Page 1 of 1

Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 3:33 pm
by AutSider
A thread in which you can ask why your thread was moved.

So, why was my thread move to the rant house? This one:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=193297

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:17 pm
by Carleas
Because it sucks.

Let me elaborate, though I'm sure you could explain this to yourself if you tried: your OP consists of 5 videos and a tweet's worth of text, which makes no argument, takes no position, elucidates no question. Though our standards are low, ILP still aspires to be a site for discussing (i.e. using text to convey ideas about) philosophy. Several videos and a brief verbal guffaw don't cut it. You aren't discussing, and it isn't philosophy.

So it was moved to Rant (and honestly, that was being charitable).

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:08 am
by AutSider
I can find many threads in Society and Government with even less text and which don't take a position or if they do, don't present arguments for it, and so what? Why would every thread have to have an essay of text as the OP?

I can give you examples if you want, but if you've been browsing that forum, and you have, then you know very well what I'm talking about.

My position has been made clear - I personally am against sex dolls, but I also claim that those belonging to mainstream politics aren't in a position to consistently oppose sex dolls.

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:46 pm
by phyllo
My position has been made clear - I personally am against sex dolls, but I also claim that those belonging to mainstream politics aren't in a position to consistently oppose sex dolls.
Isn't your fundamental position that everything you oppose, ought to be opposed and everything that you support, ought to be supported?
Therefore, there is always something "wrong" with people who disagree with you. And something "wrong" with the systems that they support. It doesn't go any deeper than that.

For example, you're gung-ho for war. Intelligent and thoughtful people have very good reasons for opposing war. Yet I never get the sense that you would give them any credit nor that you would consider their position reasonable. I think that you would label them as "weak". Unless they opposed a specific war which you also opposed, in which case you would call them "intelligent and thoughtful". Right?

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 6:55 pm
by Carleas
Autsider, if you think other threads should be moved from SG&E, I'm happy to take a look. Your thread was moved for the reasons stated.

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:39 am
by AutSider
My thread consists of me taking a position and briefly explaining why, and also of accusing the other side of being wrong and also briefly explaining why. It does take a position and it does have (short) arguments.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192622 - This thread has even less text, and only a bunch of questions, none of which it "elucidates", also takes no position and makes no argument

Then we've got this... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193317 - enough said

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187215 - a single line of text, takes a position but makes no argument

Then we have people spreading blatanly false information: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193259 - Fund me then, George Soros. Why am I not getting funded?

Then this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193279 - "I don't like my mommy!" Oops, that's more text than the entire thread contains.

I'm not saying I want all these threads moved. All I'm asking for is consistency.

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:44 pm
by Carleas
I agree that consistency is the aim, but mods are volunteers and things get overlooked. I acknowledge that that's a poor excuse which basically amounts to me defending myself for doing a bad job by saying "but I can't do a good job!" Still, facts is facts, and moving one bad thread is a net gain, even if other bad threads don't get moved. To your other examples:
AutSider wrote:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192622 - This thread has even less text, and only a bunch of questions, none of which it "elucidates", also takes no position and makes no argument

Maybe should have been moved, but now has 5 pages of discussion justifying it's being left where it is.

AutSider wrote:Then we've got this... viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193317 - enough said

I agree; moved to Sandbox.

AutSider wrote:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=187215 - a single line of text, takes a position but makes no argument

Should have been moved, but has generated 4 pages of discussion.

AutSider wrote:Then we have people spreading blatanly false information: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193259 - Fund me then, George Soros. Why am I not getting funded?

I don't know how much we should be getting into policing false information, especially on a site where the meaning of truth and falsity are live questions. I agree that's a low-quality thread, but I'm reluctant to move it.

AutSider wrote:Then this: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193279 - "I don't like my mommy!" Oops, that's more text than the entire thread contains.

I agree; moved to Rant.

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:04 pm
by AutSider
So if a thread gathers a lot of post it is suddenly exempt from rules? That makes no sense at all. This is a philosophy forum, not a popularity contest.

If the meanings of truth and falsity were such live questions you'd have many more problems than merely policing false information.

Re: Thread Moving Thread

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2017 8:40 pm
by Carleas
AutSider wrote:So if a thread gathers a lot of post it is suddenly exempt from rules? That makes no sense at all. This is a philosophy forum, not a popularity contest.

The Sandbox forum mostly exists to house low-content threads from other forums. When an OP is short and lacks an argument, it makes sense to move it. But if, as in this case, a low-content OP sits for a while and gets a lot of response, it's no longer low content.

Again, I take some blame on this, I'm not a fan of those threads and I wish I'd seen and moved them earlier. But where they have gotten a lot of response, that seems like a good indication that they more-or-less belong where they are, and my concern about them being low-content is mitigated by the piles and piles of additional content they've accumulated.

Maybe that's the wrong way to come down on the question; I can come up with some counterarguments and I don't think it's without merit. But I think people don't like mod intervention, so I'd rather not intervene where there's reason not to. I think there's enough reason here.

AutSider wrote:If the meanings of truth and falsity were such live questions you'd have many more problems than merely policing false information.

And so we do.