Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Yes.
20
56%
No.
14
39%
I don't know.
2
6%
 
Total votes : 36

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Thu Sep 24, 2015 1:52 pm

Arbiter of Change wrote:Yeah but that could be only because I'm not as convincing, eloquent, or intellectually developed as Satyr and Lyssa so I'm not as threatening.

That could be. But I don't sell yourself short, nor them long.

Futhermore, Lyssa and Satyr's posts they made prior to being banned are still available here (albeit Satyr's appear under the username "Lollipop King"). If the hypothesis that we ban ideas is correct, wouldn't we have removed all of the posts containing ideas?

Arminius wrote:This webforum lacks philosophy, although and because its name is "I Love Philosophy".

The problem here is in defining philosophy. Personally, I don't find existentialism to be very philosophical. I don't find most religion to be particularly philosophical. Many would consider both subjects squarely in the philosophical purview. On the other hand, I think physics and math have quite a lot to do with philosophy. I think rhetoric and policy and economics are philosophical endeavors. Many would disagree.

We try to accept all comers. That means essentially everyone will see something on here to which they'll think, "that's not philosophy".
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby xfzgrwql » Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:42 pm

C'mon....what happened to one of ilp's longest, most popular threads of all time??
xfzgrwql
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:46 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:30 pm

Mr. Reasonable's "What are you doing?"?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby xfzgrwql » Thu Sep 24, 2015 5:32 pm

You know.....

But good point, yes, mr reasonable's thread is the best, most popular, and most representative of the entire forum.

Good job, pat yourself on the back for that one.


mr reasonable, greatest ilp philosopher
xfzgrwql
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:46 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Thu Sep 24, 2015 6:19 pm

xfzgrwql wrote:You know.....

I do know, and I know what happened to it: it was locked to discourage the continued participation of its author, who was banned. But still it sits, hosted on our servers, discoverable through Google. The permitted ideas of a banned user.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby xfzgrwql » Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:20 pm

Permissible with a lock??

C'mon carleas, c'mon......
xfzgrwql
Thinker
 
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:46 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby von Rivers » Thu Sep 24, 2015 8:25 pm

xfzgrwql wrote:You know.....

But good point, yes, mr reasonable's thread is the best, most popular, and most representative of the entire forum.


It's mundane babble in the Mundane Babble section. This one is the best in terms of content and length on ILP... http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176400
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Fri Sep 25, 2015 9:36 am

xfzgrwql wrote:You know.....


mr reasonable, greatest ilp philosopher



Thanks. I'm pretty good at it. If you ever feel like having a normal conversation about something philosophical, just let me know. But the whole, "men and women are not the same species" just isn't even close to interesting. Not to mention that the more you type about that kind of stuff, the more you're exposing about your own distorted view of the world, as opposed to what you seem to think, and that is that there is something of any philosophical substance to the ridiculous assertions that you can't seem to help yourself from trying to sell. I mean what am I supposed to do with someone who's wrong and can't understand how even when the explanation is given to them? Some people just aren't as smart as they think they are. You can type all the long winded, jargon filled nonsense that you like, but it's still nonsense.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25926
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Dan~ » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:57 pm

Arminius wrote:Why is Dan~ no practising moderator anymore?

I find it difficult to contribute.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10063
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Sun Mar 20, 2016 3:42 pm

Carleas wrote:
Arminius wrote:This webforum lacks philosophy, although and because its name is "I Love Philosophy".

The problem here is in defining philosophy. Personally, I don't find existentialism to be very philosophical. I don't find most religion to be particularly philosophical. Many would consider both subjects squarely in the philosophical purview. On the other hand, I think physics and math have quite a lot to do with philosophy. I think rhetoric and policy and economics are philosophical endeavors. Many would disagree.

We try to accept all comers. That means essentially everyone will see something on here to which they'll think, "that's not philosophy".

The reason why this webforum lacks philosophy is more the lack of permabanning trolls than the definition of "philosophy". In other words: ILP has too many trolls.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Sun Mar 20, 2016 4:36 pm

Let's grant that this is true. What's the best method for identifying and banning those trolls? And how effective do you assume banning to be for preventing someone from posting on ILP?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Mon Mar 21, 2016 6:36 pm

Carleas wrote:What's the best method for identifying and banning those trolls?

"The best method is shooting the trolls dead", John Wayne would probably say. 8) :lol:

Image

But, honestly, I would say that the method Uccisore is making use of is already a good one, but it is not good enough.

A good example:
Uccisore wrote:
Peripheral wrote:"Desinformation," huh? You're not only a petulant non-American, you're an illiterate one as well.

I'm sorry googling is so difficult for you. You'll just have to keep wailing in your ignorance...;)

I've been watching you in other parts of the forums, your behavior isn't going to fly in mine. If stuff like this continues to be your primary contribution in SG&E, you're going to rack up warnings and bans pretty quick.
Uccisore wrote:
Peripheral wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Peripheral Banned for 1 day, Rule 1 violations. I have zero tolerance for him bringing the way he behaves in every other forum to mine.

