Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Nearly everyone here has more important things to do than cater to your many and insignificant complaints.
Please save this ridiculousness for someone who cares, which if you haven't figured out yet, is not anyone here.
E. R. Olovetto:[INSULT DELETED]
Would have liked to have seen that.
E. R. Olovetto:What do moderators do here besides erase a handful of posts per week? Many forums put rules in every section. Many revise their divisions of forums, like say opening a philosophy section. That would take all of 5 minutes?
I have run a forum for 6 years, and moderate two others. Rules are almost always posted once.
I suspect more forums are not being added because the entire community is being overhauled. There are technical considerations to porting over so many users and so much data, without needlessly complicating it to add forums on the fly once the development process has started.
It seems to me your recurring problem is that this forum is not being run to your satisfaction. What is the libertarian response to that? I think it is start your own forum where you can have a philosophy section, post rules in every forum, and you can deal with nonstop spam attacks, and members who show little respect for you as a host.
Please. Be entrepreneurial.
Ever used Twitter? I asked something to the effect of, "Why are you being completely unreasonable and uncivil?"
That's amazing that Lilburne reverses other moderator's decision on banning Rettoper, and takes about 4 days to get aban to stick on Benjamin, but just as I was about to edit my post to say, "Why are you being such a jerk?", I swiftly got a 14 day ban.
"I have run a forum for 6 years, and moderate two others. Rules are almost always posted once.
That's great. You haven't been here for when I have innocuously made rather common-sense suggestions regarding the forum and been treated similarly to how you have now. I still didn't take the suggestion of one of your fellow moderators to take things to Tucker yet. I thought I would give you guys one more chance.
You need to keep in mind regarding my complaints about forum organization that I had no clue until ~a week ago that we were getting new forum software. I guess that excuses the inaction, yet we're probably going to wait for another 3 months to have working software. I mean, what else can we do but guess since you offer no information.
I suspect more forums are not being added because the entire community is being overhauled. There are technical considerations to porting over so many users and so much data, without needlessly complicating it to add forums on the fly once the development process has started."
I was originally questioning Lilburne's effort, but you have spent roughly how many hours on this? Zero?
"and you can deal with nonstop spam attacks"
Like I said, you guys delete less than 12 posts per week I'm guessing. Moderators taking credit for the technical barriers the programmers put up to counter spam is kinda like Obama taking credit for military victories.
"That's amazing that Lilburne reverses other moderator's decision on banning Rettoper, and takes about 4 days to get aban to stick on Benjamin, but just as I was about to edit my post to say, "Why are you being such a jerk?", I swiftly got a 14 day ban."
And it hasn't been 14 days, has it? I didn't ban you, and I was the one who had your ban drastically shortened, in spite of you calling a mod a "twat", and altogether adding more unpleasantness to this community than just about any other single member, so don't give me grief.
Are we going to have this debate, or not?
"That's great. You haven't been here for when I have innocuously made rather common-sense suggestions regarding the forum and been treated similarly to how you have now. I still didn't take the suggestion of one of your fellow moderators to take things to Tucker yet. I thought I would give you guys one more chance."
What part of "we are migrating to a completely different platform very soon, so it doesn't make sense to be making changes that aren't absolutely necessary" don't you understand?
By the way, I've already notified Jeff about your "innocuous suggestions" and general behavior. But if you want to share more of you "innocuousness" with him, go right ahead. We don't particularly need your "one more chance", so why wait? Do it now.
E. R. Olovetto:You need to keep in mind regarding my complaints about forum organization that I had no clue until ~a week ago that we were getting new forum software. I guess that excuses the inaction, yet we're probably going to wait for another 3 months to have working software.
There are many things you do not have a clue about, yet you persist to cry like a child and demand attention from people who are trying to improve the situation. As mentioned, your behavior is embarrassing.
E. R. Olovetto:That's great. You haven't been here for when I have innocuously made rather common-sense suggestions regarding the forum and been treated similarly to how you have now. I still didn't take the suggestion of one of your fellow moderators to take things to Tucker yet. I thought I would give you guys one more chance.
The reason why you are advised to take this to Jeffrey is so that you finally get that the community is not being run counter to how he hopes it would be run. No one is afraid of you going to Jeffrey, and no one is worried about second chances. That is an empty threat. So please act on it and lets get past this perception that your sense of entitlement is validated by the belief Lilburne or other mods are behaving in a rogue manner, because as you will find out, that is simply not so.
E. R. Olovetto:I was originally questioning Lilburne's effort, but you have spent roughly how many hours on this? Zero?
What relevance does that have to do with anything? Are you on the community mailing list? Have you seen the staging site? Have you offered your technical expertise or advice? If not, then don't talk to me about my involvement or effort. I have volunteered hundreds of hours of my time to this community to deal with all sorts of issues. What have you contributed?
E. R. Olovetto:Like I said, you guys delete less than 12 posts per week I'm guessing.
You're guessing? Based on what? I know guys like Danny and Nir have spent hours each week over the last year doing admin and mod work, not to mention anything Lilburne or I have done. Who are you to even try to imagine what is done by others to provide you with the experience you currently enjoy, and are working to provide a better experience in the future?
E. R. Olovetto:Moderators taking credit for the technical barriers the programmers put up to counter spam is kinda like Obama taking credit for military victories.
Again, you're speaking from ignorance. There are no technical barriers the programmers have put up to counter spam. Nearly all spam fighting on this community has to be done daily, by several people, and it is all manual work. People like Nir and I have had to go so far as to create our own software solutions to clean up massive spam attacks. Again, volunteers, working their ass off to create an environment where you can cry and whine about every little thing which does not please you.
Now your ignorance and guesswork has been laid out for what it is. Will you show some sense of humility and act with dignity after this? Are you capable of being a big man and admitting you have been acting like a fool, and causing distress where none was warranted, eroding morale and resources in order to promote an ignorant view fueled by emotional outbursts?
