A Discussion of Moderation

A forum about the forums

Moderator: Carleas

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:15 pm

Heads up: This is not a response to Carleas - these are my unwanted opinions. Have at it.

While the idea of moderation is simple at its core it seems the implementation of it is not so clear cut.
Is this because we brought baggage into the discussion? Baggage from other discussions?

Carleas wrote:[1] Who among current active users would you trust to act as moderator, and why?
[2] What kinds of interventions should moderators be empowered to take?
[3] What problems should moderators be trying to solve?

Three central questions remain unresolved at this point. Why is this? Surely there is only one answer and that is those who want moderation are more interested in themselves and what they have to say than getting what they asked for to begin with. No real points have been proven at this stage and therefore we have made no significant progress(perhaps this word right here is the problem). I see energy expenditure from those who were happy with the way things were which leads to the conclusion that this side is interested enough to discuss the matter.

Carleas wrote:Some thoughts from reading this thread (numbered by which of my original questions they go to):

[1] It is often easier to identify wrong answers than it is to identify right answers, and some wrong answers to the question of who should be a moderator present themselves pretty clearly in this thread. Judging how a person will moderate based on how they engage in discussion isn't perfect, but posts that look like a mere emotional reaction suggest moderation that will look like an emotional reaction.

So far we have not seen a good example. Nominate and give your reason for the nomination. Finally, does the nominee want to moderate?

Carleas wrote:[2] To Peter's point, I think banning should be taken in the context of the near absolute anonymity that the internet provides. Banning a username isn't really banning a person. The punishment of banning is, in practice, just stripping someone of their name. That's actually unpleasant for anyone who wants to build a reputation or develop relationships, so it works as a weak punishment. It also serves a purpose something like hanging the bodies of thieves at crossroads, warning passers-by that there is a state that enforces its laws. The weakness in these justifications is that, as a punishment, it tends to hit hardest on the best users: it leverages attachment to the community, while bad-faith trolls can just assume a new identity and continue. And as with rotting corpses, it communicates force more than justice, not necessarily a reassuring message.

Those that want the moderation need to show that they are worthy of being considered among the best users. To do this you need to consider what is best for the forum instead of what is best for yourself << ultimately these are not always the same things.

Carleas wrote:[3] Magnus, though I actually think a fuzzy purposes is a positive for a pluralistic community, you're right that making purpose clear is a good way of thinking about the question (and I appreciate encode's draft statement of purpose). Indeed, setting aside practical considerations, forcing people to stop and reflect on the purpose of each post before they submit it would probably solve 90% of the problems we have here. encode, I'll try to give you a fuller reply on the specifics of your draft today or tomorrow as time allows.

Stop, reflect, modify(if needed)(rinse and repeat if needed)...then post. Question to ask oneself: Is what I am about to post clear? I say this because if we are to start moving down the more strict path then something will have to be sacrificed - there is always sacrifice in a rigid system.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:35 pm

Kathrina wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:This forum needs a purpose, and until it acquires one, it makes no sense to look for moderators.

I think that is the most significant thing said so far - for 2 reasons -

  • Without a Purpose every effort is just senseless noise
  • Carleas and all discussion board administrators are in an awkward position -
    To be Twitter or Parlor - that is the question - "tis it nobler----?".
Years ago I watched many discussion boards get canceled and entirely erased due to what they allowed to be said in public (often the owners not even aware of actually how or why it happened). America and the entire West is closing in on a time when all public speech is to be politically/socially controlled - Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube - all being current examples. There is still a fight for some degree of freedom of speech, but it appears at this point to be a losing battle - the odds favor the global propagandists - social manipulators - that is where the money and power is.

  • A moderator from one side of the battle will use a variety of clever techniques to silence wrong-speak.
  • A moderator from the other side will attempt open debate (even if not entirely honest).
So Carleas must make a decision (regardless of what he might have to announce) as to whether to take up the fight for free speech (political, religious, science, social, philosophical...) and probably lose (possibly much more than just the board) or go along to get along with the current front runner globalist authoritarians.

