to h.p.o.m and other groups? Whose side are we being partial
>>in taking, then?
>
>I'll be more specific, since you ask. It's taking the side of Peikoff in how
>Objectivism is to be construed:
If I thought that, then I might agree with you. But I do not
labor under this particular misconception. As I have said, and no
doubt many others have told you, and you have apparently chosen to
ignore, there are many Kelleyites and non-Objectivists in support
of the new list, and the list is *explicitly* devoted to discuss-
ion among *all* who want to have on-topic, non-spamful discussion
of Objectivism. You seem to think that some topics, or points of
view, will be excluded, which really ought to be included; and
they will be excluded because they are not related in the proper
way to something Rand and/or Peikoff wrote.
Well, there may end up being some hard cases like this. Give an
example. (A *convincing* one.)
Steve, are you associated with Neo-Tech? I doubt you are. Then
what sort of discourse, really, are you worried will be excluded?
>To shut off crossposting is to say to the world that Objectivism neither needs
>nor will accept contributory facts from other disciplines.
No it isn't. (Hey, I can use argument by bald assertion with the
best of 'em.)
>>The sort of trolls that would be excluded would be people like arTHra.
>
>By what standard? It sure ain't in that charter, Larry.
I don't need no steenking standards to exclude arTHra; if I came up
with a standard which said arTHra was OK, I would throw out that
standard. Similarly Paul Hsieh -- uh, I mean, I don't need no
steenking standards to tell me he's OK. It's the middle (swampy,
as it were) ground that is more difficult, and for which we need
*some* sort of standard.
I think this is something best addressed by Mr. Skirvin himself.
>>That doesn't require any detailed knowledge of the philosophy.
>
>Not all trolls are so ill-mannered. You should have observed that. Half of the
>complaints about "trolls" come from those who complain at the drop of a hat
>about all seemingly clueless newbie inquiries. It's easy to be too restrictive
>about what is brought into question. Look at the obsession over this on the
>IRC channels.
Those are considerations that Mr. Skirvin will have to take into
account, indeed. As I said, he'll obviously have to learn how
best to deal with frivolous complaints. To a certain extent one
could not formulate sensible principles about such things *until*
one had encountered many bad complaints. (Sort of like how common
law got started and all.)
>>>It isn't coincidental that many supporters of an h.p.o have been the
>>>most fierce partisans on IRC channels of banning anyone who is the
>>>least bit heterodox, even those who are well-mannered.
>
>>You omit to mention that many *other* people, who have been blacklisted
>>on the groups and channels that you mention, have *also* supported
>>h.p.o.m -- like me, or Jimbo Wales.
>
>What does that say? Nothing beyond yet another argument from "authority," but
>in this case you don't even bother to "establish" the authority. I at least
>made a link between the two phenomena, of IRC cloisters and this cloister.
Once again, rather than getting my point, you falsely accuse me of
making an argument from authority. You were drawing some lesson
out of the alleged fact that many supporters of h.p.o.m are also
supporters of #AynRand, etc. I was citing evidence showing that
there are also many supporters of h.p.o.m who are not supporters
of #AynRand, etc. Hence you cannot draw the inference about what
h.p.o.m that you wanted to draw.
>The moderator, who knows nothing -- by intention -- in detail about the
>philosophy, will have to make endless hairsplitting about what is germane? On
>an average of 500 posts per day? Yes, that's a hard job.
Sure, *that* would be a hard job, but fortunately it isn't the good
Mr. Skirvin's job. (Or at least, I hope not.)
>And who will be called upon to help out? That's what I want to know. If the
>OSG crew moves in to "help Skirvin out," how does this differ from OSG?
I doubt that, if he needs help, the only sources of his help will
be from "the OSG crew," especially if the dispute in question
involves the OSG crew pitted against some other crew.
>You're assuming that this new group will be "more civil and focused."
Yes, because that's the *purpose* of establishing h.p.o.m (after all).
Larry Sanger
Gary Reichlinger
>It's not being subdivided. Both have the same scope of topics (except for
>h.p.o excluding Neo-Tech). One group is being given the "preferred" imprimatur
>for newcomers. And it's the one that leaves too many holes open for excluding
>those who provide challenging debate.
It is being subdivided. APO could continue as a forum for Neo-Tech (as
acknowledged above) and to rehash issues which Ayn Rand discussed in
detail in her books along with the flames from people who disagree
with them. HPO could then be a forum for discussing new applications
of objectivism.
>H.p.o will be a bad idea even if it gets enough debates to make it "useful."
>It has too many provisions allowing for exclusion of those who aren't posting
>on topic or are "abusive," and not enough principles for defining these kinds
>of actions objectively.
I would question the idea that the number of flame wars ("debates")
started is the best measure of how useful a newsgroup is. I would
think that the number of new ideas brought out and discussed would be
a better measure.
Guy Macon
In article <jsreed.24...@interaccess.com>, jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) says:
>
>tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>>>Any moderated newsgroup slows down response time and ends up hurting
>>>vigorous interchanges in debates.
>
>>That's a non-issue for this one. Trust me on that. My site is *very*
>>well connected; we might even have faster propagation times for the
>>branch sites.
>
>I'm willing to take your word that you have a good connection. It certainly
>will help. But David Lawrence also undoubtedly has a good connection, and the
>response time in news.announce.newgroups is often several days long. The
>connection speed isn't the only factor.
I have been following the discussions here as preperation for a possible
RFD on robomoderating soc.religion.quaker. Several very well connected
sites have expressed a willingness to host our 'bot. I keep getting
what could be seen as conflicting answers as too the effect on response
time (or maybe I just don't undersand the issues); is the comment above
about slow response from a well connected site relevent to a robomoderator?
More to the point of a.p.o, wouldn't Tim set things up so that most
messages from regular, non-abuser readers go right through with
robomoderator speed?
I have been told that, given a robomoderator or a human moderator who uses
a 'bot to pass messages, and given a well connected site, response time will
range from slightly slower for well connected ISPs, to much faster to ISPs
that are out in the boondocks. I also have been told that, with a moderator
of any kind, we will no longer see some messages not reaching some sites.
(I will get everything that other readers of s.r.q get, or nothing).
Comments?
Steve Reed
It's fairly clear that Larry Sanger and I have differing perceptions, and come
from differing experiences, about several matters for this new newsgroup: the
burden of the number of postings, how thoroughly they should be checked for
content with such a power being granted, and -- most of all -- how well the
proponents can be trusted to behave about others' viewpoints.
These are inductions out of experience, and to respond in detail here would
largely judge dissimilar activities against each other -- including our
different experiences at moderation, mine of CompuServe discussion forums, his
of mailing lists. It also would end up repeating points I've made about public
cloisters in other messages, at the RFD stage and currently.
So I'll spare the patience of readers and answer some of the points of clearer
fact and experience that relate to what Larry has brought up.
Larry Sanger wrote:
>This is an automoderated list. Mr. Skirvin will not have to
>read everything posted, of course. (God, if he had to do that,
>he should be paid $50,000 a year for the job.) I imagine he'll
>only have to review posts about which there were complaints.
He doesn't "have to" read anything. But he's given the authority to review
*all* posts, by the charter, and it's undeniable that this sits available for
him to use. What is at issue is just what standards may properly limit how
he'll use that authority. I don't see a large grant of such authority being
something that tends to be left idle for no one's use. Nor is his saying, as
he did in another message, that he won't concentrate on making such judgments
enough assurance.
Skirvin also said that he may deal with these issues by e-mail in a small but
private mailing list. It should be transparent just what a temptation this
would be to decide arbitrarily or upon the loudest complaints -- unless all
may ask to receive this list, even those who are banned.
Reed:
>>[On-topic judgments are] very tough calls if you don't have any
>>explicit standards (again, excepting Neo-Tech).
Sanger:
>They're explicit enough, I think. There are levels of explicitness.
>Perhaps you can say which points are the points which are not explicit
>enough for you, so we can see whether you are nit-picking or not.
This one, most of all, given in its entirety (except for a definition of
Neo-Tech, the one explicit exception, which follows this sentence): "The
moderator may also cancel posts which are offtopic for the group."
No definitions are given as to how far a discussion may wander from "the ideas
of Ayn Rand" (itself the only, and inadequate, statement of the group topic)
before it becomes "offtopic."
This is far too broad a grant of authority, with no limits as to how to invoke
it. Will any thread be able to run its course, once legitimately begun? Or
will it be cut off at an undefined stage of drift? This most basic level of
decision, and all others, are left vague.
>>>[...] the moderator is going to judge what is on-topic and what is
>>>off-topic. There may be some tough calls there, yes, but that isn't
>>>going to require that the moderator make judgments about what is
>>>consistent with Objectivism.
>>How can he judge, if he isn't familiar with it?
>That's a good question. I am sure there is an answer. He will probably
>end up having to consult some of the works of Rand (being referred to
>passages in them by people engaged in some dispute, the topicality of
>which he has to decide).
Not even the extent of Rand's philosophical writings is so clear-cut as to
be beyond interpretation. And what of Peikoff? Or Binswanger? Or Kelley? Or
Sciabarra? The fundamentals of many debates have centered on how one or more
of these thinkers are simply *not relevant,* period, to Objectivism on some
particular topic. If he even *refers* to any of these philosophers, he's
taking sides in a host of debated issues.
Do you begin to see how even beginning to judge substance, without having
explicit standards, is going to impugn his impartiality? And even with such
standards, the corpus that could be construed as "Objectivist" is already huge
in scope.
Far better to restrict such authority to matters of mechanics of abuse, if
such discretion is to be given at all. Not to judging what is appropriate for
the group.
>As I have said, and no doubt many others have told you, and you
>have apparently chosen to ignore, there are many Kelleyites and
>non-Objectivists in support of the new list, and the list is
>*explicitly* devoted to discussion among *all* who want to have
>on-topic, non-spamful discussion of Objectivism.
You haven't read much of what's been thrown at anyone not in Peikoff's camp.
Many people are given the misnomer of "Kelleyites," which you seem eager to
pick up, because they contend that what Kelley and others write about IS NOT
Objectivism, period. They take Peikoff's contention and run with it: Anyone
who does not subscribe to his takes on moral judgment, the scope of error, and
the construction of Objectivism is not Objectivist, end of discussion.
Yes, David Kelley's work is mentioned by name in the charter, and given an
explicit pass (in part). I fear for the next heterodox thinker who comes
along, such as the work of a Sciabarra-type.
>You seem to think that some topics, or points of view, will be
>excluded, which really ought to be included; and they will be excluded
>because they are not related in the proper way to something Rand and/or
>Peikoff wrote.
Here, once again, you have taken up one viewpoint: For what is "part of
Objectivism," Rand's work is the initial desideratum (though even this has to
depend on whether what she says on a topic is in fact true). But whether much
of Peikoff's work is, as well, is precisely what often is in dispute.
>Well, there may end up being some hard cases like this. Give an
>example. (A *convincing* one.)
I don't have your standards at hand, Larry. What would convince you? Tell me.
>Steve, are you associated with Neo-Tech? I doubt you are. Then
>what sort of discourse, really, are you worried will be excluded?
No, dammit, and you're being absurd to bring it up. In this context, this
comes close to being a guilt-by-association tack. I *will* point out that it
was my own complaints that, in sizable part, led to removing the notion for
this group of an advance Neo-Tech blacklist of specific people. No one,
however far afield in what they say, ought to be judged for their behavior
outside of this actual forum.
But does opposing such arbitrariness mean I have any support for Neo-Tech? No.
It'd be as absurd as saying the ACLU follows Nazism for having defended the
Nazis' right to march in Skokie.