Or will you walk the walk behind your complaints and dismissal of the work it takes to run a community, particularly one in this circumstance, and start your own? Are you going to do the libertarian thing and compete, or will you do the statist thing and threaten to report people and demand services which you are not entitled to?
The choice is yours. Everyone is watching.
I was about to change my first sentence to, "Why are you being such a jerk?", roughly 5 minutes after I first posted. As I went to do so, I saw my first sentence changed to [Insult deleted] and the edit notes saying edited by Lilburne. But it was someone else who decided on 14 days? Who? You think that I am going to thank you for supposedly reducing my ban? 3 days is still unjust.
What is wrong with asking why rules are not posted in every forum? Most forums (that aren't just like every armpit of the internet) either have a sticky in each forum or has something at the top of every page that says "Rules". If your new policy is to move member issues to it's own "group" PUT THIS POLICY IN YOUR RULES. What is so hard about that? Tell people where this "member issues forum" is when you edit people's posts.
I find it somewhat unpleasant that you think people like Rettoper make valuable contributions to the forum. You can keep the people who call libertarians "faith-based jihadists", and I will find something better to do with my time.
What part of the quote button has been broken for 3 months and nobody had any clue that any software transition was happening until like a week ago do you not understand? Until you happened to claim this was happening (again we have no clue when it might happen) all I was led to believe was that nothing was going to be done to improve these fora ever.
"I saw my first sentence changed to [Insult deleted] and the edit notes saying edited by Lilburne. But it was someone else who decided on 14 days?"
Yes I deleted your insult. But I repeat: I did not ban you.
You didn't answer my question. Are you and I going to have a debate over argumentation ethics or not?
E. R. Olovetto:What part of the quote button has been broken for 3 months and nobody had any clue that any software transition was happening until like a week ago do you not understand? Until you happened to claim this was happening (again we have no clue when it might happen) all I was led to believe was that nothing was going to be done to improve these fora ever.
Did it ever occur to you that your own ignorance is not everyone else's problem? That you're not a stakeholder, and no one is obligated to inform you of everything they do? Or how your antisocial behavior isolates you from becoming one of those people who will be informed of what is going on?
That you think what you wrote is a refutation is laughable. I can dash it against the rocks in a single sentence, but I decided to make it worth my time by andvancing theory and started writing out a lengthy post. I'll try to finish it and stop arguing this topic for a while, as soon as you admit making one mistake ever related to your handling of the fora.
"That you think what you wrote is a refutation is laughable. I can dash it against the rocks in a single sentence, but I decided to make it worth my time by andvancing theory and started writing out a lengthy post. I'll try to finish it and stop arguing this topic for a while, as soon as you admit making one mistake ever related to your handling of the fora."
I've had to make a lot of decisions, and I'm human: so of course I've made MORE than one mistake related to my handling of the forum. In fact I might be making one right now, in letting someone as caustic and insulting as you continue to poison the atmosphere.
So, now let's drop this, and start the debate.
Why are you dodging this debate ERO?
Is that what all of these attacks on the moderators and forums are about? Drawing attention away from an argument you know you cannot win?
Try reading what I wrote again. There was a condition to me continuing work on that which was not fulfilled. You've ignored numerous things I wrote, such as in the Israel thread where you shifted the conversation to some supposedly uncivil remark I made which you didn't understand. The debate will come. I wanted to give it a full treatment but didn't work on the post for the last few days.
Such as what specifically?
Actually, this moderator seemed to have some issue with the ban of Rettoper being reversed. Several people have talked to me about this problem of coddling trolls.
What relevance does that have to do with anything? Are you on the community mailing list?
I'm not sure what the "community mailing list" is or how to get to this staging site. Would that be something worthy of adding to the rules for people who care about the fora to follow? No, we'll just complain that you didn't know about it if you ever question our perfect behavior.
Have you seen the staging site? Have you offered your technical expertise or advice? If not, then don't talk to me about my involvement or effort. I have volunteered hundreds of hours of my time to this community to deal with all sorts of issues. What have you contributed?
I directed people to the demo site of the WYSIWYG editor we happen to use as a workaround for the broken forums, when both the editor and quote button died. There was multiple threads on this (could have been put to a sticky). I'm not sure if me linking to the editor led to it being used. I checked the mises dev group a few days ago and all I saw related to the fora was something weeks ago about not having time to fix the editor. I saw nothing about moving to new forum software, so I'm skeptical what, if anything, has been done on it.
I helped report bugs when the MP3 player on the A/V section was broken. You guys do not enforce your own rules about repeat topics. I remember one day seeing 3 topics about nukes when I had just written a huge response on the same subject in another thread. As soon as people's fallacious arguments are defused, the same ones just pop up in new threads. Regardless of how worthless my "anti-social" contributions you say are, I've had people in PM tell me to "keep up the good fight" and thank me for my contributions. So, I could care less if you continue to scapegoat me for your own inefficiacy.
I see only a handful of posts trying to sell battery powered handheld fans from China or whatever per week. Are you saying that you manually delete all these quicker than somebody like me, who often refreshes the fora list every few minutes sees? You just may, but how many is that per week divided by 5 or so active moderators? If this takes up too much of your time that you couldn't do a few of the very commonsense suggestions I and others have made, then maybe you need more moderators.
I'm not saying that you guys put no effort. I've seen LS help with HTML/PHP or something related stuff long ago, but haven't seen him around for months. It's just very curious that simple improvements, such as to forum structure or rules, can't be accomplished and time is spent instead "debating" Rettoper. Now I know that we are getting new forum software, so it makes this complaint of mine irrelevant. There is still the problem, and this isn't just me that has this issue, with you keeping trolls around as we move forward. I don't feel like respnding to all of this nonsense. It remind me of trying to reason with cops. Ciao.