I wouldn't want to have to make that decision although it is easy to kibitz those who do.
Member of The Coalition of Truth - member #1

              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2828
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:44 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Kathrina wrote:
Magnus Anderson wrote:This forum needs a purpose, and until it acquires one, it makes no sense to look for moderators.

I think that is the most significant thing said so far - for 2 reasons -

  • Without a Purpose every effort is just senseless noise
  • Carleas and all discussion board administrators are in an awkward position -
    To be Twitter or Parlor - that is the question - "tis it nobler----?".
Years ago I watched many discussion boards get canceled and entirely erased due to what they allowed to be said in public (often the owners not even aware of actually how or why it happened). America and the entire West is closing in on a time when all public speech is to be politically/socially controlled - Twitter, Facebook, Google, Youtube - all being current examples. There is still a fight for some degree of freedom of speech, but it appears at this point to be a losing battle - the odds favor the global propagandists - social manipulators - that is where the money and power is.

  • A moderator from one side of the battle will use a variety of clever techniques to silence wrong-speak.
  • A moderator from the other side will attempt open debate (even if not entirely honest).
So Carleas must make a decision (regardless of what he might have to announce) as to whether to take up the fight for free speech (political, religious, science, social, philosophical...) and probably lose (possibly much more than just the board) or go along to get along with the current front runner globalist authoritarians.

I wouldn't want to have to make that decision although it is easy to kibitz those who do.

Absolute nonsense. You do realize that the forum already has a stated purpose right? This just sounds like more noise to me...
This is only about moderation...derailing topics with nonsense is one of the things that was petitioned against.

Start a different topic calling for a new purpose for ILP - this is just getting out of hand.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Carleas » Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:56 pm

For reference, copying the current statement of purpose here:
In the existing forum philosophy, we wrote:I Love Philosophy is dedicated to the discussion of philosophy, broadly defined. We welcome beginners and sophisticates, the serious and the fun-loving — anyone who loves philosophy, and anything about philosophy.

Philosophy must enshrine ideas; all questions, properly expressed, fall under its purview. Nothing is sacred, prima facie, not even the idea that nothing is sacred. ILovePhilosophy, as a community of thinkers dedicated to philosophy, puts no limitations on the ideas that can be expressed, or the questions that can be asked.

However, we are a community first, and as a community we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. A community based on the exchange of ideas cannot persist when individuals are attacked as individuals for the ideas they express. Anything that inhibits the community will prevent us from our purposes.

Because ideas are so central to a person's life, they can contain deep significance. Enshrining the critical consideration of all ideas while maintaining a civil discourse can be difficult. Therefore, radical positions must be approached delicately. Certainly, philosophy is a story of radical ideas, and so such ideas are welcome, but the radicalism of an idea must be balanced with a proportionate care in expression. The line between radicalism and antagonism is thin.

ILP is its members, and the ideas they bring with them. This site is a community. When that community falters, ILP falters in its purpose. The actions of its members define its tone, its quality, and its utility as a haven for the ideas it holds dear. Let your actions here reflect that ethos.

encode_decode provided a pithier version:
encode_decode wrote:ILovePhilosophy is devoted to the discussion of philosophy in its broadest sense. Beginners and sophisticates, serious and frivolous, are all welcome. Philosophy must enshrine ideas; all properly expressed questions fall under its purview. The distinction between radicalism and antagonism is hazy. Its tone, quality, and utility as a haven for the ideas it cherishes are defined by the actions of its members. We are, first and foremost, a community, and as such, we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. When that community falters, so does ILP's mission. Its value stems from its members and the ideas they bring with them.


In my opinion that would be better as a second paragraph, a start at unpacking the purpose into a plan of action. While more to the point than the original, it still gets way too into the weeds of how the purpose will be achieved. The statement of purpose should be downright spartan:
ILP's purpose is to provide an open forum for the discussion of all ideas, with the goal of improving thinking, sharing insights, and finding truth.