What exactly got me banned, Uccisore? I was only responding to Uglypeoplefucking, and not rudely...definitely no more rudely than he was conversing with me. If you are going to publicly ban a poster, you really need to let him, if not the rest of the forum, know why he was banned so he can avoid repeating his "error."

I cited rule 1, it's stickied in this section of the forums. To be specific, every time you show up in a thread you make a poorly or non-defended argument, insinuate that everybody who disagrees with you is a stupid, terrible human being, and then claim you are 'being attacked' when people react to your invective. It ends up that when you are in a thread, the thread becomes about your personal hatred and rivalry with whomever had the gaul to disagree with you about something, instead of the actual subject of the thread. Maybe other parts of the website are ok with this, but it isn't going to happen here. If I come into a thread and see a full page of you calling people stupid, grandstanding about your education, and going three-quotes deep in a pointless debate over who insulted who first about some trivial nonsense instead of discussing the topic, I'm going to either dump the thread in the sandbox if it was garbage from the start, or warn/ban the person who's ruining the thread.
Uccisore wrote:
Peripheral wrote:
Peripheral wrote:What exactly got me banned, Uccisore? I was only responding to Uglypeoplefucking, and not rudely...definitely no more rudely than he was conversing with me. If you are going to publicly ban a poster, you really need to let him, if not the rest of the forum, know why he was banned so he can avoid repeating his "error."

Uccisore wrote:I cited rule 1, it's stickied in this section of the forums. To be specific, every time you show up in a thread you make a poorly or non-defended argument, insinuate that everybody who disagrees with you is a stupid, terrible human being, and then claim you are 'being attacked' when people react to your invective.

Um, that wasn't being specific at all; generically saying "every time" without support isn't being specific. You didn't point to one specific post of mine on this thread and show how it broke rule 1. And unlike yours, all of my arguments were well-defended, and the fact you can't show a single specific argument of mine was poorly-defended helps prove that. And I never insinuated anybody was a "stupid, terrible human being" and made no invective. Again, you fail to be specific or show exactly why you publicly banned me. That's not good for a moderator.
Uccisore wrote:It ends up that when you are in a thread, the thread becomes about your personal hatred and rivalry with whomever had the gaul to disagree with you about something, instead of the actual subject of the thread. Maybe other parts of the website are ok with this, but it isn't going to happen here. If I come into a thread and see a full page of you calling people stupid, grandstanding about your education, and going three-quotes deep in a pointless debate over who insulted who first about some trivial nonsense instead of discussing the topic, I'm going to either dump the thread in the sandbox if it was garbage from the start, or warn/ban the person who's ruining the thread.

Again, you're not being specific here at all. Where exactly did I express "personal hatred?" If I did, you need to show where. If you can't, I obviously didn't; of course, I already knew that. I certainly never wrote anything like your hateful last post to me. And, yes, when you don't support those venomous, erroneous things you said, they are hateful. So, again, you reveal your hypocrisy. Also, I never "grandstanded" about my education. Saint asked me what it was, and I told him. So, you got that wrong as well. AndI didn't just go into a "debate about disparagement" alone. it was initiated and continued by your friend, Uglypeoplefucking. Of, course, though, you chose to ban me instead of him, even though i was being no more rude than he. So, your unimpressive bias/grudge against me shows itself again.

So, you have just proven you can't show what I specifically did wrong or what specifically got me banned...and that is not OK. If you are going to moderate, you need to be specific and not act on grudges like the clear one you have against me. And all of my posts in debates against you have been nothing less than dead-on, including those in your Spartacus thread and this one. The fact you generically disparage them, without addressing one single post you can show to be "poorly-defended," helps prove it.

And if you are an academic, you should be able to moderate fairly by disregarding bias, following your rules as a poster and applying them fairly as a moderator, and only penalizing posters for specific violations of those rules. If you don't do that, you're not a moderator, but a bully unethically using his inordinate powers to punish those who bested him in previous debates. I'm sure you can do the former.

You're still doing it. You're going to get banned some more.
Uccisore wrote:
Peripheral wrote:
Uccisore wrote:You're still doing it. You're going to get banned some more.

Doing what? You posted that whole post of mine without addressing one specific quote of mine. And, of course I'm going to be banned some more. You clearly have a bias against me as you feel free to ban me without pointing to what I did wrong. That's not equitable moderation.

If you ban me again without clear cause, as you did last time, I'll just spend my "banned time" on the other Philosophy forum where they don't do that.

Yes, of course I have a bias against you. You're a shitty poster who derails threads to whine about personal gripes, and I don't want you on ILovePhilosophy as long as you behave that way. Fortunately, the specific thing you are doing wrong is condemned in a sticky that existed long before your arrival, so there's no concern for unfairly applying the rules. Now, if you have anything further to say that has nothing to do with gun control in this gun control thread, I suggest you either make a thread in Off Topic about it or take it to private messages.