E. R. Olovetto:Actually, this moderator seemed to have some issue with the ban of Rettoper being reversed. Several people have talked to me about this problem of coddling trolls.
The problem isn't trolls, it is the lack of emotional maturity of some people on the forum not to take the flame bait, and to invest all of their time trying to get someone banned. This is consistent with your making threats about escalating complaints to Jeffrey. Instead of dealing with things socially, by being an adult, you make demands and threaten action if you don't like how things are going. It is childish. This forum is here to facilitate debate, and while there may be some people who come here looking to get people riled up, you can demonstrate leadership and poise by ignoring them until they go away or using them as examples to demonstrate sound argumentation.
This is back to the acting like a libertarian bit. Things are not going to be perfect in a libertarian society, and how we deal with things when they don't go our way is what separates us from statists. You don't own this forum. You have no property rights in it. If you want to effect change, you will have to do it the way all property rights have been modified in a libertarian manner throughout history. You will have to negotiate and exchange. You will have to choose the social means over the statist means.
E. R. Olovetto:Would that be something worthy of adding to the rules for people who care about the fora to follow?
If you are referring to yourself, then you're mistaken. Your complaining and aggressive/insulting behavior is not indicative of someone who cares. It is someone who doesn't care.
E. R. Olovetto:Regardless of how worthless my "anti-social" contributions you say are, I've had people in PM tell me to "keep up the good fight" and thank me for my contributions. So, I could care less if you continue to scapegoat me for your own inefficiacy.
How long ago were you actually trying to help people? When was the last time you tried to make this place better by acting socially?
As far as claiming I am scapegoating, that's a coward's tactic. I am not responsible for dev. Lilburne is not responsible for dev. So your constant whining about forum bugs, and the development timeline is directed at the wrong people. Like I said, "there are many things you do not have a clue about". What is going on is just the start.
And I will say something about people who support you in "fighting" on the forum, against the forum. They aren't pulling for the betterment of conditions or the reach and quality of the community either. You're deluded if you think a cheering section somehow validates your behavior.
E. R. Olovetto:I see only a handful of posts trying to sell battery powered handheld fans from China or whatever per week.
And what you see is the extent of reality? In your incredible arrogance, has it every occurred to you that you don't see everything that is going on, and you don't know what work is really involved? Because that is much closer to the truth.
E. R. Olovetto:If this takes up too much of your time that you couldn't do a few of the very commonsense suggestions I and others have made, then maybe you need more moderators.
Maybe there could be more moderators. At one time, there were nearly 20 and only one who fought spam. Me. The problem isn't more mods, the problem is the platform. What few mods there are, get completely burnt out dealing with arrogant and aggressive people like you, who have entitlement complexes. You undermine morale with your relentless complaining, and you demand 99% of the moderators attention, and then you complain that the moderators don't do enough, and there is all sorts of improvements that should be made. It would be funny if it wasn't so damn sad.
Think about how many man hours Lilburne has wasted dealing with issues caused by you. This group is a result largely of your behavior. Your banning, your unbanning, having to create formal debates with you, starting a debate with rettopper in order to demonstrate how an adult can have an argument with someone, without resorting to your thuggish behavior on the forum.
Think about that when you finally back up your threats and contact Jeffrey and waste his time working for LvMI and advancing the cause, to hear all about your petty complaints about forum trolls and where the rules are posted. Think about that. Think about who is really the impediment to progress around here.
E. R. Olovetto:As soon as people's fallacious arguments are defused, the same ones just pop up in new threads.
Then act like an adult, and don't reply. If there are three threads on nukes, there are three threads on nukes. It isn't the end of the world. If the rules aren't updated to your satisfaction, it isn't the end of the world. If the quote button doesn't work, and that is really inconvenient for sure, then that isn't the end of the world. For the love of pete, LvMI is not under assault by the Jacob Blooms and Rettoppers of the world. It is laughable you give them that much credit.
E. R. Olovetto:It's just very curious that simple improvements, such as to forum structure or rules, can't be accomplished and time is spent instead "debating" Rettoper.
Because you did not approve of it, you judge it to be a waste of time. The fact of the matter is, since you couldn't display the leadership and character to debate rettopper in good faith, Lilburne had to step in and show everyone how it is done. And I saw more than one person remark that it was a very good job and more discussions should be like that, and yet strange enough, the emotionally handicapped troll police missed the entire point of the exercise.
E. R. Olovetto:Now I know that we are getting new forum software, so it makes this complaint of mine irrelevant.
As I said at the top of this thread, all of your complaints I have seen are irrelevant. It is just crying by someone who cannot get his way, and so instead seeks to ruin it for everyone by demanding attention, even if he has to go so far as to insult the very people he claims to be helping.
E. R. Olovetto:There is still the problem, and this isn't just me that has this issue, with you keeping trolls around as we move forward.
The policy is that people are not removed for their opinions, even if they differ with yours. And it is not possible to prove intent (dishonest argumentation) so all you can do is ignore them if you find them incorrigible. Your inability to exercise this much self-control is your failing, not the failure of the policy of the forum. You children have blown up a few annoying characters much larger than they deserved to be, and then when it was out of control, you want the forum mods to save you from yourself by banning the people you can't resist flaming.
E. R. Olovetto: I don't feel like respnding to all of this nonsense.
And yet you do, and you will. Because you refuse to admit you have made a mistake, and you refuse to try to make things better by being the bigger man. It is a miracle that Lilburne has the patience I do not, and is still willing to debate you after you have been so insulting and disrespectful to him, and he has not treated you that way in kind. That's what character is about. And leadership is only possible with character. Perhaps all of this arguing will not be lost if you can learn that one simple lesson.
