Right. You can go somewhere else. Complainers can fuck off.
But I still feel sympathy for some complainers.
The tone and balance of religious discussion has changed across the internet, not just at ILP. The tone of all discussion has changed. The internet has changed society significantly, the set of alternatives to ILP has changed significantly, and the set of people who seek out sites like ILP has changed significantly.
I don’t mean to suggest that everything is done perfectly here or that we couldn’t do some things better. But it’s hasty to attribute issues with behavior on the forums to a failure of moderation.
What do you mean by “worked”?
I don’t think there is enough respect for other religions than Christianity on the religion forum.
It doesn’t stop or discourage the negative behavior. It lets the bozos roam around freely while putting a burden on others.
(But if that’s the environment that you want to create, then it has “worked”.)
Again, I think you overestimate the amount of control that moderation has on the environment. Point to a web community that doesn’t have some of its users calling others of its users, “bozos”.
Muting people has the benefit of filtering the environment to your preferences, without imposing those preferences on others. It is of course my intent to impose some of your preferences, since fostering depth and rigor of discussion is a goal we share, but ignoring the bozos works even where our preferences do not align.
People shouldn’t be insulting each other or harassing each other. I admit that I don’t spend much time in the Religion forum, and Dan is often on walkabout. I’ll start spending a little more time there to see what I can do.
The religion forum has two characteristics that will always generate heat. First, every believer has their own very personal beliefs. Anyone or any idea contrary to those personal beliefs is seen as a personal "attack"to be defended - vigorously. Secondly, no matter the personal beliefs, they are all anectdotal and not provable by any other method of inquiry man has ever invented. This just adds fuel to the emotional fire The best solution has already been offered: don’t get into the ad hom game. Disagree with anything counter to your personal beliefs, but just disagree and let it go. Play nice.
Some people don’t know how to discuss and argue in a forum setting. They need to be shown and taught how. That’s where a moderator comes in.
If nobody stops it then they will keep on doing it.
That’s just completely false. Philosophers have been making reasoned arguments and counterarguments for hundreds of years. Simply glance at the history of philosophy and theology.
This wiki page links to 31 pages of arguments:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: … nce_of_God
And it’s not just ‘ancient’ history :
ttps://theconversation.com/arguments-wh … ists-75451
If you are focused on the idea of “proof” or “provable” arguments then read this :
Phyllo,
People don’t know argumentation/discussion? True. Perhaps a questionaire or test for all members to show their proficiency level before they’re allowed to post? Would you like to write a short primer of the do’s and don’ts? I’m sure the moderators would love anything that would make their job easier.
I’ll stand by my “lack of proof” statements. The balance of your post only suggests the possibility of a god. I’ll agree that SOME people will accept that possibility as proof of a god. But for many of us showing possible isn’t proof of anything. We live in a world of infinite possibles, don’t we? As a skeptic, I need a little more than just possible. Without that little bit more, I’ll wait for that something that is more convincing than possible.
I suggest that the proficiency ought to be raised rather than excluding people who are not proficient at the beginning.
I don’t really want to be involved any more. I don’t think that there is anything interesting or productive going on.
I was around because there are a couple of open threads where I had posted and I didn’t want to leave without some closure.
I only responded to this thread because “the complainers” have some valid points and I thought they didn’t deserve another kick in the head.
Most things can’t be “proven”. Even science is based on showing that theories don’t work rather than proving that theories are correct.
People demand proofs from others but are their own thoughts based on proofs?
Depends on what you mean by infinite possibilities. There is a structure in place which limits the possibilities.
While you are waiting, people are making reasonable arguments that can be discussed. It’s not all anecdotal. It’s not all woo woo magical thinking.
Phyllo,
Kudos to UNSW Sydney for preparing this guide or primer. Kudos to you for posting it here in ILP.
NEXT: How do we insure that all members have read and agree to abide by all the do’s and don’ts? Should such a thing take place, you might be able to find more interesting threads to become involved. I might be tempted to check in more than a couple times a year.
Carleas, I hope you are following this. It might be a way to reverse some of the nastier aspects of internet activity. It would be nice if some of the moderators would weigh in on this idea since it could only be to your benefit.
It’s a nice idea, but I don’t see how it works in practice. A policy banning someone until they sign an oath saying they’ve read and understood it? Should they pass a quiz?
I’m skeptical that moderation does very much to teach people how to have a discussion. It teaches people that they will be reprimanded for certain behaviors on certain forums, and if it’s applied consistently that can be enough. But the audience isn’t captive enough, and the stakes aren’t high enough, for moderator intervention to have the effect of changing someone’s style of discussion. At the very least, that would require a good faith effort on the part of the poster, and the people who come here to make a good faith effort to post the best philosophy they can don’t really need moderator help to improve their posting; most of what makes for good discussion is just good faith.
Most of moderation’s effect comes from excluding the small percentage of people who cause most of the disruption, but that too is moving the ocean with a spoon given how easy it is to circumvent any exclusion – and that problem also hits any attempt to elicit some promise in exchange for lifting a ban: anything more onerous than creating a new account can be ignored at a net gain.
And either way, the bottleneck is time. We have a handful of part-time volunteer moderators, and there’s more posted here than can be read in its entirety. We can bring on more moderators, but that brings its own challenges (over-moderation also gets complaints), and in any case we’ve had trouble finding people interested in moderating. This all makes me skeptical of anything that costs moderator time but is unlikely to make a meaningful difference.
