I actually don’t have much of a problem with ‘ad hom’ as long as it’s in a post that’s furthering the discussion and isn’t being reported as harassment. If somebody is saying “Your argument is incorrect because A, B, C, D, E…asshole” and the person they are writing too isn’t reporting them, I just figure they’re both adults and that’s sometimes how adults talk. I’d much rather see a mean, insult ridden, and yet on-topic discussion than somebody posting innocent pictures of fluffy kittens everywhere instead of a discussion.
Part of the reason for this is that I find when moderation is strict about insults, the result is that people just more clever about insulting people. I also find that the people who are the best at cleverly insulting others are oftentimes the least desirable people to discuss philosophy with. I’ve seen forums lose good people to banning because those people weren’t interested in playing coy with somebody that was calling them a motherfucker in a way that technically wasn’t against the rules.
I admit this is a big difference between me and how other people in other parts of the internet moderate things.
This is the kind of thing that pushes me towards articulable standards: when something seems clearly true to us, someone disagreeing seems like they must be trolling: how else could they not see? But people actually disagree, and they perceive each other as trolls, and that’s OK.
But what it seems to me like you’re alleging is just that Uccisore is making bad arguments, and ‘bad arguments’ can’t be subject to a blanket prohibition in any reasonable articulable standard of moderator intervention.
Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.
2.2 Arguments should be made in good faith: no trolling. If a moderator sees a poster presenting an argument and dismissing any counterpoints without engaging them, or suspects someone of presenting arguments purely for the sake of inflaming debate or annoying other posters, a warning may be issued.
So no, I welcome criticism and disagreement - it’s a manner in which it occurs that I think is unbecoming particularly for a mod
I called you a bigot who was prejudiced against religion because you’re a bigot who’s prejudice against religion, and you made that startlingly obvious in a thread you created a subject of which was the bigotry and prejudice of religious people. So not only is it true, but it wasn’t off-topic for the subject you created, and, might I add, I’m not even the first person to call you an anti-religious bigot; somebody else had the same observation a few days prior in the same section of the forums.
What that has to do with my moderation, I am unsure. It’s not like a banned you or warned you for being a bigot.
So here we go - bigot can be a very harsh word. I don’t even know what thread I created that you claim was a thread of bigotry and prejudice of religious people as opposed. Providing a better way and providing reasons for flaws of religion isn’t bigotry or prejudice. You make those accusations while ignoring the reasoning I gave that showed why religion isn’t “good” and how going off of a knowledge based frame of reference as opposed to belief based is good. I provided reasons, you called it bigotry and prejudice, ignoring the reasons. Not cool
Then don’t use it. You brought it up as an accusation against religious people. I just pointed out you fell prey to the characterization. If you weren’t preoccupied with condemning the bigotry and prejudice of people with a different ideology than you, it never would have come up. God knows I’m not the guy who goes around sniffling about other people’s ‘prejudice’.
I don’t get that humour as I’m British-Caribbean not Native British, so please expound on it… are you being facetious?
This is not my site, so I do not moderate as if it were, but as if it is Carleas’ under his parameters. I, personally, would moderate under harsher conditions.
Simple enough. If you cure a person of a nasty disease, he may no want that for whatever reason. There is no pleasing some people. Since the site is full of different people, then there will always be ‘some’ people who are not pleased - they are not getting what they want.
Then there are the people just want to be dissatisfied.
Nothing you provide will be satisfactory. Or is it that your unsatisfactory moderation satisfies them?
That’s a complicated one.
I did not make any specific claims that people are bigots in any way shape or form. I claimed religious bigotry can happen with non believers maybe once, because it does and also very fervently I might add. In so much as in Saudi Arabia for example, people are punished physically for speaking against Islam.
So obviously it occurs - but its not like that was a major thesis around anything I’ve stated on these forums. Also - I would never claim that there isn’t bigotry of religious people either. I just don’t see where you can claim that I engaged in bigotry justifiably so - then continue railing on it as if it is some central part of my M.O. “God knows I’m not the guy who goes around sniffling about other people’s prejudice”. So what? I don’t care what you do.
I don’t give a fuck if you see it or not, that’s a subject for another thread. You not comprehending or refusing to admit why I called you a bigot is not a problem with my moderation to run to Carleas about. This isn’t a conversation about what a bigot you are, this is a conversation about how I’m supposedly bad at my job here for pointing it out, remember? I’d much rather have the conversation about your bigotry in the thread that begins with your hate-filled anti-religious screed, so people reading have the proper context.
No you’re wrong by pointing out something that doesn’t exist. Noting other people’s bigotry doesn’t mean I’m a bigot in turn. Am I a bigot for stating Hitler was a bigot of Jews? Obviously not. And that’s essentially what I did - but I did not point any fingers at anyone specific, those who are religious is very broad, and to assume bigotry doesn’t occur in religion as I stated - or that I pointed it out gives you justification to claim I’m the bigot? You don’t even ask me how it occurs in religion - jumping to conclusions that I’m a bigot just because I pointed out bigotry, or because you associate me with people that I’m not, because you have no idea where I am coming from, who I am, what I think… even after all the posts I have presented here. Because you’ve ignored my reasons, expounded on your assumptions and essentially twist what I state.
So Yes, I do think its worthy to bring up to Carleas. I’ve been here at ILP for a very long time and have found this to be one of my favorite philosophy forums that I ever came across. As such, I think mods should have the same standard that they are supposed to uphold. While I understand there’s a lot of leeway here in upholding those standards, I would expect mods to not propagate just the opposite of those standards.
Oh he’s an ‘ex’ leper… I guess I was too engrossed in Gotham to hear his high-pitched warbling properly. The cure has affected his livelihood.
You can’t please those that cry for blood… this is not a Roman arena with an endless supply of victims to throw to the lions for entertainment, and this is evident in the ‘Introduce Yourself Here’ thread.
I personally like the stricter moderation style that some sites have.
WW2, you’re probably a bigot. Because most people are.
Ucc, you’re definitely the most biased person here with moderator powers. It’s like a known thing. You give the radical right wing line on literally everything. It’s like you’ve never said a single word that wasn’t plagiarized from Rush Limbaugh. It’s comical at best, and offensive at its worst. You think that people who are in the center are radical leftists. That’s just the simple fact of the matter and I don’t think anyone would dispute it. So by virtue of your political leanings, you’re probably a bigot too.