Strawman. The unnamed mod I am referring to is still unhappy, AFAIK with Lilburne coddling trolls. Wow long post, sorry you wasted your time on something I doubt I will read. My issue is with Lilburne more than you. I always thought you had a rather solid grasp on theory and looked at you as an ally. As much as you are embarrassed by my dissent, I'm embarrassed that you are defending him.
E. R. Olovetto:Strawman. The unnamed mod I am referring to is still unhappy, AFAIK with Lilburne coddling trolls.
Everyone knows who the unnamed mod is. Talking about people behind their back and undermining Lilburne by complaining to you shows his lack of character, which is why he is not a leader. If he was genuinely upset, he could go to Jeffrey about it. But then, I suspect he knows how that will go, and it won't be in his favor. So instead, he, like you seeks to wage an insurgency against people who already have limited resources trying to do the job that he has signed up for but won't carry through on. That was precisely the behavior by another former mod which contributed to me leaving here last time.
E. R. Olovetto:Wow long post, sorry you wasted your time on something I doubt I will read.
You will read it for the same reason you can't stop yourself from flaming trolls. But I didn't write it just for you. I wrote it to eviscerate your nonsense for everyone else who wonders exactly what is behind your incessant complaining and generally poor attitude.
E. R. Olovetto:My issue is with Lilburne more than you.
Your issue is that you are impotent and you are taking it out on others. You are impotent (like the unnamed mod) to take action, and you're also impotent to make a change to improve conditions with your own initiative. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to be so wound up, and have no idea how to resolve the conflict except to keep being miserable and attacking people.
E. R. Olovetto:I always thought you had a rather solid grasp on theory and looked at you as an ally. As much as you are embarrassed by my dissent, I'm embarrassed that you are defending him.
Theory is just nonsense used as a shield to behave badly by people who want to ban trolls and repost the rules, but won't respect the authority of the mods, or keep discussion civil, both of which are also in the rules.
I was never your ally, in that some people talk about libertarianism a lot, and some people try to live it. I don't think you are one of those people who actually tries to live what you talk about. You talk a lot on the internet. But even your internet actions are not the behavior of a scholar or a voluntarist. You try to bully and harass instead of exchange and cooperate. And that's what is so embarrassing. That someone who has such a great grasp of "theory" is completely inadequate to aid libertarianism socially.
As far as defending Lilburne, I don't need to. I just dislike bullies and forum trolls. Lilburne has the only endorsements around here which matter. Front office management.
If you have a problem, take it to the front office. You are completely impotent to effect change by confronting him directly in the antisocial manner you have chosen and everyone knows it. And by now, you should know it and acknowledge it too.
Way to assume things, dude. I guess I could just start posting from the IP address at my other home and learn my lesson of questioning the infallibility of LvMI moderators. BTW is Mr. Tucker really aware of this Methodenstreit? What you are writing is rather astounding to me. I paid $50 to join the institute so I somewhat feel like a customer. I'm not sure if you get this. Maybe you need to brush up on your economics.
E. R. Olovetto:Way to assume things, dude.
I don't have to assume anything. I am pointing out your behavior for what it is.
E. R. Olovetto:I guess I could just start posting from the IP address at my other home and learn my lesson of questioning the infallibility of LvMI moderators.
Indeed, why change your behavior and act like a grownup, when you can just change IP addresses and keep being a constant source of disruption? After all, you only do this for the good of LvMI right?
This is the sort of emotional immaturity I am talking about. You can't even acknowledge that you're (1) powerless to change things by acting this way, and (2) that you don't have the self control to stop acting this way.
E. R. Olovetto:BTW is Mr. Tucker really aware of this Methodenstreit?
I imagine Jeffrey is aware of all of these posts. If you are in doubt, feel free to contact him about them. I don't think I or Lilburne have written anything we are ashamed of Jeffrey seeing. On the contrary, I am tempted to ask him to look this over myself if Lilburne has not already done so.
E. R. Olovetto:What you are writing is rather astounding to me. I paid $50 to join the institute so I somewhat feel like a customer. I'm not sure if you get this. Maybe you need to brush up on your economics.
Ah yes, the last refuge of a scoundrel, "I paid so I can abuse the staff and disregard the rules I don't like."
You claim I need to learn about economics, but I am not one who is confusing a $50 membership with an ownership or management stake. If you are unsure what the $50 bought you, you can contact the front desk tomorrow and ask. But I am pretty sure, it's not a free pass on acting outside the conventions and standards of the Institute, as laid down by its officers and agents, nor does it entitle you a "vote" in how the Institute is run.
Have you been following the forums at all before you reemerged a week ago? I first began to be upset about how the forums were run because of trolls not being banned. For instance, Jackson LaRose would continually lie about Hoppe being a bigot and monarchist. Then we have the guy with 5,000 posts and at least 1,000 of them are appeals to authority, the "libertarian" who thinks it is "libertarian" for parents to rape or murder their children on a whim, the guy who supposedly reads a dense book per day and now calls me a "habitual non-reader" because one day I didn't go get some $45 Bruno Leoni book in an hour or two of him citing it, that had absolutely nothing to do with my argument against IP which he couldn't refute.
Then there is the Jew who thinks that Hitler's policies were just a "technical performance of the law" and fully supports such policies as long as his people are on the winning side. There's the posters like Benjamin who continually crop up, pretend to support laissez faire, but eventually get exposed for the violent anti-capitalists they are. I don't care what you guys say, your actions show that you value this sort of content from these members more than what I add. Really it is quite amazing how I am being treated.
You seemed to have missed all these threads months ago where I nicely made suggestions to improve the forums. Questioning what you guys spend your time doing is a result of none of those being addressed. There is more to being a good moderator than slapping people on the wrist who say naughty words. The whole community is served when people who are just here to cause problems are removed.