I am worried about the rough edges. About those who take Rand's framework of
concepts and find new applications to philosophical problems, or discuss
areas that need more intense thought. Or who use modes of reasoning (or of
rhetoric) that she did not use. It is easy to represent these as being too
divergent, or off topic, to a moderator who is not grounded strongly in
Objectivist thought, all strains of it.
One recent example is the storm kicked up by Aisa and others who misrepresent
Kelley's speech and monograph on benevolence as a fundamental restructuring of
Objectivist virtues, when it is no such thing, apparent to those who actually
bother to read either one. We didn't have to listen to Aisa's rants in a.p.o.
But what if he gets the ear of Skirvin in an h.p.o.m?
>>The moderator, who knows nothing -- by intention -- in detail about the
>>philosophy, will have to make endless hairsplitting about what is germane? On
>>an average of 500 posts per day? Yes, that's a hard job.
>Sure, *that* would be a hard job, but fortunately it isn't the good
>Mr. Skirvin's job. (Or at least, I hope not.)
"Sure, prescribing every detail about how businesses operate toward employees
and customers would be a hard job, but fortunately, even under the 'interstate
commerce' clause in this Constitution, it isn't the Congress's job." I just
paraphrased one of Madison's arguments in "The Federalist." He "hoped not," as
well ... did that fulfill his intentions?
The point is that the moderator has the authority to do this. If he doesn't
use it at first, those who are motivated enough will press this upon him.
That's the nature of human beings and of arbitrary, standard-less power.
Steve Reed
guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) writes:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) says:
>>tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) writes:
>>>My site is *very* well connected; we might even have faster
>>>propagation times for the branch sites.
>>I'm willing to take your word that you have a good connection. It certainly
>>will help. But David Lawrence also undoubtedly has a good connection, and
>>the response time in news.announce.newgroups is often several days long.
>>The connection speed isn't the only factor.
>I have been following the discussions here as preperation for a possible
>RFD on robomoderating soc.religion.quaker. Several very well connected
>sites have expressed a willingness to host our 'bot. I keep getting
>what could be seen as conflicting answers as to the effect on response
>time (or maybe I just don't understand the issues); is the comment above
>about slow response from a well connected site relevent to a robomoderator?
It wouldn't be as relevant to a group that relies *solely* on a robomoderator.
But that isn't true for the proposed h.p.o.m, as I've pointed out. A 'bot is
used to toss posts failing mechanical tests, or those that are crossposted.
Yet at the same time, the human moderator is empowered to judge content for
its being on-topic, something a robot can't do. Thus the aims are, in what's
written, contradictory.
>More to the point of a.p.o, wouldn't Tim set things up so that most
>messages from regular, non-abuser readers go right through with
>robomoderator speed?
So he has implied. What that does to the issue of off-topic judgment is
another matter. It turns the issue into being one of addressing the squeaky
wheels of complaints -- and that's not genuine objectivity. Either all posts
ought to be judged for topicality, with standards, or none of them.
>I have been told that, given a robomoderator or a human moderator who uses
>a 'bot to pass messages, and given a well connected site, response time will
>range from slightly slower for well connected ISPs, to much faster to ISPs
>that are out in the boondocks. I also have been told that, with a moderator
>of any kind, we will no longer see some messages not reaching some sites.
>(I will get everything that other readers of s.r.q get, or nothing).
>Comments?
That issue of response times is in Skirvin's experience, and I hope we hear
from him about it shortly.
frank forman
[subject changed from "Ten Good Reasons to Vote No on h.p.o.]
In article <jsreed.24...@interaccess.com>,
Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>Ed Matthews writes:
[cut to the germane part]
>>If there are many people who would use both (as I probably will),
>>what do you lose?
>
>This will dilute the energies of intelligent people who budget their time and
>don't want to have two running debates in two separate venues. No thank you.
Steve, you didn't get around to answering *my* post that asked this
question, but still you gave me an answer, and I think it is a good one.
Having to run debates in two places will indeed take up more time. But I
already participate in MDOP and Vixie's group, and so taking on one more
group doesn't seem like a big cost to me. The question is whether the
benefits *to me* outweigh the costs. The chief benefit is having a forum
that does not allow cross-posting. The two e-mail lists have this feature
already, of course, but they do not reach as wide an audience as a UseNet
group can.
So, everyone, let's be selfish here and list the personal advantages and
disadvantages to adding h.p.o. Then we can weight them by the
probabilites that things might not go as promised, that, say, the Pea
Coughers may ban the dissidents. And if *that* comes to pass, what is the
*personal* loss?
What is it that a bunch of ethical egoists are mostly talking about the
collective good when discussing h.p.o.?!
Michael Gillman
rg...@qb.island.net (Ron Good) wrote:
Bubba's version of Gresham Law for Usenet:
Poorly considered newsgroups drive out better ones.
The more newsgroups the harder it is for someone to find the correct
one to post or read.
corollary:
Bad posters drive out good ones.
Garbage posted by Boursey, Grubor, Aga, Jay Stevens, etc, fill groups
with nonesense and make it impossible for those serious about reading
the group to follow all the threads they wish to.
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| "Look. alt.config is where you can propose and create groups without |
| moderation, whereas news.announce.newgroups is the moderated place |
| for doing so." |
| |
| "I was off on a tangent" |
| Mike Chapman in News.groups |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
Betsy Speicher
Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
> guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) writes:
> >I have been following the discussions here as preperation for a possible
> >RFD on robomoderating soc.religion.quaker. Several very well connected
> >sites have expressed a willingness to host our 'bot. I keep getting
> >what could be seen as conflicting answers as to the effect on response
> >time (or maybe I just don't understand the issues); is the comment above
> >about slow response from a well connected site relevent to a robomoderator?
> It wouldn't be as relevant to a group that relies *solely* on a robomoderator.
> But that isn't true for the proposed h.p.o.m, as I've pointed out. A 'bot is
> used to toss posts failing mechanical tests, or those that are crossposted.
> Yet at the same time, the human moderator is empowered to judge content for
> its being on-topic, something a robot can't do. Thus the aims are, in what's
> written, contradictory.
You've got it wrong, Steve. Read what's written in the h.p.o. charter.
H.p.o. DOES rely solely on a robomoderator. Tim Skirvin's job is only to
program and maintain the robomoderator. Tim may occasionally send
e-mail to someone who is in danger of being banned for gross net abuse
and warn them to mend their ways, but he won't be reading every post and
he certainly won't be making any judgements on content.
Betsy Speicher
Ayn Rand's Ideas On Talk Radio -- The Leonard Peikoff Show
KIEV 870AM in Los Angeles Monday thru Friday at 2:30-3:30 PM
(Callers who disagree with Dr. Peikoff given preference)
Steve Reed
Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> writes:
>Steve Reed <jsr...@interaccess.com> wrote:
>>guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) writes:
>>[...] is the comment above about slow response from a well connected
>>site relevant to a robomoderator?
>>It wouldn't be as relevant to a group that relies *solely* on a
>>robomoderator. But that isn't true for the proposed h.p.o.m, as
>>I've pointed out. A 'bot is used to toss posts failing mechanical
>>tests, or those that are crossposted. Yet at the same time, the
>>human moderator is empowered to judge content for its being on-topic,
>>something a robot can't do. Thus the aims are, in what's written,
>>contradictory.
>You've got it wrong, Steve. Read what's written in the h.p.o. charter.
>H.p.o. DOES rely solely on a robomoderator. Tim Skirvin's job is only
>to program and maintain the robomoderator.
No, I don't have it wrong, Betsy. Verbatim quote, preceding the sole concrete
off-topic example of Neo-Tech: "The moderator may also cancel posts which are
offtopic for the group." Not the robomoderator -- the MODERATOR. 'Bots don't
and can't discern what is on-topic. Read this thing yourself, for once.
You've been blatantly misrepresenting what has been in all versions of
this proposal, about topical content judgments, for nearly three months. I
used to think Objectivists didn't practice the technique of the Big Lie.
>Tim may occasionally send e-mail to someone who is in danger of being
>banned for gross net abuse and warn them to mend their ways, but he
>won't be reading every post and he certainly won't be making any
>judgments on content.
No judgments of content, when he can reject messages that are "off-topic"?
Something that's so ill-defined that (except for Neo-Tech) he will create the
*definitions* of same, as well as decide what specific messages should be
tossed? Yeah, right.
If he doesn't read every post, he's defaulting on objectivity for these
judgments of topic content which he IS empowered to make. He will have to deal
with these via the "squeaky wheel" of the most frequent or the most vitriolic
complaints -- there's no other practical alternative. Skirvin has already said
he may use a "small, private mailing list," itself likely to make these
decisions even more obscure in how they're created and carried out.
You're relying on an administration of this group by the arbitrary choices of
men, not by "laws." If I ever supported such a viewpoint about any real-world
political issue, I'd instantly be flamed hairless down to my socks. How do
*you* get away with such statements?
Lee S. Bumgarner
> The biggest problem lies in its being moderated. Its proposed automatic robot
> moderator is not the sole source of control, and the CFV is contradicting
> itself. Human moderation is ill-defined, left open to burnout and abuse, and
> doesn't fit the subject of the group.
What's to stop you from pushing for a talk.philosophy.objectivism
in responce?
-l
---
----> Undertoad<---
http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/
"God is a concept / by which we measure our pain." -John Lennon
"Klaatu barada nictow"
Lee S. Bumgarner
> As with capitalism, a new newsgroup simply increases the choices for those who
> wish to use UseNet. Let the market decide.
Although some beable sucking pondscum types are trying to make
Lady Usenet a capitalist tool, it just won't set up thata way.
All Power To the Ca^H^H^oviets!
Nicholas Rich
Go for it Steve. I'll support it, and so will others. That's a competitive
intrusion, and I'd just love to see the contrived resistance to it that
springs forth from the "leaders."
Why will they resist? Because it challenges their roles as Objectivist
leaders and authorities.
Yea, a totally wide open talk.philosophy.objectivism. Good idea.
In article <4nqbos$7...@doc.jmu.edu>, bumg...@falcon.jmu.edu (Lee S.
Bumgarner) wrote:
>> The biggest problem lies in its being moderated. Its proposed automatic robot
>
>> moderator is not the sole source of control, and the CFV is contradicting
>> itself. Human moderation is ill-defined, left open to burnout and abuse, and
>> doesn't fit the subject of the group.
>
>
>What's to stop you from pushing for a talk.philosophy.objectivism
>in responce?
>
>-l
>
>---
> ----> Undertoad<---
> http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/
> "God is a concept / by which we measure our pain." -John Lennon
> "Klaatu barada nictow"
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nicholas Rich Sachs, Savage & Noble http://www.ss-n.com
nr...@ss-n.com Business Financial Consultants a...@ss-n.com
We settle and resolve problems between businesses including lawsuits
judgments, liens, payables receivables--through Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), out-of-court and always on a *results-only* basis.
Earn substantial referral fees. Or, become an affiliate and learn
how to cash in on ADR and earn a 6 figure income working from home.
http://www.ss-n.com/referral.html http://www.ss-n.com/affiliat.html
Martin Sandberg
In article <4nm0fm$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
tski...@uiuc.edu (Tim Skirvin) wrote:
> That's a non-issue for this one. Trust me on that. My site is
>*very* well connected; we might even have faster propagation times for
>the branch sites.
Again, if your site can cure the out-of-order problem (where responses
arrive before the original post does) which drives me crazy, that ALONE
would justify h.p.o.
Will this indeed be the case?
If it cures the out-of-order problem, I don't CARE how much things slow
down. Indeed, I think that a discussion of philosophy SHOULD be done with
deliberation and care.
Martin
Daniel Smith
(frank forman) writes:
[other good points snipped]
>What is it that a bunch of ethical egoists are mostly talking about the
>collective good when discussing h.p.o.?!
Excellent point. As I've stated before, individuals will make decisions
about HPOM based on personal value hierarchies. Like yourself Frank, I
subscribe to several groups; all of which serve certain purposes for me. And
while I do not presume to speak for him, someone like Steve Reed, with his
obviously advanced knowledge of Objectivism, may not see the value of having
a forum like HPOM which, imo, would serve to help neophytes like myself
integrate Objectivist principles as well as facilitate debates among advanced
proponents without the necessity of defining basic terms (which is one of the
most time consuming aspects of debating with non-Objectivists who may not be
familiar with the philosophy) and while avoiding the tedious repetition of
refuting common and obviously fallacious arguments against
realist/egoist philosophys (Of which O'vism is one).
This does not diminish the value of a forum like APO, it merely affords
people another option. It will foster a sense of greater competititon
amongst groups to attract knowledgable contributors, while allowing
other less formal groups to continue on. I believe many people who now
participate on APO, who would utilize HPOM as a forum for discussion,
would also continue to utilize APO (again, to what extent is dependent upon
value hierarchies).
I may not fully understand Steve Reed's position, but I think anyone who
values integration and advancement of knowledge, as well as learning to apply
that knowledge across a variety contexts would want yet another forum with
its own unique contextual environment. It is true that some people may
inhabit some forums because a particular forum is comfortable and only
challenges them within a limited context, but if they choose to limit
themselves intellectually in that fashion, let them -- it is their loss. It
is also true that the new HPOM forum may unfairly exclude certain
participants; if that becomes the case, rational individuals will realize the
limitations of the forum and allocate their time accordingly. This is the
reason I do not participate in several other interpersonal forums (face to
face as well as electronic).
Like my money, I value my time. I also value options insofar as where I can
spend my money...and where I can spend my time. Options are good in my book;
in the economic marketplace as well the intellectual marketplace.
I have a profound respect for Steve Reed's knowledge, but I must say that on
the HPOM issue, I disagree with him. The above represents only some of my
thoughts on this issue, but it does express the essence of my opinion.
In the interest of always trying to expand my context for understanding,
I welcome the comments of those who may disagree (or agree).
Sincerely,
Dan Smith
Steve Smolinski
Personally, I'm tired of Reed's rant.
Steve Reed (jsr...@interaccess.com) wrote:
: The point is that the moderator has the authority to do this. If he doesn't
: use it at first, those who are motivated enough will press this upon him.
: That's the nature of human beings and of arbitrary, standard-less power.
Arbitrary, standardless power, huh? What sort of power? Skirvin
is no dictator, and no one's rights are being infringed upon. The
*actual* danger of standardless power (ie, *force*) is the destruction
of human life and values by infringing on peoples' rights. Last I
heard, there was no government statute controlling the number of
Objectivist newsgroups. And Skirvin is only allowed to stop people
from destroying the valuable discussion on apo, not to enforce anyone
to discuss anything.
Through all his postings, it seems as if Reed is not interested
in voluntary association. He fears that the quality of posts will degen-
erate if hpo is created -- but so what? I fear the property values
in my neighborhood will fall if everyone moves out -- but I don't try to
keep them from moving. If he wants a certain value, he should try to
obtain it, rather than trying to destroy what others are trying to create.
Too many rationalizations, too little time.
See you on hpo, everybody!
Steve
Matt Keys
Betsy Speicher (be...@speicher.com) wrote:
: H.p.o. DOES rely solely on a robomoderator. Tim Skirvin's job is only to
: program and maintain the robomoderator. Tim may occasionally send
: e-mail to someone who is in danger of being banned for gross net abuse
: and warn them to mend their ways, but he won't be reading every post and
: he certainly won't be making any judgements on content.
there you have it folks, the E-Team has redefined
neo-tech to mean "gross net abuse". or maybe they
are just ignoring the ban on neo-tech when they say
"he won't be making any judgements on content" ?
the "moderator" probably won't be making judgements
on content, but the real moderators (The EEEE-Team), will be.
Matt.