If you want specifics, it's very simple: Stop shitting up threads on my forums with long-winded diatrabes that have nothing to do with the threads' subject. For example, if you find yourself replying to a thread called "Blah Blah Blah Abortion Blah" you should be thinking "Does what I'm typing have anything to do with abortion?" If the answer is 'no', then you should stop typing it, or type it somewhere else.

This is not hard. This is a rule I almost never have to enforce, because people seem to get it.
....

Carleas wrote:And how effective do you assume banning to be for preventing someone from posting on ILP?

Much effective, Carleas, because trolls can be identified very quickly.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Artimas » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:41 pm

Welp I haven't gotten any warnings or bans, but I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I'd be a bit ruthless. No ad hom, people have been getting away with personal attacking instead of attacking the position in a debate. "You don't agree with me, you're an idiot". The only time I will say something is if someone starts calling me an idiot or insulting me, we may do philosopby but this doesn't imply we shouldn't or won't defend ourselves when provoked.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3744
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:51 pm

Artimas wrote:I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I'd be a bit ruthless. No ad hom, people have been getting away with personal attacking instead of attacking the position in a debate.

And that must apply to each member of ILP. "Exceptions" are not allowed.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Artimas » Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:16 pm

Arminius wrote:
Artimas wrote:I agree with Ucc. If I were mod I'd be a bit ruthless. No ad hom, people have been getting away with personal attacking instead of attacking the position in a debate.

And that must apply to each member of ILP. "Exceptions" are not allowed.


I agree, but I think the person who starts the ad hom should be getting in trouble. It's flame baiting.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3744
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:36 pm

So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:02 pm

Carleas wrote:So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?

Are you asking Artimas or me?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Carleas » Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:50 pm

Mostly you, but the question is for the room (and bakes in some of Artimas' ideas that you seemed to agree with).

I appreciate Uccisore's moderation style, it's very different from my own and in many cases better. He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards. I generally err on the side of permissiveness, where I think Uccisore would err in the other direction (to a lesser extent, of course, and we would likely disagree about what it means to err in the case of moderator intervention).

I think both approaches are useful, both have their time and place, and both have in turn won us praise and cost us users.

More generally (and this I don't intend as in contrast with Uccisore), I'm pretty easy going, and I don't find trolls that annoying, nor am I offended by offensive ideas. And I value noise; there can absolutely be too much, but there can also be too little noise.

Most importantly, I distrust humans when it comes to moderation, myself included; trolls that disagree with me are more annoying than trolls that don't. That's why I favor articulable standards, it keeps me honest and removes human lapses from enforcement. I think that's important on a philosophy forum, because it's easy to find ideas that someone considers appalling amid discussions such as these.

So I tend to under-enforce, because I expect that to be less harmful. But I could be wrong.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5802
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:18 pm

Carleas wrote:So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?

It is right that I recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach. But one requirement is that the moderator is capable of practicing it rightly. If so, then the moderator can ban early and often. Ad homs, insults, off topic should lead to ban or even permaban, but again: the moderator must be capable of practicing it rightly.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Artimas » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:26 pm

Carleas wrote:So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time?


I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good.

Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.

Even nothing, is something.
If one is to live balanced with expectations, then one must learn to appreciate the negative as well, to respect darkness in its own home.

All smoke fades, as do all delicate mirrors shatter.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Truth is pain, and pain is gain.


Image Image
User avatar
Artimas
Emancipator of ignorance and also Chameleon upon the stars
 
Posts: 3744
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 12:47 pm
Location: Earth, Milky Way

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:27 pm

Carleas wrote:Mostly you, but the question is for the room (and bakes in some of Artimas' ideas that you seemed to agree with).

I appreciate Uccisore's moderation style, it's very different from my own and in many cases better. He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards. I generally err on the side of permissiveness, where I think Uccisore would err in the other direction (to a lesser extent, of course, and we would likely disagree about what it means to err in the case of moderator intervention).

I think both approaches are useful, both have their time and place, and both have in turn won us praise and cost us users.

More generally (and this I don't intend as in contrast with Uccisore), I'm pretty easy going, and I don't find trolls that annoying, nor am I offended by offensive ideas. And I value noise; there can absolutely be too much, but there can also be too little noise.

Most importantly, I distrust humans when it comes to moderation, myself included; trolls that disagree with me are more annoying than trolls that don't. That's why I favor articulable standards, it keeps me honest and removes human lapses from enforcement. I think that's important on a philosophy forum, because it's easy to find ideas that someone considers appalling amid discussions such as these.

So I tend to under-enforce, because I expect that to be less harmful. But I could be wrong.

Howsoever. .... Trolls must be punished. 8)

Think of John Wayne:

Image

:lol:
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:35 pm

Artimas wrote:I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good.

Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending.

I can agree with that.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:47 pm

ILP revolt.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Arminius » Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:59 pm

HaHaHa wrote:ILP revolt.

It would be the first one.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Wed Mar 23, 2016 6:16 pm

Image
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users