I was responding to what you originally said:
"I was never your ally, in that some people talk about libertarianism a lot, and some people try to live it. I don't think you are one of those people who actually tries to live what you talk about."
Like I said, way to assume what I do besides posting on these fora. You know how I live? Really? I'm curious what you feel you do to "live libertarian". I'm willing to bet that I saved people more in taxes (legitimately) last year than you earn in 10 years, if that counts for anything.
Everyone knows who the unnamed mod is. Talking about people behind their back...
Really? I don't even remember which one it was offhand. I really doubt that anyone outside of the circle of moderators knows who we are talking about. I'm not even sure you know who I am talking about. Maybe you should say who this is.
Cite me "flaming" trolls? This is the first time I ever got the honorific [Insult deleted]. Are you calling yourself a troll?
I think Lilburne confuses "civility" with being a carebear. If their own position logically results in them advocating Hitleresque policies, or I expose their anti-capitalist mentality, what is uncivil about pointing out the truth?
The point of my comment is that maybe I should just make a new account because it seems like no matter what I do you guys are going to keep treating me like crap. I've been told that when we get a "scoundrel" like Rettoper to just talk past him to the crowd. I think you underestimate how much people buy the lies of dedicated anti-libertarians like scineram. Here's the PM from an unnamed member I got months ago:
When I first joined this forum, I thought _____ was a genius. After reading many discussions and participating in a bunch over this past 6+ months or so, I've come to realize that _____ is an unoriginal agitator. (that's a nice way of saying clueless troll) I've learned plenty from what I've been reading, and also from what you and many others have been saying and discussing on this forum. Keep it up. :)
When I first joined this forum, I thought _____ was a genius. After reading many discussions and participating in a bunch over this past 6+ months or so, I've come to realize that _____ is an unoriginal agitator. (that's a nice way of saying clueless troll)
I've learned plenty from what I've been reading, and also from what you and many others have been saying and discussing on this forum. Keep it up. :)
Like I said, all you seem to be able to do is scapegoat me as the reason you guys don't update your own rules or follow them. You're right, there is a rule to not question the actions of moderators. I am going to try to resist responding to your next set of bombastic lies because I am afraid that you will arbitrarily start enforcing this to squelch dissent. Contrary to your claim, I was not involved with the thread that led to this "forum" being created. It's pretty clear that, contrary to Lilburne's claim, moderators will not justify their actions. Any genuine sentiment to do so would result in admitting to errors, which it it is obvious that you guys are unable to do.
Ah yes, the last refuge of a scoundrel, "I paid so I can abuse the staff and disregard the rules I don't like." You claim I need to learn about economics, but I am not one who is confusing a $50 membership with an ownership or management stake. If you are unsure what the $50 bought you, you can contact the front desk tomorrow and ask. But I am pretty sure, it's not a free pass on acting outside the conventions and standards of the Institute, as laid down by its officers and agents, nor does it entitle you a "vote" in how the Institute is run.
So much for the sovereignty of the consumer Mises talked about huh.
E. R. Olovetto:So much for the sovereignty of the consumer Mises talked about huh.
I can't tell if you are kidding or not. Surely you understand that your sovereignty is to take your money, time and attention, and go elsewhere, or to compete if you do not approve of how LvMI is operating. It doesn't mean that you get to exercise property rights over LvMI, when you never contracted for those property rights in the first place. This is the sort of argumentation a statist would make, declaring businesses public goods, and thus unable to discriminate against certain types of customers. You're claiming the same sort of overreach of authority.
What next, the diner can change the menu and fire the busboy because he ordered an entree with soup and salad?
I'll reply to your long post shortly.
Strawman. I made no such claims. I expressed my dissatisfaction with this aspect of your "good", but am generally happy about other aspects. I love LvMI and its scholars. You told me to go to hell. It's all very clear now. Whatevs.
E. R. Olovetto:Have you been following the forums at all before you reemerged a week ago?
Yes, I have been reading the forums for the last 3 months.
E. R. Olovetto:I first began to be upset about how the forums were run because of trolls not being banned. For instance, Jackson LaRose would continually lie about Hoppe being a bigot and monarchist. Then we have the guy with 5,000 posts and at least 1,000 of them are appeals to authority, the "libertarian" who thinks it is "libertarian" for parents to rape or murder their children on a whim, the guy who supposedly reads a dense book per day and now calls me a "habitual non-reader" because one day I didn't go get some $45 Bruno Leoni book in an hour or two of him citing it, that had absolutely nothing to do with my argument against IP which he couldn't refute.
I seem to remember you telling Spidey you would contact his wife offline for his comments here? Is that right? If that is right, do you realize how sociopathic that sort of behavior is? Stalking someone off the forum and interfering with their family? Do you even realize how far from what is considered normal social behavior that is, that you felt the need to consult a lawyer about harassing someone online?
I don't know how to break this to you, but it seems to be pretty consistent with the so-called ancap fundamentalists, but "internet is not serious business". This is just a discussion forum. There are going to be people who you disagree with. There are going to be people who say outlandish things. This isn't the place to wage a pogrom on wrong thinkers etc. At the end of the day, it's a bunch of people killing time, talking about libertarian ideas. Nothing more, nothing less. It's not a battle for civilization. If you don't like how the forum is run, you can find other forums without these characters (good luck, recipe for entropy) or you can start your own. But to expect the Mises forum to solve problems that plague all public forums and discussion groups since the beginning of, and possibly until the end of time, is unrealistic.
E. R. Olovetto:Really it is quite amazing how I am being treated.
Exactly, because you are a "right thinker" that means that you are absolutely unaccountable for your own behavior. You can validate how you behave, by blaming everyone else.
E. R. Olovetto:I don't care what you guys say, your actions show that you value this sort of content from these members more than what I add.
What you add is valued on its own merits by different individuals. You're not entitled to be valued any particular way, and as a libertarian, you know this. Seriously, this is like the "I paid $50 for a membership" stuff. It is embarassing.
Also, I resent the "you guys". Remember, Lilburne is running the forum with the endorsement of the front office. Your criticisms of him, are criticisms of them. You're welcome to write to Doug and Jeffrey and tell them that you don't like how their community (not yours) is being run. But to take out on Lilburne, for what is the very same commenting policy allowed on the Mises Blog, is completely ridiculous and unfair.
E. R. Olovetto:You seemed to have missed all these threads months ago where I nicely made suggestions to improve the forums.
And because you didn't get your way, that means you are entitled to be aggressive and insulting?
E. R. Olovetto:Questioning what you guys spend your time doing is a result of none of those being addressed.
The moderators here are unpaid volunteers. Good luck demanding accountability for their time as though you were their employer.
E. R. Olovetto:There is more to being a good moderator than slapping people on the wrist who say naughty words.
In fact, the purpose of a moderator is to moderate, not to discriminate. I have explained this to you up thread. You will have to deal with the fact that not everyone is going to acknowledge your greatness, and people who disagree with you, and act as childish, if not more childish than you will be members of this forum. Your inability to socialize with anyone who does not conform precisely to your expectations is your character flaw, and not a flaw with the liberal participation policies of LvMI itself.
E. R. Olovetto:The whole community is served when people who are just here to cause problems are removed.
No, you are served because you unable to articulate an argument without become vicious and frustrated. Your argumentation and rhetorical skills (as demonstrated in this thread) are wanting, and the failure to control who you talk to, and how big you blow the conversations up, are entirely on you.
E. R. Olovetto:I really doubt that anyone outside of the circle of moderators knows who we are talking about. I'm not even sure you know who I am talking about. Maybe you should say who this is.
You say who it is. You outed him in this discussion as some very weak appeal to his authority. However much a cowardly "unnamed moderator" who PMs behind people's back can be. And believe me, he undermined me when I was here, just as he undermines Lilburne. This is because he, like you, has very poor social skills, and cannot function effectively in a group unless he (like you again) gets his way. The shame for him his, it's no secret and he's only hurting his own opportunities with this group of people down the line, by displaying this sort of immaturity and lack of good judgment.
E. R. Olovetto:I think Lilburne confuses "civility" with being a carebear.
Even if that was so, it is his prerogative. He is in charge. You are not.
E. R. Olovetto:The point of my comment is that maybe I should just make a new account because it seems like no matter what I do you guys are going to keep treating me like crap.
If you think you have been treated like crap, what do you have to say about the way you have treated Lilburne? Don't try to claim the high ground or victimhood in this situation, you deserve neither.
E. R. Olovetto:I've been told that when we get a "scoundrel" like Rettoper to just talk past him to the crowd. I think you underestimate how much people buy the lies of dedicated anti-libertarians like scineram.
So maybe they buy into lies? Do you really think you have the power and the authority to control what people think? Do you really think that removing opinions you disagree with, is superior to proving them fallacious in a respectful debate? Again, this is the internet, and this is one of thosands of discussion forums. It is NOT serious business.
Trying to get people banned or silenced conveys desperation to those people who would learn from you and still doesn't refute their positions. I really don't get it, because if you want to refute their ideas, you have to address those ideas, not banish them from being able to speak.
E. R. Olovetto:Here's the PM from an unnamed member I got months ago: When I first joined this forum, I thought _____ was a genius. After reading many discussions and participating in a bunch over this past 6+ months or so, I've come to realize that _____ is an unoriginal agitator. (that's a nice way of saying clueless troll) I've learned plenty from what I've been reading, and also from what you and many others have been saying and discussing on this forum. Keep it up. :)
I don't know what purpose posting this has. You're hiding the name, you're hiding the person he is addressing, and even if a "moderator" thinks or says this, it doesn't make it any more right or wrong. All it does, is show that he is dishonest by remaining a moderator on a staff team he has no intention of fulfilling the goals of. But then, anyone who would do this sort of thing is already self-defeating socially, just as your mainy complaints and insults are. You and he will not get your way, and the only shot you have is to appeal to Jeffery, but neither of you will do that, because then you will be at a crossroads, where you have to either accept how things are, or move on. And acceptance doesn't come easy when you have backed yourself into a corner ideologically.
The toughest part of being a moderator and/or admin on this community, is that everyone thinks everyone else is a troll. That trolls becomes an excuse for trolling. That the people who complain the most, are the least likely to take the initiative to make a change, be it contact the front office, or to start their own community. But that is the way with all complainers. I have said it many times before, petitioning is not libertarian, competing is. And these threads, the open conflicts on the forum, the backstabbing PMs, are all signs of people doing their damndest not to take a risk with their own time and property. It is the statist mentality, that the unnamed mod has, when he thinks a moderator team should be run by democracy. When he (and you) refuse to acknowledge the authority Lilburne has as an agent of LvMI.
E. R. Olovetto:Like I said, all you seem to be able to do is scapegoat me as the reason you guys don't update your own rules or follow them.
Again, the victim card is lame. The only way one could conceive of you as a victim here, is some self inflicted condition where you have created an expectation that was never going to be met.
E. R. Olovetto:You're right, there is a rule to not question the actions of moderators.
There is also a rule about being civil in debate. You have violated that one many times. This is the hypocrisy I keep talking about. You claim the mods are failing you and the rules, and yet you cannot follow the rules yourself. It's ridiculous.
E. R. Olovetto:I am going to try to resist responding to your next set of bombastic lies because I am afraid that you will arbitrarily start enforcing this to squelch dissent.