And so: we return to ignoring. The time cost is distributed, and paid most by those who would request the most intervention. It avoids issues of over-moderation, but directly addresses the existence of bozos. It works best paired with moderation, because there are efficiencies in centralizing the exclusion of those who everyone agrees are a source of disruption, but it also works in the absence or delay of moderation.
If the alternative suggestion is “change all the bozos into not-bozos”, ignoring the bozos strikes me as a pretty good option.
So … nutn
Wut
Phyllo,
I agree… nutn.
OK. Last gasp try:
Carleas, So it would be too much effort for improbable success? So it remains samo samo, don’t rock the boat, move along-nothing to see here?
Would it be possible to create a must-read statement of the core of Phyllo’s guide/primer for all newcomers before they’re allowed to begin posting? Perhaps with a pretty please understand and follow this guide? Couldn’t the moderators be asked to refer anyone who has to be warned to this guide as helpful suggestions? Would this be too much effort?
As a moderation tool, it would make warnings include an attempt to help people negotiate the minefield. Just a bit of education along with the slap on the wrist.
I agree that it wouldn’t change things very much, but if it reached even a few members wouldn’t that be useful?
Moderators should live up to their name: they should moderate (verb) and be moderate (adjective)(non-biased), but instead they typically escalate to the point of using force. As I see it, a moderator should step in to cool heated discussions, point out fallacious argumentation, and bring the discussion back to a productive level with never a thought of using force except for the most extreme case of unreasonableness. Anyone could undertake the role of moderation, but the education should start with the originator of the board and gradually a population of regulars would develop who could help keep folks in line with the tools learned from the master.
If moderators are not teachers, then they should be renamed cops rather than the continuation of the misnomer. The system of handing out citations is not building a self-correcting organism that could one day function without such policing.
Well, there are Kids and then there are Kids.
Indeed, talk about an “existential contraption rooted in dasein”!
Though it is certainly true that the level of discourse here has deteriorated over the years. When I first came on board, I had some fascinating [if contentious] discussions with folks like von “mo” rivers, moreno, faust, only humean and the like.
Only I suspect that to them I was construed to be “Kid” in turn. That is, in ever insisting on bringing philosophy “down to earth”, I was missing the importance of pinning it down “technically”. Of focusing in on exploring just what it is that we can claim to know rationally.
Whereas from my frame of mind, philosophy [first and foremost] revolves around the question “how ought one to live?”. Both on this side of the grave and in order to secure that which you would like your fate to be on the other side of it. A blurring of philosophy and religion out in the world of actual human interactions.
Also, my “polemical” bent no doubt rubbed many the wrong way in turn.
There’s just no pinning down with any precision the optimal manner in which to discuss these relationships. Unless of course there is and I’m either unable or unwilling to grasp it.
If only from down in this godawful hole.
Yes, if a discussion of God and religion is confined to this sort of scholastic exchange, “civil and intelligent” discussions can be sustained for pages and pages. Epistemological arguments revolving basically around the arguments themselves.
But [existentially] what is really the point of believing in God and religion?
1] to ground one’s behaviors in a moral narrative on this side of the grave and
2] to secure one’s immortality and salvation on the other side of it
And here could the stakes possibly be any higher?! So, of course when discussions head in that direction, and the stakes do begin to mount, there will be more potential for friction, for fractious exchanges.
Religion can be approached “theologically” and/or “academically”, or it can be discussed more pointedly in terms of its importance to the life that you actually live.
That’s where the balance comes in. And different folks are bound to draw the lines here in different places. Precisely because “out in the world” of actual human interaction there is so much at stake.
There is a way to get useful feedback, reduce your errors, improve your reasoning and ultimately get closer to the truth.
The stakes are high.
Do you care if what you think is true or false?
Is it better to move towards the truth or to fortify yourself in a potentially false belief?
The ‘modern’ idea that everyone has their own truth and he/she lives in his own reality.
I disagree. I think the reality is outside of me and I need to interact with it. That means talking to other people. It’s how I’m going to learn about reality and truth.
I need to shed my errors in order to grow.
Let me put it differently.
I have X time to spend moderating ILP right now. I can spend it sending people links to articles they won’t read, or I can spend it targeting disruptive users and posts (there are of course many other ways to spend that time, but this is just to illustrate the point). Given the expected payoff of these options, how much of X should I spend doing each thing? How much of time that I have been spending doing the latter thing should I give up to doing the former thing?
I won’t speak for other mods, but for myself, if I’m being honest, I don’t spend my time here particularly efficiently if the goal is to maximize the quality of discussion. I spend most of the time I have for ILP on posting philosophy, because I enjoy discussing philosophy, playing cop sucks, and I can convince myself that contributing the supply of good faith discussion is a sort of moderation-by-example. But assuming I’ve overcome the preliminary hurdle of deciding to spend more time actively moderating in a more traditional sense, I am still faced with the question of how I should spend that additional time to maximize bang for buck.
You’re asking if doing what you suggest it possible, and I assert that that’s the wrong question. Rather, we should ask if it’s worthwhile given the opportunity cost of not engaging in other more effective modes of moderation. It does not seem so.
And so they do: