About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

I strongly (and let me emfasize this again, strongly) disagree with these new changes. My initial reasons will be simple.

* If the Atlas Point incentive for posting to the now excluded galleries is removed, many people will simply cease to post there. I shall personally do so until the system is returned to its prior state. It is quite elementary: if the Atlas Count is supposed to signify the value of one's contributions to this forum, and the value of some contributions is no longer recognized by the new changes, they shall cease to be contributed. Rather than encouraging "quality," SOLO will have encouraged "das Nichts."
* The ex post facto decline in Atlas levels penalizes those who had earned them honestly by working under the terms of the older, fairer system.
* I suspect that personal dislikes were involved in those who influenced this decision. I am in no manner accusing the staff or owners of SOLO, but, given the nature of past occurrences on this forum, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed via multiple media. That is all I will say for now, as further deliberations on the issue are required.  

I am
G. Stolyarov II


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 5:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well,

I like the change.

First of all, I'm not all that concerned with atlas points. It is nice to know when someone appreciates your posts or articles, but the best compliment comes in the form of discourse on the subjects at hand. Getting points for articles and from agreement on what we add to the discussion is fine. But what does it all mean? The ability to post without waiting in the moderator queue is about the best thing to come from a few points; beyond that...what? Are we racing to collect adulations? If so,  getting them from other posters approvals, rather than volume of content added, would seem to be a more appropriate route. Since thats not my thing, its no big deal. The quality of the debate and thought provoking articles are what keeps me coming here.


Post 2

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 8:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey G,

You said:
* I suspect that personal dislikes were involved in those who influenced this decision. I am in no manner accusing the staff or owners of SOLO, but, given the nature of past occurrences on this forum, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed via multiple media. That is all I will say for now, as further deliberations on the issue are required.  

I say:

Just say what you mean man! stop saying things and then contradicting them in the next sentence.  You either are accusing or you are not.  You are either suspecting wrong doing or your not.  You can't suspect wrong doing and not be accusing.

Are you a lawyer, contract writer, or a politician G?

You certainly write like you are trying very carefuly to no piss someone off or as if you are paranoid that someone will get the edge on your words and try to overturn you?

For the love of Reason Guy please relax in your compositions they are stressing to read. If someones personal dislikes are involved then its the business of the owners and thanks to our love of the right of property; its none of our fraggin business.  These points aren't what make people post here, its the ideas and the discourse.  Don;t make the mistake of thinking that Fiat money has value outside of the value that those who work hard to give it value have given it.

Regards,

E.


Post 3

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Look at it this way, G.  The new rules make it harder to earn Atlas Points.  You're already up to 459 points (nice work by the way), and no one is having points taken away.  In a sense, you managed to strike when the iron was hot.  Atlas Points were an emerging market, and more than anyone else on this website you made a killing.  Kudos for that. But now profit opportunities are becoming scarcer.  Now the real cutthroat competition begins!

Post 4

Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
By the way, I hope it wasn't my "Deep Space Nine" quote that prompted this change!  ;)

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew - I think you're fantastic because you're passionately pro-life & anti-Saddamite & anti-headbanging caterwauling, & - even more unusually - unafraid to say so. In my book, *you* would have the greatest number of Atlas points by far. The system hasn't been working that way, in the sense that social metaphysicians have tumbled to how it works & have manipulated it to give themselves a huge number of points, about which they then brag like children. I don't care for that. If the changes make the system more rewarding of genuine merit, then I'm all for them. Personally, I'd just as soon see the things dumped altogether. But then the problem remains - how to give genuinely deserving contributors feedback? It's a question of praising the good for being the good, & making it easy to do so. Joe & Jeff will continue to tweak this, I'm sure.

Linz

Post 6

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 4:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr Stolyarov,

If the Atlas Point incentive for posting to the now excluded galleries is removed, many people will simply cease to post there. I shall personally do so until the system is returned to its prior state.

I for one intend to continue submitting quotes (as well as movies etc) when so inclined  - indeed I submitted a quote yesterday after the changes were bought in. Other SOLOists will judge these on their merits and sanction them if they are so inclined. Seems fair to me.

I'm not particularly bothered about the system either way, but if it is seen to be open to abuse (see Linz's post above) then it is surely right to reform the system and prevent this.

MH

(Edited by Matthew Humphreys on 4/22, 7:27am)


Post 7

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I didn't know that people were getting atlas points for merely posting quotes and news links!! This was a great decision on part of the administrators to better do away with awarding points for quantity rather than quality.

I'd even recommend earning all atlas points based on sanctions only. This is a step in the right direction for not having people who don't represent the spirit of SOLO earning points for quantity of submissions or 'politeness', rather than what they're saying.

The new features of SOLOHQ are great, and the site continues to adjust as necessary to get the quality we're looking for!

-Elizabeth


Post 8

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 9:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Mr. Perigo:

 

You wrote:  >>Personally, I'd just as soon see the [Atlas points] dumped altogether. But then the problem remains - how to give genuinely deserving contributors feedback?<<

 

Simple.  This is a message board.  If a person cares enough to reward what he believes to be good or to condemn that which he believes to be bad, he will take the time and trouble to post a message to that effect.

 

The only utility I have found in the Atlas point system is obtaining unmoderated status.  But why shouldn’t that be the judgment of Solo’s administrators instead?  And if the administrators are going to make that judgment, why not have them periodically judge the contributions of participants if they believe special notice of merit is warranted?

 

A sad fact of voting systems like this, in which little is at stake, is that they will be abused.  That is what happened yesterday.  A couple of the forum’s participants who have routinely disagreed with me used the Atlas system to greatly INCREASE my score in a perverse protest to one of my posts.  I then, for the first time, used my new-found “point power” to thank Mr. Stolyarov for his support of my participation in this forum, to reward Ethan Dawes for switching from sniping to argument, and to raise to unmonitored status two non-Objectivist participants that I regard as worthy contributors to this forum – namely Regi Firehammer and Daniel Barnes.

 

In light of these sudden shifts in several participants’ Atlas point scores, it appears that Solo’s administrators acted to minimize the impact of such large changes.  Fair enough.  I think we can agree that using the Atlas system to increase my score to in fact condemn what I have written is improper.  Using the system, as I did, to generally acknowledge the worthiness of certain participants is not improper.  However, I was on record that I did not see the value of the system, so in hindsight I should have been true to myself and continued to abstain from its use.

 

In hindsight I also recognize that I was the catalyst for yesterday’s events, which I believe constituted a genuine disruption to the smooth operation of SOLO.  I played upon what I knew were certain human weaknesses and instigated a bit of mess here.  For this I wish to apologize to Joseph, Jeff, and you.  I don’t think everyone appreciates how much work is involved to keep a website like this running smoothly, but I do.  So I sincerely regret my role in disrupting its operation.

 

As for being provocative or simply annoying in what I post, that’s another matter.  I can’t help but be right in what I write.

 

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 4/22, 1:35pm)


Post 9

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is now a good time to admit that I hadn't even *noticed* the Atlas Points system at all? :-)

I think people might be placing a wee bit too much value on the things.

Post 10

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linz: Thanks so much for the compliment, which any just man would return to you tenfold! This website you have founded is an oasis in the online desert of Objectivist-themed sites, and I believe the unique vision of Objectivism you and its cofounders have articulated represents the future of the philosophy. These growing pains will prove trivial and temporary.

As far as the Atlas Points system is concerned, I've always thought the best measure of one's contribution to a forum was his postcount. The only problem is that, on SoloHQ, many different methods of participation (including having articles published) don't add to postcount. The admins have the right idea for a way to keep the trolls at bay and encourage lively, reasoned discussion. Any system they do devise will no doubt have its strengths, weaknesses, and susceptibility to manipulation, and it's up to us to capitalize on the strengths.

And yeah, who really cares anyway? We're Objectivists for crying out loud (well, most of us), we're not supposed to be preoccupied with others' votes in favor of or against our ideas.


Post 11

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 2:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

I have undertaken some private dialogue with the administration, and I am reasonably satisfied that this decision did not have influences from the dogmatist anti-tolerationist camp. Mr. Bissell gave an interesting analogy, and I would deem it necessary to accumulate experimental evidence given this new fase of "market developments" as to how effectively they will function or parallel the actual "mature" stage in the business of a given commodity.

Mr. Tower, though I am satisfied that my third point of contention here was not in fact correct, I meant what I wrote at the time. I did not attribute any moral offense to the administration, and merely thought them mistaken for listening to the urgings of the anti-tolerationist camp. Unfortunately, I seem to have offended some very influential people here whose vision of Objectivism parallels an exclusivist club for the "initiated" (by authority, and not by reality), while I am more prone to promoting an open forum, where engagement rather than ostracism and name-calling is the norm.  That being said, I do not expect my Atlas Count to increase beyond its present state. I have already received ample non-sanctions from the anti-tolerationist camp, whose members seem to take issue with my very presence in this forum. In past times I would have been able to nullify the effects of these, but now it will be far more difficult.

Mr. Perigo wrote: "...social metaphysicians have tumbled to how it works & have manipulated it to give themselves a huge number of points, about which they then brag like children."

May I inquire as to who these "social metafysicians" are? In my knowledge, everyone here who has an exceptionally high Atlas standing is a worthy and tactful individual. I have certainly encountered no "childlike bragging."

He also wrote: "If the changes make the system more rewarding of genuine merit, then I'm all for them."

I am all for rewarding Mr. Bissell and others like him, if that is what you mean. On the other hand, do you truly consider past submissions to SOLO to have lacked "genuine merit"? And on what basis?