Ah yes, more playing the victim. No one is squelching dissent, even the coward moderator is still a moderator, despite the fact he is sabotaging himself by acting against the interests of LvMI. You see, the tolerance for those people you do not like, has also been extended to you. Of course, you think you are completely righteous and beyond accountability so it's no surpise you cannot recognize the leeway which you have been allowed.
E. R. Olovetto:Contrary to your claim, I was not involved with the thread that led to this "forum" being created.
Your behavior, and the encouragement of you, and the cowardly moderator helped to create an atmosphere where the main forum was toxic, and not indiciative of the best that LvMI and Austro-Libertarians have to offer.
E. R. Olovetto:It's pretty clear that, contrary to Lilburne's claim, moderators will not justify their actions.
They do not have to. You are not entitled to that from anyone. Get over that sense of entitlement. It's lead you down the wrong path to a dead end, where your expectations will never be met.
As far as I know, the only persons Lilburne has to answer to are Doug and Jeffrey, not you or the coward unnamed mod.
E. R. Olovetto:Any genuine sentiment to do so would result in admitting to errors, which it it is obvious that you guys are unable to do.
Lilburne admitting a mistake and made an apology in your other recent drama thread. He has done so numerous times on this forum. You on the other hand, despite being exposed as being ignorant with your criticism and hostile in violation of the very rules you claim to care so much about, have never offered an apology to Lilburne for your poor behavior.
E. R. Olovetto:Strawman. I made no such claims.
Sure you have. You brought up consumer sovereignty. What sovereignty did you feel you were being denied? Who is preventing you from acting in a sovereign manner?
You were also the one who told me you "feel" like a customer because you bought a $50 membership. What do you "feel" a customer is entitled to that you are not getting?
E. R. Olovetto: I expressed my dissatisfaction with this aspect of your "good", but am generally happy about other aspects.
It is not "my good". I am a volunteer. It is Jeffrey and Doug's good, as they run LvMI and are its agents. If you really want to express your dissatisfaction in a manner that is productive, instead of disruptive, then contact them.
The way I see it, this is about attacking Lilburne for being an admin, because you won't debate him straight up on the community and defend the very ideological positions you want others banned for disagreeing with you. So this is a way to attack him without having to defend your own positions. Similar to Wilderness deciding to leave the forum recently. No one was mean or cruel to him, but he took every disagreement with his position, as a personal attack (which they clearly were not) and then claimed to leave due to all the abuse he was (not) getting. When I left the forum, Wilderness tried this same approach you are using. We didn't agree ideologically, and it had become bitter, so he decided to play the "LS is abusing his authority, LS is a bad moderator/admin" card along with another disgruntled moderator. The situations are almost parallel, but I have had 5 months of thinking about it, and it seems pretty clear to me.
Because I have a life outside this forum, I don't need to talk to lawyers and threaten harassment of people's families when debates get too intense. I don't have to spend hours each day complaining to no one in particular about how the forum is stacked against me. I don't have to write good bye notes on my forum profile, wishing ill on others. I don't have to be a bitter person, and I am not. But for some reason, you guys have the time and energy to treat this stuff without any perspective on the bigger picture. The obsession with the politics of the MVP tag, or the secret PMs of cowardly moderators. It's neurotic and paranoid at best, potentially dangerous if it continues gaining intensity.
E. R. Olovetto:I love LvMI and its scholars.
You certainly don't show its agents that love. You certainly don't act with dignity and thoughtfulness when dealing with people on the LvMI forums. It is easy to talk about something, it is much harder to live it. Personally, I am interested in libertarians who walk the walk, not who have read everything Block, Hoppe and Rothbard have written but can't behave in a manner which would make any of them proud.
E. R. Olovetto:You told me to go to hell. It's all very clear now. Whatevs.
No one is buying the victim bit.
This is the same error as in Lilburne's first post in this group. It isn't about the difference in opinions, it is about people habitually lying and employing fallacies. The other issue is non-enforcement of the rule on repeat topics. Take the nuclear disarmament thread. I think I did as much as I could to prove why the libertarian take is right, but then comes another thread and another and I get sick of wasting my time proving the same thing over and over again (and that was already the 4th time at least).
You could stop being a drama queen and address the problem of repeat topics by, let's say, making a sticky with links to threads on common topics that get made over an over again. This is very common procedure on discussion forums. Do you think this will be done when the move to new software happens? I don't ever remember seeing a thread locked and the OP pointed to an existing topic.
I really don't care to take the time responding to all this nonsense. I'll again try to keep to constructive suggestions and see if anything is ever done.
You were also the one who told me you "feel" like a customer because you bought a $50 membership. What do you "feel" a customer is entitled to that you are not getting?"
You might want to go review Mises on consumer sovereignty. Anyhow, I recognize that I am just a minor patron of LvMI and you will do fine with or without me and my money. I have no right to expect my "demands" be met. If it is not acceptable to question mod/admin behavior in this group, please make this clear.
E. R. Olovetto:This is the same error as in Lilburne's first post in this group. It isn't about the difference in opinions, it is about people habitually lying and employing fallacies.
I have already addressed this up thread.
E. R. Olovetto:The other issue is non-enforcement of the rule on repeat topics.
It is so totally not a big deal. The forum merge system is atrocious, and it takes moderators loads of time to manipulate threads.
E. R. Olovetto:I think I did as much as I could to prove why the libertarian take is right, but then comes another thread and another and I get sick of wasting my time proving the same thing over and over again (and that was already the 4th time at least).
You don't have to answer every post. Libertarianism and LvMI will go on if you don't post to each thread. I am very sure of it.
E. R. Olovetto:You could stop being a drama queen and address the problem of repeat topics by, let's say, making a sticky with links to threads on common topics that get made over an over again.
Sure, or you could make the thread and ask a mod to sticky it for you. You know, help yourself ...
E. R. Olovetto:This is very common procedure on discussion forums. Do you think this will be done when the move to new software happens? I don't ever remember seeing a thread locked and the OP pointed to an existing topic.
On most mature forums, over moderation and administration doesn't work. Laissez-faire is usually the most efficient and social policy. Trying to shape where discussions go, compelling people to read 50 page threads before they reply rather than start a new topic etc, just isn't how humans operate. Those who want to read, will read. Those who want to spin up an old discussion with new ideas and participants, will. Liberalism doesn't work if you constantly force people to think one thing, or participate in one narrow way.
I don't want to comment on the new forum at this time. There is a lot of work to do to replace the community with an entirely new system. The amount of content here, just in the community blogs, is enormous.
E. R. Olovetto:I'll again try to keep to constructive suggestions and see if anything is ever done.
If you want to help, be who you expect everyone else to be. Progress starts with you leading, not you planning for others.
Are you referring to the argumentation ethics "debate"? I really can't see how he could do anything other than immediately concede that he made an error. I told you I will get around to it when I get around to it. If you feel that there is something else I need to defend please tell me. Also, this is very much like the case of Spidey not having the cojones to talk to his wife about his child rape/murder theory. If Lilburne thinks what he wrote is a refutation, I'm sure that the community at large would love to know about it. PLEASE put that up as a blog post.
E. R. Olovetto:You might want to go review Mises on consumer sovereignty.
Why? I have articulated the sovereignty of the consumer in my replies to you. You are sovereign, exercise your sovereignty. I have been encouraging you to do so for a day now.
E. R. Olovetto:Anyhow, I recognize that I am just a minor patron of LvMI and you will do fine with or without me and my money.
The question isn't about your $50 membership, but what you seem to think it entitles you to. Which apparently you believe includes insulting other dues paying LvMI members.
As I have pointed out to you many times now, moderators in this forum are unpaid volunteers. Your money is neither here nor there. The forum is not members only, or members preferred.
E. R. Olovetto:I have no right to expect my "demands" be met.
Now we're getting closer to reality.
E. R. Olovetto:If it is not acceptable to question mod/admin behavior in this group, please make this clear.
I can't speak for the rules, but if you're not going to be disrespectful, and you are not going to demand answers that you know you are not entitled to, I don't see why you can't offer constructive feedback. if you're just going to grind an axe, then why waste your good time and ours?
E. R. Olovetto:Are you referring to the argumentation ethics "debate"? I really can't see how he could do anything other than immediately concede that he made an error. I told you I will get around to it when I get around to it.
Please get around to it soon. Shouldn't take you long to write the one sentence to dash his argument on the rocks as you claimed you could do. But you seem to have endless time to continue in this forum, where you are making absolutely ZERO headway.
E. R. Olovetto:Also, this is very much like the case of Spidey not having the cojones to talk to his wife about his child rape/murder theory.
Whether or not he has the cojones, you had no right to insert yourself into their relationship based on some chatter on an internet forum. That's the sort of behavior I report to the FBI on my forums, and you are damn lucky Lilburne is a "carebear" because I would have definitely killed your membership immediately when you crossed the line between heated online discussion and harassment of his family.
E. R. Olovetto:If Lilburne thinks what he wrote is a refutation, I'm sure that the community at large would love to know about it. PLEASE put that up as a blog post.
Is it not posted publicly already on the forum, and by now, indexed for perpetuity in Google and other search engines? Have you not claimed you can refute it? If you can, do it. If not, please stop jabbering. Simple.
Or better yet, when you are done replying to every nuke thread, you can write up your refutation and ask Jeffrey to publish it. But all of this is contingent on you actually participating in some way, instead of asserting and demanding.
Olovetto,
Now that liberty student has thoroughly exploded all your pretenses and unveiled your boorishness, I'm calling an end to this affair. You are no longer allowed to denounce or deride LvMI Community moderators anywhere on this site. And to keep you from trying to artfully evade that restriction, you are not even allowed to discuss administrative affairs here at all. Any such post will be deleted in its entirety. You may discuss the topics for which the Mises Community Forum was created, and that is all. If you have any more "innocuous suggestions" to share or questions to ask, post them in the Reporting Forum, and another mod will review them.
As one final note, liberty student is not the only one who supports the direction in which I'm trying to lead the forum.
From the comments on my post about our success with the very first Mises Academy course:
"By the way, Lilburne, I highly commend you for your efforts to make the forums a more welcoming and inviting place. For too long, potential converts to the Austrian school have been shunned by holier-than-thou moralizing and “you are a statist pig” lecturing. These people never return to the forums or to the site, and no doubt spread the word to their friends that the Austrian School is nothing but a bunch of coons. I have followed some of your discussions and threads, and I am glad that you engage in conversations using a friendly, approchable tone, and you get the point across without antagonizing the other person. Again, you are doing the Austrian School a greater service than you can imagine, and I only hope that it continues."
"By the way, Lilburne, I highly commend you for your efforts to make the forums a more welcoming and inviting place. For too long, potential converts to the Austrian school have been shunned by holier-than-thou moralizing and “you are a statist pig” lecturing. These people never return to the forums or to the site, and no doubt spread the word to their friends that the Austrian School is nothing but a bunch of coons.
I have followed some of your discussions and threads, and I am glad that you engage in conversations using a friendly, approchable tone, and you get the point across without antagonizing the other person. Again, you are doing the Austrian School a greater service than you can imagine, and I only hope that it continues."
I look forward to our debate over argumentation ethics.
Sieben:Lilburne's recent 1v1 with Rettoper shows that even the most self flattering ideologues can improve in civility if they are met in good form
I do see a lot of merit and potential in these 1v1 debates (or maybe even some stuctured set group vs some set group). I think there is much profit that could be gained from them.
Sieben,
I cannot express how impressed I am by that post. You are demonstrating wisdom and maturity far beyond your years.
Bravo, sir.