That's definitely a first draft, but I think it's closer to the kind of purpose Magnus intended. And it starts to get at the expanded version provided in e_d's paragraph.

I don't know that this points a clear way forward on moderation, but I'd be curious if it fits others' impressions of what we're all doing here.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 6145
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:04 pm

I’ve seen a lot of shit over the years.

Here’s my take on moderation.

1.) Spamming is unacceptable. Like if someone makes 100 threads in a row at once saying the same exact shit... you’re done. Fuck you. You’re done. I’ve actually seen this before! It’s rare, but I’ve seen it.

2.) someone using the quote function to type shit you never said, and then respond to it as if you actually made that message yourself and they’re just replying to it. Seen it before! Lol! You’re done.

3.) cherry picking. See it all the time. As a moderator when there’s a cherry picking dispute I’d seriously intercede and say “why the fuck do you refuse to address the most salient point of that post?” What’s wrong with you.

You know... Carleas used to get on me about being angry with posters for refusing to debate me in the formal debate forum. He’d say “that’s their right, stop abusing them in that way, they don’t have to formally debate you dude” (in so many words)

I’ve thought a lot about this over the years...

I think formal debates are a no brainer if you want to defend yourself. I think people who don’t do it are cowards (to this day!)

Sure, we all have our personalities.

I want to make this VERY clear. If you’re too scared to formally debate me in shit you’ve trolled for years on ILP... fuck you.

You know why I say that? You should believe to the death that what you’re saying matters. And if you’re proven wrong? All the better. THAT’S a philosophy forum.
Last edited by Ecmandu on Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11935
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:09 pm

"ILP's purpose is to provide an open forum for the discussion of all ideas, with the goal of improving thinking, sharing insights, and finding truth."

This would likely slay half the members here alone if fully implemented.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:10 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I think formal debates are a no brainer if you want to defend yourself. I think people who don’t do it are cowards (to this day!)

Some people already think they are having formal debates in regular threads
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Ecmandu » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:16 pm

encode_decode wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:I think formal debates are a no brainer if you want to defend yourself. I think people who don’t do it are cowards (to this day!)

Some people already think they are having formal debates in regular threads


I understand that 110%. The beauty of the formal debate section is that it’s elevated to a stature (so few of them), that it’s like the true ILP. If you really want a glimpse of ILP as a whole, read the formal debates. They’re there for a reason. If topics that are most important to ILP don’t go there... ILP is not well representing what it is in blocks of time about its posters.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11935
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Thu Apr 29, 2021 9:17 pm

While I really like what Carleas posted, even though it is off-topic, the thing that worries me is the improving thinking part. How do you help people improve their thinking when their mind is so full of the crap that they are only here to push onto others? This is their only intention. Their mind is completely shut off to others. They have absolutely no intention of exchanging ideas or learning anything that might go against their own beliefs. I don't know about anyone else but I am not here to offer rehabilitation services to conspiracy theory addicts and pushers as an example.

Yes, sharing should be changed to exchanging.
Discussion should be a reciprocal activity. We are here to communicate with each other, not at each other.

And yes, if rules are based on purpose and moderation is strictly enforced then I can count at least two members that would have to be removed straight off the bat - at least one of these members called for the renewed moderation.

...or...people could just appreciate what we already have, chill out and get back to doing stuff...

another solution for those who just don't get it is to just stop communicating with anyone who disagrees with you
this way your feelings don't get hurt

failing all of this, just implement the ultimate solution - become a hermit and never communicate with anyone ever again

anyway, good luck everyone and best of luck getting everything sorted out
I have finished illustrating and creatively exaggerating my points


I will now go back to hanging out with the lowly humans

:D
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:03 pm

Ecmandu wrote:I understand that 110%. The beauty of the formal debate section is that it’s elevated to a stature (so few of them), that it’s like the true ILP. If you really want a glimpse of ILP as a whole, read the formal debates. They’re there for a reason. If topics that are most important to ILP don’t go there... ILP is not well representing what it is in blocks of time about its posters.

Yeah, I know. I was not disagreeing with you - perhaps I should rephrase what I said: Some people believe they are having formal debates in regular threads. Perhaps they believe they are impressing someone with all the rot that they talk about. It is not always obvious that there is more to someone's statement than what meets the eye. Either way, want a debate? Formalize it, otherwise back to the discussion, wouldn't you say?

My apologies for the ambiguity.
Last edited by encode_decode on Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:33 pm

Ecmandu wrote:1.) Spamming is unacceptable. Like if someone makes 100 threads in a row at once saying the same exact shit... you’re done. Fuck you. You’re done. I’ve actually seen this before! It’s rare, but I’ve seen it.


Unnecessary repetition of threads and posts, if done too many times, is not a desirable thing. Also, writing many short posts (such as one-liners) in succession (something Pezer is guilty of) is not desirable either. It all indicates that the writer has no respect for the readers (and that he himself is not much of a reader.) I am not saying people should be warned (verbally, of course) when they are caught doing such things, but if they do it too many times, I think they should be. Anything off-topic, i.e. that distracts from the purpose of the thread, should also be sanctioned. Ad homs fall into this group because an ad hom is a diversion to a different topic -- that of what qualities are possessed by one or more participants in the thread. "You are stupid" might not exactly be an ad hom but the essence is the same. "You are wrong" is a bit better, because it's criticizing one part of that person's intelligence and not the whole of it, but it still suffers from the fact that it addresses the person instead of the argument. "This statement is wrong" is a good way to do it and "I disagree with this statement" is the best way to do it. The latter is a better approach because it does not eliminate the subjective component.

2.) someone using the quote function to type shit you never said, and then respond to it as if you actually made that message yourself and they’re just replying to it. Seen it before! Lol! You’re done.


That's not a desirable thing either.

3.) cherry picking. See it all the time. As a moderator when there’s a cherry picking dispute I’d seriously intercede and say “why the fuck do you refuse to address the most salient point of that post?” What’s wrong with you.


Each post should consist of one or more arguments and no more than that. In fact, I would say that it is better when posts consist of no more than one argument but perhaps there are situations when this is not the best way to go. The manner in which arguments are presented matters but for the sake of simplicity let's disregard that for now and focus on what matters the most -- that each post should consist of a number of arguments. When presented with such a post, your task is to declare whether or not you disagree with its arguments, and if possible, to present a counter-argument against what you disagree with. What could that possibly entail? Well, since the number of ways any given argument can be wrong is limited -- the fault is either in the premises or it's in the logic used to derive the conclusion frmo the premises -- an acceptable though not necessarily correct response would be to attack one or more of its premises, its logic or both. There is thus no room for other people to attack a point that is not salient UNLESS it was unnecessarily stated. In other words, people attack unimportant points because they were unnecessarily stated. Don't state them and you solve the problem. At the same time, if someone states something unimportant, others should recognize it, point it out and leave it at that.

You know... Carleas used to get on me about being angry with posters for refusing to debate me in the formal debate forum. He’d say “that’s their right, stop abusing them in that way, they don’t have to formally debate you dude” (in so many words)


I think Carleas is right. One should not force others to act against their will. If they do not want to participate, cool, let them not participate.

I’ve thought a lot about this over the years...

I think formal debates are a no brainer if you want to defend yourself.


I agree.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Sculptor » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:35 pm

Discussing moderation on this forum is like discussing a vacuum. It might suck you in, but there is not much to discuss.
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Sculptor » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:36 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:"ILP's purpose is to provide an open forum for the discussion of all ideas, with the goal of improving thinking, sharing insights, and finding truth."

This would likely slay half the members here alone if fully implemented.


Bring it on!!
Sculptor
Thinker
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:52 pm

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:46 pm

Sculptor wrote:Discussing moderation on this forum is like discussing a vacuum. It might suck you in, but there is not much to discuss.

Yes, it would seem that way, wouldn't it? Discussing anything on any forum when people persistently go off-topic is pretty much the same thing.

It would seem like a discussion has taken place but once you remove the fluff, not much has really been stated.

:-"
Last edited by encode_decode on Sun May 02, 2021 6:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:24 pm

encode_decode wrote:I don't go and complain to my mother every time I have a problem in my adult life, actually come to think of it I never complain to her. I don't complain to the ILP leadership each time I have a problem on the forum. As stated earlier in the thread there is functionality built into the forum system to ignore other users and that functionality was built with the expected self-control of an adult in mind. If anything that I have said in this thread has come across as mean then the problem of the offended does not lay with me - it instead lays with an oversensitive nature of the person who becomes offended with me in the first place - this is the internet after all and the internet has trolls. We have been teaching our children about this sort of stuff for a while now. To add to that, I don't remember calling people names for that matter either.


You seem to be placing way too much emphasis on the need to expose oneself to the ugliness of the world in order to learn how to endure it when it's necessary to do so. I can understand that need. The problem is there are other needs too.

A number of people gather together to accomplish a task. If Johnny decides (intentionally or unintentionally) to make it difficult for them, they would do well to do something about him. If you're going to say certain things on this forum that significantly decrease the likelihood of its purpose being fulfilled, then the problem lays with you -- whether or not you offended someone else is not particularly relevant.

You are trying to make it look as if people are complaining merely because they can't stand other people saying nasty things. It does not occur to you that they are complaining because they find little to no value in a forum that is populated by ugly creatures. You also seem to think that they all respond with fear and anxiety. And though it might be the case that some do, I am sure there are many people who respond with no more than boredom. Mr R seems to be responding the same way, the only difference being that he's doing nothing about it.

There are people who have mastered the art of tolerating the ugly and what they want to do now is to have fruitful conversations on various topics. They don't want to read pages and pages of people insulting each other. They have no need for cheap entertainment in the form of reality TV drama. They find it extremely boring.

The leadership either wants to ensure that this place generates interesting discussions or it does not; and if it does, it either knows how to do it or it does not. Without proper restrictions in place, you can't ensure such a thing. "Ignore" button won't do it. Thick skin won't do it.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:32 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:You seem to be placing way too much emphasis on the need to expose oneself to the ugliness of the world in order to learn how to endure it when it's necessary to do so. I can understand that need. The problem is there are other needs too.

A number of people gather together to accomplish a task. If Johnny decides (intentionally or unintentionally) to make it difficult for them, they would do well to do something about him. If you're going to say certain things on this forum that significantly decrease the likelihood of its purpose being fulfilled, then the problem lays with you -- whether or not you offended someone else is not particularly relevant.

You are trying to make it look as if people are complaining merely because they can't stand other people saying nasty things. It does not occur to you that they are complaining because they find little to no value in a forum that is populated by ugly creatures. You also seem to think that they all respond with fear and anxiety. And though it might be the case that some do, I am sure there are many people who respond with no more than boredom. Mr R seems to be responding the same way, the only difference being that he's doing nothing about it.

There are people who have mastered the art of tolerating the ugly and what they want to do now is to have fruitful conversations on various topics. They don't want to read pages and pages of people insulting each other. They have no need for cheap entertainment in the form of reality TV drama. They find it extremely boring.

The leadership either wants to ensure that this place generates interesting discussions or it does not; and if it does, it either knows how to do it or it does not. Without proper restrictions in place, you can't ensure such a thing. "Ignore" button won't do it. Thick skin won't do it.

Unfortunately, I have run out of time to get into an in-depth conversation about this, and quite frankly it is just starting to get boring. I have done my best to highlight some of the things that are obvious that people can not see and that is all I can do - in highlighting anything that I have, I did not bother to be specific in many cases - my attempt was to paint a broader picture - people also get to see what some people think of them - what they look like to other people. Now clearly I can not speak for everyone because I have no idea what anyone really thinks except for those with who I frequently engage in communications with but you can be assured that at times people do think negatively of each other.

I am satisfied with my intended message and I am happy to move on now. I have people here with who I communicate at a rate that keeps me satisfied. As for those who seem like the picture I have presented, well I don't have as much time for them - only time will tell though because I can not point the finger at any one person right now and say, hey you look like the negative picture I have painted.

I hope everyone does get what they want.

People do actually stop talking to each other if they do not like each other. People will not take part in threads that do not interest them.
People find their cliques and the world goes on.

As a user of ILP, I have taken part in this thread only because I think ILP is a pretty awesome place and over the last 4 years that I have been a member, I have had many fun times and even made a best friend, may he rest in peace. I guess I am one of the lucky ones, one of the lucky members because the company that I have kept and the company that I choose to continue keeping have not caused me any problems or other such grief.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:27 pm

Magnus,

My take on formal debates is simple. Let’s say you’re like iambiguous always calling people “kids” or most recently “chickenshit”...

That’s an ad hom. Ok fine. Then have a formal debate with me. They always avoid it.

That to me is a troll.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11935
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Magnus Anderson » Fri Apr 30, 2021 6:23 pm

Kathrina wrote:This is already answered by the name of this forum: "I Love Philosophy". So the first thing is unmistakable: Philosophy.


encode_decode wrote:Summarizing and paraphrasing from this page: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=167245#p2056441

We come up with something like the following:

ILovePhilosophy is devoted to the discussion of philosophy in its broadest sense. Beginners and sophisticates, serious and frivolous, are all welcome. Philosophy must enshrine ideas; all properly expressed questions fall under its purview. The distinction between radicalism and antagonism is hazy. Its tone, quality, and utility as a haven for the ideas it cherishes are defined by the actions of its members. We are, first and foremost, a community, and as such, we must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness. When that community falters, so does ILP's mission. Its value stems from its members and the ideas they bring with them.

What part of this do you want to change?

The purpose indicated is of a general-purpose nature - is this not suitable? if so, how? Remember, this is a forum, not a business.


I agree that the title of this forum ("I Love Philosophy") suggests that the content of this website should be related to philosophy. I also agree that, in the same exact way, this page that encode_decode linked to describes what kind of place they want to create and maintain (or at the very least, what kind of forum they wanted back in 2009.) However, none of these things explain why they want these things in the first place (: What exactly are they trying to achieve by running a forum that is "dedicated to the discussion of philosophy", that "puts no limitations on the ideas that can be expressed, or the questions that can be asked", and that "[is] a community first [..] [that] must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness"? The answer to THAT question is what I meant when I spoke of the purpose of this forum.

In any case, if this forum is supposed to be a community that must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness, why is Polish Youth still active on the forum and why is WW_III_ANGRY allowed to express his desire to kill other forum members? Dan is a global moderator, he knows who Polish Youth is, he read his posts and he allegedly knows that Polish Youth is normal. Yet, he appears to have taken no action against him. It seems that what they wrote back in 2009 as well as in 2011 no longer applies.

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175550

2.1 Show courtesy to other posters at all times: no flaming. Insulting, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards others will result in a warning.


And this is not a new thing, of course. It's been taking place for at least 6 years.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:04 pm

Ecmandu wrote:Magnus,

My take on formal debates is simple. Let’s say you’re like iambiguous always calling people “kids” or most recently “chickenshit”...

That’s an ad hom. Ok fine. Then have a formal debate with me. They always avoid it.

That to me is a troll.


Just for the record, iambiguous always makes it clear that his reaction to others here can never be more than a subjunctive assessment rooted in dasein and subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information, knowledge and ideas.

And he avoids like the plague any discussion and debate with those he suspects of having a "condition". He does not want to be the one who pushes them over the edge.

You know, whatever that means.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41514
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:09 pm

iambiguous wrote:And he avoids like the plague any discussion and debate with those he suspects of having a "condition". He does not want to be the one who pushes them over the edge.

You know, whatever that means.

Makes sense!
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Apr 30, 2021 10:01 pm

I would destroy iambiguous in a formal debate

It makes no sense at all, his “condition” mentality is him trying to shelter himself from a worthy debate partner.

Iambiguous, I’m crazy as fuck. No problem with that. But it’s a problem for your intellectual capacity and ego. “How can a man who as crazy as fuck beat me in a debate?” Serious ego hit isn’t it. And let’s be honest here... you know I’d crush you in that debate.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11935
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Sat May 01, 2021 12:36 am

Ecmandu wrote:I would destroy iambiguous in a formal debate

It makes no sense at all, his “condition” mentality is him trying to shelter himself from a worthy debate partner.

Iambiguous, I’m crazy as fuck. No problem with that. But it’s a problem for your intellectual capacity and ego. “How can a man who as crazy as fuck beat me in a debate?” Serious ego hit isn’t it. And let’s be honest here... you know I’d crush you in that debate.


I volunteer to be the fair and impartial judge of a debate between you two.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3583
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sat May 01, 2021 2:27 am

Ecmandu wrote:Magnus,

My take on formal debates is simple. Let’s say you’re like iambiguous always calling people “kids” or most recently “chickenshit”...

That’s an ad hom. Ok fine. Then have a formal debate with me. They always avoid it.

That to me is a troll.


I would say that the solution is to tell him that his behavior (calling other people "kids" and saying they are "chickenshit") is considered unacceptable. If he ignores that and continues insulting other people, that should be a reason enough to restrict his posting privileges until he addresses the issue.

And I don't think that debates should be competitive where winners and losers are declared. They should merely be a way for people to influence each other in a way that is not deceptive.
Magnus Anderson
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby iambiguous » Sat May 01, 2021 3:57 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Magnus,

My take on formal debates is simple. Let’s say you’re like iambiguous always calling people “kids” or most recently “chickenshit”...

That’s an ad hom. Ok fine. Then have a formal debate with me. They always avoid it.

That to me is a troll.


I would say that the solution is to tell him that his behavior (calling other people "kids" and saying they are "chickenshit") is considered unacceptable. If he ignores that and continues insulting other people, that should be a reason enough to restrict his posting privileges until he addresses the issue.

And I don't think that debates should be competitive where winners and losers are declared. They should merely be a way for people to influence each other in a way that is not deceptive.


Sounds like a personal problem to me.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 41514
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: hanging out with godot

Re: A Discussion of Moderation

Postby encode_decode » Sat May 01, 2021 8:02 am

Magnus, since I have seen you make some good points...
...I am interested in your thoughts on the OP(the original post aka the first post) in the following thread:

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=170060

I ask you because I don't see any indicators that anybody else is interested in the actual moderation of ILP. My thoughts are that the title of the thread seems misleading and that the post which is the first post does not really state any position or claim.

Allow me to direct your attention to the following Philosophy Forum Rules as stated on the following page:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=175550

Which states the following:

1. Posting Content
1.1The first post in a new thread on Philosophy should contain some form of philosophical thesis for discussion. Mods may suggest moving a post that looks to be more suited to another forum.

and on the same page you will also find the following rule:
1.3 New posts advertising a blog, directing the reader to a book or a video and then asking for discussion, urging people to take online polls outside ILP, etc... will be moved to Mundane Babble. If the subject is worth discussion, write a precis in the body of the post and provide a link at the end.

Based on these rules it would appear that the thread I have linked to does not belong in the Philosophy category of ILP. The mentioned thread is also quite old and it seems that it has slipped under the radar all these years. Interestingly enough is the vast amount of responses that it received anyway.

While I do approve of a little creative license when making an OP it still has to actually offer people something to sink their teeth into based on some sort of position that can be discussed without having to leave the website and read a book to see what the position would be. After all, this is not a book club or specifically a book discussion club.
I will build a nerdlike structure in 2021
I only meant that the cat knows - or discovers - that we can toss it out a window at any time = "authority". Dogs accept that notion more quickly - not as willing to test it. O:) - obsrvr524
User avatar
encode_decode
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 4:07 pm
Location: Nebula

PreviousNext

Return to Meta



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users