It may be that these comments are directed at me by implication. I would take issue with this, of course, but I do not know whether this is in fact the case. If they are, and I become aware of this, I promise not to engage is name-calling or any manner of backlash (as this would be out of character). If I am persona non grata here, and my Atlas Count seems to do nothing to alter this or persuade the management to the contrary, I will simply leave.

If not, I will remain. I will continue to partake in some of the discussions, as they are quite fascinating and provide excellent intellectual stimulation. I may submit an article or two along the way, and contact one of you privately to reprint an article I especially admire, but I do not plan to invest nearly the amount of time that I had into this organization over the past two months. I am not and will never become a card-carrying member of the behind-the-scenes Closed System Society, which will likely determine the course the Atlas System follows in the coming weeks. I am just one of those odd laymen who likes to think for himself, after all.  

For the record, I hereby withdraw the Atlas Commission for Rational Scientists, however fruitful it may have been. I will likely restructure the reward to involve a new award and public recognition from The Rational Argumentator and post it on that thread for those who are interested.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 94Atlas Count 94Atlas Count 94Atlas Count 94 


Post 12

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 3:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm scratching my head in puzzlement at all this controversy. I'm not aware of what goes on behind the scenes and, frankly, I don't care who's got a grudge about who. All I know is that I've got a resource here that's unobtainable anywhere else on the net ... and that I value it. So, please just let the dust settle — it'll all be forgotten in a month.

Paul Hibbert


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 7:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Relax, Paul - nothing here to worry about. A minor skirmish among good friends, nothing more. As I wrote of myself in "By Myself": "His fervent hope is that SOLOists will find soulmates here. His expectation is that they will find their experiences on SOLOHQ exhilarating, bruising, enlightening, infuriating, inspiring, frustrating ... and always challenging." A bit of rough & tumble on this thread, as on most others. Nothing for anyone to have a cosmic tantrum about. As for "things going on behind the scenes," that's news to me! And I for one haven't been marking anyone down or "unsanctioning" or whatever it is. :-)

Linz

PS - Andrew B: Thanks, & you're very welcome. Credit for this site belongs primarily to Jeff & Joe. It was their idea to have a "one-stop-shop" for Objectivists on the web. They were going to call it ObjectivismHQ. My SOLO site at that time was a very modest affair. Then Joe came to SOLOC 1 & was so impressed that he proposed merging our two enterprises, overlaying the key visions I had spelled out for SOLO on to the one-stop-shop - hence, SOLOHQ! :-)



Post 14

Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 8:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Hibbert,

I will try your suggestion. I hope it works. I will need to wait and see. Mr. Perigo's latest post has convinced me that SOLO's essential spirit has not been changed by the new modifications. Though my disagreement with them should remain on record, I do not find them to be an attack on me, or anything of the sort. Once again, I appreciate the work that Mr. Perigo, Mr. Rowlands, and Mr. Landauer have invested into this site.

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Atlas Count 94Atlas Count 94Atlas Count 94Atlas Count 94 



Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 4:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
NOTICE OF NEW TAX PAYMENT
Effective Immediately

TO ALL MALE SOLOISTS:

Gentlemen:

        The only way to comabt the new "Atlas Point" controversy is
through a new tax on Atlas Points based on the size of your member!
So far this has not be done by any other organisation. Mostly because
98% of the time your member is out of work and 2% of the time it is in 
a hole.  Also because it has two dependents who are nuts.

        However, beginning now, your Atlas Points will be taxed according to size. 
Please check personal size, measured in an excited state, using the chart
below to determine your category.

Please insert information in your personal description on the preferences page.

               
                  10 to 12 inches -- Luxury tax

                  8 to 10 inches -- Pole tax

                  6 to   8 inches -- Privilege tax

                  4 to   6 inches -- Nuisance tax


        Anything under 4 inches is eligible for a Atlas Points welfare allowance. 
Please do not request an extension.


                                        Sincerely yours,

                                         SOLOHQ


Post 16

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 6:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now, I'm torn! (Ouch!)

Post 17

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 1:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh my.  I laughed and laughed!

On a rare serious note, I didn't put anything in the gallery early on because it seemed a bit...ummm...pedantic to stack up a full share of those Atlas things like I'd won twenty straight hands at five card stud, when all I'd done was shimmy my narrow behind up to the table.  The only times I notice my atlas count is when I get those sun-shiny new SOLOmail deals telling me I fooled someone into sanctioning my stuff.  After the change, I just might start adding some items to the gallery...if some of our more illustrious members haven't already put everything in Creation there first. 8^P 

(Edited by Jeremy Johnson on 4/23, 1:43pm)


Post 18

Friday, April 23, 2004 - 2:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What, no thumb tax?

Post 19

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I think everyone realised the above was merely a joke.

But I hope it also highlights what unites us. Acknowledging the good for doing good, but at the same time knowing our own "self-worth".

I often wonder if "insecurity" is not one of the greatest enemies of individual liberty? It seems that the "self-esteem" message of Objectivism is often not given the attention it deserves!


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.